HomeMy WebLinkAbout07.12.2023@600 RegularWednesday, July 12, 2023 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA City Council BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Mayor (District 3) MARK NAGALES, Vice Mayor (District 2) MARK ADDIEGO, Councilmember (District 1) JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4) EDDIE FLORES, Councilmember (District 5) ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer SHARON RANALS, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney Regular Meeting Agenda 1 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council ZOOM LINK BELOW -NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88636346631(Enter your email and name) Webinar ID: 886 3634 6631 Join by Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 Teleconference participation is offered in the meeting via Zoom as a courtesy to the public. If no members of the City Council are attending the meeting via teleconference, and a technical error or outage occurs on the teleconference feed, the City Council will continue the meeting in public in the Council Chambers. How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link : https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER 1. By Zoom: When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 2. By Phone: Enter the conference ID fund on the agenda. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. 3. In Person: Complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at all-cc@ssf.net. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 72-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at all-cc@ssf.net, 72-hours before the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 2 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Certificates of recognition to the Oyster Point Dragons - Team USA 2023 Dragon Boat Team. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) 1. Certificate recognizing outgoing Youth Commissioners. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor)2. Proclamation celebrating July as Parks and Recreation Month. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor)3. Proclamation recognizing July as Disability Pride Month. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor)4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda and on items listed under the Consent Calendar. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. Written comments on agenda items received prior to 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum will be muted. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 3 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR Matters under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and noncontroversial. These items will be enacted by one motion and without discussion. If, however, any Council member (s) wishes to comment on an item, they may do so before action is taken on the Consent Calendar. Following comments, if a Council member wishes to discuss an item, it will be removed from the Consent Calendar and taken up in order after adoption of the Consent Calendar. Motion to approve the Minutes for June 28, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk)5. Report regarding a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and a resolution amending the Wage and Salary schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 effective September 30, 2022. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) 6. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. 6a. Resolution approving an amendment to the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. 6b. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24, and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. (Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 7. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24, and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. 7a. Report regarding a resolution adopting a proposed list of projects for fiscal year 2023-24 funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. (Angel Torres, Senior Engineer) 8. Resolution adopting a proposed list of projects for fiscal year 2023-24 funded by SB 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. 8a. PUBLIC HEARING Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 4 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding consideration of applications for a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D development on 800 Dubuque Avenue, and consideration of associated California Environmental Quality Act determination. (Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner) 9. Resolution making findings and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001) in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. 9a. Resolution making findings and approving a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue 9b. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding adoption of a resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and authorizing the mayor to send a letter in opposition. (Christina Fernandez, Deputy City Manager and Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs) 10. Resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” and authorizing the mayor to send a letter in opposition. 10a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. (Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 11. Resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. 11a. Report regarding a resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. (Angela Duldulao, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director) 12. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 5 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. 12a. Report regarding a resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats, LLC, dba North River Boats, for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33. (Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief) 13. Resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat; and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats, LLC, dba North River Boats, for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33. (Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief) 13a. Report regarding the adoption of a resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) 14. Resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to participate in the formation of the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. 14a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Motion to approve designation of voting delegates and alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) 15. CLOSED SESSION Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 6 July 12, 2023City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Conference with Real Property Negotiators Properties:Vacant Remnant Parcels on Westborough Blvd. from Oakmont Dr. to Olympic Dr., Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 091022010, 091022030, 091025010, 091034080 Vacant Property on Sylvester Rd. north of Associated Rd., APN 015031090 117 Duval Dr,, APN 010122380 321 Aspen Ave., APN 012142140 373 Alta Vista Dr., APN 013233020 360 Swift Ave., Suite 10, APN 100880220 Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, Danielle Thoe, Housing Manager Negotiating parties: Unknown at this time. All properties are potentially subject to tax sale by San Mateo County. 16. ADJOURNMENT Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023 7 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-434 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:1. Certificates of recognition to the Oyster Point Dragons - Team USA 2023 Dragon Boat Team.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-530 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:2. Certificate recognizing outgoing Youth Commissioners.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™18 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition MEGAN YOSHIDA The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby congratulate and thanks Megan Yoshida for your service as a Youth Advisory Council Member (YAC) & Youth Commissioner Service Years 2020—2023 You are an inspiration for all youth and those pursuing their passions! Presented on this 12th day of July 2023 by the City Council of South San Francisco. Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor District 3 Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor District 2 Mark Addiego, Councilmember District 1 James Coleman, Councilmember District 4 Eddie Flores, Councilmember District 5 19 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition MELISSA HUA The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby congratulate and thanks Melissa Hua for your service as a Youth Advisory Council Member (YAC) & Youth Commissioner. Service Years 2019—2023 You are an inspiration for all youth and those pursuing their passions! Presented on this 12th day of July 2023 by the City Council of South San Francisco. Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor District 3 Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor District 2 Mark Addiego, Councilmember District 1 James Coleman, Councilmember District 4 Eddie Flores, Councilmember District 5 20 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition DANIELLE LEONG The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby congratulate and thanks Danielle Leong for your service as a Youth Advisory Council Member (YAC) & Youth Commissioner Service Years 2020—2023 You are an inspiration for all youth and those pursuing their passions! Presented on this 12th day of July 2023 by the City Council of South San Francisco. Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor District 3 Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor District 2 Mark Addiego, Councilmember District 1 James Coleman, Councilmember District 4 Eddie Flores, Councilmember District 5 21 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition ETHAN MIZZI The City Council of South San Francisco does hereby congratulate and thanks Ethan Mizzi for your service as a Youth Advisory Council Member (YAC) & Youth Commissioner Service Years 2018—2023 You are an inspiration for all youth and those pursuing their passions! Presented on this 12th day of July 2023 by the City Council of South San Francisco. Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor District 3 Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor District 2 Mark Addiego, Councilmember District 1 James Coleman, Councilmember District 4 Eddie Flores, Councilmember District 5 22 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-516 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:3. Proclamation celebrating July as Parks and Recreation Month.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™23 July 12, 2023 Designation of July as Park and Recreation Month WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities, ensuring the health of all citizens, and contributing to the economic and environmental well-being of a community and region; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation programs build healthy, active communities that aid in the prevention of chronic disease, provide therapeutic services for disabled persons, and improve the mental and emotional health of all citizens; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation supports human development and endless learning opportunities that foster social, intellectual, physical and emotional growth in people of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation fosters social cohesiveness in communities by celebrating diversity, providing spaces to come together, modeling compassion, promoting social equity, connecting social networks, and ensuring all people have access to its benefits; and WHEREAS, parks and recreation remains versatile and innovative in providing vital services to communities through local, national, or global emergencies including COVID-19; and WHEREAS, parks and natural recreation areas improve water quality, protect groundwater, prevent flooding, improve the quality of the air we breathe, provide vegetative buffers to development, and produce habitat for wildlife; and WHEREAS, our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors; and WHEREAS, the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month; and WHEREAS, South San Francisco recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that July is recognized as Park and Recreation Month in the South San Francisco. ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Councilmember ________________________________ James Coleman, Councilmember ________________________________ Eddie Flores, Councilmember 24 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-517 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:4. Proclamation recognizing July as Disability Pride Month.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™25 Dated: July 12, 2023 DISABILITY PRIDE MONTH JULY 2023 WHEREAS, on July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law, which protects any individual with disabilities against discrimination as well as gives those with disabilities the same opportunities as everyone else; and WHEREAS, later that year, the first Disability Pride Day was held in Boston, Massachusetts; and WHEREAS, 1 in 4 adults in the United States currently live with some type of disability; and WHEREAS, Disability Pride is about recognizing and celebrating the identities of those who have disabilities and all that people with disabilities contribute to our community; and WHEREAS, Disability Pride Month remembers the struggles that people with disabilities have faced in the past and their perseverance while fighting for the rights that people with disabilities enjoy today; and WHEREAS, issues such as lack of accessibility and inclusivity are still prevalent issues all around the world; and WHEREAS, this month, let us not only continue to celebrate those who fought for disability rights and the individuals in our community who have disabilities but also use our voices to help bring more awareness about the struggles people with disabilities may still face and the importance of accessibility for all. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco commemorates Disability Pride Month and pledges to continue to expand the accessibility and inclusivity within South San Francisco while also encouraging all members of our community to celebrate, honor and embrace those with disabilities. ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Mayor ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Councilmember ________________________________ James Coleman, Councilmember ________________________________ Eddie Flores, Councilmember 26 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-585 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #: City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/11/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™27 Agenda Item Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda and on items listed under the Consent Calendar. Individuals may not share or offer time to another speaker. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The City Council may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future Council meeting. Written comments on agenda items received prior to 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be included as part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). Speakers that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum will be muted. 1 Public Comment  Guest User at July 09, 2023 at 4:45pm PDT My husband and I have lived in the Serra Highlands neighborhood, near Buri=Buri School for 51 years. In retirement, I have enjoyed many serene,peaceful, and carefree days tending to my large garden. However, several months ago, in fact almost a year ago, when my neighbor became a beekeeper of numerous honeybee colonies I became uneasy. While honeybees are crucial to our food supply, living with SO MANY of them in such CLOSE PROXIMITY has its downsides too! After reviewing SSF standards for acquiring a beekeepers permit I have the following suggestions for the HEALTH,SAFETY,AND WELFARE of our community. First of all,prior to registration the applicant should be REQUIRED to NOTIFY ALL NEIGHBORS where properties share a common lot line with the property where beekeeping will take place. Along with contact information, the number of hives and their location should be given to all the neighbors that will be affected. I was NOT NOTIFIED and became UNCERTAIN and QUESTIONING!! Also, the City should have the authorization to make INSPECTIONS during reasonable hours to investigate any COMPLAINTS, or to determine continued COMPLIANCE with the beekeeping ordinance. The City should have the right to revoke the permit if there has been several violations of the ordinance within any 6 months period. I was informed that my neighbor would NOT ALLOW the City to inspect his property. Just recently it was viewed from an adjoining property and was found to be OUT OF COMPLIANCE!! Next, I'm calling attention to your list of when bees are considered to be a PUBLIC NUISANCE. Just like all living creatures BEES POOP TOO!! 28 Would you please ADD this fact to your list of public nuisances. Thousands of bees have produced mega orange, sticky, dots which have covered my house, windows, skylights, lawn furniture and cars. I RESENT having to do extra cleaning!! In fact, its not easy to remove, so consequently I have incurred the cost of professional cleaning of these items!! Even after taking my car to a car wash the BEE POOP remains and needs to be scrubbed off. Furthermore, I have been chased in my house by several aggressive bees! I have witnessed bee swarms from my house and on June 16th while standing next to a tree in my backyard with a City Code Officer ,we were engulfed by an enormous BEE SWARM!! I was TERRIFIED and I CRIED!! Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members for your consideration of my VERY DISTRESSED situation. I hope that you will consider my solutions in the near future. With Kind Regards, Worried Anonymous 29 ID Start time Completion time Email Name Language Name / NombreWould you like to speak during Public Comment on a matter NOT on the agenda?Desea hablar de un tema que no esta en la agenda de el concilio?If you would like to speak on an agenda item(s), Enter the Agenda Item Number(s) below. If adding more than one item, please add a comma between each number.Por favor ingrese el número de artíc...1 7/12/23 16:42:33 7/12/23 17:38:24 anonymous English (United States) Dimitrios Vlahakos Yes / Si Public Comment2 7/12/23 17:42:28 7/12/23 17:43:43 anonymous English (United States) Leah Taylor SSF Housing Yes / Si Public comment3 7/12/23 17:43:59 7/12/23 17:44:34 anonymous English (United States) Leslie Fong Yes / Si No City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-570 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:5. Motion to approve the Minutes for June 28, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™30 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Nicolas called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Councilmember Addiego, present Councilmember Coleman, present Councilmember Flores, present Vice Mayor Nagales, present Mayor Nicolas, present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Cameron Fujii, South San Francisco Conference Center Director of Operations, led the pledge. AGENDA REVIEW At the request of City Manager Ranals, Items No. 2, 16, and 25 were postponed to a future meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF  Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation  Scott Campbell, Chief of Police and Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief  Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst II PRESENTATIONS 1. Certificate recognizing South San Francisco High School sophomores: Audrina Lopez, Alyssa Battang, and Kylie Situ for their National History Day contest achievements. (Flor Nicolas, Mayor) Mayor Nicolas presented the certificates to Audrina Lopez, Alyssa Battang, and Kylie Situ. They each thanked Council for the recognition and SSFHS for the opportunity. They also thanked their families, friends, and community for their support. 2. Presentation from Boys & Girls Club of the Peninsula (BGCP) mission, goals, and impact of the organization. (Maggie Cornejo, Director of Government and Community Relations for BGCP) MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 2023 6:00 p.m. Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Via Zoom 31 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 2 Item not heard. 3. Presentation on the City’s participation at the BIO International Conference that was held the week of June 5, 2023. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) Economic Development Manager Lucero provided the presentation to Council. Councilmember Addiego praised Economic Development Manager Lucero for leading the way and thanked him for his efforts. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: In Person:  Leslie Fong COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Councilmember Flores shared that he attended the renaissance graduation ceremony. He also attended the Cytokinetics 25th anniversary celebration and the San Mateo County community health workers celebration. He noted that the Promotores were recognized by the County and highlighted the data displayed. He also thanked City staff for hosting Congressman Kevin Mullin’s town hall event. He concluded with sharing the Farmers Market on July 1, 2023, would host free bike repairs and activities. Vice Mayor Nagales shared that he also attended the renaissance graduation and enjoyed seeing the achievements over the year. He also recognized Economic Development Manager Lucero for his efforts and contributions. He also shared that attended Congressman Mullin’s town hall and stated he was proud of all he is doing. He noted that National Night Out would be hosted on August 1, 2023 and he looks forward to hosting an event. Lastly, he asked for an update on the LPR building and inquired about traffic in the area. Director of Capital Projects Jacob Gilchrist provided an update. Councilmember Coleman expressed how proud he is of City staff and the County community as it relates to inclusivity and welcoming festivities. He invited residents to attend ribbon cuttings on June 29, 2023 in District 4 for local businesses Keith’s Chicken and Waffles at 11a.m. and Evolve Training Center at noon. He also noted that he would be hosting National Night Out on August 1, 2023 at Buri Buri Park. He also expressed interest in exploring 4th of July fireworks celebration at Oyster Point in the future. Councilmember Addiego shared that he has been spending time on the bay trail and stated that we should be proud of what we have including tremendous views and clean trails. He noted that he has observed some of the pathway near the Marina deteriorating. He also noted that there is a homeless encampment that needs to be addressed near the creek and bridge behind Costco. He also shared that traffic should be taken into consideration when exploring fireworks at Oyster Point. Mayor Nicolas shared that she was grateful to see the cohort renaissance graduation. She also shared that the Joint Advisory Council on Childcare Master Plan is moving along, and announcements are soon to come. She stated they plan to have community meetings in the near future. She also shared that she had the pleasure of joining AbbVie at Spruce Elementary as they partnered with Heart of America to renovate their stem lab. 32 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 3 CONSENT CALENDAR The Assistant City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in discussion of specific item as follows. Item No. 8, Item No. 11, and Item No. 17 were pulled for further discussion by Vice Mayor Nagales and Councilmember Flores. 4. Motion to approve the Minutes for May 24, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 5. Motion to cancel the Regular City Council meeting of August 9, 2023. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 6. Update regarding implementation of recommendation pursuant to the Grand Jury Report “A Delicate Balance between Knowledge and Power: Government Transparency and the Public’s Right to Know” (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 7. Motion to accept the pathway rehabilitation improvements of Westborough Park Pathways Project (CIP Project No. pk2202) as complete in accordance with plans and specifications, with a total project cost of $876,363.51. (Greg Mediati, Director Parks and Recreation) 9. Report regarding Resolution No. 98-203 authorizing the filing of a grant application for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program for the Junipero Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity and Safety Project (st2301). (Lawrence Henriquez, Senior Civil Engineer) 10. Staff Report regarding Resolution No. 99-2023 approving purchase agreements for Water Quality Control Plant process chemicals. (Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent and Nick Talbot, Assistant Plant Superintendent) 12. Report regarding Resolution No. 100-2023 approving an amendment to an existing purchasing contract with Lyngsoe Systems for the Library | Parks & Recreation facility (pf2103), in the amount not to exceed $7,000.00 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 13. Report regarding Resolution No. 101-2023 authorizing the acceptance of donations from various entities to support the South San Francisco Volunteer Gala and approving Budget Amendment 22.074. (Tamiko Huey, Management Analyst) 14. Report regarding Resolution No. 102-2023 and Resolution No. 103-2023 authorizing the City Manager to execute amendments to the landscape maintenance services agreements for citywide right-of-way and Common Greens landscape maintenance services. (Greg Mediati, Director of Parks and Recreation) 15. Report regarding Resolution No. 104-2023 approving a Second Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Athens Administrators to extend the agreement for workers’ compensation claims through June 30, 2024 and to increase the amount by $225,658 for a total amount not to exceed $1,065,866. (Leah Lockhart, HR Director) Motion – Councilmember Addiego /Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Consent Calendar 4-7, 9, 10, and 12-15 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 33 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 4 8. Report regarding Resolution No. 105-2023 authorizing the approval of Budget Amendment #23.073 to include Program Supplemental Agreement No. F028 with the State of California for the Bridge Preventive Maintenance Program (Project No. st1703) in the amount of $115,089 and remove the $1,569,000 Highway Bridge Program grant amount from the total budget; and authorizing the approval of Budget Amendment #23.075 to remove the $528,000 Highway Bridge Program grant from the total project budget for the Grand Avenue Overhead Structure at US 101(Project No. st1804). (Lawrence Henriquez, Senior Civil Engineer) Vice Mayor Nagales requested clarification regarding the budget. Principal Engineer Matt Ruble provided an explanation to Council. 11. Report regarding Resolution No. 106-2023 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchasing contract to procure play structure equipment for the Centennial Trail Improvements Project. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects). Vice Mayor Nagales requested clarification regarding the area. Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist provided clarification and a presentation to Council. 17. Report regarding Resolution No. 107-2023 approving the Third Amendment of a contract with JobTrain for workforce development support services, and Resolution No. 108-2023 approving the Third Amendment of a contract with Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center for small business and entrepreneurship support services, both offered at the Economic Advancement Center in South San Francisco. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) Councilmember Flores commended Economic Development Manger Lucero for his work. He also shared that he was interested in exploring additional opportunities for funding and start connecting with neighboring cities. He also shared that he would like to explore the possibility of extending hours for Job Train and Renaissance once a month to cater to those who are exploring career opportunities outside of their 9-5 jobs. Motion – Councilmember Addiego /Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Consent Calendar 8, 11, and 17 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 16. Report regarding a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and a resolution amending the Wage and Salary schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 effective September 30, 2022 (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) Item not heard. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 18. Report regarding an update and seeking feedback in regards to the ongoing and developing Sign Hill Master Plan. (Joshua Richardson, Parks Division Manager) Parks Division Manager Richardson introduced John Baas and Daniel Sadir-Schorr with WRA who presented updates and results. Council engaged in discussion and provided feedback surrounding 34 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 5 parking, historic signage and informational kiosks, organization incentives, opportunities for outreach and engagement, and addition of tables. Item heard -no action. 19. Report regarding Resolution No. 109-2023 confirming the change in solid waste collection rates to be collected by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company effective July 1, 2023. (Paul Harris, Financial Services Manager) Financial Services Manager Harris presented the report along with Paul Formosa Chief Financial Officer of South San Francisco Scavenger Company. Council engaged in discussion and suggested engaging landlords through incentives and keeping single and multi-unit homes informed of resources and fines. Motion – Councilmember Coleman/Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Resolution No. 109- 2023 confirming the change in solid waste collection rates to be collected by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company effective July 1, 2023, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 20. Report regarding Resolution No. 110-2032 adopting the City of South San Francisco Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and approving the Gann Appropriations Limit. (Karen Chang, Director of Finance) Director of Finance Chang presented the report. Council thanked Director Chang and staff for their robust discussions on the budget and expressed their excitement for all that is to come. They also expressed their gratitude for the guidance City Manager Ranals has provided. Motion – Vice Mayor Nagales/Second – Councilmember Coleman: To approve Resolution No. 110- 2023 adopting the City of South San Francisco Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24 and approving the Gann Appropriations Limit, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 21. Report regarding Resolution No. 111-2023 approving the proposed Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2023-24. (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer) Principal Engineer Ruble presented the report. Councilmember Addiego highlighted that the item was well presented during the last Special Meeting of the City Council. Motion – Councilmember Addiego/Second – Councilmember Flores: To approve Resolution No. 111-2023 approving the proposed Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2023-24, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 22. Report regarding Resolution No. 112-2023 approving the Conference Center Authority Fiscal Year 2023 - 2024 Budget. (Jim McGuire, South San Francisco Conference Center Executive Director) 35 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 6 Conference Center Executive Director McGuire presented the report. Council applauded Executive Director McGuire and his team and shared their appreciation for his leadership. They also highlighted comments received surrounding hosted events and praised his inclusivity of the community. They also thanked the Conference Center Authority Board. Motion – Councilmember Coleman/Second – Councilmember Flores: To approve Resolution No. 112-2023 approving the Conference Center Authority Fiscal Year 2023 - 2024 Budget, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None 23. Report regarding a resolution approving interim spending authority for the first 90 days of Fiscal Year 2023-24 (Karen Chang, Director of Finance) Item not heard. 24. Report regarding a resolution authorizing Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Interim Funding for the South San Francisco Conference Center. (Jim McGuire, South San Francisco Conference Center Executive Director) Item not heard. 25. Report regarding the adoption of a resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) Item not heard. 26. Report regarding Resolution No. 113-2023 accepting a $100,000 American Rescue Plan Act grant from San Mateo County for a new Small Business Post-Pandemic Recovery Grant Program for businesses in South San Francisco and appropriating the grant funds with Budget Amendment No. 24.002. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) Economic Development Manager Lucero presented the report. Motion – Councilmember Coleman/Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Resolution No. 113- 2023 accepting a $100,000 American Rescue Plan Act grant from San Mateo County for a new Small Business Post-Pandemic Recovery Grant Program for businesses in South San Francisco and appropriating the grant funds with Budget Amendment No. 24.002, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Addiego, Coleman, and Flores, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Nicolas; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business Mayor Nicolas adjourned the City Council meeting at 9:08 p.m. 36 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 28, 2023 MINUTES PAGE 7 Submitted by: Approved by: Jazmine Miranda Buenaflor Nicolas Assistant City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / 37 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-550 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding a resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and a resolution amending the Wage and Salary schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 effective September 30, 2022. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve the following resolutions: A.A resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 to provide for negotiated wage and salary adjustments. B.A resolution amending the Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 to provide for corrected rates for the positions of Fire Battalion Chief,EMS Battalion Chief,and Deputy Fire Chief effective September 30, 2022. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In accordance with the City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations,the City maintains a wage and salary schedule (“salary schedule”)for all positions of employment with the City,and any amendments to the schedule are subject to City Council approval.The salary schedule is updated at the beginning of each fiscal year,and as needed to implement negotiated rate increase or other recommended changes to job classifications and salary ranges.The attached resolutions include the proposed salary schedule for fiscal year 2023-2024 and an amendment to the salary schedule for 2022-2023, with the following changes: Negotiated Wage and Salary Adjustments In 2022,City Council approved successor agreements with each of the City’s represented bargaining units and unrepresented employee groups to provide for wages,benefits,and other terms and conditions of employment for a term of two to three fiscal years.The approved Memorandums of Understanding (MOU)with the American Federation of State,County,and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)Local 829,Teamsters Local 856 Mid-Management Unit,and Teamsters Local 856 Confidential Unit cover a term of July 1,2022 to June 30, 2024,and the Memorandums of Understanding with the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF)Local 1507,the South San Francisco Police Association,and International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 39 cover a term of July 1,2022 to June 30,2025.Each of these agreements includes a four percent (4%) cost-of-living adjustment in July,2023.Council also approved amended Compensation Plans for the Executive Management group and the Public Safety Managers group for a term of July 1,2022-June 30,2025,providing for a three percent (3%)cost-of-living adjustment in July,2023.In addition to the cost-of-living adjustments, the AFSCME MOU includes market equity adjustments of up to two percent (2%)for job classifications found to be significantly below market in a total compensation survey conducted in 2022. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™38 File #:23-550 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. Compaction Adjustment for Public Safety Managers The Public Safety Managers Compensation plan specifies that the Fire Battalion Chief,EMS Battalion Chief, and Fire Marshal maintain a salary that is fifteen percent (15%)above that of the Fire Captain,including all incentive pays,in order to maintain an appropriate differential between supervisors and subordinates.The 2022 -2025 Memorandum of Understanding for IAFF Local 1507 was approved by City Council on September 28, 2022.At that time,staff determined that the wage increases granted to the Fire Captain did not require any adjustment to management positions.Recently,representatives of the Public Safety Managers group brought to staff’s attention that the compaction calculation did not include consideration of a newly added special assignment pay provision in the amount of two percent (2%)for which the Fire Captains may be eligible,if assigned as a SCBA Technician or PPE Program Manager.After reviewing language of both the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan and the IAFF MOU,staff determined that the assignment pay should have been included in the compaction adjustment calculations.With this new calculation,staff determined that an adjustment in the amount of approximately one percent (1%)was necessary to maintain the specified differential between positions as of September 30,2022.A further adjustment of approximately one percent (1%),in addition to the scheduled cost-of-living adjustment,would be needed as of July 6,2023,due to the difference in the negotiated cost-of-living adjustments for the Public Safety Managers and IAFF. In accordance with the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan,the Deputy Fire Chief would need to be adjusted by the same amount,to maintain the specified 16.38%differential above the Battalion Chief. Resolution 23-557 amends the City’s wage and salary schedule for September 30,2022 through July 6,2023 to provide for the appropriate compaction adjustment for the Battalion Chief and Deputy Fire Chief positions,and the appropriate rates have been included in resolution 23-551 for fiscal year 2023-2024. Hourly Employee Adjustment Consistent with Council actions in prior fiscal years,staff recommends a four percent (4%)cost-of-living adjustment for all hourly positions,equivalent to full-time non-management employees.This increase has been included in the proposed salary schedule for 2023-2024. FISCAL IMPACT The negotiated increases for fiscal year 2023-2024,as well as the cost-of-living adjustment for hourly employees,were included in the proposed 2023-2024 Operating Budget.The retroactive adjustment for the Public Safety Managers will result in a cost increase of approximately $18,000 for fiscal year 2022-2023.For Fiscal Year 2023-2024,the adjustments result in a cost increase of approximately $51,400.These amounts will be absorbed by existing budget in respective fiscal years. No budget amendment is needed at this time. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This action supports City Council’s strategic priority of Workforce Development,by ensuring that the City maintains a competitive compensation package to attract and retain a high-performance workforce and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™39 File #:23-550 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6. maintains a competitive compensation package to attract and retain a high-performance workforce and maintaining compliance with the City’s negotiated labor agreements and approved compensation plans. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution approving the Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 in order to provide for negotiated wage adjustments and cost-of-living adjustments for City employees.Staff further recommends that City Council adopt a resolution approving an amendment to the 2022-2023 Wage and Salary Schedule in order to provide for corrected pay rates in accordance with the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™40 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-551 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution approving the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. WHEREAS, the City maintains a wage and salary schedule for all positions of employment with the City, which is updated each fiscal year to provide for negotiated wage and salary adjustments and other recommended changes; and WHEREAS, pursuant to current the Memorandums of Understanding between the City and AFSCME Local 829, Teamsters Local 586 Mid-Management and Confidential Units, South San Francisco Police Association, IAFF Local 1507, and IUOE Local 39, all represented positions shall receive a four percent (4%) cost of living adjustment effective July 7, 2023. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and AFSCME Local 829, certain positions shall receive a market equity adjustment of up to two percent (2%) effective July 7, 2023. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Executive Management Compensation Plan, and the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan approved by City Council, all covered positions shall receive a three percent (3%) cost of living adjustment effective July 7, 2023. WHEREAS, in accordance with the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan, the positions of Fire Battalion Chief, EMS Battalion Chief, and Deputy Fire Chief shall be adjusted to maintain the specified differential above subordinate classifications. WHEREAS, staff recommends a four percent (4%) cost of living adjustment for all hourly positions, consistent with full-time non-management positions. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve the Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, attached hereto as Exhibit A. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™41 File #:23-551 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™42 Executive Management, City Manager, and City Clerk Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Assistant City Manager N100 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 125.26$ 137.79$ 151.57$ Bi-Weekly 10,020.80$ 11,023.20$ 12,125.60$ Monthly 21,711.73$ 23,883.60$ 26,272.13$ Assistant to the City Manager N180 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 74.96$ 82.46$ 90.71$ Bi-Weekly 5,996.80$ 6,596.80$ 7,256.80$ Monthly 12,993.07$ 14,293.07$ 15,723.07$ City Clerk E100 7/7/2023 ELECT Hourly 108.94$ Bi-Weekly 8,715.20$ Monthly 18,882.93$ City Manager N115 3/8/2023 CM Hourly 168.27$ Bi-Weekly 13,461.60$ Monthly 29,166.80$ Communications Director N190 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Deputy City Manager N120 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Capital Projects N195 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Economic & Community Development N140 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 109.72$ 120.69$ 132.76$ Bi-Weekly 8,777.60$ 9,655.20$ 10,620.80$ Monthly 19,018.13$ 20,919.60$ 23,011.73$ Director of Finance N145 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 111.66$ 122.83$ 135.11$ Bi-Weekly 8,932.80$ 9,826.40$ 10,808.80$ Monthly 19,354.40$ 21,290.53$ 23,419.07$ Fire Chief N150 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 128.05$ 140.85$ 154.94$ Bi-Weekly 10,244.00$ 11,268.00$ 12,395.20$ Monthly 22,195.33$ 24,414.00$ 26,856.27$ Director of Human Resources N130 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Page 1 of 1 43 Executive Management, City Manager, and City Clerk Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Information Technology N165 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 110.61$ 121.67$ 133.84$ Bi-Weekly 8,848.80$ 9,733.60$ 10,707.20$ Monthly 19,172.40$ 21,089.47$ 23,198.93$ Library Director N110 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 108.02$ 118.82$ 130.70$ Bi-Weekly 8,641.60$ 9,505.60$ 10,456.00$ Monthly 18,723.47$ 20,595.47$ 22,654.67$ Director of Parks and Recreation N175 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 112.39$ 123.63$ 135.99$ Bi-Weekly 8,991.20$ 9,890.40$ 10,879.20$ Monthly 19,480.93$ 21,429.20$ 23,571.60$ Chief of Police N155 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 131.40$ 144.54$ 158.99$ Bi-Weekly 10,512.00$ 11,563.20$ 12,719.20$ Monthly 22,776.00$ 25,053.60$ 27,558.27$ Director of Public Works N160 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 112.23$ 123.45$ 135.80$ Bi-Weekly 8,978.40$ 9,876.00$ 10,864.00$ Monthly 19,453.20$ 21,398.00$ 23,538.67$ Page 1 of 1 44 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accountant - Senior M625 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.50$ 56.17$ 58.98$ 61.93$ 65.03$ Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,280.00$ 4,493.60$ 4,718.40$ 4,954.40$ 5,202.40$ Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,273.33$ 9,736.13$ 10,223.20$ 10,734.53$ 11,271.87$ Accountant I M100 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 44.25$ 46.46$ 48.78$ 51.22$ 53.78$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,540.00$ 3,716.80$ 3,902.40$ 4,097.60$ 4,302.40$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,670.00$ 8,053.07$ 8,455.20$ 8,878.13$ 9,321.87$ Accountant II M620 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.65$ 51.08$ 53.63$ 56.31$ 59.13$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,892.00$ 4,086.40$ 4,290.40$ 4,504.80$ 4,730.40$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,432.67$ 8,853.87$ 9,295.87$ 9,760.40$ 10,249.20$ Accounting Assistant I A480 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 29.66$ 31.14$ 32.70$ 34.33$ 36.05$ Accounting Assistant I A480 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,372.80$ 2,491.20$ 2,616.00$ 2,746.40$ 2,884.00$ Accounting Assistant I A480 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,141.07$ 5,397.60$ 5,668.00$ 5,950.53$ 6,248.67$ Accounting Assistant II A225 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 32.58$ 34.21$ 35.92$ 37.72$ 39.61$ Accounting Assistant II A225 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,606.40$ 2,736.80$ 2,873.60$ 3,017.60$ 3,168.80$ Accounting Assistant II A225 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,647.20$ 5,929.73$ 6,226.13$ 6,538.13$ 6,865.73$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 39.31$ 41.28$ 43.34$ 45.51$ 47.79$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,144.80$ 3,302.40$ 3,467.20$ 3,640.80$ 3,823.20$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,813.73$ 7,155.20$ 7,512.27$ 7,888.40$ 8,283.60$ Administrative Assistant I O315 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,842.40$ 2,984.80$ 3,134.40$ 3,291.20$ 3,456.00$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,158.53$ 6,467.07$ 6,791.20$ 7,130.93$ 7,488.00$ Administrative Assistant II O310 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ Building Inspector A135 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ 59.75$ Building Inspector A135 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,932.00$ 4,128.80$ 4,335.20$ 4,552.00$ 4,780.00$ Building Inspector A135 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,519.33$ 8,945.73$ 9,392.93$ 9,862.67$ 10,356.67$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 55.48$ 58.25$ 61.16$ 64.22$ 67.43$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,438.40$ 4,660.00$ 4,892.80$ 5,137.60$ 5,394.40$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,616.53$ 10,096.67$ 10,601.07$ 11,131.47$ 11,687.87$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.25$ 41.21$ 43.27$ 45.43$ 47.70$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,140.00$ 3,296.80$ 3,461.60$ 3,634.40$ 3,816.00$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,803.33$ 7,143.07$ 7,500.13$ 7,874.53$ 8,268.00$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.81$ 30.25$ 31.76$ 33.35$ 35.02$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,304.80$ 2,420.00$ 2,540.80$ 2,668.00$ 2,801.60$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,993.73$ 5,243.33$ 5,505.07$ 5,780.67$ 6,070.13$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 36.48$ 38.30$ 40.22$ 42.23$ 44.34$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,918.40$ 3,064.00$ 3,217.60$ 3,378.40$ 3,547.20$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,323.20$ 6,638.67$ 6,971.47$ 7,319.87$ 7,685.60$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 31.71$ 33.30$ 34.97$ 36.72$ 38.56$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,536.80$ 2,664.00$ 2,797.60$ 2,937.60$ 3,084.80$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,496.40$ 5,772.00$ 6,061.47$ 6,364.80$ 6,683.73$ Building Official - Assistant M215 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.01$ 69.31$ 72.78$ 76.42$ 80.24$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,280.80$ 5,544.80$ 5,822.40$ 6,113.60$ 6,419.20$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,441.73$ 12,013.73$ 12,615.20$ 13,246.13$ 13,908.27$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 53.21$ 55.87$ 58.66$ 61.59$ 64.67$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,256.80$ 4,469.60$ 4,692.80$ 4,927.20$ 5,173.60$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,223.07$ 9,684.13$ 10,167.73$ 10,675.60$ 11,209.47$ Business Manager M825 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 62.93$ 66.08$ 69.38$ 72.85$ 76.49$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,034.40$ 5,286.40$ 5,550.40$ 5,828.00$ 6,119.20$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,907.87$ 11,453.87$ 12,025.87$ 12,627.33$ 13,258.27$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 38.65$ 40.58$ 42.61$ 44.74$ 46.98$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,092.00$ 3,246.40$ 3,408.80$ 3,579.20$ 3,758.40$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 6,699.33$ 7,033.87$ 7,385.73$ 7,754.93$ 8,143.20$ City Building Official M210 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 76.91$ 80.76$ 84.80$ 89.04$ 93.49$ Page 1 of 10 45 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,152.80$ 6,460.80$ 6,784.00$ 7,123.20$ 7,479.20$ City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,331.07$ 13,998.40$ 14,698.67$ 15,433.60$ 16,204.93$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.89$ 51.33$ 53.90$ 56.59$ 59.42$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,911.20$ 4,106.40$ 4,312.00$ 4,527.20$ 4,753.60$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,474.27$ 8,897.20$ 9,342.67$ 9,808.93$ 10,299.47$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ City Planner M155 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.49$ 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,479.20$ 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,538.27$ 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ Communications Dispatcher A150 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ 49.29$ 51.75$ Communications Dispatcher A150 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,405.60$ 3,576.00$ 3,755.20$ 3,943.20$ 4,140.00$ Communications Dispatcher A150 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,378.80$ 7,748.00$ 8,136.27$ 8,543.60$ 8,970.00$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 50.23$ 52.74$ 55.38$ 58.15$ 61.06$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,018.40$ 4,219.20$ 4,430.40$ 4,652.00$ 4,884.80$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,706.53$ 9,141.60$ 9,599.20$ 10,079.33$ 10,583.73$ Community Development Coordinator M725 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 47.69$ 50.07$ 52.57$ 55.20$ 57.96$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,815.20$ 4,005.60$ 4,205.60$ 4,416.00$ 4,636.80$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,266.27$ 8,678.80$ 9,112.13$ 9,568.00$ 10,046.40$ Community Development Specialist A660 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ 52.64$ 55.27$ Community Development Specialist A660 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,637.60$ 3,819.20$ 4,010.40$ 4,211.20$ 4,421.60$ Community Development Specialist A660 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,881.47$ 8,274.93$ 8,689.20$ 9,124.27$ 9,580.13$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.86$ 30.30$ 31.82$ 33.41$ 35.08$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,308.80$ 2,424.00$ 2,545.60$ 2,672.80$ 2,806.40$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,002.40$ 5,252.00$ 5,515.47$ 5,791.07$ 6,080.53$ Computer Services Technician O525 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 46.37$ 48.69$ 51.12$ 53.68$ 56.36$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,709.60$ 3,895.20$ 4,089.60$ 4,294.40$ 4,508.80$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 8,037.47$ 8,439.60$ 8,860.80$ 9,304.53$ 9,769.07$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 48.69$ 51.12$ 53.68$ 56.36$ 59.18$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,895.20$ 4,089.60$ 4,294.40$ 4,508.80$ 4,734.40$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 8,439.60$ 8,860.80$ 9,304.53$ 9,769.07$ 10,257.87$ Crime Analyst C210 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 50.23$ 52.74$ 55.38$ 58.15$ 61.06$ Crime Analyst C210 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 4,018.40$ 4,219.20$ 4,430.40$ 4,652.00$ 4,884.80$ Crime Analyst C210 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 8,706.53$ 9,141.60$ 9,599.20$ 10,079.33$ 10,583.73$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ 45.56$ 47.84$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,148.00$ 3,305.60$ 3,471.20$ 3,644.80$ 3,827.20$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,820.67$ 7,162.13$ 7,520.93$ 7,897.07$ 8,292.27$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 36.39$ 38.21$ 40.12$ 42.13$ 44.24$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,911.20$ 3,056.80$ 3,209.60$ 3,370.40$ 3,539.20$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,307.60$ 6,623.07$ 6,954.13$ 7,302.53$ 7,668.27$ Deputy City Clerk O320 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 41.19$ 43.25$ 45.41$ 47.68$ 50.06$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,295.20$ 3,460.00$ 3,632.80$ 3,814.40$ 4,004.80$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,139.60$ 7,496.67$ 7,871.07$ 8,264.53$ 8,677.07$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 83.17$ 87.33$ 91.70$ 96.29$ 101.10$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,653.60$ 6,986.40$ 7,336.00$ 7,703.20$ 8,088.00$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,416.13$ 15,137.20$ 15,894.67$ 16,690.27$ 17,524.00$ Deputy Finance Director M845 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 80.88$ 84.92$ 89.17$ 93.63$ 98.31$ Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,470.40$ 6,793.60$ 7,133.60$ 7,490.40$ 7,864.80$ Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,019.20$ 14,719.47$ 15,456.13$ 16,229.20$ 17,040.40$ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Page 2 of 10 46 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.46$ 66.63$ 69.96$ 73.46$ 77.13$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,076.80$ 5,330.40$ 5,596.80$ 5,876.80$ 6,170.40$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,999.73$ 11,549.20$ 12,126.40$ 12,733.07$ 13,369.20$ Economic Development Manager M190 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ Economic Development Manager M190 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ Economic Development Manager M190 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Economic Development Specialist M170 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Economic Development Specialist M170 5/24/2023 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Economic Development Specialist M170 5/24/2023 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.02$ 66.17$ 69.48$ 72.95$ 76.60$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,041.60$ 5,293.60$ 5,558.40$ 5,836.00$ 6,128.00$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,923.47$ 11,469.47$ 12,043.20$ 12,644.67$ 13,277.33$ Electrical Technician A160 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ 55.50$ Electrical Technician A160 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ 4,440.00$ Electrical Technician A160 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ 9,620.00$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.70$ 35.38$ 37.15$ 39.01$ 40.96$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,696.00$ 2,830.40$ 2,972.00$ 3,120.80$ 3,276.80$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,841.33$ 6,132.53$ 6,439.33$ 6,761.73$ 7,099.73$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 56.34$ 59.16$ 62.12$ 65.23$ 68.49$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,507.20$ 4,732.80$ 4,969.60$ 5,218.40$ 5,479.20$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,765.60$ 10,254.40$ 10,767.47$ 11,306.53$ 11,871.60$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 50.10$ 52.60$ 55.23$ 57.99$ 60.89$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,008.00$ 4,208.00$ 4,418.40$ 4,639.20$ 4,871.20$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,684.00$ 9,117.33$ 9,573.20$ 10,051.60$ 10,554.27$ Emergency Services Manager M780 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 51.70$ 54.29$ 57.00$ 59.85$ 62.84$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,136.00$ 4,343.20$ 4,560.00$ 4,788.00$ 5,027.20$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,961.33$ 9,410.27$ 9,880.00$ 10,374.00$ 10,892.27$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.79$ 95.33$ 100.10$ 105.10$ 110.36$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,263.20$ 7,626.40$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.00$ 8,828.80$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,736.93$ 16,523.87$ 17,350.67$ 18,217.33$ 19,129.07$ Engineer - Associate M115 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 60.23$ 63.24$ 66.40$ 69.72$ 73.21$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,818.40$ 5,059.20$ 5,312.00$ 5,577.60$ 5,856.80$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,439.87$ 10,961.60$ 11,509.33$ 12,084.80$ 12,689.73$ Engineer - Principal M760 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 78.49$ 82.41$ 86.53$ 90.86$ 95.40$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,279.20$ 6,592.80$ 6,922.40$ 7,268.80$ 7,632.00$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,604.93$ 14,284.40$ 14,998.53$ 15,749.07$ 16,536.00$ Engineer- Senior M340 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 71.69$ 75.27$ 79.03$ 82.98$ 87.13$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,735.20$ 6,021.60$ 6,322.40$ 6,638.40$ 6,970.40$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,426.27$ 13,046.80$ 13,698.53$ 14,383.20$ 15,102.53$ Engineering Technician A167 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.58$ 45.76$ 48.05$ Engineering Technician A167 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,161.60$ 3,320.00$ 3,486.40$ 3,660.80$ 3,844.00$ Engineering Technician A167 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,850.13$ 7,193.33$ 7,553.87$ 7,931.73$ 8,328.67$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.49$ 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,479.20$ 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,538.27$ 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 56.72$ 59.56$ 62.54$ 65.67$ 68.95$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,537.60$ 4,764.80$ 5,003.20$ 5,253.60$ 5,516.00$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 9,831.47$ 10,323.73$ 10,840.27$ 11,382.80$ 11,951.33$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.71$ 48.00$ 50.40$ 52.92$ 55.57$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,656.80$ 3,840.00$ 4,032.00$ 4,233.60$ 4,445.60$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,923.07$ 8,320.00$ 8,736.00$ 9,172.80$ 9,632.13$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 50.29$ 52.80$ 55.44$ 58.21$ 61.12$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,023.20$ 4,224.00$ 4,435.20$ 4,656.80$ 4,889.60$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,716.93$ 9,152.00$ 9,609.60$ 10,089.73$ 10,594.13$ Page 3 of 10 47 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 75.28$ 79.04$ 82.99$ 87.14$ 91.50$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,022.40$ 6,323.20$ 6,639.20$ 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,048.53$ 13,700.27$ 14,384.93$ 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ Equipment Mechanic A170 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 40.34$ 42.36$ 44.48$ 46.70$ 49.03$ Equipment Mechanic A170 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,227.20$ 3,388.80$ 3,558.40$ 3,736.00$ 3,922.40$ Equipment Mechanic A170 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,992.27$ 7,342.40$ 7,709.87$ 8,094.67$ 8,498.53$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.68$ 45.86$ 48.15$ 50.56$ 53.09$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,494.40$ 3,668.80$ 3,852.00$ 4,044.80$ 4,247.20$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,571.20$ 7,949.07$ 8,346.00$ 8,763.73$ 9,202.27$ Equipment Operator A175 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.02$ 40.97$ 43.02$ 45.17$ 47.43$ Equipment Operator A175 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,121.60$ 3,277.60$ 3,441.60$ 3,613.60$ 3,794.40$ Equipment Operator A175 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,763.47$ 7,101.47$ 7,456.80$ 7,829.47$ 8,221.20$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 46.00$ 48.30$ 50.71$ 53.25$ 55.91$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,680.00$ 3,864.00$ 4,056.80$ 4,260.00$ 4,472.80$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,973.33$ 8,372.00$ 8,789.73$ 9,230.00$ 9,691.07$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.02$ 57.77$ 60.66$ 63.69$ 66.87$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,401.60$ 4,621.60$ 4,852.80$ 5,095.20$ 5,349.60$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,536.80$ 10,013.47$ 10,514.40$ 11,039.60$ 11,590.80$ Financial Analyst I M600 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 45.50$ 47.77$ 50.16$ 52.67$ 55.30$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,640.00$ 3,821.60$ 4,012.80$ 4,213.60$ 4,424.00$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,886.67$ 8,280.13$ 8,694.40$ 9,129.47$ 9,585.33$ Financial Analyst II M610 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 50.02$ 52.52$ 55.15$ 57.91$ 60.81$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,001.60$ 4,201.60$ 4,412.00$ 4,632.80$ 4,864.80$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,670.13$ 9,103.47$ 9,559.33$ 10,037.73$ 10,540.40$ Financial Services Manager M770 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 68.79$ 72.23$ 75.84$ 79.63$ 83.61$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,503.20$ 5,778.40$ 6,067.20$ 6,370.40$ 6,688.80$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,923.60$ 12,519.87$ 13,145.60$ 13,802.53$ 14,492.40$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 43.45$ 45.62$ 47.90$ 50.30$ 52.81$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,866.40$ 5,109.44$ 5,364.80$ 5,633.60$ 5,914.72$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,543.87$ 11,070.45$ 11,623.73$ 12,206.13$ 12,815.23$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 60.82$ 63.86$ 67.05$ 70.40$ 73.92$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,865.60$ 5,108.80$ 5,364.00$ 5,632.00$ 5,913.60$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,542.13$ 11,069.07$ 11,622.00$ 12,202.67$ 12,812.80$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.79$ 95.33$ 100.10$ 105.10$ 110.36$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,263.20$ 7,626.40$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.00$ 8,828.80$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,736.93$ 16,523.87$ 17,350.67$ 18,217.33$ 19,129.07$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 112 Hourly 64.86$ 68.10$ 71.50$ 75.08$ 78.83$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 112 Bi-Weekly 7,264.32$ 7,627.20$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.96$ 8,828.96$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 112 Monthly 15,739.36$ 16,525.60$ 17,350.67$ 18,219.41$ 19,129.41$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 67.98$ 71.38$ 74.95$ 78.70$ 82.64$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,438.40$ 5,710.40$ 5,996.00$ 6,296.00$ 6,611.20$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,783.20$ 12,372.53$ 12,991.33$ 13,641.33$ 14,324.27$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 48.56$ 50.99$ 53.54$ 56.22$ 59.03$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,438.72$ 5,710.88$ 5,996.48$ 6,296.64$ 6,611.36$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,783.89$ 12,373.57$ 12,992.37$ 13,642.72$ 14,324.61$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 103.62$ 108.80$ 114.24$ 119.95$ 125.95$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 8,289.60$ 8,704.00$ 9,139.20$ 9,596.00$ 10,076.00$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 17,960.80$ 18,858.67$ 19,801.60$ 20,791.33$ 21,831.33$ Fire Marshal M410 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.93$ 95.48$ 100.25$ 105.26$ 110.52$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,274.40$ 7,638.40$ 8,020.00$ 8,420.80$ 8,841.60$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,761.20$ 16,549.87$ 17,376.67$ 18,245.07$ 19,156.80$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 71.10$ 74.66$ 78.39$ 82.31$ 86.43$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 12/14/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,688.00$ 5,972.80$ 6,271.20$ 6,584.80$ 6,914.40$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 12/14/2022 IAFF Monthly 12,324.00$ 12,941.07$ 13,587.60$ 14,267.07$ 14,981.20$ Groundsperson A505 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.24$ 39.10$ 41.06$ 43.11$ 45.27$ Page 4 of 10 48 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Groundsperson A505 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,979.20$ 3,128.00$ 3,284.80$ 3,448.80$ 3,621.60$ Groundsperson A505 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,454.93$ 6,777.33$ 7,117.07$ 7,472.40$ 7,846.80$ Housing Manager M195 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ Housing Manager M195 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ Housing Manager M195 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 54.41$ 57.13$ 59.99$ 62.99$ 66.14$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,352.80$ 4,570.40$ 4,799.20$ 5,039.20$ 5,291.20$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,431.07$ 9,902.53$ 10,398.27$ 10,918.27$ 11,464.27$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 44.99$ 47.24$ 49.60$ 52.08$ 54.68$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,599.20$ 3,779.20$ 3,968.00$ 4,166.40$ 4,374.40$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,798.27$ 8,188.27$ 8,597.33$ 9,027.20$ 9,477.87$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.43$ 51.90$ 54.50$ 57.23$ 60.09$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,954.40$ 4,152.00$ 4,360.00$ 4,578.40$ 4,807.20$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,567.87$ 8,996.00$ 9,446.67$ 9,919.87$ 10,415.60$ Human Resources Manager M775 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.88$ 74.42$ 78.14$ 82.05$ 86.15$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,670.40$ 5,953.60$ 6,251.20$ 6,564.00$ 6,892.00$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,285.87$ 12,899.47$ 13,544.27$ 14,222.00$ 14,932.67$ Human Resources Technician O265 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ Information Systems Administrator M650 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.50$ 66.67$ 70.00$ 73.50$ 77.18$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,080.00$ 5,333.60$ 5,600.00$ 5,880.00$ 6,174.40$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,006.67$ 11,556.13$ 12,133.33$ 12,740.00$ 13,377.87$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.67$ 70.00$ 73.50$ 77.18$ 81.04$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,333.60$ 5,600.00$ 5,880.00$ 6,174.40$ 6,483.20$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,556.13$ 12,133.33$ 12,740.00$ 13,377.87$ 14,046.93$ Information Technology Manager M805 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.15$ 73.66$ 77.34$ 81.21$ 85.27$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,612.00$ 5,892.80$ 6,187.20$ 6,496.80$ 6,821.60$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,159.33$ 12,767.73$ 13,405.60$ 14,076.40$ 14,780.13$ Laboratory Chemist D120 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 52.50$ 55.13$ 57.89$ 60.78$ 63.82$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,200.00$ 4,410.40$ 4,631.20$ 4,862.40$ 5,105.60$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 9,100.00$ 9,555.87$ 10,034.27$ 10,535.20$ 11,062.13$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 60.67$ 63.70$ 66.89$ 70.23$ 73.74$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,853.60$ 5,096.00$ 5,351.20$ 5,618.40$ 5,899.20$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 10,516.13$ 11,041.33$ 11,594.27$ 12,173.20$ 12,781.60$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.77$ 70.11$ 73.62$ 77.30$ 81.17$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,341.60$ 5,608.80$ 5,889.60$ 6,184.00$ 6,493.60$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,573.47$ 12,152.40$ 12,760.80$ 13,398.67$ 14,069.47$ Librarian I A210 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ 46.09$ Librarian I A210 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,033.60$ 3,185.60$ 3,344.80$ 3,512.00$ 3,687.20$ Librarian I A210 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,572.80$ 6,902.13$ 7,247.07$ 7,609.33$ 7,988.93$ Librarian II A240 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 41.72$ 43.81$ 46.00$ 48.30$ 50.72$ Librarian II A240 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,337.60$ 3,504.80$ 3,680.00$ 3,864.00$ 4,057.60$ Librarian II A240 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,231.47$ 7,593.73$ 7,973.33$ 8,372.00$ 8,791.47$ Library Assistant I A220 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.67$ 30.10$ 31.61$ 33.19$ 34.85$ Library Assistant I A220 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,293.60$ 2,408.00$ 2,528.80$ 2,655.20$ 2,788.00$ Library Assistant I A220 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,969.47$ 5,217.33$ 5,479.07$ 5,752.93$ 6,040.67$ Library Assistant II A215 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ 38.50$ Library Assistant II A215 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,534.40$ 2,660.80$ 2,793.60$ 2,933.60$ 3,080.00$ Library Assistant II A215 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,491.20$ 5,765.07$ 6,052.80$ 6,356.13$ 6,673.33$ Library Director - Assistant M640 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.23$ 73.74$ 77.43$ 81.30$ 85.36$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,618.40$ 5,899.20$ 6,194.40$ 6,504.00$ 6,828.80$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,173.20$ 12,781.60$ 13,421.20$ 14,092.00$ 14,795.73$ Library Program Manager M235 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.70$ 58.48$ 61.40$ 64.47$ 67.69$ Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,456.00$ 4,678.40$ 4,912.00$ 5,157.60$ 5,415.20$ Page 5 of 10 49 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,654.67$ 10,136.53$ 10,642.67$ 11,174.80$ 11,732.93$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.49$ 39.36$ 41.33$ 43.40$ 45.57$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,999.20$ 3,148.80$ 3,306.40$ 3,472.00$ 3,645.60$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,498.27$ 6,822.40$ 7,163.87$ 7,522.67$ 7,898.80$ Literacy Program Manager M500 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.70$ 58.48$ 61.40$ 64.47$ 67.69$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,456.00$ 4,678.40$ 4,912.00$ 5,157.60$ 5,415.20$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,654.67$ 10,136.53$ 10,642.67$ 11,174.80$ 11,732.93$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 40.86$ 42.90$ 45.05$ 47.30$ 49.67$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,268.80$ 3,432.00$ 3,604.00$ 3,784.00$ 3,973.60$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,082.40$ 7,436.00$ 7,808.67$ 8,198.67$ 8,609.47$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.25$ 41.21$ 43.27$ 45.43$ 47.70$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,140.00$ 3,296.80$ 3,461.60$ 3,634.40$ 3,816.00$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,803.33$ 7,143.07$ 7,500.13$ 7,874.53$ 8,268.00$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.63$ 52.11$ 54.72$ 57.46$ 60.33$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,970.40$ 4,168.80$ 4,377.60$ 4,596.80$ 4,826.40$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,602.53$ 9,032.40$ 9,484.80$ 9,959.73$ 10,457.20$ Management Analyst I M570 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.89$ 51.33$ 53.90$ 56.59$ 59.42$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,911.20$ 4,106.40$ 4,312.00$ 4,527.20$ 4,753.60$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,474.27$ 8,897.20$ 9,342.67$ 9,808.93$ 10,299.47$ Management Analyst II M560 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Office Specialist A295 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 30.72$ 32.26$ 33.87$ 35.56$ 37.34$ Office Specialist A295 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,457.60$ 2,580.80$ 2,709.60$ 2,844.80$ 2,987.20$ Office Specialist A295 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,324.80$ 5,591.73$ 5,870.80$ 6,163.73$ 6,472.27$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 43.45$ 45.62$ 47.90$ 50.30$ 52.81$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,866.40$ 5,109.44$ 5,364.80$ 5,633.60$ 5,914.72$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,543.87$ 11,070.45$ 11,623.73$ 12,206.13$ 12,815.23$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 57.92$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,633.60$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,039.47$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.17$ 34.83$ 36.57$ 38.40$ 40.32$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,653.60$ 2,786.40$ 2,925.60$ 3,072.00$ 3,225.60$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,749.47$ 6,037.20$ 6,338.80$ 6,656.00$ 6,988.80$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.19$ 41.15$ 43.21$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,843.20$ 2,985.60$ 3,135.20$ 3,292.00$ 3,456.80$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,160.27$ 6,468.80$ 6,792.93$ 7,132.67$ 7,489.73$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 29.90$ 31.40$ 32.97$ 34.62$ 36.35$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,392.00$ 2,512.00$ 2,637.60$ 2,769.60$ 2,908.00$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,182.67$ 5,442.67$ 5,714.80$ 6,000.80$ 6,300.67$ Parking System Technician A245 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Parking System Technician A245 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Parking System Technician A245 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 79.55$ 83.53$ 87.71$ 92.10$ 96.71$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,364.00$ 6,682.40$ 7,016.80$ 7,368.00$ 7,736.80$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,788.67$ 14,478.53$ 15,203.07$ 15,964.00$ 16,763.07$ Payroll Administrator M785 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.57$ 52.05$ 54.65$ 57.38$ 60.25$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,965.60$ 4,164.00$ 4,372.00$ 4,590.40$ 4,820.00$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,592.13$ 9,022.00$ 9,472.67$ 9,945.87$ 10,443.33$ Payroll Specialist I O275 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 36.89$ 38.73$ 40.67$ 42.70$ 44.83$ Payroll Specialist I O275 11/11/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,951.20$ 3,098.40$ 3,253.60$ 3,416.00$ 3,586.40$ Payroll Specialist I O275 11/11/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,394.27$ 6,713.20$ 7,049.47$ 7,401.33$ 7,770.53$ Page 6 of 10 50 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Payroll Specialist II O270 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 40.67$ 42.70$ 44.84$ 47.08$ 49.43$ Payroll Specialist II O270 11/11/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,253.60$ 3,416.00$ 3,587.20$ 3,766.40$ 3,954.40$ Payroll Specialist II O270 11/11/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,049.47$ 7,401.33$ 7,772.27$ 8,160.53$ 8,567.87$ Permit Technician A460 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.84$ 44.98$ 47.23$ 49.59$ 52.07$ Permit Technician A460 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,427.20$ 3,598.40$ 3,778.40$ 3,967.20$ 4,165.60$ Permit Technician A460 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,425.60$ 7,796.53$ 8,186.53$ 8,595.60$ 9,025.47$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 46.08$ 48.38$ 50.80$ 53.34$ 56.01$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,686.40$ 3,870.40$ 4,064.00$ 4,267.20$ 4,480.80$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,987.20$ 8,385.87$ 8,805.33$ 9,245.60$ 9,708.40$ Planner - Associate M125 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.45$ 50.87$ 53.41$ 56.08$ 58.88$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,876.00$ 4,069.60$ 4,272.80$ 4,486.40$ 4,710.40$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,398.00$ 8,817.47$ 9,257.73$ 9,720.53$ 10,205.87$ Planner - Principal M590 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 64.48$ 67.70$ 71.08$ 74.63$ 78.36$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,158.40$ 5,416.00$ 5,686.40$ 5,970.40$ 6,268.80$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,176.53$ 11,734.67$ 12,320.53$ 12,935.87$ 13,582.40$ Planner - Senior M335 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 60.01$ 63.01$ 66.16$ 69.47$ 72.94$ Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,800.80$ 5,040.80$ 5,292.80$ 5,557.60$ 5,835.20$ Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,401.73$ 10,921.73$ 11,467.73$ 12,041.47$ 12,642.93$ Planning Technician A462 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.83$ 44.97$ 47.22$ 49.58$ 52.06$ Planning Technician A462 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,426.40$ 3,597.60$ 3,777.60$ 3,966.40$ 4,164.80$ Planning Technician A462 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,423.87$ 7,794.80$ 8,184.80$ 8,593.87$ 9,023.73$ Plant Electrician I D105 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.11$ 47.37$ 49.74$ 52.23$ 54.84$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,608.80$ 3,789.60$ 3,979.20$ 4,178.40$ 4,387.20$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,819.07$ 8,210.80$ 8,621.60$ 9,053.20$ 9,505.60$ Plant Electrician II D140 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 49.62$ 52.10$ 54.71$ 57.45$ 60.32$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,969.60$ 4,168.00$ 4,376.80$ 4,596.00$ 4,825.60$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,600.80$ 9,030.67$ 9,483.07$ 9,958.00$ 10,455.47$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 62.33$ 65.45$ 68.72$ 72.16$ 75.77$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,986.40$ 5,236.00$ 5,497.60$ 5,772.80$ 6,061.60$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,803.87$ 11,344.67$ 11,911.47$ 12,507.73$ 13,133.47$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 33.90$ 36.51$ 39.12$ 41.73$ 44.34$ 46.94$ 49.55$ 54.46$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,712.00$ 2,920.80$ 3,129.60$ 3,338.40$ 3,547.20$ 3,755.20$ 3,964.00$ 4,356.80$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 5,876.00$ 6,328.40$ 6,780.80$ 7,233.20$ 7,685.60$ 8,136.27$ 8,588.67$ 9,439.73$ Plant Mechanic I D130 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 40.70$ 42.74$ 44.88$ 47.12$ 49.48$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,256.00$ 3,419.20$ 3,590.40$ 3,769.60$ 3,958.40$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,054.67$ 7,408.27$ 7,779.20$ 8,167.47$ 8,576.53$ Plant Mechanic II D135 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 44.81$ 47.05$ 49.40$ 51.87$ 54.46$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,584.80$ 3,764.00$ 3,952.00$ 4,149.60$ 4,356.80$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,767.07$ 8,155.33$ 8,562.67$ 8,990.80$ 9,439.73$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 50.50$ 53.02$ 55.67$ 58.45$ 61.37$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,040.00$ 4,241.60$ 4,453.60$ 4,676.00$ 4,909.60$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,753.33$ 9,190.13$ 9,649.47$ 10,131.33$ 10,637.47$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 33.90$ 36.51$ 39.12$ 41.73$ 44.34$ 46.94$ 49.55$ 52.16$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,712.00$ 2,920.80$ 3,129.60$ 3,338.40$ 3,547.20$ 3,755.20$ 3,964.00$ 4,172.80$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 5,876.00$ 6,328.40$ 6,780.80$ 7,233.20$ 7,685.60$ 8,136.27$ 8,588.67$ 9,041.07$ Plant Operator I D145 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,119.20$ 3,275.20$ 3,439.20$ 3,611.20$ 3,792.00$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 6,758.27$ 7,096.27$ 7,451.60$ 7,824.27$ 8,216.00$ Plant Operator II D150 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 42.91$ 45.06$ 47.31$ 49.68$ 52.16$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,432.80$ 3,604.80$ 3,784.80$ 3,974.40$ 4,172.80$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,437.73$ 7,810.40$ 8,200.40$ 8,611.20$ 9,041.07$ Plant Operator III D200 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.05$ 47.30$ 49.66$ 52.14$ 54.75$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,604.00$ 3,784.00$ 3,972.80$ 4,171.20$ 4,380.00$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,808.67$ 8,198.67$ 8,607.73$ 9,037.60$ 9,490.00$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 49.55$ 52.03$ 54.63$ 57.36$ 60.23$ Page 7 of 10 51 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,964.00$ 4,162.40$ 4,370.40$ 4,588.80$ 4,818.40$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,588.67$ 9,018.53$ 9,469.20$ 9,942.40$ 10,439.87$ Plant Superintendent M355 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 83.06$ 87.21$ 91.57$ 96.15$ 100.96$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,644.80$ 6,976.80$ 7,325.60$ 7,692.00$ 8,076.80$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,397.07$ 15,116.40$ 15,872.13$ 16,666.00$ 17,499.73$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 79.04$ 82.99$ 87.14$ 91.50$ 96.08$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,323.20$ 6,639.20$ 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ 7,686.40$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,700.27$ 14,384.93$ 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ 16,653.87$ Plant Utility Worker D125 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 35.70$ 37.48$ 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,856.00$ 2,998.40$ 3,148.00$ 3,305.60$ 3,471.20$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 6,188.00$ 6,496.53$ 6,820.67$ 7,162.13$ 7,520.93$ Police Captain M280 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 105.88$ 111.17$ 116.73$ 122.57$ 128.70$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 8,470.40$ 8,893.60$ 9,338.40$ 9,805.60$ 10,296.00$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 18,352.53$ 19,269.47$ 20,233.20$ 21,245.47$ 22,308.00$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 112.23$ 117.84$ 123.73$ 129.92$ 136.42$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 8,978.40$ 9,427.20$ 9,898.40$ 10,393.60$ 10,913.60$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 19,453.20$ 20,425.60$ 21,446.53$ 22,519.47$ 23,646.13$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.66$ 69.99$ 73.49$ 77.16$ 81.02$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,332.80$ 5,599.20$ 5,879.20$ 6,172.80$ 6,481.60$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,554.40$ 12,131.60$ 12,738.27$ 13,374.40$ 14,043.47$ Police Corporal C100 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 69.66$ 71.40$ 73.19$ 75.02$ Police Corporal C100 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 5,572.80$ 5,712.00$ 5,855.20$ 6,001.60$ Police Corporal C100 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 12,074.40$ 12,376.00$ 12,686.27$ 13,003.47$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 89.51$ 93.99$ 98.69$ 103.62$ 108.80$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 7,160.80$ 7,519.20$ 7,895.20$ 8,289.60$ 8,704.00$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 15,515.07$ 16,291.60$ 17,106.27$ 17,960.80$ 18,858.67$ Police Media Technician C220 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Police Media Technician C220 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,842.40$ 2,984.80$ 3,134.40$ 3,291.20$ 3,456.00$ Police Media Technician C220 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,158.53$ 6,467.07$ 6,791.20$ 7,130.93$ 7,488.00$ Police Officer C115 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 52.01$ 55.65$ 59.55$ 63.72$ 68.18$ Police Officer C115 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 4,160.80$ 4,452.00$ 4,764.00$ 5,097.60$ 5,454.40$ Police Officer C115 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 9,015.07$ 9,646.00$ 10,322.00$ 11,044.80$ 11,817.87$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 34.69$ 36.42$ 38.24$ 40.15$ 42.16$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,775.20$ 2,913.60$ 3,059.20$ 3,212.00$ 3,372.80$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,012.93$ 6,312.80$ 6,628.27$ 6,959.33$ 7,307.73$ Police Records Specialist C105 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 32.05$ 33.65$ 35.33$ 37.10$ 38.96$ Police Records Specialist C105 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,564.00$ 2,692.00$ 2,826.40$ 2,968.00$ 3,116.80$ Police Records Specialist C105 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,555.33$ 5,832.67$ 6,123.87$ 6,430.67$ 6,753.07$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 33.77$ 35.46$ 37.23$ 39.09$ 41.04$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,701.60$ 2,836.80$ 2,978.40$ 3,127.20$ 3,283.20$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,853.47$ 6,146.40$ 6,453.20$ 6,775.60$ 7,113.60$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 36.87$ 38.71$ 40.65$ 42.68$ 44.81$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,949.60$ 3,096.80$ 3,252.00$ 3,414.40$ 3,584.80$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,390.80$ 6,709.73$ 7,046.00$ 7,397.87$ 7,767.07$ Police Recruit C190 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 51.00$ Police Recruit C190 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 4,080.00$ Police Recruit C190 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 8,840.00$ Police Sergeant C165 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 74.74$ 76.61$ 78.53$ 80.49$ 82.50$ Police Sergeant C165 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 5,979.20$ 6,128.80$ 6,282.40$ 6,439.20$ 6,600.00$ Police Sergeant C165 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 12,954.93$ 13,279.07$ 13,611.87$ 13,951.60$ 14,300.00$ Police Service Technician C125 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 32.99$ 34.64$ 36.37$ 38.19$ 40.10$ Police Service Technician C125 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,639.20$ 2,771.20$ 2,909.60$ 3,055.20$ 3,208.00$ Police Service Technician C125 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,718.27$ 6,004.27$ 6,304.13$ 6,619.60$ 6,950.67$ Preschool Teacher I A495 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 26.30$ 27.61$ 28.99$ 30.44$ 31.96$ Preschool Teacher I A495 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,104.00$ 2,208.80$ 2,319.20$ 2,435.20$ 2,556.80$ Page 8 of 10 52 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Preschool Teacher I A495 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,558.67$ 4,785.73$ 5,024.93$ 5,276.27$ 5,539.73$ Preschool Teacher II A680 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.93$ 30.38$ 31.90$ 33.49$ 35.16$ Preschool Teacher II A680 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,314.40$ 2,430.40$ 2,552.00$ 2,679.20$ 2,812.80$ Preschool Teacher II A680 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,014.53$ 5,265.87$ 5,529.33$ 5,804.93$ 6,094.40$ Program Manager M750 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.16$ 69.47$ 72.94$ 76.59$ 80.42$ Program Manager M750 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,292.80$ 5,557.60$ 5,835.20$ 6,127.20$ 6,433.60$ Program Manager M750 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,467.73$ 12,041.47$ 12,642.93$ 13,275.60$ 13,939.47$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 87.14$ 91.50$ 96.08$ 100.88$ 105.92$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ 7,686.40$ 8,070.40$ 8,473.60$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ 16,653.87$ 17,485.87$ 18,359.47$ Public Works Inspector A310 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 48.48$ 50.90$ 53.44$ 56.11$ 58.92$ Public Works Inspector A310 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,878.40$ 4,072.00$ 4,275.20$ 4,488.80$ 4,713.60$ Public Works Inspector A310 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,403.20$ 8,822.67$ 9,262.93$ 9,725.73$ 10,212.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.17$ 34.83$ 36.57$ 38.40$ 40.32$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,653.60$ 2,786.40$ 2,925.60$ 3,072.00$ 3,225.60$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,749.47$ 6,037.20$ 6,338.80$ 6,656.00$ 6,988.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.19$ 41.15$ 43.21$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,843.20$ 2,985.60$ 3,135.20$ 3,292.00$ 3,456.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,160.27$ 6,468.80$ 6,792.93$ 7,132.67$ 7,489.73$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 35.73$ 37.52$ 39.40$ 41.37$ 43.44$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 2,858.40$ 3,001.60$ 3,152.00$ 3,309.60$ 3,475.20$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 6,193.20$ 6,503.47$ 6,829.33$ 7,170.80$ 7,529.60$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 51.05$ 53.60$ 56.28$ 59.09$ 62.04$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,084.00$ 4,288.00$ 4,502.40$ 4,727.20$ 4,963.20$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,848.67$ 9,290.67$ 9,755.20$ 10,242.27$ 10,753.60$ Recreation Leader II A610 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 19.87$ 20.86$ 21.90$ 22.99$ 24.14$ Recreation Leader II A610 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,589.60$ 1,668.80$ 1,752.00$ 1,839.20$ 1,931.20$ Recreation Leader II A610 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,444.13$ 3,615.73$ 3,796.00$ 3,984.93$ 4,184.27$ Recreation Leader III A620 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 21.53$ 22.61$ 23.74$ 24.93$ 26.18$ Recreation Leader III A620 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,722.40$ 1,808.80$ 1,899.20$ 1,994.40$ 2,094.40$ Recreation Leader III A620 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,731.87$ 3,919.07$ 4,114.93$ 4,321.20$ 4,537.87$ Recreation Leader IV A515 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 23.90$ 25.09$ 26.34$ 27.66$ 29.04$ Recreation Leader IV A515 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,912.00$ 2,007.20$ 2,107.20$ 2,212.80$ 2,323.20$ Recreation Leader IV A515 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,142.67$ 4,348.93$ 4,565.60$ 4,794.40$ 5,033.60$ Safety Inspector I B200 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 58.79$ 61.73$ 64.82$ 68.06$ 71.46$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,703.20$ 4,938.40$ 5,185.60$ 5,444.80$ 5,716.80$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,190.27$ 10,699.87$ 11,235.47$ 11,797.07$ 12,386.40$ Safety Inspector II B195 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 64.65$ 67.88$ 71.27$ 74.83$ 78.57$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,172.00$ 5,430.40$ 5,701.60$ 5,986.40$ 6,285.60$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,206.00$ 11,765.87$ 12,353.47$ 12,970.53$ 13,618.80$ Safety Inspector III B190 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 69.52$ 73.00$ 76.65$ 80.48$ 84.50$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,561.60$ 5,840.00$ 6,132.00$ 6,438.40$ 6,760.00$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 12,050.13$ 12,653.33$ 13,286.00$ 13,949.87$ 14,646.67$ Sweeper Operator A370 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 38.61$ 40.54$ 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ Sweeper Operator A370 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,088.80$ 3,243.20$ 3,405.60$ 3,576.00$ 3,755.20$ Sweeper Operator A370 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,692.40$ 7,026.93$ 7,378.80$ 7,748.00$ 8,136.27$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 61.87$ 64.96$ 68.21$ 71.62$ 75.20$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,949.60$ 5,196.80$ 5,456.80$ 5,729.60$ 6,016.00$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,724.13$ 11,259.73$ 11,823.07$ 12,414.13$ 13,034.67$ Tree Trimmer A375 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.78$ 41.77$ 43.86$ 46.05$ 48.35$ Tree Trimmer A375 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,182.40$ 3,341.60$ 3,508.80$ 3,684.00$ 3,868.00$ Tree Trimmer A375 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,895.20$ 7,240.13$ 7,602.40$ 7,982.00$ 8,380.67$ Page 9 of 10 53 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Van Driver A510 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 19.37$ 20.34$ 21.36$ 22.43$ 23.55$ Van Driver A510 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,549.60$ 1,627.20$ 1,708.80$ 1,794.40$ 1,884.00$ Van Driver A510 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,357.47$ 3,525.60$ 3,702.40$ 3,887.87$ 4,082.00$ Page 10 of 10 54 Hourly Employees Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accounting Assistant II - Hourly X100 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.97$ 33.57$ 35.25$ 37.01$ 38.86$ Administrative Assistant I - Hourly X110 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Administrative Assistant II - Hourly X130 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Building Inspector - Hourly X595 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ 59.75$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Hourly X185 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.27$ 29.68$ 31.16$ 32.72$ 34.36$ Communications Dispatcher - Hourly X445 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 51.22$ Community Services Site Coordinator - Hourly X660 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.30$ 29.72$ 31.21$ 32.77$ 34.41$ Consultant - Hourly X570 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 139.05$ Cultural Arts Specialist - Hourly X650 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.61$ 40.54$ 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ Emergency Medical Technician - Hourly X281 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 20.75$ 21.79$ 22.88$ 24.02$ 25.22$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Hourly X465 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 45.08$ 47.33$ 49.70$ 52.18$ 54.79$ Equipment Mechanic - Hourly X510 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.02$ 42.02$ 44.12$ 46.33$ 48.65$ Fire Courier - Hourly X540 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 22.50$ 23.62$ 24.80$ 26.04$ 27.34$ Human Resources Clerk - Hourly X310 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 34.08$ 35.78$ 37.57$ 39.45$ 41.42$ Human Resources Technician - Hourly X265 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Intern - Hourly X115 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 40.00$ Laboratory Chemist - Hourly X545 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 52.50$ 55.13$ 57.89$ 60.78$ 63.82$ Librarian I - Hourly X210 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.21$ 39.07$ 41.02$ 43.07$ 45.22$ Librarian II - Hourly X670 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.93$ 42.98$ 45.13$ 47.39$ 49.76$ Library Assistant I - Hourly X220 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.67$ 30.10$ 31.61$ 33.19$ 34.85$ Library Assistant II - Hourly X225 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ 38.50$ Library Clerk - Hourly X235 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.75$ 32.29$ 33.90$ 35.60$ 37.38$ Library Page - Hourly X250 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 17.41$ 18.28$ 19.19$ 20.15$ 21.16$ Literacy Services Assistant Coordinator - Hourly X655 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.95$ 32.50$ 34.12$ 35.83$ 37.62$ Literacy Services Assistant I - Hourly X665 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.02$ 29.42$ 30.89$ 32.43$ 34.05$ Miscellaneous Hourly X280 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 87.55$ Office Assistant - Hourly X440 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 27.19$ 28.55$ 29.98$ 31.48$ 33.05$ Office Specialist - Hourly X415 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.15$ 31.66$ 33.24$ 34.90$ 36.64$ Park Maintenance Worker - Hourly X300 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.55$ 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ Parking Enforcement Officer - Hourly X180 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 29.90$ 31.40$ 32.97$ 34.62$ 36.35$ Planner- Associate - Hourly X125 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 48.45$ 50.87$ 53.41$ 56.08$ 58.88$ Planner- Senior - Hourly X335 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 55.71$ 58.50$ 61.42$ 64.49$ 67.71$ Plant Electrician I - Hourly X500 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 45.11$ 47.37$ 49.74$ 52.23$ 54.84$ Plant Mechanic - Hourly X355 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.15$ 42.16$ 44.27$ 46.48$ 48.80$ Plant Mechanic- Assistant - Hourly X135 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 34.08$ 35.78$ 37.57$ 39.45$ 41.42$ Plant Operator I - Contract Ft X145 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator I - Hourly X140 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator II - Hourly X530 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 42.91$ 45.06$ 47.31$ 49.68$ 52.16$ Plant Utility Worker - Hourly X490 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.70$ 37.48$ 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ Police Court Liaison - Hourly X193 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.75$ 32.29$ 33.90$ 35.60$ 37.38$ Police Property/Evidence Assistant - Hourly X190 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 29.02$ 30.47$ 31.99$ 33.59$ 35.27$ Police Records Specialist - Hourly X191 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.05$ 33.65$ 35.33$ 37.10$ 38.96$ Police Reserve Officer - Hourly X325 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 47.75$ Police Service Technician - Hourly X192 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.99$ 34.64$ 36.37$ 38.19$ 40.10$ Preschool Teacher I - Hourly X690 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 25.81$ 27.10$ 28.45$ 29.87$ 31.36$ Preschool Teacher II - Hourly X680 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.39$ 29.81$ 31.30$ 32.86$ 34.50$ Promotores X120 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.17$ 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Hourly X345 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.55$ 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ Recreation & Community Services Prog Coor - Hourly X700 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.73$ 37.52$ 39.40$ 41.37$ 43.44$ Recreation Instructor - Hourly X350 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 40.00$ Recreation Leader I - Hourly X360 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 17.41$ 18.28$ 19.19$ 20.15$ 21.16$ Recreation Leader II - Hourly X365 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 19.49$ 20.46$ 21.48$ 22.55$ 23.68$ Recreation Leader III - Hourly X370 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 21.13$ 22.19$ 23.30$ 24.47$ 25.69$ Recreation Leader IV - Hourly X375 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 23.45$ 24.62$ 25.85$ 27.14$ 28.50$ Page 1 of 2 55 Hourly Employees Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Safety Inspector - Hourly X181 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.16$ 32.72$ 34.36$ 36.08$ 37.88$ Van Driver - Hourly X555 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 19.37$ 20.34$ 21.36$ 22.43$ 23.55$ Page 2 of 2 56 Executive Management, City Manager, and City Clerk Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Assistant City Manager N100 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 125.26$ 137.79$ 151.57$ Bi-Weekly 10,020.80$ 11,023.20$ 12,125.60$ Monthly 21,711.73$ 23,883.60$ 26,272.13$ Assistant to the City Manager N180 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 74.96$ 82.46$ 90.71$ Bi-Weekly 5,996.80$ 6,596.80$ 7,256.80$ Monthly 12,993.07$ 14,293.07$ 15,723.07$ City Clerk E100 7/7/2023 ELECT Hourly 108.94$ Bi-Weekly 8,715.20$ Monthly 18,882.93$ City Manager N115 3/8/2023 CM Hourly 168.27$ Bi-Weekly 13,461.60$ Monthly 29,166.80$ Communications Director N190 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Deputy City Manager N120 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Capital Projects N195 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Economic & Community Development N140 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 109.72$ 120.69$ 132.76$ Bi-Weekly 8,777.60$ 9,655.20$ 10,620.80$ Monthly 19,018.13$ 20,919.60$ 23,011.73$ Director of Finance N145 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 111.66$ 122.83$ 135.11$ Bi-Weekly 8,932.80$ 9,826.40$ 10,808.80$ Monthly 19,354.40$ 21,290.53$ 23,419.07$ Fire Chief N150 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 128.05$ 140.85$ 154.94$ Bi-Weekly 10,244.00$ 11,268.00$ 12,395.20$ Monthly 22,195.33$ 24,414.00$ 26,856.27$ Director of Human Resources N130 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 107.51$ 118.26$ 130.09$ Page 1 of 1 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 07/12/2023 REG CC - Item #6a 57 Executive Management, City Manager, and City Clerk Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type MINIMUM CONTROL POINT MAXIMUM Bi-Weekly 8,600.80$ 9,460.80$ 10,407.20$ Monthly 18,635.07$ 20,498.40$ 22,548.93$ Director of Information Technology N165 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 110.61$ 121.67$ 133.84$ Bi-Weekly 8,848.80$ 9,733.60$ 10,707.20$ Monthly 19,172.40$ 21,089.47$ 23,198.93$ Library Director N110 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 108.02$ 118.82$ 130.70$ Bi-Weekly 8,641.60$ 9,505.60$ 10,456.00$ Monthly 18,723.47$ 20,595.47$ 22,654.67$ Director of Parks and Recreation N175 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 112.39$ 123.63$ 135.99$ Bi-Weekly 8,991.20$ 9,890.40$ 10,879.20$ Monthly 19,480.93$ 21,429.20$ 23,571.60$ Chief of Police N155 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 131.40$ 144.54$ 158.99$ Bi-Weekly 10,512.00$ 11,563.20$ 12,719.20$ Monthly 22,776.00$ 25,053.60$ 27,558.27$ Director of Public Works N160 7/7/2023 EXEC Hourly 112.23$ 123.45$ 135.80$ Bi-Weekly 8,978.40$ 9,876.00$ 10,864.00$ Monthly 19,453.20$ 21,398.00$ 23,538.67$ Page 1 of 1 58 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accountant - Senior M625 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.50$ 56.17$ 58.98$ 61.93$ 65.03$ Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,280.00$ 4,493.60$ 4,718.40$ 4,954.40$ 5,202.40$ Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,273.33$ 9,736.13$ 10,223.20$ 10,734.53$ 11,271.87$ Accountant I M100 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 44.25$ 46.46$ 48.78$ 51.22$ 53.78$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,540.00$ 3,716.80$ 3,902.40$ 4,097.60$ 4,302.40$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,670.00$ 8,053.07$ 8,455.20$ 8,878.13$ 9,321.87$ Accountant II M620 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.65$ 51.08$ 53.63$ 56.31$ 59.13$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,892.00$ 4,086.40$ 4,290.40$ 4,504.80$ 4,730.40$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,432.67$ 8,853.87$ 9,295.87$ 9,760.40$ 10,249.20$ Accounting Assistant I A480 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 29.66$ 31.14$ 32.70$ 34.33$ 36.05$ Accounting Assistant I A480 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,372.80$ 2,491.20$ 2,616.00$ 2,746.40$ 2,884.00$ Accounting Assistant I A480 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,141.07$ 5,397.60$ 5,668.00$ 5,950.53$ 6,248.67$ Accounting Assistant II A225 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 32.58$ 34.21$ 35.92$ 37.72$ 39.61$ Accounting Assistant II A225 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,606.40$ 2,736.80$ 2,873.60$ 3,017.60$ 3,168.80$ Accounting Assistant II A225 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,647.20$ 5,929.73$ 6,226.13$ 6,538.13$ 6,865.73$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 39.31$ 41.28$ 43.34$ 45.51$ 47.79$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,144.80$ 3,302.40$ 3,467.20$ 3,640.80$ 3,823.20$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,813.73$ 7,155.20$ 7,512.27$ 7,888.40$ 8,283.60$ Administrative Assistant I O315 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,842.40$ 2,984.80$ 3,134.40$ 3,291.20$ 3,456.00$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,158.53$ 6,467.07$ 6,791.20$ 7,130.93$ 7,488.00$ Administrative Assistant II O310 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ Building Inspector A135 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ 59.75$ Building Inspector A135 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,932.00$ 4,128.80$ 4,335.20$ 4,552.00$ 4,780.00$ Building Inspector A135 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,519.33$ 8,945.73$ 9,392.93$ 9,862.67$ 10,356.67$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 55.48$ 58.25$ 61.16$ 64.22$ 67.43$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,438.40$ 4,660.00$ 4,892.80$ 5,137.60$ 5,394.40$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,616.53$ 10,096.67$ 10,601.07$ 11,131.47$ 11,687.87$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.25$ 41.21$ 43.27$ 45.43$ 47.70$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,140.00$ 3,296.80$ 3,461.60$ 3,634.40$ 3,816.00$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,803.33$ 7,143.07$ 7,500.13$ 7,874.53$ 8,268.00$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.81$ 30.25$ 31.76$ 33.35$ 35.02$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,304.80$ 2,420.00$ 2,540.80$ 2,668.00$ 2,801.60$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,993.73$ 5,243.33$ 5,505.07$ 5,780.67$ 6,070.13$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 36.48$ 38.30$ 40.22$ 42.23$ 44.34$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,918.40$ 3,064.00$ 3,217.60$ 3,378.40$ 3,547.20$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,323.20$ 6,638.67$ 6,971.47$ 7,319.87$ 7,685.60$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 31.71$ 33.30$ 34.97$ 36.72$ 38.56$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,536.80$ 2,664.00$ 2,797.60$ 2,937.60$ 3,084.80$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,496.40$ 5,772.00$ 6,061.47$ 6,364.80$ 6,683.73$ Building Official - Assistant M215 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.01$ 69.31$ 72.78$ 76.42$ 80.24$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,280.80$ 5,544.80$ 5,822.40$ 6,113.60$ 6,419.20$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,441.73$ 12,013.73$ 12,615.20$ 13,246.13$ 13,908.27$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 53.21$ 55.87$ 58.66$ 61.59$ 64.67$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,256.80$ 4,469.60$ 4,692.80$ 4,927.20$ 5,173.60$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,223.07$ 9,684.13$ 10,167.73$ 10,675.60$ 11,209.47$ Business Manager M825 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 62.93$ 66.08$ 69.38$ 72.85$ 76.49$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,034.40$ 5,286.40$ 5,550.40$ 5,828.00$ 6,119.20$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,907.87$ 11,453.87$ 12,025.87$ 12,627.33$ 13,258.27$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 38.65$ 40.58$ 42.61$ 44.74$ 46.98$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,092.00$ 3,246.40$ 3,408.80$ 3,579.20$ 3,758.40$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 6,699.33$ 7,033.87$ 7,385.73$ 7,754.93$ 8,143.20$ City Building Official M210 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 76.91$ 80.76$ 84.80$ 89.04$ 93.49$ Page 1 of 10 59 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,152.80$ 6,460.80$ 6,784.00$ 7,123.20$ 7,479.20$ City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,331.07$ 13,998.40$ 14,698.67$ 15,433.60$ 16,204.93$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.89$ 51.33$ 53.90$ 56.59$ 59.42$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,911.20$ 4,106.40$ 4,312.00$ 4,527.20$ 4,753.60$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,474.27$ 8,897.20$ 9,342.67$ 9,808.93$ 10,299.47$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ City Planner M155 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.49$ 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,479.20$ 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,538.27$ 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ Communications Dispatcher A150 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ 49.29$ 51.75$ Communications Dispatcher A150 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,405.60$ 3,576.00$ 3,755.20$ 3,943.20$ 4,140.00$ Communications Dispatcher A150 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,378.80$ 7,748.00$ 8,136.27$ 8,543.60$ 8,970.00$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 50.23$ 52.74$ 55.38$ 58.15$ 61.06$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,018.40$ 4,219.20$ 4,430.40$ 4,652.00$ 4,884.80$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,706.53$ 9,141.60$ 9,599.20$ 10,079.33$ 10,583.73$ Community Development Coordinator M725 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 47.69$ 50.07$ 52.57$ 55.20$ 57.96$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,815.20$ 4,005.60$ 4,205.60$ 4,416.00$ 4,636.80$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,266.27$ 8,678.80$ 9,112.13$ 9,568.00$ 10,046.40$ Community Development Specialist A660 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ 52.64$ 55.27$ Community Development Specialist A660 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,637.60$ 3,819.20$ 4,010.40$ 4,211.20$ 4,421.60$ Community Development Specialist A660 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,881.47$ 8,274.93$ 8,689.20$ 9,124.27$ 9,580.13$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.86$ 30.30$ 31.82$ 33.41$ 35.08$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,308.80$ 2,424.00$ 2,545.60$ 2,672.80$ 2,806.40$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,002.40$ 5,252.00$ 5,515.47$ 5,791.07$ 6,080.53$ Computer Services Technician O525 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 46.37$ 48.69$ 51.12$ 53.68$ 56.36$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,709.60$ 3,895.20$ 4,089.60$ 4,294.40$ 4,508.80$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 8,037.47$ 8,439.60$ 8,860.80$ 9,304.53$ 9,769.07$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 48.69$ 51.12$ 53.68$ 56.36$ 59.18$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,895.20$ 4,089.60$ 4,294.40$ 4,508.80$ 4,734.40$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 8,439.60$ 8,860.80$ 9,304.53$ 9,769.07$ 10,257.87$ Crime Analyst C210 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 50.23$ 52.74$ 55.38$ 58.15$ 61.06$ Crime Analyst C210 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 4,018.40$ 4,219.20$ 4,430.40$ 4,652.00$ 4,884.80$ Crime Analyst C210 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 8,706.53$ 9,141.60$ 9,599.20$ 10,079.33$ 10,583.73$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ 45.56$ 47.84$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,148.00$ 3,305.60$ 3,471.20$ 3,644.80$ 3,827.20$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,820.67$ 7,162.13$ 7,520.93$ 7,897.07$ 8,292.27$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 36.39$ 38.21$ 40.12$ 42.13$ 44.24$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,911.20$ 3,056.80$ 3,209.60$ 3,370.40$ 3,539.20$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,307.60$ 6,623.07$ 6,954.13$ 7,302.53$ 7,668.27$ Deputy City Clerk O320 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 41.19$ 43.25$ 45.41$ 47.68$ 50.06$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,295.20$ 3,460.00$ 3,632.80$ 3,814.40$ 4,004.80$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,139.60$ 7,496.67$ 7,871.07$ 8,264.53$ 8,677.07$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 83.17$ 87.33$ 91.70$ 96.29$ 101.10$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,653.60$ 6,986.40$ 7,336.00$ 7,703.20$ 8,088.00$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,416.13$ 15,137.20$ 15,894.67$ 16,690.27$ 17,524.00$ Deputy Finance Director M845 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 80.88$ 84.92$ 89.17$ 93.63$ 98.31$ Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,470.40$ 6,793.60$ 7,133.60$ 7,490.40$ 7,864.80$ Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,019.20$ 14,719.47$ 15,456.13$ 16,229.20$ 17,040.40$ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Page 2 of 10 60 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer M540 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.46$ 66.63$ 69.96$ 73.46$ 77.13$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,076.80$ 5,330.40$ 5,596.80$ 5,876.80$ 6,170.40$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,999.73$ 11,549.20$ 12,126.40$ 12,733.07$ 13,369.20$ Economic Development Manager M190 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ Economic Development Manager M190 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ Economic Development Manager M190 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Economic Development Specialist M170 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Economic Development Specialist M170 5/24/2023 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Economic Development Specialist M170 5/24/2023 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.02$ 66.17$ 69.48$ 72.95$ 76.60$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,041.60$ 5,293.60$ 5,558.40$ 5,836.00$ 6,128.00$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,923.47$ 11,469.47$ 12,043.20$ 12,644.67$ 13,277.33$ Electrical Technician A160 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ 55.50$ Electrical Technician A160 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ 4,440.00$ Electrical Technician A160 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ 9,620.00$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.70$ 35.38$ 37.15$ 39.01$ 40.96$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,696.00$ 2,830.40$ 2,972.00$ 3,120.80$ 3,276.80$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,841.33$ 6,132.53$ 6,439.33$ 6,761.73$ 7,099.73$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 56.34$ 59.16$ 62.12$ 65.23$ 68.49$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,507.20$ 4,732.80$ 4,969.60$ 5,218.40$ 5,479.20$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 9,765.60$ 10,254.40$ 10,767.47$ 11,306.53$ 11,871.60$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 50.10$ 52.60$ 55.23$ 57.99$ 60.89$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 4,008.00$ 4,208.00$ 4,418.40$ 4,639.20$ 4,871.20$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,684.00$ 9,117.33$ 9,573.20$ 10,051.60$ 10,554.27$ Emergency Services Manager M780 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 51.70$ 54.29$ 57.00$ 59.85$ 62.84$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,136.00$ 4,343.20$ 4,560.00$ 4,788.00$ 5,027.20$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,961.33$ 9,410.27$ 9,880.00$ 10,374.00$ 10,892.27$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.79$ 95.33$ 100.10$ 105.10$ 110.36$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,263.20$ 7,626.40$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.00$ 8,828.80$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,736.93$ 16,523.87$ 17,350.67$ 18,217.33$ 19,129.07$ Engineer - Associate M115 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 60.23$ 63.24$ 66.40$ 69.72$ 73.21$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,818.40$ 5,059.20$ 5,312.00$ 5,577.60$ 5,856.80$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,439.87$ 10,961.60$ 11,509.33$ 12,084.80$ 12,689.73$ Engineer - Principal M760 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 78.49$ 82.41$ 86.53$ 90.86$ 95.40$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,279.20$ 6,592.80$ 6,922.40$ 7,268.80$ 7,632.00$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,604.93$ 14,284.40$ 14,998.53$ 15,749.07$ 16,536.00$ Engineer- Senior M340 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 71.69$ 75.27$ 79.03$ 82.98$ 87.13$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,735.20$ 6,021.60$ 6,322.40$ 6,638.40$ 6,970.40$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,426.27$ 13,046.80$ 13,698.53$ 14,383.20$ 15,102.53$ Engineering Technician A167 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.58$ 45.76$ 48.05$ Engineering Technician A167 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,161.60$ 3,320.00$ 3,486.40$ 3,660.80$ 3,844.00$ Engineering Technician A167 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,850.13$ 7,193.33$ 7,553.87$ 7,931.73$ 8,328.67$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.49$ 45.66$ 47.94$ 50.34$ 52.86$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,479.20$ 3,652.80$ 3,835.20$ 4,027.20$ 4,228.80$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,538.27$ 7,914.40$ 8,309.60$ 8,725.60$ 9,162.40$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 56.72$ 59.56$ 62.54$ 65.67$ 68.95$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,537.60$ 4,764.80$ 5,003.20$ 5,253.60$ 5,516.00$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 9,831.47$ 10,323.73$ 10,840.27$ 11,382.80$ 11,951.33$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.71$ 48.00$ 50.40$ 52.92$ 55.57$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,656.80$ 3,840.00$ 4,032.00$ 4,233.60$ 4,445.60$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,923.07$ 8,320.00$ 8,736.00$ 9,172.80$ 9,632.13$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 50.29$ 52.80$ 55.44$ 58.21$ 61.12$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,023.20$ 4,224.00$ 4,435.20$ 4,656.80$ 4,889.60$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,716.93$ 9,152.00$ 9,609.60$ 10,089.73$ 10,594.13$ Page 3 of 10 61 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 75.28$ 79.04$ 82.99$ 87.14$ 91.50$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,022.40$ 6,323.20$ 6,639.20$ 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,048.53$ 13,700.27$ 14,384.93$ 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ Equipment Mechanic A170 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 40.34$ 42.36$ 44.48$ 46.70$ 49.03$ Equipment Mechanic A170 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,227.20$ 3,388.80$ 3,558.40$ 3,736.00$ 3,922.40$ Equipment Mechanic A170 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,992.27$ 7,342.40$ 7,709.87$ 8,094.67$ 8,498.53$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 43.68$ 45.86$ 48.15$ 50.56$ 53.09$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,494.40$ 3,668.80$ 3,852.00$ 4,044.80$ 4,247.20$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,571.20$ 7,949.07$ 8,346.00$ 8,763.73$ 9,202.27$ Equipment Operator A175 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.02$ 40.97$ 43.02$ 45.17$ 47.43$ Equipment Operator A175 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,121.60$ 3,277.60$ 3,441.60$ 3,613.60$ 3,794.40$ Equipment Operator A175 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,763.47$ 7,101.47$ 7,456.80$ 7,829.47$ 8,221.20$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 46.00$ 48.30$ 50.71$ 53.25$ 55.91$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,680.00$ 3,864.00$ 4,056.80$ 4,260.00$ 4,472.80$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,973.33$ 8,372.00$ 8,789.73$ 9,230.00$ 9,691.07$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.02$ 57.77$ 60.66$ 63.69$ 66.87$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,401.60$ 4,621.60$ 4,852.80$ 5,095.20$ 5,349.60$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,536.80$ 10,013.47$ 10,514.40$ 11,039.60$ 11,590.80$ Financial Analyst I M600 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 45.50$ 47.77$ 50.16$ 52.67$ 55.30$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,640.00$ 3,821.60$ 4,012.80$ 4,213.60$ 4,424.00$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,886.67$ 8,280.13$ 8,694.40$ 9,129.47$ 9,585.33$ Financial Analyst II M610 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 50.02$ 52.52$ 55.15$ 57.91$ 60.81$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,001.60$ 4,201.60$ 4,412.00$ 4,632.80$ 4,864.80$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,670.13$ 9,103.47$ 9,559.33$ 10,037.73$ 10,540.40$ Financial Services Manager M770 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 68.79$ 72.23$ 75.84$ 79.63$ 83.61$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,503.20$ 5,778.40$ 6,067.20$ 6,370.40$ 6,688.80$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,923.60$ 12,519.87$ 13,145.60$ 13,802.53$ 14,492.40$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 43.45$ 45.62$ 47.90$ 50.30$ 52.81$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,866.40$ 5,109.44$ 5,364.80$ 5,633.60$ 5,914.72$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,543.87$ 11,070.45$ 11,623.73$ 12,206.13$ 12,815.23$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 60.82$ 63.86$ 67.05$ 70.40$ 73.92$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,865.60$ 5,108.80$ 5,364.00$ 5,632.00$ 5,913.60$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,542.13$ 11,069.07$ 11,622.00$ 12,202.67$ 12,812.80$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.79$ 95.33$ 100.10$ 105.10$ 110.36$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,263.20$ 7,626.40$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.00$ 8,828.80$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,736.93$ 16,523.87$ 17,350.67$ 18,217.33$ 19,129.07$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 112 Hourly 64.86$ 68.10$ 71.50$ 75.08$ 78.83$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 112 Bi-Weekly 7,264.32$ 7,627.20$ 8,008.00$ 8,408.96$ 8,828.96$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 112 Monthly 15,739.36$ 16,525.60$ 17,350.67$ 18,219.41$ 19,129.41$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 67.98$ 71.38$ 74.95$ 78.70$ 82.64$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,438.40$ 5,710.40$ 5,996.00$ 6,296.00$ 6,611.20$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,783.20$ 12,372.53$ 12,991.33$ 13,641.33$ 14,324.27$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 48.56$ 50.99$ 53.54$ 56.22$ 59.03$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,438.72$ 5,710.88$ 5,996.48$ 6,296.64$ 6,611.36$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,783.89$ 12,373.57$ 12,992.37$ 13,642.72$ 14,324.61$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 105.67$ 110.95$ 116.50$ 122.32$ 128.44$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 8,453.60$ 8,876.00$ 9,320.00$ 9,785.60$ 10,275.20$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 18,316.13$ 19,231.33$ 20,193.33$ 21,202.13$ 22,262.93$ Fire Marshal M410 7/7/2023 PSM FIRE 80 Hourly 90.93$ 95.48$ 100.25$ 105.26$ 110.52$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Bi-Weekly 7,274.40$ 7,638.40$ 8,020.00$ 8,420.80$ 8,841.60$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 Monthly 15,761.20$ 16,549.87$ 17,376.67$ 18,245.07$ 19,156.80$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 71.10$ 74.66$ 78.39$ 82.31$ 86.43$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 12/14/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,688.00$ 5,972.80$ 6,271.20$ 6,584.80$ 6,914.40$ Fire Marshal - Deputy B205 12/14/2022 IAFF Monthly 12,324.00$ 12,941.07$ 13,587.60$ 14,267.07$ 14,981.20$ Groundsperson A505 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.24$ 39.10$ 41.06$ 43.11$ 45.27$ Page 4 of 10 62 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Groundsperson A505 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,979.20$ 3,128.00$ 3,284.80$ 3,448.80$ 3,621.60$ Groundsperson A505 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,454.93$ 6,777.33$ 7,117.07$ 7,472.40$ 7,846.80$ Housing Manager M195 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 74.70$ 78.44$ 82.36$ 86.48$ 90.80$ Housing Manager M195 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,976.00$ 6,275.20$ 6,588.80$ 6,918.40$ 7,264.00$ Housing Manager M195 11/11/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,948.00$ 13,596.27$ 14,275.73$ 14,989.87$ 15,738.67$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 54.41$ 57.13$ 59.99$ 62.99$ 66.14$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,352.80$ 4,570.40$ 4,799.20$ 5,039.20$ 5,291.20$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,431.07$ 9,902.53$ 10,398.27$ 10,918.27$ 11,464.27$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 44.99$ 47.24$ 49.60$ 52.08$ 54.68$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,599.20$ 3,779.20$ 3,968.00$ 4,166.40$ 4,374.40$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 7,798.27$ 8,188.27$ 8,597.33$ 9,027.20$ 9,477.87$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.43$ 51.90$ 54.50$ 57.23$ 60.09$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,954.40$ 4,152.00$ 4,360.00$ 4,578.40$ 4,807.20$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,567.87$ 8,996.00$ 9,446.67$ 9,919.87$ 10,415.60$ Human Resources Manager M775 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.88$ 74.42$ 78.14$ 82.05$ 86.15$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,670.40$ 5,953.60$ 6,251.20$ 6,564.00$ 6,892.00$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,285.87$ 12,899.47$ 13,544.27$ 14,222.00$ 14,932.67$ Human Resources Technician O265 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,994.40$ 3,144.00$ 3,300.80$ 3,465.60$ 3,639.20$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,487.87$ 6,812.00$ 7,151.73$ 7,508.80$ 7,884.93$ Information Systems Administrator M650 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 63.50$ 66.67$ 70.00$ 73.50$ 77.18$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,080.00$ 5,333.60$ 5,600.00$ 5,880.00$ 6,174.40$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,006.67$ 11,556.13$ 12,133.33$ 12,740.00$ 13,377.87$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.67$ 70.00$ 73.50$ 77.18$ 81.04$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,333.60$ 5,600.00$ 5,880.00$ 6,174.40$ 6,483.20$ Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,556.13$ 12,133.33$ 12,740.00$ 13,377.87$ 14,046.93$ Information Technology Manager M805 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.15$ 73.66$ 77.34$ 81.21$ 85.27$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,612.00$ 5,892.80$ 6,187.20$ 6,496.80$ 6,821.60$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,159.33$ 12,767.73$ 13,405.60$ 14,076.40$ 14,780.13$ Laboratory Chemist D120 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 52.50$ 55.13$ 57.89$ 60.78$ 63.82$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,200.00$ 4,410.40$ 4,631.20$ 4,862.40$ 5,105.60$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 9,100.00$ 9,555.87$ 10,034.27$ 10,535.20$ 11,062.13$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 60.67$ 63.70$ 66.89$ 70.23$ 73.74$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,853.60$ 5,096.00$ 5,351.20$ 5,618.40$ 5,899.20$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 10,516.13$ 11,041.33$ 11,594.27$ 12,173.20$ 12,781.60$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.77$ 70.11$ 73.62$ 77.30$ 81.17$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,341.60$ 5,608.80$ 5,889.60$ 6,184.00$ 6,493.60$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,573.47$ 12,152.40$ 12,760.80$ 13,398.67$ 14,069.47$ Librarian I A210 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ 46.09$ Librarian I A210 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,033.60$ 3,185.60$ 3,344.80$ 3,512.00$ 3,687.20$ Librarian I A210 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,572.80$ 6,902.13$ 7,247.07$ 7,609.33$ 7,988.93$ Librarian II A240 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 41.72$ 43.81$ 46.00$ 48.30$ 50.72$ Librarian II A240 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,337.60$ 3,504.80$ 3,680.00$ 3,864.00$ 4,057.60$ Librarian II A240 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,231.47$ 7,593.73$ 7,973.33$ 8,372.00$ 8,791.47$ Library Assistant I A220 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.67$ 30.10$ 31.61$ 33.19$ 34.85$ Library Assistant I A220 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,293.60$ 2,408.00$ 2,528.80$ 2,655.20$ 2,788.00$ Library Assistant I A220 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,969.47$ 5,217.33$ 5,479.07$ 5,752.93$ 6,040.67$ Library Assistant II A215 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ 38.50$ Library Assistant II A215 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,534.40$ 2,660.80$ 2,793.60$ 2,933.60$ 3,080.00$ Library Assistant II A215 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,491.20$ 5,765.07$ 6,052.80$ 6,356.13$ 6,673.33$ Library Director - Assistant M640 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 70.23$ 73.74$ 77.43$ 81.30$ 85.36$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,618.40$ 5,899.20$ 6,194.40$ 6,504.00$ 6,828.80$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 12,173.20$ 12,781.60$ 13,421.20$ 14,092.00$ 14,795.73$ Library Program Manager M235 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.70$ 58.48$ 61.40$ 64.47$ 67.69$ Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,456.00$ 4,678.40$ 4,912.00$ 5,157.60$ 5,415.20$ Page 5 of 10 63 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,654.67$ 10,136.53$ 10,642.67$ 11,174.80$ 11,732.93$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 37.49$ 39.36$ 41.33$ 43.40$ 45.57$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,999.20$ 3,148.80$ 3,306.40$ 3,472.00$ 3,645.60$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,498.27$ 6,822.40$ 7,163.87$ 7,522.67$ 7,898.80$ Literacy Program Manager M500 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 55.70$ 58.48$ 61.40$ 64.47$ 67.69$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,456.00$ 4,678.40$ 4,912.00$ 5,157.60$ 5,415.20$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,654.67$ 10,136.53$ 10,642.67$ 11,174.80$ 11,732.93$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 40.86$ 42.90$ 45.05$ 47.30$ 49.67$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,268.80$ 3,432.00$ 3,604.00$ 3,784.00$ 3,973.60$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,082.40$ 7,436.00$ 7,808.67$ 8,198.67$ 8,609.47$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.25$ 41.21$ 43.27$ 45.43$ 47.70$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,140.00$ 3,296.80$ 3,461.60$ 3,634.40$ 3,816.00$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,803.33$ 7,143.07$ 7,500.13$ 7,874.53$ 8,268.00$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.63$ 52.11$ 54.72$ 57.46$ 60.33$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,970.40$ 4,168.80$ 4,377.60$ 4,596.80$ 4,826.40$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,602.53$ 9,032.40$ 9,484.80$ 9,959.73$ 10,457.20$ Management Analyst I M570 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.89$ 51.33$ 53.90$ 56.59$ 59.42$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,911.20$ 4,106.40$ 4,312.00$ 4,527.20$ 4,753.60$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,474.27$ 8,897.20$ 9,342.67$ 9,808.93$ 10,299.47$ Management Analyst II M560 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 53.75$ 56.44$ 59.26$ 62.22$ 65.33$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,300.00$ 4,515.20$ 4,740.80$ 4,977.60$ 5,226.40$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 9,316.67$ 9,782.93$ 10,271.73$ 10,784.80$ 11,323.87$ Office Specialist A295 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 30.72$ 32.26$ 33.87$ 35.56$ 37.34$ Office Specialist A295 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,457.60$ 2,580.80$ 2,709.60$ 2,844.80$ 2,987.20$ Office Specialist A295 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,324.80$ 5,591.73$ 5,870.80$ 6,163.73$ 6,472.27$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 43.45$ 45.62$ 47.90$ 50.30$ 52.81$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,866.40$ 5,109.44$ 5,364.80$ 5,633.60$ 5,914.72$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,543.87$ 11,070.45$ 11,623.73$ 12,206.13$ 12,815.23$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 57.92$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,633.60$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,039.47$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.17$ 34.83$ 36.57$ 38.40$ 40.32$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,653.60$ 2,786.40$ 2,925.60$ 3,072.00$ 3,225.60$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,749.47$ 6,037.20$ 6,338.80$ 6,656.00$ 6,988.80$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.19$ 41.15$ 43.21$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,843.20$ 2,985.60$ 3,135.20$ 3,292.00$ 3,456.80$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,160.27$ 6,468.80$ 6,792.93$ 7,132.67$ 7,489.73$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 29.90$ 31.40$ 32.97$ 34.62$ 36.35$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,392.00$ 2,512.00$ 2,637.60$ 2,769.60$ 2,908.00$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,182.67$ 5,442.67$ 5,714.80$ 6,000.80$ 6,300.67$ Parking System Technician A245 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Parking System Technician A245 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Parking System Technician A245 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 79.55$ 83.53$ 87.71$ 92.10$ 96.71$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,364.00$ 6,682.40$ 7,016.80$ 7,368.00$ 7,736.80$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,788.67$ 14,478.53$ 15,203.07$ 15,964.00$ 16,763.07$ Payroll Administrator M785 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 49.57$ 52.05$ 54.65$ 57.38$ 60.25$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,965.60$ 4,164.00$ 4,372.00$ 4,590.40$ 4,820.00$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,592.13$ 9,022.00$ 9,472.67$ 9,945.87$ 10,443.33$ Payroll Specialist I O275 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 36.89$ 38.73$ 40.67$ 42.70$ 44.83$ Payroll Specialist I O275 11/11/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 2,951.20$ 3,098.40$ 3,253.60$ 3,416.00$ 3,586.40$ Payroll Specialist I O275 11/11/2022 CONFID Monthly 6,394.27$ 6,713.20$ 7,049.47$ 7,401.33$ 7,770.53$ Page 6 of 10 64 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Payroll Specialist II O270 7/7/2023 CONFID Hourly 40.67$ 42.70$ 44.84$ 47.08$ 49.43$ Payroll Specialist II O270 11/11/2022 CONFID Bi-Weekly 3,253.60$ 3,416.00$ 3,587.20$ 3,766.40$ 3,954.40$ Payroll Specialist II O270 11/11/2022 CONFID Monthly 7,049.47$ 7,401.33$ 7,772.27$ 8,160.53$ 8,567.87$ Permit Technician A460 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.84$ 44.98$ 47.23$ 49.59$ 52.07$ Permit Technician A460 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,427.20$ 3,598.40$ 3,778.40$ 3,967.20$ 4,165.60$ Permit Technician A460 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,425.60$ 7,796.53$ 8,186.53$ 8,595.60$ 9,025.47$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 46.08$ 48.38$ 50.80$ 53.34$ 56.01$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,686.40$ 3,870.40$ 4,064.00$ 4,267.20$ 4,480.80$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,987.20$ 8,385.87$ 8,805.33$ 9,245.60$ 9,708.40$ Planner - Associate M125 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 48.45$ 50.87$ 53.41$ 56.08$ 58.88$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 3,876.00$ 4,069.60$ 4,272.80$ 4,486.40$ 4,710.40$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,398.00$ 8,817.47$ 9,257.73$ 9,720.53$ 10,205.87$ Planner - Principal M590 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 64.48$ 67.70$ 71.08$ 74.63$ 78.36$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,158.40$ 5,416.00$ 5,686.40$ 5,970.40$ 6,268.80$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,176.53$ 11,734.67$ 12,320.53$ 12,935.87$ 13,582.40$ Planner - Senior M335 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 60.01$ 63.01$ 66.16$ 69.47$ 72.94$ Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,800.80$ 5,040.80$ 5,292.80$ 5,557.60$ 5,835.20$ Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,401.73$ 10,921.73$ 11,467.73$ 12,041.47$ 12,642.93$ Planning Technician A462 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 42.83$ 44.97$ 47.22$ 49.58$ 52.06$ Planning Technician A462 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,426.40$ 3,597.60$ 3,777.60$ 3,966.40$ 4,164.80$ Planning Technician A462 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 7,423.87$ 7,794.80$ 8,184.80$ 8,593.87$ 9,023.73$ Plant Electrician I D105 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.11$ 47.37$ 49.74$ 52.23$ 54.84$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,608.80$ 3,789.60$ 3,979.20$ 4,178.40$ 4,387.20$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,819.07$ 8,210.80$ 8,621.60$ 9,053.20$ 9,505.60$ Plant Electrician II D140 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 49.62$ 52.10$ 54.71$ 57.45$ 60.32$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,969.60$ 4,168.00$ 4,376.80$ 4,596.00$ 4,825.60$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,600.80$ 9,030.67$ 9,483.07$ 9,958.00$ 10,455.47$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 62.33$ 65.45$ 68.72$ 72.16$ 75.77$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,986.40$ 5,236.00$ 5,497.60$ 5,772.80$ 6,061.60$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,803.87$ 11,344.67$ 11,911.47$ 12,507.73$ 13,133.47$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 33.90$ 36.51$ 39.12$ 41.73$ 44.34$ 46.94$ 49.55$ 54.46$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,712.00$ 2,920.80$ 3,129.60$ 3,338.40$ 3,547.20$ 3,755.20$ 3,964.00$ 4,356.80$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 5,876.00$ 6,328.40$ 6,780.80$ 7,233.20$ 7,685.60$ 8,136.27$ 8,588.67$ 9,439.73$ Plant Mechanic I D130 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 40.70$ 42.74$ 44.88$ 47.12$ 49.48$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,256.00$ 3,419.20$ 3,590.40$ 3,769.60$ 3,958.40$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,054.67$ 7,408.27$ 7,779.20$ 8,167.47$ 8,576.53$ Plant Mechanic II D135 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 44.81$ 47.05$ 49.40$ 51.87$ 54.46$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,584.80$ 3,764.00$ 3,952.00$ 4,149.60$ 4,356.80$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,767.07$ 8,155.33$ 8,562.67$ 8,990.80$ 9,439.73$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 50.50$ 53.02$ 55.67$ 58.45$ 61.37$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 4,040.00$ 4,241.60$ 4,453.60$ 4,676.00$ 4,909.60$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,753.33$ 9,190.13$ 9,649.47$ 10,131.33$ 10,637.47$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 33.90$ 36.51$ 39.12$ 41.73$ 44.34$ 46.94$ 49.55$ 52.16$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,712.00$ 2,920.80$ 3,129.60$ 3,338.40$ 3,547.20$ 3,755.20$ 3,964.00$ 4,172.80$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 5,876.00$ 6,328.40$ 6,780.80$ 7,233.20$ 7,685.60$ 8,136.27$ 8,588.67$ 9,041.07$ Plant Operator I D145 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,119.20$ 3,275.20$ 3,439.20$ 3,611.20$ 3,792.00$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 6,758.27$ 7,096.27$ 7,451.60$ 7,824.27$ 8,216.00$ Plant Operator II D150 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 42.91$ 45.06$ 47.31$ 49.68$ 52.16$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,432.80$ 3,604.80$ 3,784.80$ 3,974.40$ 4,172.80$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,437.73$ 7,810.40$ 8,200.40$ 8,611.20$ 9,041.07$ Plant Operator III D200 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 45.05$ 47.30$ 49.66$ 52.14$ 54.75$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,604.00$ 3,784.00$ 3,972.80$ 4,171.20$ 4,380.00$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 7,808.67$ 8,198.67$ 8,607.73$ 9,037.60$ 9,490.00$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 49.55$ 52.03$ 54.63$ 57.36$ 60.23$ Page 7 of 10 65 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 3,964.00$ 4,162.40$ 4,370.40$ 4,588.80$ 4,818.40$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 8,588.67$ 9,018.53$ 9,469.20$ 9,942.40$ 10,439.87$ Plant Superintendent M355 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 83.06$ 87.21$ 91.57$ 96.15$ 100.96$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,644.80$ 6,976.80$ 7,325.60$ 7,692.00$ 8,076.80$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 14,397.07$ 15,116.40$ 15,872.13$ 16,666.00$ 17,499.73$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 79.04$ 82.99$ 87.14$ 91.50$ 96.08$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,323.20$ 6,639.20$ 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ 7,686.40$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 13,700.27$ 14,384.93$ 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ 16,653.87$ Plant Utility Worker D125 7/7/2023 WQCP OP ENG Hourly 35.70$ 37.48$ 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Bi-Weekly 2,856.00$ 2,998.40$ 3,148.00$ 3,305.60$ 3,471.20$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG Monthly 6,188.00$ 6,496.53$ 6,820.67$ 7,162.13$ 7,520.93$ Police Captain M280 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 105.88$ 111.17$ 116.73$ 122.57$ 128.70$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 8,470.40$ 8,893.60$ 9,338.40$ 9,805.60$ 10,296.00$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 18,352.53$ 19,269.47$ 20,233.20$ 21,245.47$ 22,308.00$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 112.23$ 117.84$ 123.73$ 129.92$ 136.42$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 8,978.40$ 9,427.20$ 9,898.40$ 10,393.60$ 10,913.60$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 19,453.20$ 20,425.60$ 21,446.53$ 22,519.47$ 23,646.13$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.66$ 69.99$ 73.49$ 77.16$ 81.02$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,332.80$ 5,599.20$ 5,879.20$ 6,172.80$ 6,481.60$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,554.40$ 12,131.60$ 12,738.27$ 13,374.40$ 14,043.47$ Police Corporal C100 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 69.66$ 71.40$ 73.19$ 75.02$ Police Corporal C100 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 5,572.80$ 5,712.00$ 5,855.20$ 6,001.60$ Police Corporal C100 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 12,074.40$ 12,376.00$ 12,686.27$ 13,003.47$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/7/2023 PSM POLICE Hourly 89.51$ 93.99$ 98.69$ 103.62$ 108.80$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Bi-Weekly 7,160.80$ 7,519.20$ 7,895.20$ 8,289.60$ 8,704.00$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE Monthly 15,515.07$ 16,291.60$ 17,106.27$ 17,960.80$ 18,858.67$ Police Media Technician C220 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Police Media Technician C220 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,842.40$ 2,984.80$ 3,134.40$ 3,291.20$ 3,456.00$ Police Media Technician C220 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,158.53$ 6,467.07$ 6,791.20$ 7,130.93$ 7,488.00$ Police Officer C115 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 52.01$ 55.65$ 59.55$ 63.72$ 68.18$ Police Officer C115 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 4,160.80$ 4,452.00$ 4,764.00$ 5,097.60$ 5,454.40$ Police Officer C115 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 9,015.07$ 9,646.00$ 10,322.00$ 11,044.80$ 11,817.87$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 34.69$ 36.42$ 38.24$ 40.15$ 42.16$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,775.20$ 2,913.60$ 3,059.20$ 3,212.00$ 3,372.80$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,012.93$ 6,312.80$ 6,628.27$ 6,959.33$ 7,307.73$ Police Records Specialist C105 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 32.05$ 33.65$ 35.33$ 37.10$ 38.96$ Police Records Specialist C105 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,564.00$ 2,692.00$ 2,826.40$ 2,968.00$ 3,116.80$ Police Records Specialist C105 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,555.33$ 5,832.67$ 6,123.87$ 6,430.67$ 6,753.07$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 33.77$ 35.46$ 37.23$ 39.09$ 41.04$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,701.60$ 2,836.80$ 2,978.40$ 3,127.20$ 3,283.20$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,853.47$ 6,146.40$ 6,453.20$ 6,775.60$ 7,113.60$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 36.87$ 38.71$ 40.65$ 42.68$ 44.81$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,949.60$ 3,096.80$ 3,252.00$ 3,414.40$ 3,584.80$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 6,390.80$ 6,709.73$ 7,046.00$ 7,397.87$ 7,767.07$ Police Recruit C190 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 51.00$ Police Recruit C190 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 4,080.00$ Police Recruit C190 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 8,840.00$ Police Sergeant C165 7/7/2023 PO SWORN Hourly 74.74$ 76.61$ 78.53$ 80.49$ 82.50$ Police Sergeant C165 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Bi-Weekly 5,979.20$ 6,128.80$ 6,282.40$ 6,439.20$ 6,600.00$ Police Sergeant C165 10/14/2022 PO SWORN Monthly 12,954.93$ 13,279.07$ 13,611.87$ 13,951.60$ 14,300.00$ Police Service Technician C125 7/7/2023 PO NONWORN Hourly 32.99$ 34.64$ 36.37$ 38.19$ 40.10$ Police Service Technician C125 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Bi-Weekly 2,639.20$ 2,771.20$ 2,909.60$ 3,055.20$ 3,208.00$ Police Service Technician C125 10/14/2022 PO NONWORN Monthly 5,718.27$ 6,004.27$ 6,304.13$ 6,619.60$ 6,950.67$ Preschool Teacher I A495 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 26.30$ 27.61$ 28.99$ 30.44$ 31.96$ Preschool Teacher I A495 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,104.00$ 2,208.80$ 2,319.20$ 2,435.20$ 2,556.80$ Page 8 of 10 66 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Preschool Teacher I A495 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,558.67$ 4,785.73$ 5,024.93$ 5,276.27$ 5,539.73$ Preschool Teacher II A680 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 28.93$ 30.38$ 31.90$ 33.49$ 35.16$ Preschool Teacher II A680 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,314.40$ 2,430.40$ 2,552.00$ 2,679.20$ 2,812.80$ Preschool Teacher II A680 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,014.53$ 5,265.87$ 5,529.33$ 5,804.93$ 6,094.40$ Program Manager M750 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 66.16$ 69.47$ 72.94$ 76.59$ 80.42$ Program Manager M750 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 5,292.80$ 5,557.60$ 5,835.20$ 6,127.20$ 6,433.60$ Program Manager M750 10/14/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 11,467.73$ 12,041.47$ 12,642.93$ 13,275.60$ 13,939.47$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 87.14$ 91.50$ 96.08$ 100.88$ 105.92$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 6,971.20$ 7,320.00$ 7,686.40$ 8,070.40$ 8,473.60$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 15,104.27$ 15,860.00$ 16,653.87$ 17,485.87$ 18,359.47$ Public Works Inspector A310 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 48.48$ 50.90$ 53.44$ 56.11$ 58.92$ Public Works Inspector A310 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,878.40$ 4,072.00$ 4,275.20$ 4,488.80$ 4,713.60$ Public Works Inspector A310 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 8,403.20$ 8,822.67$ 9,262.93$ 9,725.73$ 10,212.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 33.17$ 34.83$ 36.57$ 38.40$ 40.32$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,653.60$ 2,786.40$ 2,925.60$ 3,072.00$ 3,225.60$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 5,749.47$ 6,037.20$ 6,338.80$ 6,656.00$ 6,988.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.48$ 41.45$ 43.52$ 45.70$ 47.98$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,158.40$ 3,316.00$ 3,481.60$ 3,656.00$ 3,838.40$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,843.20$ 7,184.67$ 7,543.47$ 7,921.33$ 8,316.53$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.19$ 41.15$ 43.21$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 2,843.20$ 2,985.60$ 3,135.20$ 3,292.00$ 3,456.80$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,160.27$ 6,468.80$ 6,792.93$ 7,132.67$ 7,489.73$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 35.73$ 37.52$ 39.40$ 41.37$ 43.44$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 2,858.40$ 3,001.60$ 3,152.00$ 3,309.60$ 3,475.20$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 6,193.20$ 6,503.47$ 6,829.33$ 7,170.80$ 7,529.60$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 51.05$ 53.60$ 56.28$ 59.09$ 62.04$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,084.00$ 4,288.00$ 4,502.40$ 4,727.20$ 4,963.20$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 8,848.67$ 9,290.67$ 9,755.20$ 10,242.27$ 10,753.60$ Recreation Leader II A610 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 19.87$ 20.86$ 21.90$ 22.99$ 24.14$ Recreation Leader II A610 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,589.60$ 1,668.80$ 1,752.00$ 1,839.20$ 1,931.20$ Recreation Leader II A610 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,444.13$ 3,615.73$ 3,796.00$ 3,984.93$ 4,184.27$ Recreation Leader III A620 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 21.53$ 22.61$ 23.74$ 24.93$ 26.18$ Recreation Leader III A620 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,722.40$ 1,808.80$ 1,899.20$ 1,994.40$ 2,094.40$ Recreation Leader III A620 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,731.87$ 3,919.07$ 4,114.93$ 4,321.20$ 4,537.87$ Recreation Leader IV A515 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 23.90$ 25.09$ 26.34$ 27.66$ 29.04$ Recreation Leader IV A515 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,912.00$ 2,007.20$ 2,107.20$ 2,212.80$ 2,323.20$ Recreation Leader IV A515 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 4,142.67$ 4,348.93$ 4,565.60$ 4,794.40$ 5,033.60$ Safety Inspector I B200 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 58.79$ 61.73$ 64.82$ 68.06$ 71.46$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 4,703.20$ 4,938.40$ 5,185.60$ 5,444.80$ 5,716.80$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 10,190.27$ 10,699.87$ 11,235.47$ 11,797.07$ 12,386.40$ Safety Inspector II B195 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 64.65$ 67.88$ 71.27$ 74.83$ 78.57$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,172.00$ 5,430.40$ 5,701.60$ 5,986.40$ 6,285.60$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 11,206.00$ 11,765.87$ 12,353.47$ 12,970.53$ 13,618.80$ Safety Inspector III B190 7/7/2023 IAFF Hourly 69.52$ 73.00$ 76.65$ 80.48$ 84.50$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF Bi-Weekly 5,561.60$ 5,840.00$ 6,132.00$ 6,438.40$ 6,760.00$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF Monthly 12,050.13$ 12,653.33$ 13,286.00$ 13,949.87$ 14,646.67$ Sweeper Operator A370 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 38.61$ 40.54$ 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ Sweeper Operator A370 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,088.80$ 3,243.20$ 3,405.60$ 3,576.00$ 3,755.20$ Sweeper Operator A370 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,692.40$ 7,026.93$ 7,378.80$ 7,748.00$ 8,136.27$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 7/7/2023 MID MGMT Hourly 61.87$ 64.96$ 68.21$ 71.62$ 75.20$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Bi-Weekly 4,949.60$ 5,196.80$ 5,456.80$ 5,729.60$ 6,016.00$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT Monthly 10,724.13$ 11,259.73$ 11,823.07$ 12,414.13$ 13,034.67$ Tree Trimmer A375 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 39.78$ 41.77$ 43.86$ 46.05$ 48.35$ Tree Trimmer A375 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 3,182.40$ 3,341.60$ 3,508.80$ 3,684.00$ 3,868.00$ Tree Trimmer A375 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 6,895.20$ 7,240.13$ 7,602.40$ 7,982.00$ 8,380.67$ Page 9 of 10 67 Regular Full-Time Employees City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Van Driver A510 7/7/2023 AFSCME Hourly 19.37$ 20.34$ 21.36$ 22.43$ 23.55$ Van Driver A510 10/14/2022 AFSCME Bi-Weekly 1,549.60$ 1,627.20$ 1,708.80$ 1,794.40$ 1,884.00$ Van Driver A510 10/14/2022 AFSCME Monthly 3,357.47$ 3,525.60$ 3,702.40$ 3,887.87$ 4,082.00$ Page 10 of 10 68 Hourly Employees Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accounting Assistant II - Hourly X100 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.97$ 33.57$ 35.25$ 37.01$ 38.86$ Administrative Assistant I - Hourly X110 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.53$ 37.31$ 39.18$ 41.14$ 43.20$ Administrative Assistant II - Hourly X130 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Building Inspector - Hourly X595 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ 59.75$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Hourly X185 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.27$ 29.68$ 31.16$ 32.72$ 34.36$ Communications Dispatcher - Hourly X445 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 51.22$ Community Services Site Coordinator - Hourly X660 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.30$ 29.72$ 31.21$ 32.77$ 34.41$ Consultant - Hourly X570 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 139.05$ Cultural Arts Specialist - Hourly X650 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.61$ 40.54$ 42.57$ 44.70$ 46.94$ Emergency Medical Technician - Hourly X281 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 20.75$ 21.79$ 22.88$ 24.02$ 25.22$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Hourly X465 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 45.08$ 47.33$ 49.70$ 52.18$ 54.79$ Equipment Mechanic - Hourly X510 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.02$ 42.02$ 44.12$ 46.33$ 48.65$ Fire Courier - Hourly X540 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 22.50$ 23.62$ 24.80$ 26.04$ 27.34$ Human Resources Clerk - Hourly X310 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 34.08$ 35.78$ 37.57$ 39.45$ 41.42$ Human Resources Technician - Hourly X265 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.43$ 39.30$ 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ Intern - Hourly X115 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 40.00$ Laboratory Chemist - Hourly X545 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 52.50$ 55.13$ 57.89$ 60.78$ 63.82$ Librarian I - Hourly X210 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 37.21$ 39.07$ 41.02$ 43.07$ 45.22$ Librarian II - Hourly X670 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.93$ 42.98$ 45.13$ 47.39$ 49.76$ Library Assistant I - Hourly X220 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.67$ 30.10$ 31.61$ 33.19$ 34.85$ Library Assistant II - Hourly X225 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ 38.50$ Library Clerk - Hourly X235 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.75$ 32.29$ 33.90$ 35.60$ 37.38$ Library Page - Hourly X250 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 17.41$ 18.28$ 19.19$ 20.15$ 21.16$ Literacy Services Assistant Coordinator - Hourly X655 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.95$ 32.50$ 34.12$ 35.83$ 37.62$ Literacy Services Assistant I - Hourly X665 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.02$ 29.42$ 30.89$ 32.43$ 34.05$ Miscellaneous Hourly X280 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 87.55$ Office Assistant - Hourly X440 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 27.19$ 28.55$ 29.98$ 31.48$ 33.05$ Office Specialist - Hourly X415 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.15$ 31.66$ 33.24$ 34.90$ 36.64$ Park Maintenance Worker - Hourly X300 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.55$ 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ Parking Enforcement Officer - Hourly X180 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 29.90$ 31.40$ 32.97$ 34.62$ 36.35$ Planner- Associate - Hourly X125 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 48.45$ 50.87$ 53.41$ 56.08$ 58.88$ Planner- Senior - Hourly X335 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 55.71$ 58.50$ 61.42$ 64.49$ 67.71$ Plant Electrician I - Hourly X500 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 45.11$ 47.37$ 49.74$ 52.23$ 54.84$ Plant Mechanic - Hourly X355 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 40.15$ 42.16$ 44.27$ 46.48$ 48.80$ Plant Mechanic- Assistant - Hourly X135 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 34.08$ 35.78$ 37.57$ 39.45$ 41.42$ Plant Operator I - Contract Ft X145 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator I - Hourly X140 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.99$ 45.14$ 47.40$ Plant Operator II - Hourly X530 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 42.91$ 45.06$ 47.31$ 49.68$ 52.16$ Plant Utility Worker - Hourly X490 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.70$ 37.48$ 39.35$ 41.32$ 43.39$ Police Court Liaison - Hourly X193 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.75$ 32.29$ 33.90$ 35.60$ 37.38$ Police Property/Evidence Assistant - Hourly X190 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 29.02$ 30.47$ 31.99$ 33.59$ 35.27$ Police Records Specialist - Hourly X191 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.05$ 33.65$ 35.33$ 37.10$ 38.96$ Police Reserve Officer - Hourly X325 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 47.75$ Police Service Technician - Hourly X192 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.99$ 34.64$ 36.37$ 38.19$ 40.10$ Preschool Teacher I - Hourly X690 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 25.81$ 27.10$ 28.45$ 29.87$ 31.36$ Preschool Teacher II - Hourly X680 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 28.39$ 29.81$ 31.30$ 32.86$ 34.50$ Promotores X120 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 30.17$ 31.68$ 33.26$ 34.92$ 36.67$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Hourly X345 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 32.55$ 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ Recreation & Community Services Prog Coor - Hourly X700 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 35.73$ 37.52$ 39.40$ 41.37$ 43.44$ Recreation Instructor - Hourly X350 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 16.74$ 40.00$ Recreation Leader I - Hourly X360 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 17.41$ 18.28$ 19.19$ 20.15$ 21.16$ Recreation Leader II - Hourly X365 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 19.49$ 20.46$ 21.48$ 22.55$ 23.68$ Recreation Leader III - Hourly X370 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 21.13$ 22.19$ 23.30$ 24.47$ 25.69$ Recreation Leader IV - Hourly X375 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 23.45$ 24.62$ 25.85$ 27.14$ 28.50$ Page 1 of 2 69 Hourly Employees Only City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 7/7/2023 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT Pay Type STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Safety Inspector - Hourly X181 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 31.16$ 32.72$ 34.36$ 36.08$ 37.88$ Van Driver - Hourly X555 7/7/2023 HOURLY Hourly 19.37$ 20.34$ 21.36$ 22.43$ 23.55$ Page 2 of 2 70 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-557 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:6b. Resolution approving an amendment to the City of South San Francisco Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. WHEREAS, on July 27, 2022 City Council approved the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan for July 1, 2023-June 30, 2025, and on September 28, 2022 City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with IAFF Local 1507 for July 1, 2023-June 30, 2025, providing for salaries, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment; and WHEREAS, the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan provides for a fifteen percent (15%) salary differential between the Battalion Chief classifications (Fire and EMS) and that of the Fire Captain classification, including all incentives, and provides for the maintenance of a 16.38% salary differential between the Deputy Fire Chief and Battalion Chief classifications; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the current salary structure with representatives of the Public Safety Managers and determined that an additional adjustment was required, due to the recent addition of a two percent (2%) special assignment pay in the IAFF Local 1507 MOU; and WHEREAS, to remedy the issue and maintain compliance with the Public Safety Managers Compensation Plan, staff recommends an adjustment to the salaries of the Fire Battalion Chief, EMS Battalion Chief, and Deputy Fire Chief effective September 30, 2022. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby approve the Wage and Salary Schedule for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, attached hereto as Exhibit A. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™71 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 51.44$ 54.01$ 56.71$ 59.55$ 62.53$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 42.54$ 44.67$ 46.90$ 49.25$ 51.71$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 46.77$ 49.11$ 51.57$ 54.15$ 56.86$ Accounting Assistant I A480 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.67$ 26.95$ 28.30$ 29.71$ 31.20$ Accounting Assistant II A225 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.20$ 29.61$ 31.09$ 32.65$ 34.28$ Accounting Assistant II - Hourly X100 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.20$ 29.61$ 31.09$ 32.65$ 34.28$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.67$ 43.76$ 45.95$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ 41.54$ Administrative Assistant I - Hourly X110 7/9/2021 HOURLY 31.35$ 32.92$ 34.57$ 36.30$ 38.11$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ Administrative Assistant II - Hourly X130 7/9/2021 HOURLY 33.01$ 34.66$ 36.40$ 38.22$ 40.13$ Building Inspector A135 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Building Inspector - Hourly X595 7/9/2021 HOURLY 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 7/9/2021 AFSCME 48.01$ 50.41$ 52.93$ 55.58$ 58.36$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.96$ 35.66$ 37.44$ 39.32$ 41.28$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 7/9/2021 AFSCME 24.94$ 26.19$ 27.49$ 28.87$ 30.31$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Hourly X185 7/9/2021 HOURLY 24.94$ 26.19$ 27.49$ 28.87$ 30.31$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 7/9/2021 AFSCME 31.57$ 33.15$ 34.81$ 36.55$ 38.38$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 7/9/2021 AFSCME 27.46$ 28.84$ 30.28$ 31.79$ 33.38$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 63.48$ 66.65$ 69.98$ 73.48$ 77.15$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 7/9/2021 AFSCME 46.05$ 48.35$ 50.77$ 53.30$ 55.97$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 60.50$ 63.53$ 66.71$ 70.05$ 73.55$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 37.16$ 39.02$ 40.97$ 43.02$ 45.17$ City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 73.95$ 77.65$ 81.53$ 85.61$ 89.89$ City Clerk E100 6/25/2021 ELECT 73.37$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.00$ 49.35$ 51.82$ 54.41$ 57.13$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ City Council Member E110 7/12/2019 ELECT 92.31$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 71.84$ 75.42$ 79.19$ 83.15$ 87.31$ City Treasurer E105 7/12/2019 ELECT 7.72$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.64$ 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.57$ 45.75$ Communications Dispatcher A150 7/9/2021 AFSCME 36.85$ 38.70$ 40.63$ 42.66$ 44.79$ Communications Dispatcher - Hourly X445 7/9/2021 HOURLY 46.99$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.47$ 45.64$ 47.93$ 50.32$ 52.84$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 45.83$ 48.13$ 50.54$ 53.07$ 55.73$ Community Development Specialist A660 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.24$ 43.30$ 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 7/9/2021 AFSCME 24.98$ 26.23$ 27.54$ 28.92$ 30.36$ Community Services Site Coordinator - Hourly X660 7/9/2021 HOURLY 24.98$ 26.23$ 27.54$ 28.92$ 30.36$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID 44.58$ 46.81$ 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID 46.81$ 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ Consultant - Hourly X570 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 139.05$ Crime Analyst C210 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 44.31$ 46.53$ 48.85$ 51.29$ 53.86$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.06$ 35.76$ 37.55$ 39.42$ 41.40$ Cultural Arts Specialist - Hourly X650 7/9/2021 HOURLY 34.06$ 35.76$ 37.55$ 39.42$ 41.40$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID 34.99$ 36.74$ 38.58$ 40.51$ 42.54$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID 39.58$ 41.56$ 43.64$ 45.83$ 48.13$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 79.97$ 83.97$ 88.17$ 92.58$ 97.21$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 1 of 5 72 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 77.77$ 81.66$ 85.74$ 90.03$ 94.53$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.02$ 64.07$ 67.27$ 70.63$ 74.16$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 56.87$ 59.71$ 62.70$ 65.83$ 69.12$ Electrical Technician A160 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.42$ 43.49$ 45.67$ 47.95$ 50.35$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.57$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ 37.15$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 7/9/2021 AFSCME 51.11$ 53.67$ 56.35$ 59.17$ 62.13$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 7/9/2021 AFSCME 45.45$ 47.72$ 50.10$ 52.61$ 55.24$ Emergency Medical Technician - Hourly X281 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.82$ 19.76$ 20.75$ 21.79$ 22.88$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 49.70$ 52.19$ 54.80$ 57.54$ 60.42$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 87.31$ 91.68$ 96.26$ 101.07$ 106.12$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 57.91$ 60.81$ 63.85$ 67.04$ 70.39$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 75.47$ 79.24$ 83.20$ 87.36$ 91.73$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 68.92$ 72.37$ 75.99$ 79.79$ 83.78$ Engineering Technician A167 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.22$ 35.93$ 37.72$ 39.61$ 41.59$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.64$ 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.57$ 45.75$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Hourly X465 7/9/2021 HOURLY 40.89$ 42.93$ 45.08$ 47.33$ 49.70$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 54.54$ 57.27$ 60.13$ 63.14$ 66.30$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.43$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 48.34$ 50.76$ 53.30$ 55.97$ 58.77$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 72.38$ 76.00$ 79.80$ 83.79$ 87.98$ Equipment Mechanic A170 7/9/2021 AFSCME 35.31$ 37.08$ 38.93$ 40.88$ 42.92$ Equipment Mechanic - Hourly X510 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.31$ 37.08$ 38.93$ 40.88$ 42.92$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.24$ 40.15$ 42.16$ 44.27$ 46.48$ Equipment Operator A175 7/9/2021 AFSCME 35.40$ 37.17$ 39.03$ 40.98$ 43.03$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID 44.23$ 46.44$ 48.76$ 51.20$ 53.76$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 52.90$ 55.54$ 58.32$ 61.24$ 64.30$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 43.74$ 45.93$ 48.23$ 50.64$ 53.17$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 48.10$ 50.51$ 53.04$ 55.69$ 58.47$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 66.13$ 69.44$ 72.91$ 76.56$ 80.39$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF 41.78$ 43.87$ 46.06$ 48.36$ 50.78$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF 58.49$ 61.41$ 64.48$ 67.70$ 71.08$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 87.31$ 91.68$ 96.26$ 101.07$ 106.12$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 112 62.36$ 65.48$ 68.75$ 72.19$ 75.80$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF 65.38$ 68.65$ 72.08$ 75.68$ 79.46$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF 46.70$ 49.04$ 51.49$ 54.06$ 56.76$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 101.58$ 106.66$ 111.99$ 117.59$ 123.47$ Fire Courier - Hourly X540 7/9/2021 HOURLY 20.40$ 21.43$ 22.50$ 23.62$ 24.80$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 88.28$ 92.69$ 97.32$ 102.19$ 107.30$ Groundsperson A505 7/9/2021 AFSCME 32.23$ 33.85$ 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.18$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 52.32$ 54.94$ 57.69$ 60.57$ 63.60$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 43.23$ 45.40$ 47.68$ 50.07$ 52.58$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.53$ 49.91$ 52.41$ 55.03$ 57.78$ Human Resources Clerk - Hourly X310 7/9/2021 HOURLY 30.92$ 32.47$ 34.09$ 35.79$ 37.58$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 68.15$ 71.56$ 75.14$ 78.90$ 82.84$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ Human Resources Technician - Hourly X265 7/9/2021 HOURLY 33.01$ 34.66$ 36.40$ 38.22$ 40.13$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.05$ 64.10$ 67.31$ 70.68$ 74.21$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 2 of 5 73 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.10$ 67.31$ 70.68$ 74.21$ 77.92$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 67.46$ 70.83$ 74.37$ 78.09$ 81.99$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 50.50$ 53.02$ 55.67$ 58.45$ 61.37$ Laboratory Chemist - Hourly X545 7/9/2021 HOURLY 45.85$ 48.14$ 50.55$ 53.08$ 55.73$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 58.32$ 61.24$ 64.30$ 67.52$ 70.90$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.20$ 67.41$ 70.79$ 74.33$ 78.05$ Landscape Architect M815 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 62.50$ 65.62$ 68.90$ 72.35$ 75.97$ Librarian I A210 7/9/2021 AFSCME 32.82$ 34.46$ 36.18$ 37.99$ 39.89$ Librarian I - Hourly X210 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.82$ 34.46$ 36.18$ 37.99$ 39.89$ Librarian II A240 7/9/2021 AFSCME 36.12$ 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ Librarian II - Hourly X670 7/9/2021 HOURLY 36.12$ 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ Library Assistant I A220 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.77$ 27.06$ 28.41$ 29.83$ 31.32$ Library Assistant I - Hourly X220 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.77$ 27.06$ 28.41$ 29.83$ 31.32$ Library Assistant II A215 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.46$ 29.89$ 31.38$ 32.95$ 34.60$ Library Assistant II - Hourly X225 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.46$ 29.89$ 31.38$ 32.95$ 34.60$ Library Clerk - Hourly X235 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.43$ 19.35$ 20.32$ 21.34$ 22.40$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 67.52$ 70.90$ 74.45$ 78.17$ 82.08$ Library Page - Hourly X250 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 16.59$ 17.42$ 18.29$ 19.20$ Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 53.53$ 56.21$ 59.03$ 61.99$ 65.09$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.69$ 35.38$ 37.15$ 39.00$ 40.95$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 53.53$ 56.21$ 59.03$ 61.99$ 65.09$ Literacy Services Assistant Coordinator - Hourly X655 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.07$ 29.48$ 30.95$ 32.50$ 34.12$ Literacy Services Assistant I - Hourly X665 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.41$ 26.68$ 28.02$ 29.42$ 30.89$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.07$ 38.93$ 40.87$ 42.92$ 45.06$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.96$ 35.66$ 37.44$ 39.32$ 41.28$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.70$ 50.09$ 52.60$ 55.24$ 58.01$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.00$ 49.35$ 51.82$ 54.41$ 57.13$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 51.69$ 54.27$ 56.98$ 59.83$ 62.82$ Miscellaneous Hourly X280 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 87.55$ Office Assistant - Hourly X440 7/9/2021 HOURLY 23.85$ 25.04$ 26.29$ 27.60$ 28.98$ Office Specialist A295 7/9/2021 AFSCME 26.59$ 27.92$ 29.32$ 30.78$ 32.32$ Office Specialist - Hourly X415 7/9/2021 HOURLY 26.59$ 27.92$ 29.32$ 30.78$ 32.32$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF 41.78$ 43.87$ 46.06$ 48.36$ 50.78$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF 55.69$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Park Maintenance Worker - Hourly X300 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.76$ 32.30$ 33.91$ 35.61$ 37.39$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 26.38$ 27.70$ 29.08$ 30.54$ 32.06$ Parking Enforcement Officer - Hourly X180 7/9/2021 HOURLY 26.38$ 27.70$ 29.08$ 30.54$ 32.06$ Parking System Technician A245 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 76.50$ 80.32$ 84.34$ 88.56$ 92.99$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.66$ 50.04$ 52.54$ 55.17$ 57.93$ Permit Technician A460 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.86$ 40.80$ 42.84$ 44.99$ 47.24$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.34$ 43.40$ 45.57$ 47.85$ 50.24$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 46.57$ 48.90$ 51.35$ 53.92$ 56.62$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.98$ 65.08$ 68.34$ 71.76$ 75.35$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 3 of 5 74 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 57.68$ 60.57$ 63.60$ 66.79$ 70.13$ Planner- Associate - Hourly X125 7/9/2021 HOURLY 43.25$ 45.41$ 47.68$ 50.07$ 52.57$ Planner- Senior - Hourly X335 7/9/2021 HOURLY 53.56$ 56.24$ 59.05$ 62.01$ 65.11$ Planning Technician A462 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.85$ 40.80$ 42.83$ 44.98$ 47.23$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.38$ 45.55$ 47.83$ 50.22$ 52.73$ Plant Electrician I - Hourly X500 7/9/2021 HOURLY 40.14$ 42.15$ 44.25$ 46.47$ 48.79$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 47.71$ 50.10$ 52.61$ 55.24$ 58.00$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 59.93$ 62.93$ 66.08$ 69.39$ 72.86$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 34.04$ 36.66$ 39.28$ 41.90$ 44.51$ 47.13$ 49.75$ 52.37$ Plant Mechanic - Hourly X355 7/9/2021 HOURLY 36.41$ 38.23$ 40.14$ 42.15$ 44.26$ Plant Mechanic- Assistant - Hourly X135 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.77$ 34.41$ 36.13$ 37.93$ 39.83$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 39.14$ 41.10$ 43.15$ 45.31$ 47.58$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.09$ 45.24$ 47.50$ 49.88$ 52.37$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 48.54$ 50.97$ 53.52$ 56.20$ 59.01$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 32.60$ 35.11$ 37.61$ 40.12$ 42.63$ 45.14$ 47.64$ 50.15$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 37.50$ 39.37$ 41.34$ 43.41$ 45.58$ Plant Operator I - Contract Ft X145 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.36$ 37.13$ 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.98$ Plant Operator I - Hourly X140 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.36$ 37.13$ 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.98$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ 47.76$ 50.15$ Plant Operator II - Hourly X530 7/9/2021 HOURLY 38.90$ 40.85$ 42.89$ 45.04$ 47.29$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.30$ 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ 52.64$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 47.64$ 50.02$ 52.52$ 55.15$ 57.91$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 79.88$ 83.87$ 88.06$ 92.46$ 97.08$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 76.00$ 79.80$ 83.79$ 87.98$ 92.38$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 34.32$ 36.04$ 37.84$ 39.73$ 41.72$ Plant Utility Worker - Hourly X490 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.36$ 33.98$ 35.68$ 37.46$ 39.34$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 102.79$ 107.93$ 113.33$ 119.00$ 124.95$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 108.95$ 114.40$ 120.13$ 126.14$ 132.45$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.10$ 67.30$ 70.66$ 74.19$ 77.90$ Police Corporal C100 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 61.44$ 62.98$ 64.55$ 66.17$ Police Court Liaison - Hourly X193 7/9/2021 HOURLY 27.90$ 29.29$ 30.76$ 32.29$ 33.91$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 86.90$ 91.25$ 95.81$ 100.60$ 105.63$ Police Media Technician C220 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 31.35$ 32.92$ 34.57$ 36.30$ 38.11$ Police Officer C115 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 45.89$ 49.10$ 52.54$ 56.22$ 60.15$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 30.60$ 32.13$ 33.74$ 35.42$ 37.19$ Police Property/Evidence Assistant - Hourly X190 7/9/2021 HOURLY 27.90$ 29.29$ 30.76$ 32.29$ 33.91$ Police Records Specialist C105 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 28.28$ 29.69$ 31.18$ 32.73$ 34.37$ Police Records Specialist - Hourly X191 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.28$ 29.69$ 31.18$ 32.73$ 34.37$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 29.79$ 31.27$ 32.84$ 34.48$ 36.20$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 32.52$ 34.15$ 35.86$ 37.65$ 39.53$ Police Recruit C190 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 44.99$ Police Reserve Officer - Hourly X325 7/9/2021 HOURLY 47.75$ Police Sergeant C165 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 65.93$ 67.58$ 69.27$ 71.00$ 72.78$ Police Service Technician C125 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 29.11$ 30.56$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ Police Service Technician - Hourly X192 7/9/2021 HOURLY 29.11$ 30.56$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ Preschool Teacher I A495 7/9/2021 AFSCME 22.75$ 23.89$ 25.08$ 26.34$ 27.66$ Preschool Teacher I - Hourly X690 7/9/2021 HOURLY 22.75$ 23.89$ 25.08$ 26.34$ 27.66$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 4 of 5 75 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Preschool Teacher II A680 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.03$ 26.28$ 27.60$ 28.98$ 30.43$ Preschool Teacher II - Hourly X680 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.03$ 26.28$ 27.60$ 28.98$ 30.43$ Program Manager M750 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.46$ 64.53$ 67.76$ 71.15$ 74.71$ Public Works Administrator M795 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 58.85$ 61.79$ 64.88$ 68.12$ 71.53$ Public Works Assistant Director/City Engineer M755 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 86.70$ 91.04$ 95.59$ 100.37$ 105.39$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 83.79$ 87.98$ 92.38$ 97.00$ 101.85$ Public Works Inspector A310 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Hourly X345 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.76$ 32.30$ 33.91$ 35.61$ 37.39$ Recreation & Community Services Manager M715 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 58.75$ 61.69$ 64.77$ 68.01$ 71.41$ Recreation & Community Services Prog Coor - Hourly X700 7/9/2021 HOURLY 31.52$ 33.10$ 34.75$ 36.49$ 38.32$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 34.37$ 36.09$ 37.89$ 39.78$ 41.77$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 49.05$ 51.51$ 54.09$ 56.80$ 59.65$ Recreation Instructor - Hourly X350 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 39.14$ Recreation Leader I - Hourly X360 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 16.59$ 17.42$ 18.29$ 19.20$ Recreation Leader II A610 7/9/2021 AFSCME 17.18$ 18.04$ 18.95$ 19.89$ 20.89$ Recreation Leader II - Hourly X365 7/9/2021 HOURLY 17.18$ 18.04$ 18.95$ 19.89$ 20.89$ Recreation Leader III A620 7/9/2021 AFSCME 18.64$ 19.57$ 20.55$ 21.58$ 22.66$ Recreation Leader III - Hourly X370 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.64$ 19.57$ 20.55$ 21.58$ 22.66$ Recreation Leader IV A515 7/9/2021 AFSCME 20.68$ 21.72$ 22.80$ 23.95$ 25.14$ Recreation Leader IV - Hourly X375 7/9/2021 HOURLY 20.68$ 21.72$ 22.80$ 23.95$ 25.14$ Safety Inspector - Hourly X181 7/9/2021 HOURLY 29.96$ 31.46$ 33.03$ 34.69$ 36.42$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF 56.52$ 59.35$ 62.32$ 65.44$ 68.71$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF 62.15$ 65.26$ 68.52$ 71.95$ 75.55$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF 66.85$ 70.19$ 73.70$ 77.38$ 81.25$ Sweeper Operator A370 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.42$ 35.09$ 36.85$ 38.69$ 40.62$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 59.50$ 62.47$ 65.59$ 68.87$ 72.31$ Tree Trimmer A375 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.42$ 36.14$ 37.95$ 39.85$ 41.84$ Van Driver A510 7/9/2021 AFSCME 17.57$ 18.45$ 19.38$ 20.34$ 21.36$ Van Driver - Hourly X555 7/9/2021 HOURLY 17.57$ 18.45$ 19.38$ 20.34$ 21.36$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 5 of 5 76 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Accountant - Senior M625 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 51.44$ 54.01$ 56.71$ 59.55$ 62.53$ Accountant I M100 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 42.54$ 44.67$ 46.90$ 49.25$ 51.71$ Accountant II M620 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 46.77$ 49.11$ 51.57$ 54.15$ 56.86$ Accounting Assistant I A480 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.67$ 26.95$ 28.30$ 29.71$ 31.20$ Accounting Assistant II A225 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.20$ 29.61$ 31.09$ 32.65$ 34.28$ Accounting Assistant II - Hourly X100 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.20$ 29.61$ 31.09$ 32.65$ 34.28$ Administrative Assistant - Senior O340 9/16/2022 CONFID 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.67$ 43.76$ 45.95$ Administrative Assistant I O315 9/16/2022 CONFID 34.18$ 35.89$ 37.68$ 39.56$ 41.54$ Administrative Assistant I - Hourly X110 7/9/2021 HOURLY 31.35$ 32.92$ 34.57$ 36.30$ 38.11$ Administrative Assistant II O310 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ Administrative Assistant II - Hourly X130 7/9/2021 HOURLY 33.01$ 34.66$ 36.40$ 38.22$ 40.13$ Building Inspector A135 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Building Inspector - Hourly X595 7/9/2021 HOURLY 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Building Inspector - Senior A400 7/9/2021 AFSCME 48.01$ 50.41$ 52.93$ 55.58$ 58.36$ Building Maintenance Craftsworker A465 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.96$ 35.66$ 37.44$ 39.32$ 41.28$ Building Maintenance Custodian A140 7/9/2021 AFSCME 24.94$ 26.19$ 27.49$ 28.87$ 30.31$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Hourly X185 7/9/2021 HOURLY 24.94$ 26.19$ 27.49$ 28.87$ 30.31$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Lead A190 7/9/2021 AFSCME 31.57$ 33.15$ 34.81$ 36.55$ 38.38$ Building Maintenance Custodian - Senior A320 7/9/2021 AFSCME 27.46$ 28.84$ 30.28$ 31.79$ 33.38$ Building Official - Assistant M215 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 63.48$ 66.65$ 69.98$ 73.48$ 77.15$ Building Plan Reviewer A690 7/9/2021 AFSCME 46.05$ 48.35$ 50.77$ 53.30$ 55.97$ Business Manager M825 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 60.50$ 63.53$ 66.71$ 70.05$ 73.55$ Childcare Assistant Supervisor M800 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 37.16$ 39.02$ 40.97$ 43.02$ 45.17$ City Building Official M210 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 73.95$ 77.65$ 81.53$ 85.61$ 89.89$ City Clerk E100 6/25/2021 ELECT 73.37$ City Clerk - Assistant M830 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.00$ 49.35$ 51.82$ 54.41$ 57.13$ City Clerk Records Technician O415 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ City Council Member E110 7/12/2019 ELECT 92.31$ City Planner M155 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 71.84$ 75.42$ 79.19$ 83.15$ 87.31$ City Treasurer E105 7/12/2019 ELECT 7.72$ Code Enforcement Officer A145 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.64$ 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.57$ 45.75$ Communications Dispatcher A150 7/9/2021 AFSCME 36.85$ 38.70$ 40.63$ 42.66$ 44.79$ Communications Dispatcher - Hourly X445 7/9/2021 HOURLY 46.99$ Communications Dispatcher - Supervising A365 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.47$ 45.64$ 47.93$ 50.32$ 52.84$ Community Development Coordinator M725 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 45.83$ 48.13$ 50.54$ 53.07$ 55.73$ Community Development Specialist A660 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.24$ 43.30$ 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ Community Services Site Coordinator A640 7/9/2021 AFSCME 24.98$ 26.23$ 27.54$ 28.92$ 30.36$ Community Services Site Coordinator - Hourly X660 7/9/2021 HOURLY 24.98$ 26.23$ 27.54$ 28.92$ 30.36$ Computer Services Technician O525 9/16/2022 CONFID 44.58$ 46.81$ 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ Computer Services Technician - Senior O530 9/16/2022 CONFID 46.81$ 49.15$ 51.61$ 54.19$ 56.90$ Consultant - Hourly X570 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 139.05$ Crime Analyst C210 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 44.31$ 46.53$ 48.85$ 51.29$ 53.86$ Cultural Arts Specialist A650 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.06$ 35.76$ 37.55$ 39.42$ 41.40$ Cultural Arts Specialist - Hourly X650 7/9/2021 HOURLY 34.06$ 35.76$ 37.55$ 39.42$ 41.40$ Database Business Systems Specialist O405 9/16/2022 CONFID 34.99$ 36.74$ 38.58$ 40.51$ 42.54$ Deputy City Clerk O320 9/16/2022 CONFID 39.58$ 41.56$ 43.64$ 45.83$ 48.13$ Deputy Economic Community Development Director M145 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 79.97$ 83.97$ 88.17$ 92.58$ 97.21$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 1 of 5 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 07/12/2023 REG CC - Item #6b 77 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Deputy Finance Director M845 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 77.77$ 81.66$ 85.74$ 90.03$ 94.53$ Economic Development Coordinator M185 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.02$ 64.07$ 67.27$ 70.63$ 74.16$ Electrical Maintenance Supervisor M835 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 56.87$ 59.71$ 62.70$ 65.83$ 69.12$ Electrical Technician A160 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.42$ 43.49$ 45.67$ 47.95$ 50.35$ Electrical Technician - Assistant A120 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.57$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ 37.15$ Electrical Technician - Lead A335 7/9/2021 AFSCME 51.11$ 53.67$ 56.35$ 59.17$ 62.13$ Electrical Technician - Senior A500 7/9/2021 AFSCME 45.45$ 47.72$ 50.10$ 52.61$ 55.24$ Emergency Medical Technician - Hourly X281 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.82$ 19.76$ 20.75$ 21.79$ 22.88$ Emergency Services Manager M780 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 49.70$ 52.19$ 54.80$ 57.54$ 60.42$ EMS Battalion Chief M420 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 87.31$ 91.68$ 96.26$ 101.07$ 106.12$ Engineer - Associate M115 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 57.91$ 60.81$ 63.85$ 67.04$ 70.39$ Engineer - Principal M760 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 75.47$ 79.24$ 83.20$ 87.36$ 91.73$ Engineer- Senior M340 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 68.92$ 72.37$ 75.99$ 79.79$ 83.78$ Engineering Technician A167 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.22$ 35.93$ 37.72$ 39.61$ 41.59$ Engineering Technician - Senior A168 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.64$ 39.52$ 41.50$ 43.57$ 45.75$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Hourly X465 7/9/2021 HOURLY 40.89$ 42.93$ 45.08$ 47.33$ 49.70$ Environmental Compliance Inspector - Senior D160 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 54.54$ 57.27$ 60.13$ 63.14$ 66.30$ Environmental Compliance Inspector I D210 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.43$ Environmental Compliance Inspector II D155 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 48.34$ 50.76$ 53.30$ 55.97$ 58.77$ Environmental Compliance Supervisor M450 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 72.38$ 76.00$ 79.80$ 83.79$ 87.98$ Equipment Mechanic A170 7/9/2021 AFSCME 35.31$ 37.08$ 38.93$ 40.88$ 42.92$ Equipment Mechanic - Hourly X510 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.31$ 37.08$ 38.93$ 40.88$ 42.92$ Equipment Mechanic - Lead A345 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.24$ 40.15$ 42.16$ 44.27$ 46.48$ Equipment Operator A175 7/9/2021 AFSCME 35.40$ 37.17$ 39.03$ 40.98$ 43.03$ Executive Assistant To The City Manager O410 9/16/2022 CONFID 44.23$ 46.44$ 48.76$ 51.20$ 53.76$ Financial Analyst - Senior M615 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 52.90$ 55.54$ 58.32$ 61.24$ 64.30$ Financial Analyst I M600 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 43.74$ 45.93$ 48.23$ 50.64$ 53.17$ Financial Analyst II M610 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 48.10$ 50.51$ 53.04$ 55.69$ 58.47$ Financial Services Manager M770 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 66.13$ 69.44$ 72.91$ 76.56$ 80.39$ Fire Apparatus Engineer B120 9/30/2022 IAFF 41.78$ 43.87$ 46.06$ 48.36$ 50.78$ Fire Apparatus Engineer (40 Hours)B121 9/30/2022 IAFF 58.49$ 61.41$ 64.48$ 67.70$ 71.08$ Fire Battalion Chief (40 Hours)M205 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 87.31$ 91.68$ 96.26$ 101.07$ 106.12$ Fire Battalion Chief (56 Hours)M390 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 112 62.36$ 65.48$ 68.75$ 72.19$ 75.80$ Fire Captain (40 Hours)B101 9/30/2022 IAFF 65.38$ 68.65$ 72.08$ 75.68$ 79.46$ Fire Captain (56 Hours)B100 9/30/2022 IAFF 46.70$ 49.04$ 51.49$ 54.06$ 56.76$ Fire Chief - Deputy M110 9/30/2022 PSM FIRE 80 101.61$ 106.69$ 112.02$ 117.62$ 123.50$ Fire Courier - Hourly X540 7/9/2021 HOURLY 20.40$ 21.43$ 22.50$ 23.62$ 24.80$ Fire Marshal M410 7/22/2022 PSM FIRE 80 88.28$ 92.69$ 97.32$ 102.19$ 107.30$ Groundsperson A505 7/9/2021 AFSCME 32.23$ 33.85$ 35.54$ 37.32$ 39.18$ Human Resources Analyst - Senior M271 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 52.32$ 54.94$ 57.69$ 60.57$ 63.60$ Human Resources Analyst I M700 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 43.23$ 45.40$ 47.68$ 50.07$ 52.58$ Human Resources Analyst II M270 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.53$ 49.91$ 52.41$ 55.03$ 57.78$ Human Resources Clerk - Hourly X310 7/9/2021 HOURLY 30.92$ 32.47$ 34.09$ 35.79$ 37.58$ Human Resources Manager M775 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 68.15$ 71.56$ 75.14$ 78.90$ 82.84$ Human Resources Technician O265 9/16/2022 CONFID 35.99$ 37.79$ 39.68$ 41.66$ 43.74$ Human Resources Technician - Hourly X265 7/9/2021 HOURLY 33.01$ 34.66$ 36.40$ 38.22$ 40.13$ Information Systems Administrator M650 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.05$ 64.10$ 67.31$ 70.68$ 74.21$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 2 of 5 78 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Information Systems Administrator - Senior M790 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.10$ 67.31$ 70.68$ 74.21$ 77.92$ Information Technology Manager M805 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 67.46$ 70.83$ 74.37$ 78.09$ 81.99$ Laboratory Chemist D120 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 50.50$ 53.02$ 55.67$ 58.45$ 61.37$ Laboratory Chemist - Hourly X545 7/9/2021 HOURLY 45.85$ 48.14$ 50.55$ 53.08$ 55.73$ Laboratory Chemist - Senior D170 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 58.32$ 61.24$ 64.30$ 67.52$ 70.90$ Laboratory Supervisor M220 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.20$ 67.41$ 70.79$ 74.33$ 78.05$ Landscape Architect M815 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 62.50$ 65.62$ 68.90$ 72.35$ 75.97$ Librarian I A210 7/9/2021 AFSCME 32.82$ 34.46$ 36.18$ 37.99$ 39.89$ Librarian I - Hourly X210 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.82$ 34.46$ 36.18$ 37.99$ 39.89$ Librarian II A240 7/9/2021 AFSCME 36.12$ 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ Librarian II - Hourly X670 7/9/2021 HOURLY 36.12$ 37.92$ 39.82$ 41.81$ 43.90$ Library Assistant I A220 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.77$ 27.06$ 28.41$ 29.83$ 31.32$ Library Assistant I - Hourly X220 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.77$ 27.06$ 28.41$ 29.83$ 31.32$ Library Assistant II A215 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.46$ 29.89$ 31.38$ 32.95$ 34.60$ Library Assistant II - Hourly X225 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.46$ 29.89$ 31.38$ 32.95$ 34.60$ Library Clerk - Hourly X235 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.43$ 19.35$ 20.32$ 21.34$ 22.40$ Library Director - Assistant M640 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 67.52$ 70.90$ 74.45$ 78.17$ 82.08$ Library Page - Hourly X250 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 16.59$ 17.42$ 18.29$ 19.20$ Library Program Manager M235 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 53.53$ 56.21$ 59.03$ 61.99$ 65.09$ Library Specialist - Supervising A670 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.69$ 35.38$ 37.15$ 39.00$ 40.95$ Literacy Program Manager M500 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 53.53$ 56.21$ 59.03$ 61.99$ 65.09$ Literacy Services Assistant Coordinator - Hourly X655 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.07$ 29.48$ 30.95$ 32.50$ 34.12$ Literacy Services Assistant I - Hourly X665 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.41$ 26.68$ 28.02$ 29.42$ 30.89$ Literacy Services Coordinator A445 7/9/2021 AFSCME 37.07$ 38.93$ 40.87$ 42.92$ 45.06$ Maintenance Craftsworker A280 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.96$ 35.66$ 37.44$ 39.32$ 41.28$ Maintenance Supervisor M255 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.70$ 50.09$ 52.60$ 55.24$ 58.01$ Management Analyst I M570 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.00$ 49.35$ 51.82$ 54.41$ 57.13$ Management Analyst II M560 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 51.69$ 54.27$ 56.98$ 59.83$ 62.82$ Miscellaneous Hourly X280 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 87.55$ Office Assistant - Hourly X440 7/9/2021 HOURLY 23.85$ 25.04$ 26.29$ 27.60$ 28.98$ Office Specialist A295 7/9/2021 AFSCME 26.59$ 27.92$ 29.32$ 30.78$ 32.32$ Office Specialist - Hourly X415 7/9/2021 HOURLY 26.59$ 27.92$ 29.32$ 30.78$ 32.32$ Paramedic Firefighter B130 9/30/2022 IAFF 41.78$ 43.87$ 46.06$ 48.36$ 50.78$ Paramedic Firefighter Recruit (40 Hours)B135 9/30/2022 IAFF 55.69$ Park Maintenance Worker A250 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Park Maintenance Worker - Hourly X300 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Park Maintenance Worker - Lead A195 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Park Maintenance Worker - Senior A350 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.76$ 32.30$ 33.91$ 35.61$ 37.39$ Parking Enforcement Officer C175 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 26.38$ 27.70$ 29.08$ 30.54$ 32.06$ Parking Enforcement Officer - Hourly X180 7/9/2021 HOURLY 26.38$ 27.70$ 29.08$ 30.54$ 32.06$ Parking System Technician A245 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Parks and Recreation Deputy Director M840 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 76.50$ 80.32$ 84.34$ 88.56$ 92.99$ Payroll Administrator M785 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 47.66$ 50.04$ 52.54$ 55.17$ 57.93$ Permit Technician A460 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.86$ 40.80$ 42.84$ 44.99$ 47.24$ Permit Technician - Senior A700 7/9/2021 AFSCME 41.34$ 43.40$ 45.57$ 47.85$ 50.24$ Planner - Associate M125 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 46.57$ 48.90$ 51.35$ 53.92$ 56.62$ Planner - Principal M590 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.98$ 65.08$ 68.34$ 71.76$ 75.35$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 3 of 5 79 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Planner - Senior M335 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 57.68$ 60.57$ 63.60$ 66.79$ 70.13$ Planner- Associate - Hourly X125 7/9/2021 HOURLY 43.25$ 45.41$ 47.68$ 50.07$ 52.57$ Planner- Senior - Hourly X335 7/9/2021 HOURLY 53.56$ 56.24$ 59.05$ 62.01$ 65.11$ Planning Technician A462 7/9/2021 AFSCME 38.85$ 40.80$ 42.83$ 44.98$ 47.23$ Plant Electrician I D105 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.38$ 45.55$ 47.83$ 50.22$ 52.73$ Plant Electrician I - Hourly X500 7/9/2021 HOURLY 40.14$ 42.15$ 44.25$ 46.47$ 48.79$ Plant Electrician II D140 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 47.71$ 50.10$ 52.61$ 55.24$ 58.00$ Plant Maintenance Supervisor M745 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 59.93$ 62.93$ 66.08$ 69.39$ 72.86$ Plant Mechanic - Apprentice D220 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 34.04$ 36.66$ 39.28$ 41.90$ 44.51$ 47.13$ 49.75$ 52.37$ Plant Mechanic - Hourly X355 7/9/2021 HOURLY 36.41$ 38.23$ 40.14$ 42.15$ 44.26$ Plant Mechanic- Assistant - Hourly X135 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.77$ 34.41$ 36.13$ 37.93$ 39.83$ Plant Mechanic I D130 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 39.14$ 41.10$ 43.15$ 45.31$ 47.58$ Plant Mechanic II D135 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.09$ 45.24$ 47.50$ 49.88$ 52.37$ Plant Mechanic- Lead D180 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 48.54$ 50.97$ 53.52$ 56.20$ 59.01$ Plant Operator - Apprentice D100 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 32.60$ 35.11$ 37.61$ 40.12$ 42.63$ 45.14$ 47.64$ 50.15$ Plant Operator I D145 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 37.50$ 39.37$ 41.34$ 43.41$ 45.58$ Plant Operator I - Contract Ft X145 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.36$ 37.13$ 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.98$ Plant Operator I - Hourly X140 7/9/2021 HOURLY 35.36$ 37.13$ 38.99$ 40.94$ 42.98$ Plant Operator II D150 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 41.26$ 43.32$ 45.49$ 47.76$ 50.15$ Plant Operator II - Hourly X530 7/9/2021 HOURLY 38.90$ 40.85$ 42.89$ 45.04$ 47.29$ Plant Operator III D200 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 43.30$ 45.47$ 47.74$ 50.13$ 52.64$ Plant Operator- Lead D190 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 47.64$ 50.02$ 52.52$ 55.15$ 57.91$ Plant Superintendent M355 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 79.88$ 83.87$ 88.06$ 92.46$ 97.08$ Plant Superintendent - Assistant M465 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 76.00$ 79.80$ 83.79$ 87.98$ 92.38$ Plant Utility Worker D125 9/30/2022 WQCP OP ENG 34.32$ 36.04$ 37.84$ 39.73$ 41.72$ Plant Utility Worker - Hourly X490 7/9/2021 HOURLY 32.36$ 33.98$ 35.68$ 37.46$ 39.34$ Police Captain M280 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 102.79$ 107.93$ 113.33$ 119.00$ 124.95$ Police Chief - Deputy M765 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 108.95$ 114.40$ 120.13$ 126.14$ 132.45$ Police Communications & Records Manager M285 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 64.10$ 67.30$ 70.66$ 74.19$ 77.90$ Police Corporal C100 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 61.44$ 62.98$ 64.55$ 66.17$ Police Court Liaison - Hourly X193 7/9/2021 HOURLY 27.90$ 29.29$ 30.76$ 32.29$ 33.91$ Police Lieutenant M275 7/22/2022 PSM POLICE 86.90$ 91.25$ 95.81$ 100.60$ 105.63$ Police Media Technician C220 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 31.35$ 32.92$ 34.57$ 36.30$ 38.11$ Police Officer C115 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 45.89$ 49.10$ 52.54$ 56.22$ 60.15$ Police Property / Evidence Specialist C110 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 30.60$ 32.13$ 33.74$ 35.42$ 37.19$ Police Property/Evidence Assistant - Hourly X190 7/9/2021 HOURLY 27.90$ 29.29$ 30.76$ 32.29$ 33.91$ Police Records Specialist C105 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 28.28$ 29.69$ 31.18$ 32.73$ 34.37$ Police Records Specialist - Hourly X191 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.28$ 29.69$ 31.18$ 32.73$ 34.37$ Police Records Specialist - Senior C180 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 29.79$ 31.27$ 32.84$ 34.48$ 36.20$ Police Records Specialist - Supervising C200 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 32.52$ 34.15$ 35.86$ 37.65$ 39.53$ Police Recruit C190 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 44.99$ Police Reserve Officer - Hourly X325 7/9/2021 HOURLY 47.75$ Police Sergeant C165 7/9/2021 PO SWORN 65.93$ 67.58$ 69.27$ 71.00$ 72.78$ Police Service Technician C125 7/9/2021 PO NONWORN 29.11$ 30.56$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ Police Service Technician - Hourly X192 7/9/2021 HOURLY 29.11$ 30.56$ 32.09$ 33.70$ 35.38$ Preschool Teacher I A495 7/9/2021 AFSCME 22.75$ 23.89$ 25.08$ 26.34$ 27.66$ Preschool Teacher I - Hourly X690 7/9/2021 HOURLY 22.75$ 23.89$ 25.08$ 26.34$ 27.66$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 4 of 5 80 City of South San Francisco | Salary Schedule Effective 9/30/2022 (Amended 7/12/2023) Exhibit A to Resolution 23-557 JOB TITLE JOB CODE EFFECTIVE DATE UNIT STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 STEP 6 STEP 7 STEP 8 Preschool Teacher II A680 7/9/2021 AFSCME 25.03$ 26.28$ 27.60$ 28.98$ 30.43$ Preschool Teacher II - Hourly X680 7/9/2021 HOURLY 25.03$ 26.28$ 27.60$ 28.98$ 30.43$ Program Manager M750 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 61.46$ 64.53$ 67.76$ 71.15$ 74.71$ Public Works Administrator M795 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 58.85$ 61.79$ 64.88$ 68.12$ 71.53$ Public Works Assistant Director/City Engineer M755 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 86.70$ 91.04$ 95.59$ 100.37$ 105.39$ Public Works Deputy Director M820 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 83.79$ 87.98$ 92.38$ 97.00$ 101.85$ Public Works Inspector A310 7/9/2021 AFSCME 43.96$ 46.16$ 48.47$ 50.89$ 53.44$ Public Works Maintenance Worker A275 7/9/2021 AFSCME 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Hourly X345 7/9/2021 HOURLY 28.71$ 30.14$ 31.65$ 33.23$ 34.90$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Lead A200 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.16$ 35.87$ 37.66$ 39.54$ 41.52$ Public Works Maintenance Worker - Senior A360 7/9/2021 AFSCME 30.76$ 32.30$ 33.91$ 35.61$ 37.39$ Recreation & Community Services Manager M715 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 58.75$ 61.69$ 64.77$ 68.01$ 71.41$ Recreation & Community Services Prog Coor - Hourly X700 7/9/2021 HOURLY 31.52$ 33.10$ 34.75$ 36.49$ 38.32$ Recreation & Community Services Program Coord M530 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 34.37$ 36.09$ 37.89$ 39.78$ 41.77$ Recreation & Community Services Supervisor M295 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 49.05$ 51.51$ 54.09$ 56.80$ 59.65$ Recreation Instructor - Hourly X350 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 39.14$ Recreation Leader I - Hourly X360 1/1/2022 HOURLY 15.80$ 16.59$ 17.42$ 18.29$ 19.20$ Recreation Leader II A610 7/9/2021 AFSCME 17.18$ 18.04$ 18.95$ 19.89$ 20.89$ Recreation Leader II - Hourly X365 7/9/2021 HOURLY 17.18$ 18.04$ 18.95$ 19.89$ 20.89$ Recreation Leader III A620 7/9/2021 AFSCME 18.64$ 19.57$ 20.55$ 21.58$ 22.66$ Recreation Leader III - Hourly X370 7/9/2021 HOURLY 18.64$ 19.57$ 20.55$ 21.58$ 22.66$ Recreation Leader IV A515 7/9/2021 AFSCME 20.68$ 21.72$ 22.80$ 23.95$ 25.14$ Recreation Leader IV - Hourly X375 7/9/2021 HOURLY 20.68$ 21.72$ 22.80$ 23.95$ 25.14$ Safety Inspector - Hourly X181 7/9/2021 HOURLY 29.96$ 31.46$ 33.03$ 34.69$ 36.42$ Safety Inspector I B200 9/30/2022 IAFF 56.52$ 59.35$ 62.32$ 65.44$ 68.71$ Safety Inspector II B195 9/30/2022 IAFF 62.15$ 65.26$ 68.52$ 71.95$ 75.55$ Safety Inspector III B190 9/30/2022 IAFF 66.85$ 70.19$ 73.70$ 77.38$ 81.25$ Sweeper Operator A370 7/9/2021 AFSCME 33.42$ 35.09$ 36.85$ 38.69$ 40.62$ Technical Services Supervisor M735 9/16/2022 MID MGMT 59.50$ 62.47$ 65.59$ 68.87$ 72.31$ Tree Trimmer A375 7/9/2021 AFSCME 34.42$ 36.14$ 37.95$ 39.85$ 41.84$ Van Driver A510 7/9/2021 AFSCME 17.57$ 18.45$ 19.38$ 20.34$ 21.36$ Van Driver - Hourly X555 7/9/2021 HOURLY 17.57$ 18.45$ 19.38$ 20.34$ 21.36$ Steps are listed as hourly rates based on a 40-hour workweek, except where otherwise specified Page 5 of 5 81 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-523 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24,and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003.(Angela Duldulao, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24,and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION For a second year in a row,the Parks and Recreation Department’s Cultural Arts Program has received a $4,125 general support grant from the San Mateo County Arts Grant,administered by the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture.The County advertised this grant opportunity as trust-based funding that provides grantees with the flexibility to use the funds in a way that makes the most sense for each arts organization and for the greatest impact on overall organizational health and sustainability. In response to the grant application question about the three most urgent organizational concerns/needs related to the Cultural Arts Program, staff responded as listed below: 1.Having sufficient staff support to organize and implement new initiatives in arts and culture. 2.Seeking opportunities to foster and grow the local art community, especially in South San Francisco. 3.Sufficient funding to launch and maintain rotating art exhibits associated with the new joint Library and Parks and Recreation facility that will open with a gallery room and gallery wall spaces. Thanks to this grant award,staff is developing a call for entries from two-dimension artists for a solo artist exhibit to celebrate the fall 2023 grand opening of the Library |Parks &Recreation Center.The artist will receive a stipend for their work.In addition,pending the development of grand opening plans for the Library | Parks &Recreation Center,staff anticipate possibly incorporating performing art elements,as well as implementing rotating art exhibits throughout the year.These art exhibits would be offered in addition to the quarterly art exhibits that have historically been offered and hosted by the Cultural Arts Commission. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of this grant has no impact to the City’s general fund and will be used to offset the cost of Cultural Arts Program opportunities. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this funding will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2 by helping to build a robust recreation and cultural program. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™82 File #:23-523 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:7. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24,and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. The Parks and Recreation Department appreciates contributions from individual community members,local organizations,and County partners that help continue and enhance the Department’s mission to provide opportunities for physical,cultural,and social well-being;protect and enhance the physical environment;and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™83 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-524 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24,and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department’s Cultural Arts Program has received a $4,125 general support grant from the San Mateo County Arts Grant,administered by the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture; and WHEREAS,this grant opportunity was offered as trust-based funding that provides grantees with the flexibility to use the funds in a way that makes the most sense for each arts organization and for the greatest impact on overall organizational health and sustainability; and WHEREAS,in response to the grant application question about the three most urgent organizational concerns/needs related to the Cultural Arts Program, staff responded as listed below: 1.Having sufficient staff support to organize and implement new initiatives in arts and culture; 2.Seeking opportunities to foster and grow the local art community, especially in South San Francisco; 3.Sufficient funding to launch and maintain rotating art exhibits associated with the new Library |Parks & Recreation Center that will open with a gallery room and gallery wall spaces. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the acceptance of a grant from the San Mateo County Office of Arts and Culture in the amount of $4,125 for Fiscal Year 2023-24. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council amends the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.003. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™84 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-542 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution adopting a proposed list of projects for fiscal year 2023-24 funded by SB 1:The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.(Angel Torres, Senior Engineer) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a proposed list of projects for fiscal year 2023-24 funded by SB1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Senate Bill 1 (SB 1),the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5,Statutes of 2017),was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. Regulations contained within SB1 require the City to submit to the California Transportation Commission an adopted list of projects proposed to use funds from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA),created by SB1.This year’s proposed list was submitted by July 1,2023.All projects proposed to receive the fiscal year funding must be adopted by resolution and include the description,the location of each proposed project,a proposed schedule for the project’s completion,and the estimated useful life of the improvement. This is the seventh year in which the City is receiving SB1 funding,which will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects,safety improvements,repairing and replacing aging bridges,and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB1.The City is expected to receive $1,606,044 in RMRA funding in fiscal year (FY)2023- 24 from SB1. The SB1 project listed for FY 2023-24 is part of the City’s current Capital Improvement Program which highlights the City’s needed improvements and priority for implementation.This year’s funding from SB1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate roads throughout the City.By adopting the proposed list of projects,we are not committing to a specific dollar allocation for each project.City staff has incorporated the SB1 funding into the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Budget consistent with this staff report and the details presented to Council. The following project,expected to receive SB1 funds as a funding source,is newly proposed to the Local Streets and Roads Program for FY 2023-24.This project will be listed to be in-part or solely funded with FY 2023-24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues: Pavement Management Plan (PMP) 2024 Surface Seal Project Area 5 Project Description:This project will consist of local street surface seal treatment consisting of localized pavement failure repairs,failed concrete curb,gutter,valley gutter replacement,crack seal,surface seal City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™85 File #:23-542 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. pavement failure repairs,failed concrete curb,gutter,valley gutter replacement,crack seal,surface seal pavement surface treatment and replacing all existing striping and pavement markings.Useful life elements include concrete repairs,localized pavement repairs and pavement surface treatment.Design &construction of street surface seal project as part of the Pavement Management Program (PMP)that will cycle through Areas 1-5,one area each year providing new surface seal of streets with new thermoplastic striping, legends, and crosswalks; 2024 will cycle through Area 5. Project Location:Surface Seal of Area 5 which includes Avalon Park,Brentwood,Francisco Terrace, Orange Park, Park Haven, and Southwood neighborhoods. STREET NAME BEGIN END Memorial Dr W Orange Ave North End W Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial Dr A St W Orange Ave South End A St W Orange Ave 2nd St A St 2nd St North End B St W Orange Ave South End B St W Orange Ave North End C St W Orange Ave South End C St W Orange Ave North End 1st St El Camino Real East End 2nd St El Camino Real East End Westborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino Real W Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino Real Fairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Southwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Hillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East End Southwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino Real Knoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway Dr Southwood Dr West End W Orange Ave Hill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway Dr Haven Ave West End Fairway Dr Bryce Ave West End Haven Ave Lassen St North End Ponderosa Rd Carlsbad Ct West End Haven Ave Rainier Ave Lassen St Haven Ave Ponderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino Real Comerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South End Alida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood Dr Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino Real Northwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino Real Wildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood Dr Briarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood Dr Ravenwood Dr North End Rockwood Dr Maywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood Dr Sherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Greenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood Dr Springwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Brentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino Real Manor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood Dr Pinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood Dr Mosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Kenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Yellowstone Dr West End Almanor Ave Almanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Tahoe Ct South End Almanor Ave Shasta Ct West End Yosemite Dr Yosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista Dr Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Valencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Avalon Dr JSB Dorado Way Avalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution Way Dana Ct Avalon Dr South End Constitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor Dr Taylor Dr West End Constitution Way Castile Way West End Dorado Way Dorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC Line Pisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™86 File #:23-542 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. STREET NAME BEGIN ENDMemorial Dr W Orange Ave North EndW Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial DrA St W Orange Ave South EndA St W Orange Ave 2nd StA St 2nd St North EndB St W Orange Ave South EndB St W Orange Ave North EndC St W Orange Ave South EndC St W Orange Ave North End1st St El Camino Real East End2nd St El Camino Real East EndWestborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino RealW Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino RealFairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdHillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East EndSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino RealKnoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway DrSouthwood Dr West End W Orange AveHill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway DrHaven Ave West End Fairway DrBryce Ave West End Haven AveLassen St North End Ponderosa RdCarlsbad Ct West End Haven AveRainier Ave Lassen St Haven Ave Ponderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino Real Comerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South End Alida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood Dr Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino Real Northwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino Real Wildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood Dr Briarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood Dr Ravenwood Dr North End Rockwood Dr Maywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood Dr Sherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Greenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood Dr Springwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Brentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino Real Manor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood Dr Pinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood Dr Mosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Kenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Yellowstone Dr West End Almanor Ave Almanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Tahoe Ct South End Almanor Ave Shasta Ct West End Yosemite Dr Yosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista Dr Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Valencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Avalon Dr JSB Dorado Way Avalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution Way Dana Ct Avalon Dr South End Constitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor Dr Taylor Dr West End Constitution Way Castile Way West End Dorado Way Dorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC Line Pisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™87 File #:23-542 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8. STREET NAME BEGIN ENDMemorial Dr W Orange Ave North EndW Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial DrA St W Orange Ave South EndA St W Orange Ave 2nd StA St 2nd St North EndB St W Orange Ave South EndB St W Orange Ave North EndC St W Orange Ave South EndC St W Orange Ave North End1st St El Camino Real East End2nd St El Camino Real East EndWestborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino RealW Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino RealFairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdHillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East EndSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino RealKnoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway DrSouthwood Dr West End W Orange AveHill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway DrHaven Ave West End Fairway DrBryce Ave West End Haven AveLassen St North End Ponderosa RdCarlsbad Ct West End Haven AveRainier Ave Lassen St Haven AvePonderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino RealComerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South EndAlida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood DrCountry Club Dr Alida Way El Camino RealNorthwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood DrHazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino RealWildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood DrBriarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood DrRosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood DrRavenwood Dr North End Rockwood DrMaywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood DrSherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood DrGreenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood DrSpringwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood DrBrentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino RealManor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood DrRockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood DrPinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood DrMosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood DrKenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood DrYellowstone Dr West End Almanor AveAlmanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite DrTahoe Ct South End Almanor AveShasta Ct West End Yosemite DrYosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa DrValverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon DrValverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista DrMariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite DrValencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon DrAvalon Dr JSB Dorado WayAvalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution WayDana Ct Avalon Dr South EndConstitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor DrTaylor Dr West End Constitution WayCastile Way West End Dorado WayDorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC LinePisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr Estimated Project Schedule:Preconstruction 8/2023 - 3/2024 Construction 4/2024 - 10/2024 Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 to 10 years The SB1 project list,and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety;investing in complete streets infrastructure;and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices; will have significant positive co-benefits statewide. FISCAL IMPACT The FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program has appropriated RMRA funds to the listed project.City staff adopted the FY 2023-24 Capital Improvement Program on June 28,2023,which included project budget details. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved Quality of Life by contributing funds to roadway improvement projects. CONCLUSION Approving the list of projects for RMRA funds will ensure that the City meets the obligation to submit a resolution/staff report adopting the list of projects proposed to be funded by RMRA to the California Transportation Commission. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™88 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-543 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution adopting a proposed list of projects for fiscal year 2023-24 funded by SB 1:The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. WHEREAS,Senate Bill 1 (SB 1),the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5,Statutes of 2017)was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and WHEREAS,SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City are aware of the projects proposed for funding in the South San Francisco community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA),created by SB 1,which must include a description and the location of each proposed project,a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS,the City will receive an estimated $1,606,044 in RMRA funding in fiscal year 2023-24 from SB 1; and WHEREAS,this is the seventh year in which the City is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects,safety improvements,repairing and replacing aging bridges,and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB1; and WHEREAS,the City has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into the SSF community’s transportation priorities.The project list is a result of collaboration among various departments summarizing the needed improvements and the priority of implementation of these projects; and WHEREAS,the City used a Pavement Management System to determine the City’s pavement rehabilitation projects included as part of the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the community’s priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City maintain and rehabilitate roads throughout the City; and WHEREAS,the 2022 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City’s streets and roads are in an “good”condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of the City’s road system and over the next decade will bring SSF streets and roads into a “excellent” condition; and WHEREAS,the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the City’s local streets and roads infrastructure with City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™89 File #:23-543 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. WHEREAS,the SB 1 project list and overall investment in the City’s local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety,investing in complete streets infrastructure,and using cutting-edge technology, materials, and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct. 2.The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with fiscal year 2023-24 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues: PMP 2024 Surface Seal Project (Area 5) Project Description:This project will consist of local street surface seal treatment consisting of localized pavement failure repairs,failed concrete curb,gutter,valley gutter replacement,crack seal,surface seal pavement surface treatment and replacing all existing striping and pavement markings.Useful life elements include concrete repairs,localized pavement repairs and pavement surface treatment.Design &construction of street surface seal project as part of the Pavement Management Program (PMP)that will cycle through Areas 1 -5,one area each year providing new surface seal of streets with new thermoplastic striping, legends, and crosswalks; 2024 will cycle through Area 5. Project Location:Surface Seal of Area 5 which includes Avalon Park,Brentwood,Francisco Terrace, Orange Park, Park Haven, and Southwood neighborhoods. STREET NAME BEGIN END Memorial Dr W Orange Ave North End W Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial Dr A St W Orange Ave South End A St W Orange Ave 2nd St A St 2nd St North End B St W Orange Ave South End B St W Orange Ave North End C St W Orange Ave South End C St W Orange Ave North End 1st St El Camino Real East End 2nd St El Camino Real East End Westborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino Real W Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino Real Fairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Southwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Hillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East End Southwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino Real Knoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway Dr Southwood Dr West End W Orange Ave Hill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway Dr Haven Ave West End Fairway Dr Bryce Ave West End Haven Ave Lassen St North End Ponderosa Rd Carlsbad Ct West End Haven Ave Rainier Ave Lassen St Haven Ave Ponderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino Real Comerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South End Alida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood Dr Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino Real Northwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino Real Wildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood Dr Briarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood Dr Ravenwood Dr North End Rockwood Dr Maywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood Dr Sherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Greenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood Dr Springwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Brentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino Real Manor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood Dr Pinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood Dr Mosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Kenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Yellowstone Dr West End Almanor Ave Almanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Tahoe Ct South End Almanor Ave Shasta Ct West End Yosemite Dr Yosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista Dr Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Valencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Avalon Dr JSB Dorado Way Avalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution Way Dana Ct Avalon Dr South End Constitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor Dr Taylor Dr West End Constitution Way Castile Way West End Dorado Way Dorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC Line Pisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™90 File #:23-543 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. STREET NAME BEGIN ENDMemorial Dr W Orange Ave North EndW Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial DrA St W Orange Ave South EndA St W Orange Ave 2nd StA St 2nd St North EndB St W Orange Ave South EndB St W Orange Ave North EndC St W Orange Ave South EndC St W Orange Ave North End1st St El Camino Real East End2nd St El Camino Real East EndWestborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino RealW Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino Real Fairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Southwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa Rd Hillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East End Southwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino Real Knoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway Dr Southwood Dr West End W Orange Ave Hill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway Dr Haven Ave West End Fairway Dr Bryce Ave West End Haven Ave Lassen St North End Ponderosa Rd Carlsbad Ct West End Haven Ave Rainier Ave Lassen St Haven Ave Ponderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino Real Comerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South End Alida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood Dr Country Club Dr Alida Way El Camino Real Northwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino Real Wildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood Dr Briarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood Dr Rosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood Dr Ravenwood Dr North End Rockwood Dr Maywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood Dr Sherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Greenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood Dr Springwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood Dr Brentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino Real Manor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood Dr Pinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood Dr Mosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Kenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood Dr Yellowstone Dr West End Almanor Ave Almanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Tahoe Ct South End Almanor Ave Shasta Ct West End Yosemite Dr Yosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista Dr Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Valencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Avalon Dr JSB Dorado Way Avalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution Way Dana Ct Avalon Dr South End Constitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor Dr Taylor Dr West End Constitution Way Castile Way West End Dorado Way Dorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC Line Pisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™91 File #:23-543 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. STREET NAME BEGIN ENDMemorial Dr W Orange Ave North EndW Orange Ave El Camino Real Memorial DrA St W Orange Ave South EndA St W Orange Ave 2nd StA St 2nd St North EndB St W Orange Ave South EndB St W Orange Ave North EndC St W Orange Ave South EndC St W Orange Ave North End1st St El Camino Real East End2nd St El Camino Real East EndWestborough Blvd W Orange Ave El Camino RealW Orange Ave Westborough Ave El Camino RealFairway Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave Ponderosa RdHillcrest Ct W Orange Ave East EndSouthwood Dr W Orange Ave El Camino RealKnoll Cir Fairway Dr Fairway DrSouthwood Dr West End W Orange AveHill Ave Southwood Dr Fairway DrHaven Ave West End Fairway DrBryce Ave West End Haven AveLassen St North End Ponderosa RdCarlsbad Ct West End Haven AveRainier Ave Lassen St Haven AvePonderosa Rd Valencia Dr El Camino RealComerwood Ct Ponderosa Rd South EndAlida Way Ponderosa Rd Northwood DrCountry Club Dr Alida Way El Camino RealNorthwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Hazelwood DrHazelwood Dr Northwood Dr El Camino RealWildwood Dr Briarwood Dr Maywood DrBriarwood Dr Hazelwood Dr Rosewood DrRosewood Dr Northwood Dr Rockwood DrRavenwood Dr North End Rockwood DrMaywood Dr Northwood Dr Brentwood DrSherwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood DrGreenwood Dr Rosewood Dr Wildwood DrSpringwood Wy Wildwood Dr Rockwood DrBrentwood Dr Springwood Dr El Camino RealManor Dr Springwood Dr Rockwood DrRockwood Dr Rosewood Dr Brentwood DrPinehurst Wy Hazelwood Dr Rockwood DrMosswood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood DrKenwood Way Hazelwood Dr Brentwood DrYellowstone Dr West End Almanor AveAlmanor Ave Valverde Dr Yosemite DrTahoe Ct South End Almanor AveShasta Ct West End Yosemite DrYosemite Dr Almanor Ave Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yellowstone Dr Avalon Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Alta Vista Dr Mariposa Dr Valverde Dr Yosemite Dr Valencia Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Avalon Dr JSB Dorado Way Avalon Dr Dorado Way Constitution Way Dana Ct Avalon Dr South End Constitution Way Avalon Dr Taylor Dr Taylor Dr West End Constitution Way Castile Way West End Dorado Way Dorado Way Avalon Dr SSF / SMC Line Pisa Ct Constitution Way North End Blondin Way North End SSF / SMC Line Rosa Flora Cir Blondin Way Blondin Way Zamora Dr Valverde Dr East End Granada Dr Valverde Dr Avalon Dr Corrido Way Valverde Dr Mira Vista Way Alta Vista Dr Valverde Dr SSF / SMC Line Mira Vista Way Granada Dr Alta Vista Dr De Nardi Way North End Alta Vista Dr Alpine Ct North End Alta Vista Dr Adas Way North End Alta Vista Dr Dianne Ct West End Conmur St Alhambra Rd Ponderosa Rd Granada Dr Conmur St Granada Dr Northwood Dr El Cortez Ave North End Francisco Dr Ramona Ave Wilms Ave Francisco Dr Portola Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Sonora Ave Ramona Ave Francisco Dr Francisco Dr El Camino Real Wilms Ave Terrace Dr Francisco Dr S Spruce Ave S Spruce Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Huntington Ave S Spruce Ave SSF / SB Line Noor Ave El Camino Real Huntington Ave Junipero Serra Blvd Westborough Ave Avalon Dr Estimated Project Schedule:Preconstruction 8/2023 - 3/2024 Construction 4/2024 - 10/2024 Estimated Project Useful Life: 5 to 10 years City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™92 File #:23-543 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:8a. BE IT RESOLVED that this resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™93 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding consideration of applications for a Design Review Permit,Transportation Demand Management Plan,and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D development on 800 Dubuque Avenue,and consideration of associated California Environmental Quality Act determination. (Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing,follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings to adopt the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001),in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.; and 2.Adopt a resolution making findings to approve Design Review (DR22-0010),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004),and Community Benefits Proposal and authorize the execution of a Community Benefits Agreement (CB23-0001),subject to the Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Site Overview The Project site consists of 5.89 acres (256,752 square feet)located at 800 -890 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015- 021-030).The site is improved with two single-story buildings and one two-story building totaling 113,595 square feet.The buildings accommodate a variety of uses,including office,R&D,and manufacturing/warehouse/storage. The Project site is bounded by Dubuque Avenue and the 101 Freeway to the west and the Caltrain right-of-way to the east.The adjacent property to the north is occupied by a Costco store.The adjacent property to the south is crossed by PG&E high-voltage transmission lines and was formerly occupied by a Lowe’s Home Improvement store.Further to the east,across the railroad tracks,is a large commercial area that serves as a hub for life science and biotech companies.Further east is San Francisco Bay.To the west,across the 101 Freeway, is a mix of commercial and residential areas. The site is accessible via three entrances from Dubuque Avenue.The existing buildings cover approximately 38%of the site.The remaining area is comprised of surface parking that provides 293 parking spaces.A parking variance reduced the parking requirements below the standard minimums in connection with the prior conversion of the site from industrial to commercial uses. The overall project site is bound by Dubuque Avenue to the west,Grand Avenue to the south,the Caltrain railroad tracks to the east,and Oyster Point Boulevard to the north.Dubuque Avenue is the only access to the project site and Highway 101 (US-101)runs parallel to Dubuque Avenue with on-ramps located to the north City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 11 powered by Legistar™94 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. project site and Highway 101 (US-101)runs parallel to Dubuque Avenue with on-ramps located to the north and to the south of the project site.Surrounding land uses include commercial,small-scale office,and industrial type businesses. The site is within 1/2 mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station,approximately 1.7 miles from the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal,approximately 2.5 miles from the San Bruno BART Station,and approximately 3.0 miles from the South San Francisco BART Station.The site is accessible by car from US 101,which abuts the western boundary of the Project site,utilizing either Oyster Point Blvd.to the north or Grand Ave.to the south.SamTrans services the area through its 130,141,292,and 397 lines which stop at Airport Blvd.and Linden Ave. A sidewalk runs along the eastern side of Dubuque Ave. Project Description The proposed project at 800 Dubuque Avenue (Project)is a transit-oriented commercial project comprised of three buildings,the North,South,and West buildings,for a total of approximately 857,000 square feet of floor area. The North building will be the tallest at approximately 195 feet,and the West and South buildings will be approximately 179 and 131 feet tall,respectively.The Project will include an approximately 7,500 square foot event center,with capacity for approximately 450 attendees,approximately 6,600 square feet of food/beverage uses, and an approximately 7,200 square foot fitness center. The proposed buildings are connected by a two-story terrace,featuring a central plaza and courtyard that provide open space and gathering and rest areas.Four levels of below grade parking will provide 1,335 parking spaces. The three existing buildings that support a mix of office,R&D,and manufacturing /warehouse /storage uses would be demolished to allow for a total of approximately 857,000 square feet of floor area,resulting in an FAR of approximately 3.33.1 A total of 1,335 parking spaces would be accommodated in four levels of below grade parking. The Project will transform a nondescript,low density commercial site by creating a state-of-the-art office/R&D complex that will further cement South San Francisco’s reputation as a research and development hub.Further, by locating high-density employment uses adjacent to public transit and integrating significant improvements to the public realm,the Project aims to create an improved pedestrian-accessible gateway to the Dubuque Avenue corridor from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. Building Architecture The design concept is inspired by California coastal landscapes and geography,with an emphasis on rugged cliffs.Inspired by this local landscape,the facades are carefully articulated and patterned to reduce heat gain, resulting in a microclimate with moderate temperatures and diffused daylight. The exterior consists of a mix of full height storefront systems,unitized curtain wall systems with glass frit, metal panel and metal solar shades.Full height glazing encompasses the lobby and office/amenity spaces.Glass spandrel panels are utilized at slab bypass conditions and at office/lab areas.At the ground level,metal plate and profiled metal panel rainscreen and louver walls enclose the building service,loading docks area,and parking/mechanical areas. Large windows and extended window frames are located where there is tenant space. Full graphical representations of the proposed building are included in the project plan set (Associated City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 11 powered by Legistar™95 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Full graphical representations of the proposed building are included in the project plan set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit B). Landscaping and Open Space The Project’s landscaping and public realm improvements are inspired by iconic California coastal native landscapes ranging from beaches/dunes,cliffs,woodland,and boardwalk environments.Starting at the main entry on the northwestern portion of the site,there will be a timber clad sculptural wall that forms a base for signage and pedestrian wayfinding.The drop-off areas on the northwest corner and at the south will be adorned with Cypress trees,grasses,groundcovers,and shady plants.A boardwalk and paving pattern will connect the two entries to one another while pulling circulation into an interior central courtyard. The central courtyard “Heart”provides a combination of lawn and paved areas that encourage interactions and provide meeting space.The pathways recall beach boardwalks,and the vegetated areas reflect the dune environment.A secondary “secret garden”path leads to the small tenant or amenity spill out on the west side of the courtyard. Landscaping and a stone partition delineate the central area from the event center spill out. A food and beverage area that is separated from the central courtyard by a large,planted area provides additional active and flex space.An area under the stairs that provides access to the terrace levels is activated by communal counter seating and timber furniture elements that are reminiscent of beach driftwood.The terraces provide additional open space and landscaping features that are integrated into the second and third levels. The West building contains additional space for either tenant spill out or outdoor amenity space.The area is situated to take advantage of the sunshine.A covered breezeway between the event center and south building provides connection across the site and can serve as space for indoor-outdoor receptions and events. Along the northern perimeter road there will be a vegetated screen that demarcates the property line and provides an attractive transition from the burgeoning redeveloped portions of the Dubuque Avenue corridor to the existing improvements.The trees will also serve to buffer wind that crosses the site to create a more comfortable public realm. The eastern and southern perimeters contain similar landscape buffers. The southern perimeter road provides access to an arrival court and entry area with open air connections to the courtyard and the event center.The materials are similar to the main drop-off,with a more robust landscaping element that is designed to connect the interior and exterior elements and draw tenants and visitors into the development.The east perimeter road adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way contains paving that extends from the building to a hedge at the property line. Street trees add shade and color to the circulation area. Lighting will complement the architectural elements and will comply with Title 24 and LEED standards.The integrative design approach focuses on sustainability,human comfort,controllability,safety,security, adaptability,and flexibility to support a variety of users and functions,with the goal of minimizing light pollution.There will be a smooth and coherent transition of light from day into the evenings that will enable occupants to experience the Project’s aesthetics.Site lighting will be incorporated within pathways and plaza areas to create a safe and secure nighttime environment.Façade lighting produces a gentle glow from behind perforated screens at building entrances,event center,and fitness amenity forms.Project fixtures include vehicular and pedestrian pole mounted luminaires,linear in-grade pathway lighting,tree lighting,architectural lighting integrated into site features and building façades, as well a variety of other fixtures. All landscaping improvements would be subject to the Landscape Design Principles set forth in Section C of Chapter 20.300.007 of the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to abide by the California Model City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 3 of 11 powered by Legistar™96 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Chapter 20.300.007 of the City’s Municipal Code and would be required to abide by the California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO).The landscape plans are included on Sheets L00.00 through L007.01 in the project plan set (Associated Entitlements Resolution, Exhibit C). Circulation The Project site is located within ½-mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station.Employees and visitors to the site will be encouraged to access the site via public transportation,or through non-single occupancy vehicles, as will be reflected in a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Vehicles will access the Project site from Dubuque Avenue.The main entrance to the Project is located on the southwestern corner of the site.A perimeter road will encircle the buildings leading to the below-grade parking areas. A secondary access point from Dubuque Avenue is located on the northwestern portion of the site. The Project provides approximately 1,335 spaces (or a ratio of approximately 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office/R&D use (1,285 spaces)plus visitor spaces representing approximately 20%of event center capacity (50 spaces for approximately 450 attendees at maximum capacity),as explained in a memorandum from Fehr & Peers submitted under separate cover. ·Parking level one contains 145 standard parking spaces (66 EVCS day 1 and 64 EVCS ready),80 compact parking spaces,24 accessible parking spaces (4 van),and 15 accessible EVCS stalls (2 van and 7 ambulatory). ·Parking level two contains 223 standard parking spaces (122 EVCS ready)and 126 compact parking spaces. ·Parking level three contains 230 standard parking spaces and 128 compact parking spaces. ·Parking level four contains 236 standard parking spaces and 128 compact parking spaces. Infrastructure will be provided to make 142 parking spaces EV charging capable.The Project will also provide a minimum of 166 long-term bicycle parking spaces in the North building and 24 short-term spaces around the site. There are no existing bus routes or stops located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.However, SamTrans bus stops are located less than a ¼-mile from the Project site through the Caltrain Station.The Project site provides access to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station and the Downtown area of the city through both the Station’s tunnel and on Dubuque Avenue through the Grand Avenue overpass.Pedestrian and bicycle access to and from the site would be facilitated through the Caltrain Station tunnel and a connection from the nearby 580 Dubuque Avenue project site. Entitlements Request The proposed project is principally permitted within the underlying zoning district and the proposed office and R&D project generally conforms with the established development standards and requirements of the East of 101 Transit Core (ETC)Zoning District (Entitlements Resolution Exhibit A,as reference).The project’s entitlements request are as follows: 1.Design Review Permit -Review the Project’s architectural elements,which is generally required for all projects that require a building permit for construction,reconstruction,rehabilitation,alteration,or other City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 4 of 11 powered by Legistar™97 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. improvements to the exterior of a structure or parking area, with certain exceptions. 2.Community Benefits Program -Any FAR in excess of 1.0 may be permitted in the ETC District, subject to review and approval of a Community Benefits Agreement that memorializes benefits that are consistent with the priorities established in Section 20.395.004.In addition,under SSFMC Section 20.395.003,an increase of FAR in excess of 2.5 requires City Council approval of a Community Benefits Agreement,which may include payment of Community Benefits fees to satisfy part or all of the benefit and in alignment with the City’s community benefit priorities.The Project is seeking approval of FAR up to 3.33,and will submit a community benefits proposal under separate cover.The scope of community benefits is included in a separate section below. 3.Transportation Demand Management Program -All office and research and development uses with at least 400,000 square feet of gross floor area are subject to the Tier 4 TDM requirements,which requires (1)measures that result in 50 points,(2)annual monitoring to achieve a maximum of 50 percent of employees commuting via driving, and (3) annual monitoring of a site-specific trip cap. 4.California Environmental Quality Act Compliance -The Project seeks approval of an Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS The Project site’s land use designation under the General Plan is East of 101 Transit Core (ETC),which is described as: “Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of high-density multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail,services,and amenities (minimum FAR from 1.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; maximum residential densities up to 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac).” The Project has been designed to conform with the ETC Zoning District’s standards and vision.The Project proposes an employment use development with a maximum FAR of 3.33,with a community benefits proposal, that is located adjacent to high-quality and regional transit. Parking Requirements The parking requirement for R&D uses is a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet as described in SSF Municipal Code Section 20.330.004.There is no minimum parking requirement for the use.No parking requirement is specified for the event center;therefore,the Chief Planner is responsible for determining the requirement based upon the requirements for the most similar comparable use,the particular characteristics of the proposed use, and any other relevant data regarding parking demand. The Project is proposing to provide 1,335 parking spaces (1.5 spaces per 1000 sq.ft.)which meets the general parking requirements for Office and R&D projects within the ETC zoning district. Given that the proposed development is located near transit,the Project will meet parking needs through a combination of robust TDM measures and parking management strategies that may include a parking valet service (for parking within the garage).The proposed parking ratio is intended to bridge the relatively high ratio under existing zoning and the relatively low ratio contemplated for the General Plan,ensuring that the Project avoids constructing excessive parking that may undermine achievement of TDM goals.Staff is supportive of City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 5 of 11 powered by Legistar™98 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. avoids constructing excessive parking that may undermine achievement of TDM goals.Staff is supportive of the proposed parking ratio given the proximity to transit options such as Caltrain,and high-quality bus service (SamTrans service Route 130,292,and the South City Shuttle)in the vicinity and commute.org shuttle services. Community Benefits Proposal As provided under SSFMC Chapter 20.395,developers may request additional FAR in exchange for providing a variety of community benefits.The applicant has submitted a comprehensive Community Benefits Proposal that outlines benefits for seeking the maximum allowable density under the Municipal Code (Attachment 1A). Also included in Attachment 1A is a third-party Valuation Study of the proposed Community Benefits Program conducted by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS). The proposal includes: I.Proposed Direct Community Benefits A.Funding Contributions.The Applicant proposes to make a monetary contribution to the City,in accordance with the City’s recently adopted Community Benefits Fee,in the amount of $4,742,500. This contribution will be provided prior to issuance of building permits for vertical construction. B.Publicly Accessible Plazas.The Project includes approximately 35,315 square feet of plaza space that will be publicly accessible during business hours with well-appointed landscaping beyond City code requirements,outdoor furniture,special paving,and lighting to enhance the comfort and usability of these spaces.Publicly accessible spaces will be visible from the public right of way and/or signage will be provided to indicate the spaces are available for public use.The City has indicated that it will consider 40% of the cost of these plazas as a public benefit, at a value of approximately $2,620,000. C.Enhanced Connectivity and Access.The Applicant proposes to improve public access and connectivity around the Project site by installing new landscaping and sidewalk improvements,as well as facilitating vehicular and pedestrian connections to the Caltrain Station,with ample lighting for safety.Pursuant to discussions with the developer,the City indicated that it would consider 35%of this estimated cost- approximately $3,727,500-as a community benefit,in accordance with the priorities set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.395.004(B).If these improvements are not possible due to external factors that are not within the Applicant’s control,the Applicant will instead submit a proposal for equivalent alternative pedestrian improvements or appropriate replacement,subject to the Chief Planner’s review and approval.Submittal requirements will include an in-kind valuation,site plan,and specifications for any proposed improvements.A financial contribution may be permitted if equivalent on-site improvements are not possible. D.Building Electrification.The Applicant has committed to 100%electric buildings,furthering the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by avoiding use of natural gas;through discussions with the developer,the City indicates that it will consider 30%of the added upfront cost-approximately $1,530,000-as a community benefit toward mitigating the impacts of sea level rise. E.Participation in the future South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District F.Community Benefits Summary. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 6 of 11 powered by Legistar™99 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Funding Contribution $ 4,742,500 Publicly Accessible Plazas $ 2,620,000 Enhanced Connectivity & Access $ 3,727,500 Green Building/Electrification $ 1,530,000 TOTAL $12,620,000 Third-Party Valuation Study A.EPS has provided an assessment of the additional value created by the proposed increase in project density (i.e.,the economic value of the development incentives).The analysis compares the financial performance of IQHQ’s proposed project,against that of a hypothetical “Regulatory Baseline” development at 1.0 FAR,recognizing that there is a community benefits fee that may be paid to satisfy the community benefits requirement for projects with FAR exceeding 1.0 and up to 2.5 FAR. B.Key Findings: a.The proposed community benefits package is valued at $12.6 million to the City of South San Francisco. b.If the applicant decided to pay the Community Benefits Fee rather than provide eligible,in-kind Community Benefits, the fee amount would be approximately $12.0 million. c.The pro forma financial analysis presented in this memorandum indicates the increase in land value supported by the proposed Project and attributable to an FAR bonus above 1.0 is estimated to be approximately $23.8 million. d.The subterranean parking configuration required for a higher density development increases total development costs by nearly $132 per square foot of rentable building space relative to the “Regulatory Baseline”. Attachments 1A and 1B to the Staff Report provides a full description of the Community Benefits Program, third-party Valuation Study,and the provision of publicly accessible plazas and enhanced connectivity and access included with the proposed project. SUSTAINABILITY To further Citywide efforts to address climate change,the Project incorporates a number of design features and other measures to minimize resource consumption.The existing outdated and relatively inefficient buildings will be replaced with new structures that meet LEED Gold Certification requirements,comply with Title 24 and CALGreen standards, and contain all-electric features. Sustainability features may include, but are not limited to, the following: ·Architectural features for solar shading and daylighting ·High performance windows exceeding energy code thermal performance ·High performance walls, roof, and floors exceeding energy code thermal performance ·Tight building construction targeting 0.40 CFM/SF air infiltration at 75 Pa pressure ·Heat recovery for ventilation air ·Air source heat pump for space heating and cooling City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 7 of 11 powered by Legistar™100 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. ·Low flow domestic hot water fixtures ·Daylight harvesting and dimming in common spaces ·High efficiency lighting ·Occupancy/vacancy sensors to control lighting in back of house spaces Additionally,approximately 15%of the roof area of each building is available to support PV solar panels. Although no panels are proposed as part of the initial project,they could be readily integrated to meet tenant and market demand. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The South San Francisco Design Review Board (DRB)reviewed the proposed Project on two occasions.First was during the May 16,2022,meeting and the DRB provided comments and requested a suite of revisions to address height and massing,active space planning at the ground floor,circulation planning,potential noise and vibration issues,wind impacts of the Project,as well as changes to the bicycle and pedestrian-supportive infrastructure, and landscape palette. On August 16,2022,the DRB reviewed a subsequent revision to plans and was uniformly supportive of the design edits and presentation to address previous comments.During this meeting,the DRB deemed that the revisions to the Project addressed previous comments,and recommended approval with the following comments and conditions (also documented in Attachment 2): a.The Board liked the revised plan concept with the enhanced articulation to the buildings. b.The new design redistributes all the elevations which results in an amazing improvement to the design of the campus. c.The Applicant took the previous DRB comments and came back with a more well thought out design by shifting some of the buildings towards the back of the parcel. d.The proposed colors and patterns work well with the campus and the applicant took the wind and noise studies and produced a nice plaza that everyone could utilize. e.The design team did an amazing job with the revised design. f.Recommend Approval with conditions and can proceed to Planning Commission for future hearing. Following the August 16,2022,DRB meeting,the applicant submitted revised plans (Associated Entitlements Resolution Exhibit B)that were reviewed as a part of the Planning Commission hearing and now included as a part of the Council agenda packet, to address any relevant final comments from the DRB. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) An IS/MND (Associated CEQA Resolution,Exhibit A1)was prepared by the City with assistance from Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.for the proposed project.It was circulated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)for 30 days to state and other reviewing agencies/jurisdictions,and interested parties, from March 29, 2023, through April 28, 2023. The IS/MND finds that the following resources could potentially result in impacts due to the proposed Project: Air Quality,Biological Resources,Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils,Hazards and Hazardous Materials,and Transportation.However,mitigation measures are proposed that would City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 8 of 11 powered by Legistar™101 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. and Hazardous Materials,and Transportation.However,mitigation measures are proposed that would ensure the potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The proposed mitigation measures are typical for a modern construction project and detailed within the IS/MND, and summarized below: 1.Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)construction best management practices to reduce air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction; 2.Biological mitigation measures designed to protect any nesting birds that may be on site; 3.Archaeological and / or paleontological evaluation in the case of accidental discovery of resources; 4.Halt of construction activities to evaluate potential discovery of unidentified resources; 5.Compliance with a design-level geotechnical investigation report; 6.Hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measures to ensure that hazardous materials and /or accidental spills would not create public or environmental hazards; 7.Demonstrate adequate sight distance at project driveways,including removal of obstructions and physical improvements at the site These required mitigations are incorporated into the Project through a Condition of Approval requiring compliance with the mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and reflected on the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Associated CEQA Resolution, Exhibit B). Comments on the IS/MND The comment period on the IS/MND closed on April 29,2023.Three comment letters were received during the comment period, as listed below: •Pacific Gas and Electric Company Letter: Plan Review Team, dated March 29, 2023 •San Francisco International Airport Letter:Nupur Sinha,Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, dated April 18, 2023 •California Geologic Survey: Dr. Erik Frost, Senior Engineering Geologist, email sent April 25, 2023 In summary,the comments received by Staff 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.The Final IS/MND includes the comments received, response to the comments received, revisions to address the comments, and errata memo. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to the Associated CEQA Resolution (Exhibit B); staff will continue to work with the applicant during project construction to ensure that all required mitigation measures are incorporated. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 9 of 11 powered by Legistar™102 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW On June 15,2023,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony.The Planning Commission supported the project,and recommended approval to the City Council,with a vote of 5-0-2 (Planning Commission Resolutions are included in Attachment 3A and 3B to this staff report). The Commissioners asked questions related to the TDM Plan implementation and whether TDM compliance would be passed on to the tenants or if the developer would retain control of the implementation.The Applicants responded that they would continue to work directly with the City on TDM implementation. Commissioners also noted that special considerations for residents should be given to ensure access to the public spaces,including special pricing for resident’s use of the proposed event center.The Applicants concurred and would continue to pursue this as the project moves forward.No changes to the Conditions of Approval and no public comments were provided during the Planning Commission meeting. FISCAL IMPACT The developer of the project has funded the preparation of all applicable studies for the proposed project and paid entitlement fees to advance the application through the City’s review process.Direct revenue associated with this project would include property tax revenue increase from the improvements and construction of the proposed office/R&D development at the project site.The project would pay the costs of meeting City requirements for off-site improvements to public right-of-way,as well as maintenance,so the City does not expect to incur project specific costs. In addition,the project would be subject to development impact fees (approximately $50,804,264)which would be paid by the applicant prior to the issuance of building permits,or prior to final inspection for the development. Impact fees applicable to the project include, but are not limited to, the following: •Childcare Impact Fee: (approximately $1,306,204) •Parks and Recreation Impact Fees: (approximately $3,062,927) •Library Impact Fee: (approximately $121,105) •Commercial Linkage Fee: (approximately $15,034,326) •Citywide Transportation Fee: (approximately $30,146,505) •Public Safety Impact Fee: (approximately $1,133,197) •School District Fee: (approximately $527,672) RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The proposed project helps achieve the following goal/objective of the City’s Strategic Plan: §Priority #5 Economic Vitality -Full range of employment options and a continued focus on biotechnology retention, recruitment, and industry support: CONCLUSION The proposed Office/R&D development is consistent with both the General Plan 2040 and the Zoning Ordinance requirements.The Project proposes a state-of-the-art Office/R&D building that will transform a similarly used small-scale office park site located within a ½-mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station.The Project aims to bring high-quality architectural design and significant public realm improvements City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 10 of 11 powered by Legistar™103 File #:23-538 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9. Station.The Project aims 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.Given the Project's high visibility along the Highway 101 corridor and proximity to public transportation,the 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. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1.Adopt a resolution making findings and to adopt the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001),in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq.; and 2.Adopt a resolution making findings to approve a Design Review Permit (DR22-0010),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004),and Community Benefits Program (CB23-0001), subject to the Conditions of Approval. Attachments 1.800 Dubuque Avenue Community Benefits Proposal 2.Design Review Board (DRB) Comment Letter dated August 26, 2023 3.Planning Commission June 15, 2023, Adopted Resolutions 4.Staff Presentation Exhibits to Associated CEQA Resolution A1.Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A2.IS/MND Comments Received and Response to Comments B.Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Exhibits to Associated Entitlements Resolution A. Development Standards Compliance Table B. Project Plans C. Transportation Demand Management Plan D. Conditions of Approval City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 11 of 11 powered by Legistar™104 4888-0279-9442.8 June 9, 2023 By Email: Nell.Selander@ssf.net Nell Selander Director of Economic and Community Development City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: Proposed Community Benefits for 800 Dubuque Ave. Project [Updated] Dear Ms. Selander: On behalf of Dubuque Center, L.P. (“Applicant”), a wholly owned subsidiary of IQHQ, L.P., I am writing to memorialize certain community benefit commitments regarding proposed development of the 800 Dubuque redevelopment project (“Project”) at 800–890 Dubuque Avenue. The Project—an infill, transit-oriented office/R&D development—proposes substantial benefits, including direct funding to support City capital improvement priorities. As described in Part I below, the value of these quantified measures is estimated at over $12.6 million. The Applicant further agrees to support formation of a proposed Community Facilities District for the East of 101 area, subject to certain terms described in Part II. This proposal is intended to form the basis for a Community Benefits Agreement, under Chapter 20.395 of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance, to allow the Project to achieve floor area ratio (“FAR”) above 2.5 (proposed FAR is approximately 3.3). In addition to these direct benefits, and approximately $51 million in estimated impact fees, the Project includes numerous design features that will benefit the community. Although not credited for purposes of community benefits, these features are summarized for informational purposes in Part III. I.Proposed Direct Community Benefits A.Funding Contributions. The Applicant proposes to make a monetary contribution to the City, in accordance with the City’s recently adopted Community Benefits Fee, in the amount of $4,742,500. This contribution will be provided prior to issuance of building permits for vertical construction. B.Publicly Accessible Plazas. The Project includes approximately 35,315 square feet of plaza space that will be publicly accessible during business hours with well- appointed landscaping beyond City code requirements, outdoor furniture, special paving and lighting to enhance the comfort and usability of these spaces. Publicly accessible spaces will be visible from the public right of way and/or signage will be provided to indicate the spaces are available for public use. The City has indicated that it will consider 40% of the cost of these plazas as a public benefit, at a value of approximately $2,620,000. 105 Page 2 4888-0279-9442.8 C. Enhanced Connectivity and Access. The Applicant proposes to improve public access and connectivity around the Project site by installing new landscaping and sidewalk improvements, as well as facilitating vehicular and pedestrian connections to the Caltrain Station, with ample lighting for safety. We understand that the City will consider 35% of this estimated cost—approximately $3,727,500— as a community benefit, in accordance with the priorities set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.395.004(B). If these improvements are not possible due to external factors that are not within the Applicant’s control, the Applicant will instead submit a proposal for equivalent alternative pedestrian improvements or appropriate replacement, subject to the Chief Planner’s review and approval. Submittal requirements will include an in-kind valuation, site plan, and specifications for any proposed improvements. A financial contribution may be permitted if equivalent on-site improvements are not possible. D. Building Electrification. The Applicant has committed to 100% electric buildings, furthering the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by avoiding use of natural gas; we understand that the City will consider 30% of the added upfront cost— approximately $1,530,000—as a community benefit toward mitigating the impacts of sea level rise. E. Community Benefits Summary. Funding Contribution $4,742,500 Publicly Accessible Plazas $2,620,000 Enhanced Connectivity & Access $3,727,500 Green Building/Electrification $1,530,000 TOTAL $12,620,000 II. Community Facilities District The Applicant agrees to support City’s formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) serving land within the East of 101 area, and generally as established within the parameters described in the City Manager’s presentation of October 2, 2019 on this topic (“2019 Presentation”), provided that (i) the Project’s maximum CFD assessment rate does not exceed one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of assessable real property, and (ii) the Project’s maximum CFD assessment rate does not exceed the rate assessed against other office/R&D properties in the East of 101 area. Subject to this commitment, Applicant shall not be prohibited from participating in public hearings, negotiations, or other communications regarding the formation of the CFD or the facilities and/or services proposed to be funded by CFD proceeds. III. Summary of Additional Benefits and Commitments The Project incorporates additional features and the Applicant has made certain commitments to further benefit the community. Some of these commitments overlap with the community benefits outlined in Part I and are included here for completeness. Others do not qualify as community benefits but are sizable and therefore worth identifying for the record. 106 Page 3 4888-0279-9442.8 Most notably, we have committed to utilizing union labor, including local hire, for mechanical, plumbing, electrical, shoring/dewatering, and electrical skin. We estimate the total cost is $46,400,000, and that the difference in costs between using labor vs non-union labor is roughly 12–14%. As outlined above, the Project will be fully electrified to further the City’s Climate Action Plan goals at a total cost of $5,100,000. Additional green building design elements associated with achieving LEED Gold Certification and Fitwel cost a total of $11,100,000. Additional physical improvements of note include: • On-site public art installation to satisfy the City’s public art requirement that is valued at approximately $6,500,000. • Streetscape improvements, consisting of improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, curbs and gutters, undergrounding existing utility lines, stormwater features, street trees and landscaping along the Project’s Dubuque Avenue frontage, at a cost of $7,100,000. • Four-level subterranean parking structure, which significantly improves the Project’s aesthetics relative to above-ground parking, at a cost of approximately $190,000,000. Please see the memorandum titled 800 Dubuque Public Benefits Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. and included as Attachment A, which provides an analysis of the proposed public benefits and other features identified above, in relation to the value created by the proposed FAR increase. * * * We look forward to working with you and City staff to finalize agreement on the Project’s proposed community benefits, and documenting them as appropriate through the Community Benefits Agreement. Please let us know of any questions. Sincerely, Justine Nielsen Senior Vice President, Development cc: Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Sky Woodruff, City Attorney 107 Page 4 4888-0279-9442.8 ATTACHMENT A 800 Dubuque Public Benefits Analysis (Updated June 22, 2023) 108 221044_Final 800 Dubuque Community Benefits_6.22.2023 F INAL T ECHNICAL M EMORANDUM To: IQHQ, Inc. CC: Jason Bredbury and David Hurley, VFR Advisors From: Jason Moody and Jenny Lin, Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subject: 800 Dubuque Public Benefits Analysis #221044 Date: June 22, 2023 IQHQ, Inc. (“IQHQ”) retained Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) to assess project economics and appropriate public benefit contributions for its proposed life science office/research and development project in the City of South San Francisco (“City”). The proposed project (“Project”) includes a 3-tower cluster of varying heights, totaling 857,000 square feet and an expected floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.3.1 Since the Project will exceed the maximum 1.0 FAR allowed “by right” based on the zoning code for the East of 101 Transit Core (“ETC”) district, the city may seek contributions to various public benefits as part of the entitlement process under the City’s Community Benefits Program (“Program”). Under the Program, projects seeking an increase in FAR greater than 1.0 but not exceeding 2.5 have a choice to pay the City’s community benefits fee, participate in a Community Benefits Agreement, or both. In October 2022, the City adopted a community benefits fee set at $20 per bonus square foot above the base 1.0 FAR to be credited against the value of the development’s public benefits (Section 20.395.003). Projects with FAR exceeding 2.5, such as 800 Dubuque, require a Valuation Study and City Council approval of a Community Benefits Agreement which may include payment of the Community Benefits Fee to satisfy part or all the benefit. The Valuation Study should include: 1 The Project is comprised of three buildings interconnected connected by a two-story podium that provides open space and a 7,200 square foot fitness center. The site also contains a plaza with on-site food/beverage and tenant amenity uses totaling 6,600 square feet and a 7,500 square foot event center. 109 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 2 1. A calculation of the applicable Community Benefit Fee that would apply, against which the value of the development’s public benefits will be credited in accordance with the following: a. An assessment of the economic and/or intrinsic value of the proposed public benefit as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives requested by the applicant. In this case, the benefit provided must be described in Section 20.395.004 (“Community Benefit Priorities”); or b. An assessment of the proposed fee as compared with the economic value of the proposed development incentives requested by the applicant. EPS has prepared a third-party Valuation Study assessing the additional value created by the proposed increase in project density (i.e., the economic value of the development incentives). The analysis compares the financial performance of IQHQ’s proposed project, against that of a hypothetical “Regulatory Baseline” development at 1.0 FAR, recognizing that there is a community benefits fee that may be paid to satisfy the community benefits requirement for projects with FAR exceeding 1.0 and up to 2.5. Additionally, EPS acknowledges that there are other factors that may motivate IQHQ to pursue a higher density scenario. These factors may include, for example, attracting high caliber tenants, among other considerations. While legitimate, these additional considerations are difficult to quantify and thus outside the scope of this analysis. 110 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 3 Key Findings 1. The proposed community benefits package is valued at $12.6 million to the City of South San Francisco. The applicant proposes to provide on-site 35,300 square feet of publicly accessible plazas, enhanced connectivity and improved access from the Caltrain, and an all- electric building. The estimated costs of these features are approximately $22.3 million and the City has deemed approximately 35.3 percent, or $7.9 million, of the total valuation as eligible as community benefits for the Project. The applicant is also providing $4.7 million of cash contribution bringing the total value of proposed community benefit packages to $12.6 million. 2. If the applicant decided to pay the Community Benefits Fee rather than provide eligible, in-kind Community Benefits, the fee amount would be approximately $12.0 million. In October 2022, the City adopted a community benefits fee set at $20 per square foot above the base 1.0 FAR to be credited against the value of the development’s public benefits (Section 20.395.003). The net new square footage is approximately 600,250 square feet from the Regulatory Baseline Project of 1.0 FAR to the Proposed Project of 3.3 FAR. Should the applicant decide to pay the Community Benefits fee to satisfy the Program requirements, the applicant would pay the Community Benefits Fee of $12.0 million as compared to the proposed community benefit package of $12.6 million. 3. The pro forma financial analysis presented in this memorandum indicates the increase in land value supported by the proposed Project and attributable to an FAR bonus above 1.0 is estimated to be approximately $23.8 million. The proposed project adds approximately 600,200 square feet of rentable building area and an additional 142,500 square feet of rentable outdoor and amenity space 2 over a hypothetical Regulatory Baseline project that might be developed without community benefits. While the proposed building creates about $975.0 million more in value, development costs (excluding land) are about $951.2 million higher. Thus, the increase in value from the proposed FAR bonus (over the “Regulatory Baseline” project) generates about $23.8 million in new value. Based on EPS experience with community benefit agreements in California, the value creation associated with any discretionary entitlement is typically shared between the developer and the City, with a portion of the new value (i.e., $23.8 million) serving to motivate the developer to 2 Outdoor and amenity area accounts for spaces not internal to the building such as spaces for machinery, outdoor patios, roof areas, etc. 111 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 4 undertake a larger project. Thus, the applicant will have less financial incentive to develop a larger project as the share of direct community benefit contributions increases. The Applicant’s proposed Community Benefits is approximately 52.9 percent of the economic value created by upzoning. 4. The subterranean parking configuration required for a higher density development increases total development costs by nearly $132 per square foot of rentable building space relative to the “Regulatory Baseline”. The 385 parking spaces assumed for the Regulatory Baseline scenario can be accommodated in an above-grade parking structure, typically constructed for about $60,000 per space. The proposed development would provide 1,285 underground parking spaces totaling four levels of underground parking.3 Such a configuration would cost approximately $148,000 per space (based on cost estimates provided by third party consultants retained by IQHQ), which moderates the value created by increased density. 5. In addition to any unique community benefits contributed by the Applicant, the proposed project will help South San Francisco absorb un-met demand in the regional life science office market and further establish its position as one of the premier locations in the United States. South San Francisco is home to one of the most significant life sciences agglomerations in the world, with 11.5-million square feet of life sciences office space. Despite the inventory and pipeline of projects, supply for life science space is not keeping pace with demand, driving rents up to over $7 per square foot per month. Facilitating increased density on sites within the ETC District helps address this local supply constraint, while further cementing South San Francisco’s position at the forefront of biotech innovation. 3 The project includes 1,335 parking spaces that are underground (1,285 for the R&D component and 50 visitor spaces for the event center). The 50 additional spaces are not included as this analysis is based on requirements for R&D uses and not ancillary uses (e.g., the event center) to provide a commensurable comparison. 112 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 5 Land Use Context The IQHQ site is in the City of South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transit Core (ETC) zoning district. Per Table 20.090.003 of the Zoning Code, the by-right development intensity in this area is limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 but developers can receive an increase to the maximum FAR of 8.0. Projects seeking an increase in FAR greater than 1.0 but not exceeding 2.5 have a choice to pay the City’s community benefits fee, participate in a Community Benefits Agreement, or both. Projects with FAR exceeding 2.5, such as 800 Dubuque, are subject to a Community Benefits Agreement. The Community Benefits Agreement may include a payment of Community Benefits Fees to satisfy part or all the benefit requirements. In October 2022, the City adopted a community benefits fee set at $20 per square foot above the base 1.0 FAR to be credited against the value of the development’s public benefits (Section 20.395.003). The code goes on to list specific “Community Benefit Priorities” (Section 20.395.004) including, but not limited to, enhancement of public spaces through public art, funding or construction of certain streetscape improvements for enhanced connectivity, and support for local business through participation in a local hire program. Given this regulatory context, EPS evaluated the additional development proposed by the IQHQ Project above and beyond what would be allowed “by-right.” Table 1 compares the level of development in IQHQ’s proposed Project with a hypothetical by-right project. Specifically, EPS formulated a hypothetical office development scenario consistent with zoning requirements for a life-science project located in the ETC district that does not exceed the 1.0 FAR requirement and does not participate in the City’s Community Benefits Program (“Regulatory Baseline Project”). The 857,000 square foot Project has a total of 1,335 parking spaces accommodated through four levels of below grade parking. The City code has a maximum allowable parking ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of R&D floor area. Based on this allowance, the Project includes 1,285 spaces to serve the 857,000 square feet of R&D area with an additional fifty spaces to serve the 7,500 square foot event center.4 By comparison, the Regulatory Baseline Project (i.e., a project that is consistent with the maximum 1.0 FAR base zoning of the site and does not utilize the City’s Community Benefits Program) is an approximately 256,800 square foot building. Like the proposed project, this scenario also assumes a life science tenant(s) occupies the building. The 4 No parking requirement is specified for the event center; therefore, the Chief Planner is responsible for determining the requirement based upon the requirements for the most similar comparable use, the characteristics of the proposed use, and any other relevant data regarding parking demand (Section 20.330.004D) 113 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 6 Regulatory Baseline project’s costs reflect this use and include tenant improvements with identical per unit costs as those assumed for the proposed project. Aside from being smaller in size and not having ancillary uses,5 a key component of the Regulatory Baseline Project is that it allows for above-grade structured parking. The scenario assumes the same parking ratio of 1.5 spaces for 1,000 square feet of R&D area with a total of 385 parking spaces. The ability to accommodate the Regulatory Baseline Project’s spaces in an above-grade structure has major implications for the potential value created by an increase in density, which is discussed in the “Cost Assumptions” subsection of this memorandum. Table 1 Development Scenarios Item Regulatory Baseline Proposed Project Floor-to-Area Ratio 1.0 3.3 Gross Floor Area (SF) 256,800 Square Feet 857,000 Square Feet Construction Type 1 Life Science Occupancy Type 1 Life Science Occupancy Parking Stalls 385 1,285 6 Parking Type Above-Grade Structure / Podium Subterranean 5 EPS analyzes the financial performance of both scenarios based on requirements for R&D uses and not ancillary uses such as the event center to provide a commensurable comparison. 6 The project includes 1,335 parking spaces that are underground (1,285 for the R&D component and 50 visitor spaces for the event center). The 50 additional spaces are not included as this analysis is based on requirements for R&D uses and not ancillary uses (e.g., the event center) to provide a commensurable comparison. 114 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 7 Development Feasibility Analysis The EPS pro forma financial analysis relies on a feasibility assessment of both the Regulatory Baseline and proposed project. This analysis uses the common static pro forma financial feasibility framework to estimate a residual land value and supportable community benefit value for each of the development alternatives. The approach compares real estate development value at project stabilization (i.e., after project lease up is complete) with the cost of project development, all in 2023 dollars. The pro forma financial analysis determines finished real estate value based on assumptions including market-supportable lease rates, operating costs, and a required project yield rate. Development cost assumptions reflect project-specific construction costs, typical project soft costs (e.g., architecture and engineering), City Permits and Fees, and an appropriate developer return on investment. The assumptions reflect EPS research, third-party data, and construction costs prepared by IQHQ’s third-party consultants. The financial feasibility analysis assumes the minimum return on investment requirement that would be necessary to attract investors to the real estate investment opportunity. EPS believes speculative real estate development in the current market requires a yield on Project cost of about 6 percent, commensurate with the risk factors associated with such investments. Cost Assumptions For analytical purposes, both the Regulatory Baseline and proposed project scenarios assume identical per square foot costs for site preparation and site improvements, direct construction costs for the building (excluding parking), and tenant improvement costs which are shown in Table A-1 and Table A-2. The major difference in direct costs is related to the parking structure. The above-grade structured parking in the Regulatory Baseline scenario is assumed to be $60,000 per space for 385 spaces while the subterranean parking for proposed project is estimated to be around $148,000 per stall. The higher cost of subterranean parking is due to the excavation and waterproofing necessitated by below-grade construction. Inclusive of the parking costs, the Regulatory Baseline scenario assumes total hard costs of about $1,140 per square foot of gross floor area, while the proposed project assumes approximately $1,200 per square foot of gross floor area. 7 115 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 8 Regarding soft costs, both scenarios assume a percentage of direct construction costs, with the exception of fees and marketing costs (the latter being on a square foot basis). EPS estimates that the Regulatory Baseline scenario would pay $9.3 million in development impact fees, excluding public art requirements, versus the $49.1 million anticipated for the proposed project. Gross fee calculations are shown in Table A-3. Tables A-1 and A-2 net out fee credits expected for existing development on the site.8 The financial pro forma also includes Project contingency costs estimated at 5 percent of total hard and soft costs, excluding impact fees for both scenarios. Based on this assumption the proposed project has a higher contingency cost per square foot at $71, relative to the Regulatory Baseline scenario’s contingency assumption of $68 per square foot. This is attributable to the higher parking cost in the proposed project. When all costs are combined, the Regulatory Baseline scenario is estimated to have total development costs (excluding land) of approximately $1,460 per square foot, versus $1,550 for the proposed project. Revenue Assumptions There are two sources of revenue associated with the proposed project. The first is the revenue expected for the 857,000 square feet of leasable area associated with general R&D office uses, while the second source is attributed to the 203,500 square feet of leasable outdoor/ amenity spaces. These areas account for areas not part of the building square footage such as roof space or storage areas used and leased by tenants. EPS assumes a proportionate amount of leasable outdoor/ amenity spaces for the Regulatory Baseline scenario based on the 256,800 square feet of building space for a total of 61,000 square feet. EPS assumes rent of $84.60 per square foot annually, in line with expected steadying rents in the area. The same rent assumption is used in both the Regulatory Baseline and proposed Project scenarios. Project yield is assumed to be 6 percent in both cases. 7 The difference in the gross building area per square foot cost is attributable to the size of the building as site preparation and improvement costs are the same for both scenarios. 8 When a development project changes from a lower impact use to a higher impact use, the fee to be paid is calculated on the net change based on the pre-existing use and corresponding fee requirements of the new use. There are currently three existing buildings on site that support a mix of office, R&D, and manufacturing/ warehouse/ storage uses that may qualify for fee credits. Final development impact fee credits will be confirmed by the City, although the fee credit applied to the existing development(s) will not alter the outcome of this analysis. 116 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 9 Results Table 2 shows the estimated residual land values of both project scenarios, and the “lift” of value from upzoning the Regulatory Baseline Project. The analysis finds that the residual land value for the Regulatory Baseline program is about $43.4 million, versus $67.2 million with the proposed program. The increase in project density from 1.0 to 3.3 FAR results in an estimated increase in residual land value of $23.8 million. Table 2 Estimated Residual Land Value by Scenario Additionally, Community Benefit requirements for projects with increases in project density from 1.0 may be satisfied by paying a Community Benefits fee and would be credited from the total community benefits contribution. Community Benefits IQHQ’s proposed project include improvements and commitments that provide public benefits to the South San Francisco community including: • Publicly Accessible Plazas. The project incorporates around 35,300 square feet of publicly accessible plaza space. These spaces exceed code requirements and feature enhanced landscaping, furniture, special paving, and special lighting, all aimed at improving comfort and usability. These areas will be visible from the public right of way or marked with signage to indicate their availability for public use. • Enhanced Connectivity and Improved Access. The project includes enhanced connectivity and improved access, including landscaping and sidewalk enhancements. It also provides pedestrian connectivity to the Caltrain Station through a new well-lit and landscaped walkway. • All Electric Building. The building will be designed to be fully electric, incorporating carbon reduction measures and striving for carbon neutrality. These efforts aim to minimize the project's contribution to environmental impacts, including mitigating the effects of sea level rise. • Cash Contribution to City. IQHQ’s community benefit package includes a $4.7 million cash contribution to the City. The City can use these funds at its discretion. Item Regulatory Baseline Project Proposed Project Difference Estimated Building Value $417,054,000 $1,392,064,000 $975,010,000 Estimated Project Cost ($373,659,000)($1,324,887,000)($951,228,000) Estimated Land Value $43,395,000 $67,177,000 $23,782,000 117 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 10 Table 3 presents the valuation of these project enhancements.9 Together, including direct and soft costs, the estimated costs of these features is approximately $22.3 million. Per discussions with City Staff, approximately 35 percent, or $7.9 million, of the total valuation is eligible as community benefits for the Project. After accounting for IQHQ $4.7 million cash contribution, the total value of proposed community benefit packages is estimated at $12.6 million to the City of South San Francisco. The additional costs associated with these project enhancements are included within the financial analysis (i.e., factored into the project construction costs summarized in Appendix A). These costs are isolated here for informational purposes, to provide context for the value of the project enhancements. Table 3 Eligible Community Benefits Source: IQHQ 9 Based on cost information provided to EPS by IQHQ. Item Calculation Proposed Direct Public Benefit Valuation Publicly Accessible Plazas $6,550,800 Enhanced Connectivity & Improved Access $10,650,000 All Electric Building $5,100,000 Total Valuation of Community Benefits $22,300,800 % Eligible as Project Community Benefits 35% Valuation of Project Community Benefits $7,877,800 Cash Contribution to Community Benefits $4,742,500 Total Valuation of Project Community Benefits $12,620,300 118 221044_Final 800 Dubuque Community Benefits_6.22.2023 APPENDIX A 119 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 12 Table A- 1: Regulatory Baseline Project Pro Forma Financial Analysis Summary DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS Net Development Site (Square Feet)256,752 FAR 1.00 Gross Building Area (Square Feet)256,752 Rentable Building Area (Square Feet)100%of GBA 256,752 Maximum Parking Spaces (Structured)1.50 per 1,000 SF 385 PROJECT OPERATING INCOME (ANNUAL)PER GBA TOTAL Gross Potential Rent $7.05 per SF/Month (NNN)$85 $21,721,219 Outdoor/ Amenity Space [1]$5,156,582 Gross Potential Parking Income $0.00 per Space/Month $0 $0 Losses to Vacancy 5.0%of GPR -$5 -$1,343,890 Gross Office Revenue $99 $25,533,911 Operating Expenses 2.00%of Gross Revenue -$2 -$510,678 Net Operating Income $97 $25,023,233 Supportable Development Cost 6.00%Project Yield Rate $1,624 $417,053,881 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER GBA TOTAL Construction Costs Site Preparation and Site Improvements $106 Cost/SF (Site Area)$106 $27,089,325 Building Direct Cost $659 Cost/SF (GBA)$659 $169,314,975 Tenant Improvement Costs $286 Cost/SF (RBA)$286 $73,377,744 Surface Parking Direct Cost $60,000 per Space $90 $23,107,680 Total Construction Cost $1,141 $292,889,724 Soft Costs Impact Fees [2]$36 $9,277,972 Public Art [3]$9 $2,195,120 Permits and Other Fees 0.50%of Construction Cost $6 $1,464,449 Architecture, Engineering, and Other Professional Services 3.00%of Construction Cost $34 $8,786,692 Property Tax and Insurance 1.50%of Construction Cost $17 $4,393,346 Financing 6.50%of Construction Cost $74 $19,037,832 Marketing/Leasing $25.50 Cost/SF (GBA)$26 $6,547,176 Developer Fee 4.00%of Construction Cost $46 $11,715,589 Total Soft Costs $247 $63,418,175 Other Project Costs Development Contingency [4]5.0%of Construction & Soft Costs $68 $17,351,496 Total Other Costs $68 $17,351,496 Total Project Cost Excluding Land $1,455 $373,659,395 Residual Land Value $169 $43,394,486 [4] Contingency calculation excludes impact fees. [1] Accounts for areas not part of the building and used by tenants (e.g. storage of machinery). Calculated by EPS [2] Adjusted for fee credits from existing land use. 1.0% [3] Public art calculation excludes tenant improvement costs. 120 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 13 Table A- 2: Proposed Development Pro Forma Financial Analysis Summary DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS Net Development Site (Square Feet)256,752 FAR 3.3 Gross Building Area (Square Feet)857,000 Rentable Building Area (Square Feet)100%of GBA 857,000 Parking Spaces (Subterranean)1.50 per 1,000 SF 1,285 PROJECT OPERATING INCOME (ANNUAL)PER GBA TOTAL Gross Potential Rent $7.05 per SF/Month (NNN)$85 $72,502,200 Outdoor/ Amenity Space [1] $17,211,904 Gross Potential Parking Income $0.00 per Space/Month $0 $0 Losses to Vacancy 5.0%of GPR -$5 -$4,485,705 Gross Office Revenue $99 $85,228,399 Operating Expenses 2.00%of Gross Revenue -$2 -$1,704,568 Net Operating Income $97 $83,523,831 Supportable Development Cost 6.00%Project Yield Rate $1,624 $1,392,063,845 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS PER GBA TOTAL Construction Costs Site Preparation and Site Improvements $106 Cost/SF (Site Area)$32 $27,089,325 Building Direct Cost $659 Cost/SF (GBA)$659 $565,148,210 Tenant Improvement Costs $286 Cost/SF (RBA)$286 $244,924,000 Subterranean Parking Direct Cost $148,075 per Space $222 $190,276,442 Total Construction Cost $1,199 $1,027,437,977 Soft Costs Impact Fees [2]$57 $49,090,430 Public Art $8 $6,500,000 Permits and Other Fees 0.50%of Construction Cost $6 $5,137,190 Architecture, Engineering, and Other Professional Services 3.00%of Construction Cost $36 $30,823,139 Property Tax and Insurance 1.50%of Construction Cost $18 $15,411,570 Financing 6.50%of Construction Cost $78 $66,783,469 Marketing/Leasing $25.50 Cost/SF (GBA)$26 $21,853,500 Developer Fee 4.00%of Construction Cost $48 $41,097,519 Total Soft Costs $276 $236,696,816 Other Project Costs Development Contingency [4]5.0%of Construction & Soft Costs $71 $60,752,218 Total Other Costs $71 $60,752,218 Total Project Cost Excluding Land $1,546 $1,324,887,012 Residual Land Value $78 $67,176,833 Calculated by EPS [3] Contingency calculation excludes impact fees. [2] Adjusted for fee credits from existing land use. [1] Accounts for areas not part of the building and used by tenants (e.g. storage of machinery). Provided by IQHQ 121 Final Technical Memorandum 800 Dubuque Community Benefits Analysis Page | 14 Table A- 3: Preliminary Gross Impact Fee Estimations per SF Total per SF Total per SF Total Building Square Feet 113,595 SF 256,752 SF 857,000 SF Fee Category Parks and Rec Impact Fee $3.54 $402,126 $3.54 $908,902 $3.54 $3,033,780 Childcare Impact Fee $1.51 $171,528 $1.51 $387,696 $1.51 $1,294,070 Library Impact Fee $0.14 $15,903 $0.14 $35,945 $0.14 $119,980 Public Safety Impact Fee $1.31 $148,809 $1.31 $336,345 $1.31 $1,122,670 School District Fee n/a n/a $0.61 $156,619 $0.61 $522,770 Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee $0.09 $10,224 $0.09 $23,108 $0.09 $77,130 Citywide Transportation Fee $34.85 $3,959,084 $34.85 $8,948,482 $34.85 $29,868,702 Commercial Linkage Fee $17.38 $1,974,281 $17.38 $4,462,350 $17.38 $14,894,660 Oyster Point Overpass Impact Fee $4.43 $503,336 $1.91 $490,212 $1.91 $1,636,251 East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee $2.56 $290,616 $2.56 $656,863 $2.56 $2,192,510 Sewer Capacity Charge $2.43 $275,630 $2.43 $622,989 $2.43 $2,079,446 Public Art Requirements [3]n/a n/a $8.55 $2,195,120 $7.58 $6,500,000 Total Gross Impact Fees $68.24 $7,751,538 $74.88 $19,224,630 $73.91 $63,341,968 [2] Calculations are gross fees, not reflective of the fee credit received from existing uses. [3] Public art requirements for the Proposed Project are provided by IQHQ. Sources: City of South San Francisco; IQHQ; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Item [1] Assumes general office category. Existing Uses [1]Proposed Project [2]Regulatory Baseline [2] 122 123 124 125 800 Dubuque creates both mid-block connections through courtyards and secondary connections at the rear of the property to create a continuous path to Caltrain station upon the development suggested in the recently adopted General Plan SECONDARY CONNECTION EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION POTENTIAL FUTURE MID- BLOCK CONNECTION OPPORTUNITY NODES OF CONNECTION 126 127 128 129 130 City of South San Francisco Resolution 2922-2023 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-430 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council approve a Design Review Permit and Transportation Demand Management Plan to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed the construction of a new development at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres) referred to as “Project Site” in the City and is comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335 parking spaces (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks adoption of a Design Review Permit (DR22-0004) and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004) for the Project; and WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) (ND22-0004) and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and approve the Project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND (ND22-0004), and by separate resolution, recommends the City Council adopt the IS/MND (ND22-0004), as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental impacts, and find that the IS/MND satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by Perkins and Will Architects, dated October 31, 2022; the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, as prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc., dated March 2023; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15, 2023 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080 (e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™131 File #:23-430 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Development Standard Conformance Checklist for ETC (Exhibit A),Project Plans for Entitlement (Exhibit B),Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C),and Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit D)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. Design Review 1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as an office and research &development project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements incorporated. 2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office/R&D development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the East of 101 Transit Core land use designation by encouraging the development of new employment projects with some commercial uses within close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. 3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on May 17,2022,and August 16,2022,and found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. Transportation Demand Management Plan 1.Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.006, the proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation; and 2.Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.006, the proposed performance City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™132 File #:23-430 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3a. guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council makes the findings contained in this Resolution,approves the entitlements request for 800 Dubuque Avenue (P21-0117,DR22-0022,and TDM22-0004),and makes a determination by separate resolution that the Project,through its design features,as well as the mitigation measures proposed in the IS/MND and included in the MMRP,would operate to ensure the impacts of the proposed Project will not exceed established CEQA thresholds of significance and no additional environmental review is necessary. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of June 2023 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest___________________________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™133 Attest:__________________________________ Tony Rozzi Secretary to the Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2023 by the following: vote:AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: * * * * * * * City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Vice Chair Faria , Baker, Funes-Ozturk, Pamukcu, Shihadeh ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Chair Tzang, Evans 134 City of South San Francisco Resolution 2923-2023 P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-465 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. Resolution making findings and recommending that the City Council adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0004) in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed the construction of a new development at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres) referred to as “Project Site” in the City and is comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335 parking spaces (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks adoption of a Design Review Permit (DR22-0022) and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004) for the Project; and WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, on behalf of the City, Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project analyzing the potential environmental effects of the Project, which was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2023030721) and the San Mateo County Clerk and was circulated for a 30-day public review period, beginning on March 29, 2023, and ending on April 28, 2023; and WHEREAS, the City received three comment letters on the IS/MND during the applicable comment period; and WHEREAS, the City determined that the comments identified during the comment period do not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact conclusions; and WHEREAS, the City determined that responses to comments and corrections to the IS/MND do not require recirculation of the IS/MND or warrant the preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073.5 and 15074.1 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that, although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the IS/MND identifies measures that will be incorporated into the Project, which will either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the Project; and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™135 File #:23-465 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by Perkins and Will Architects, dated October 31, 2022; the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, as prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc., dated March 2023; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15, 2023 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco, based on substantial evidence in the record, hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS I. General and CEQA Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The exhibits and attachments, including the IS/MND and all appendices prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc., Response Memo and Errata Memo (attached as Exhibit A1 and A2), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B), are incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. 4.The IS/MND reflects the Planning Commission’s independent judgement and analysis and, based on the whole record before it inclusive of the IS/MND and public comments received, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby recommends that the City Council makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0004), in accordance with Section 21151 of the California Public Resources Code as the environmental document for the Project and conclude that no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2023 by the following vote: AYES: City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™136 File #:23-465 Agenda Date:6/15/2023 Version:1 Item #:3b. NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest___________________________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/8/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™137 Attest:__________________________________ Tony Rozzi Secretary to the Planning Commission I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 15th day of June, 2023 by the following: vote:AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: * * * * * * * City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Vice Chair Faria , Baker, Funes-Ozturk, Pamukcu, Shihadeh ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Chair Tzang, Evans 138 City Council July 12, 2023 1139 2Existing Conditions 140 3141 4Proposed Conditions 142 City Council 1.Planning Commission’s Recommendations Design Review (DR22-0010) Preliminary TDM Plan (TDM22-0004) CEQA IS/MND (ND22-0004) 2.Community Benefits Program (CB23-0001) 5143 6 Project Site 144 East of 101 Transit Core Vision: Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of high- density multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail, services, and amenities (minimum FAR from 1.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; maximum residential densities up to 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac) •East of 101 Policy Goals: •Improve connectivity for R&D workforce •Encourage growth near transit •Improve sidewalk and related pedestrian amenities •Provide publicly accessible, private open space •Vehicle trips are minimized through parking requirements, Transportation Demand Management, and alternative travel modes 7145 SSFMC 20.090 ◦Downtown/Caltrain Station Area Zoning Districts East of 101 Transit Core (ETC) Sub-District ETC Development Standards (SSFMC 20.090.002) Office and R&D permitted uses Maximum Height as allowable by the FAA Setbacks, Minimum Landscaping, Lot Coverage Standards Min 1.0 FAR or up to 8.0 with Community Benefits Program (3.3 FAR proposed with CB) Required Parking (SSFMC 20.330.004) •R&D Uses: 1.5 spaces per 1000 sq ft ✓Provided: 1,335 vehicle parking ✓(142 Parking Spaces EV capable) •Bike Parking (5% of required vehicle parking spaces) ✓190 bike parking spaces (166 long term | 24 short term) 8 Downtown/Caltrain Station Area Districts Purpose: •Support the revitalization of Downtown South San Francisco and the area around the Caltrain Station to a vibrant and successful community resource and a source of local pride. •Promote new residential, mixed-use and employment uses •Support pedestrian and bicycle throughout the Downtown, to transit, and to nearby employment and mixed-use areas. 146 May 17, 2022: ◦Massing changes and building orientation ◦Active space planning on ground floor ◦Improve circulation access for other modes and back-of-house operations ◦Address potential vibration and wind effects August 16, 2022: ◦Recommended to proceed to Planning Commission for next step in approval process Project meets all code-required Design Review findings 9147 SSFMC 20.400 TDM Ordinance Project to enact a TDM program to achieve a maximum drive alone commute mode share of 50 percent Example TDM Program Measures: ◦50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits ◦Participation in Commute.org Programs ◦Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking ◦Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers ◦Designated TDM Coordinator ◦Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access ◦Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules Additionally, large projects must implement annual monitoring of a site-specific trip cap. 10 800 Dubuque Avenue Requirements: •Tier 4 project = 50 points •Implement All Required TDM measures PLUS Optional measures: •Enhanced Shuttle Commitment •100% Subsidized Transit Passes •Transit Capital Improvements and Active Transportation Gap Closure •On-site Amenities •Bike Repair Station •Annual monitoring to achieve a maximum of 50% of employees commuting by driving alone •Annual monitoring of site-specific trip cap (driveway counts) •Parking Management Plan 148 Less than Significant with Mitigation : Mitigation Measures: ◦Air Quality – Construction BMPs ◦Biology – Surveys for nesting birds ◦Cultural – Accidental Discovery and Evaluation ◦Hazards – Implementation of Soils Mgmt/Health/Safety Plan ◦Transportation – Improve sight distance at driveways 12 Air Quality Geology and Soils Biological Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Transportation 149 Received four comments from three groups: ◦PG&E (March 29 and April 25) ◦SFO Airport (April 18) ◦California Geologic Survey (April 25) Comments received did not warrant additional studies, no new impacts identified, no EIR required per CEQA. 13150 14 Direct Funding Contributions: ◦Community Benefits Fee ($4.7 mil) ◦Publicly Accessible Plazas ($2.6 mil) ◦Enhanced Connectivity and Access ($3.7 mil) ◦Building Electrification ($1.5 mil) Participation in Industrial Area Community Facilities District Public Art On-site (or Public Art Fee) 151 15 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Childcare Fee Library Impact Fee Commercial Linkage Fee Citywide Transportation Fee Public Safety Impact Fee School District Fee Public Art Fee Estimated Total = $51.3 million 152 City Council recommended to take the following actions: ◦Adopt a resolution making findings to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0004) in accordance with Section 21083 of the California Public Resources Code; and ◦Adopt a resolution making findings to approve the entitlements request for 800 Dubuque Avenue, including Design Review (DR22 -0022), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004), and Community Benefits Program (CB23-0001), subject to the Conditions of Approval 16153 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-540 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution making findings and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001) in accordance with Section 21080 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 et seq. WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a new development at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres)referred to as “Project Site”in the City and is comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335 parking spaces (“Project”); and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks adoption of a Design Review Permit (DR22-0010)and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004) for the Project; and WHEREAS,the applicant also seeks increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR)of approximately 3.3 beyond zoning standards in exchange for the provision of certain community benefits pursuant to the Community Benefits Program under Municipal Code Chapter 20.395,inclusive of funding contributions,publicly accessible plaza construction,improvements to public access and connectivity features surrounding the Project,and building electrification, as outlined in further detail in Attachment 1A to the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,on behalf of the City,Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)for the Project (ND22-0001)analyzing the potential environmental effects of the Project,which was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No.2023030721)and the San Mateo County Clerk and was circulated for a 30-day public review period,beginning on March 29,2023,and ending on April 28, 2023; and WHEREAS,the City received three comment letters on the IS/MND during the applicable comment period; and WHEREAS,the City determined that the comments identified during the comment period does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact conclusions; and WHEREAS,the City determined that responses to comments and corrections to the IS/MND do not require recirculation of the IS/MND or warrant the preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073.5 and 15074.1 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS,the IS/MND concluded that,although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on the City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™154 File #:23-540 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9a. WHEREAS,the IS/MND concluded that,although the Project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because the IS/MND identifies measures that will be incorporated into the Project,which will either avoid or mitigate to a level of insignificance all potentially significant or significant effects of the Project; and WHEREAS,on June 15,2023,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony,and recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND (ND22-0001),as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental impacts,and find that the IS/MND satisfies CEQA requirements and no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS,on July 12,2023,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project applications;the Project Plans,as prepared by Perkins and Will Architects,dated October 31,2022;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,as prepared by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.,dated March 2023;all site plans,and all reports,minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15,2023 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed July 12,2023 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,based on substantial evidence in the record, hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The exhibits and attachments,including the IS/MND and all appendices prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.,Response Memo and Errata Memo (attached as Exhibit A1 and A2),and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B),are incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution,as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™155 File #:23-540 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:9a. Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner, Tony Rozzi. 4.The IS/MND reflects the City Council’s independent judgement and analysis and,based on the whole record before it inclusive of the IS/MND and public comments received,the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001),in accordance with Section 21151 of the California Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines section 15070 et seq.as the environmental document for the Project and conclude that no further environmental review is required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™156 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Errata ERRATA for the 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration State Clearinghouse Number: 2023030721 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 800 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, 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 45: The following clarifications to the project site’s location in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction were informed by the comments from the California Geologic Survey. Per the California Geological Survey’s Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation map Tthe project site is not within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone, indicating the need for a site-specific investigation.15 but Tthe project’s Geotechnical Investigation assessed the potential for liquefaction given the characteristics of the site soils. 15 California Geological Survey, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Page 57: The following clarifications to the airport-related height constraints and approval process were informed by the comments from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 157 Errata 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights below the critical aeronautical surface, which is of 261 approximately 860 feet above mean sea level. Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) identifies obstruction evaluation surfaces at the site at a height of 261 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).18 Factoring in the height of the site, the applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach a maximum heights of about 218 feet above mean sea level plus additional rooftop elements, all of which would be below the critical aeronautical surfaces. the lowest FAA height limits at the site of 261 feet. The project is consistent with airport-related building safety policies identified in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with Review by the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 for both permanent structures and temporary cranes or other equipment above obstruction evaluation heights, as applicable. and would ensure that the project is compatible with the SFO ALUCP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 158 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 MARCH 2023 Prepared By: Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 159 160 i TABLE OF CONTENTS page Introduction to this Document .......................................................................................................... 1 Public Review ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................... 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration ...................................................................................................... 13 Lead Agency Determination ............................................................................................................ 21 Initial Study Checklist ...................................................................................................................... 22 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ............................................................................ 22 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................................... 22 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................. 23 Agricultural and Forest Resources............................................................................................ 26 Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 27 Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 36 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 39 Energy ....................................................................................................................................... 41 Geology and Soils ..................................................................................................................... 44 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................................... 48 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 52 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 59 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 64 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 65 Noise ......................................................................................................................................... 66 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 68 Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 69 Recreation ................................................................................................................................ 70 Transportation .......................................................................................................................... 71 Tribal Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 75 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................... 76 Wildfire ..................................................................................................................................... 80 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 81 Document Preparers ....................................................................................................................... 82 Sources ............................................................................................................................................ 82 161 ii page TABLES Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ................................................... 29 Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ............................................................... 31 Table 3: Construction and Operation Risk ....................................................................................... 33 Table 4: Cumulative Community Risk .............................................................................................. 35 Table 5: Construction and Operational Energy Usage .................................................................... 42 Table 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 51 FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Site Plan .............................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4: Visual Model ....................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Building Sections .............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 6: Elevation, North and East ................................................................................................. 11 Figure 7: Elevation, South and West ............................................................................................... 12 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment Attachment B: Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response Attachment C: Energy Calculations Attachment D: Transportation Analysis 162 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 1 INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 800 Dubuque Avenue project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq.). Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but revisions in the project and/or incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment. This document is organized in three sections as follows: • Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and presents the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts. • Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the CEQA review document for the proposed project. • Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these impacts. Full project materials are available for review upon request from the Planning Department at City of South San Francisco (see contact info below). PUBLIC REVIEW This Initial Study will be circulated for a 30-day public review period. Comments may be submitted in writing by email or regular mail to the following address: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Phone: 650-877-8535 Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net PROJECT INFORMATION All figures for the project information are included together on pages 6 through 12. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco: Conditional Use Permit, based on a Community Benefits Agreement, to exceed the FAR that would be allowed by right, Design Review, and a Transportation Demand Management Program. 163 Page 2 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional Permit requirements related to stormwater pollution prevention. LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 CONTACT PERSON Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic & Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711 Phone: 650-877-8535 Email: Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net PROJECT SPONSOR Dubuque Center, L.P. Contact: Justine Nielsen, SVP of Development, IQHQ 674 Via De La Valle Suite 206 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: 858-779-1111 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING USES The 5.89-acre project site (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-030) is located in the City of South San Francisco, California at 800 – 890 Dubuque Avenue. It is bordered by Dubuque Avenue and the U.S. 101 highway on the west and the Caltrain right-of-way to the east. The adjacent property to the north is currently occupied by a Costco. The property immediately to the south supports PG&E transmission lines and surface parking, and further to the south is a now-vacant former Lowe’s Home Improvement store, currently used as a construction staging site. Figure 1 shows the project location. Figure 2 shows the existing conditions. The project site is currently developed with two one-story buildings and one two-story building, totaling 113,595 square feet of office/R&D (life science) use and associated surface parking. The project site is within ½ mile of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. SamTrans provides bus service primarily on the west side of U.S. 101, with some service on Oyster Point Boulevard to the north, and commute.org provides shuttle service from the Caltrain station to/from the BART and WETA ferry station. The site is relatively level, with varying elevations above mean sea level of approximately 19.4 to 25.6 feet. The depth to groundwater is approximately 8.5 feet below ground surface and the groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay. The project site does not appear on any regulatory lists for contaminated sites and there is no indication of migration of contamination from nearby contaminated sites or warrant for regulatory requirements at this site. 164 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 3 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION / ZONING General Plan Designation: East of 101 Transit Core Zoning: East of 101 Transit Core (ETC) SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is located between the Caltrain right-of-way to the east and U.S. 101 to the west. The northern adjacent property contains a Costco store, and the southern adjacent properties contain PG&E transmission lines with surface parking and a vacant large-format retail building (formerly Lowe’s). The project site is at the western edge of the East of 101 area, which is a large employment area including industrial, office, research and development, and commercial uses. To the west, across Dubuque Avenue is U.S. 101, with commercial and multi-family residential uses fronting along Airport Boulevard on the other side of the highway and residential neighborhoods beyond. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Overview and Building Massing The proposed project would involve demolition of the three existing buildings and construction of three new office / research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would be comprised of three buildings, the north, south, and west buildings, for a total of up to approximately 900,000 gross square feet. The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet above grade, and the west and south buildings would be approximately 179 and 130 feet above grade, respectively (including the mechanical penthouses). The project would include an approximately 7,500 square foot event center, approximately 6,600 square feet of food/beverage uses, an approximately 3,300 square foot bike room, and an approximately 7,200 square foot fitness center. The buildings would be connected by a two-story terrace, featuring a central plaza and courtyard that would provide open space and gathering and rest areas. The project is intended to be a mix of R&D space and offices. Based on an average office/R&D project employment density of 300 gross square feet per employee, a maximum of approximately 3,000 employees would be anticipated. Note that in parallel with this analysis, the project may undergo minor design revisions that would result in differences in building square footage and other minor details. This analysis presents the largest reasonable assumptions for development of the project such that the actual project will fall within this analysis. The west building would be oriented along Dubuque Avenue, with the northwest side angled to draw pedestrians towards the courtyard. The north and south buildings would be oriented along the internal roadways. Ground floor facades would have clear glazing for transparent building entries. Building entries would be protected by recessed entry portals that provide shelter from the wind and rain. The ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 designates the project site as East of 101 Transit Core with a maximum FAR of 1.0 by right, up to a maximum of 2.5 with the payment of a Community Benefits Fee, and up to 8.0 with a Community Benefits Agreement. The proposed project would have a FAR of approximately 3.33, which would require a Conditional Use Permit together with approval of a Community Benefits Agreement. The site is zoned East of 101 Transit Core, under which office and R&D uses are permitted. Figure 3 shows the site plan. Figure 4 shows a visual model of the project. Figure 5 includes building cross sections. Figures 6 and 7 show the proposed building elevations. 165 Page 4 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Access & Parking The project site is accessible by automobile, train, and bus, and would include on-site facilities for pedestrians and bikes. Rail: The project site is located less than ½ mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, part of a regional rail corridor that provides connectivity between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project site is also located approximately 2.5 and 3.0 miles from the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART Stations respectively, which are served by BART’s Red and Yellow Lines. Bus: SamTrans services the area through its 130, 141, 292, and 397 lines which stop at Airport Blvd. and Linden Avenue. Automobile/Truck: Vehicular access to the project site would remain from Dubuque Avenue. The main entrance to the project would be located on the northwestern corner of the site. A perimeter road would encircle the buildings leading to the below-grade parking areas. A secondary access point from Dubuque Avenue would be located on the southwestern portion of the site. The sidewalk on the east perimeter road would be maintained and the road would function as a shared space between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: A sidewalk runs along the eastern side of Dubuque Avenue. Sidewalks would be provided along project roadway edges. Bicycle access would be from Dubuque Avenue to either access road. Four levels of below grade parking would provide approximately 1,335 parking spaces, resulting in a ratio of approximately 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office/R&D floor area (1,285 spaces) plus visitor spaces representing approximately 20% of event center capacity (50 spaces for approximately 450 maximum attendees). Utilities Although the project will include a stubbed connection to the natural gas main to serve potential connections to commercial kitchens, the new buildings are designed to operate with 100% electric energy. The project would redevelop a site already provided with utilities and services. Localized lines may need to be extended or relocated within the project site. (See Section 19: Utilities and Service Systems for additional discussion of utilities.) In addition to on-site improvements and connections to utility lines along Dubuque Avenue, off-site utility improvements are proposed as a part of the project as follows: • The project proposes to underground the existing above-ground electrical lines along the project site frontage on Dubuque Avenue (approximately 462 linear feet) in coordination with PG&E. • The project is also proposing upsizing of the existing 8-inch sewer main along the southeastern property line of the project to a 10-inch sewer main for approximately 1,400 linear feet along the project site and south to the existing 10-inch main that crosses the Caltrain tracks (the junction is at manhole sJ2750, near the southern edge of the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel). The project is also proposing to rehabilitate this approximately 200 linear foot length across the Caltrain tracks (between manhole sJ2750 and Poletti Way) in place, which could include sliplining, cured in place pipe, pipe bursting, or replacement of the existing pipe with a new 10- inch sewer main. 166 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 5 Construction Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 4 years with an assumed start for purposes of this analysis in mid-2023 or later. 4 Demolition and site preparation would take approximately 4 months. Excavation work would run approximately the next 9 months, followed by building construction over about 26 months and finishing/paving/landscaping over about 6 months. Once leased, tenant improvements would follow to the interior of the buildings and are likely to take approximately an additional 3 months or more. The buildings are currently expected to be operational as early as mid-2027. The project would involve removal of 331,000 cubic yards of soil and excavation for subsurface parking extending to depths of up to about 50 feet below ground surface. Up to 18 months of construction dewatering would be necessary during excavation as further discussed in Section 7: Geology and Soils and Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality. Several subsurface investigations were completed between 2015 and 2022, and concluded, most recently, that while small areas of residual soil contamination may exist across the area, the risk of significant hazardous materials requiring remediation is low or non-existent. Specifically, certain metals, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were found sporadically across the site at levels that are not anticipated to require special disposal arrangements. Because the majority of site soils will be excavated to accommodate subterranean parking, residual soil and groundwater impacts will be removed from the site, resulting in a cumulatively cleaner site. Soil and groundwater handling are detailed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials. 4 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in mid-2023, if construction is initiated later, impacts would be the same or lessened (due to increasing emissions controls) from those analyzed here. 167 Page 6 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Figure 1: Project Location Source: Hexagon, 2023, modified 168 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 7 Figure 2: Existing Conditions Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022 169 Page 8 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Figure 3: Site Plan Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022, as modified by Hexagon 170 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 9 Figure 4: Visual Model Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022 171 Page 10 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Figure 5: Building Sections Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022 172 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 11 Figure 6: Elevations, North and East Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022 173 Page 12 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Figure 7: Elevations, South and West Source: Project Plan Set, dated October 31, 2022 174 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 13 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 800 Dubuque Avenue project. See the Introduction and Project Information section of this document for details of the project. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION The following is a list of potential project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document for a more detailed discussion. Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Air Quality, Construction Emissions: Construction activities can result in emissions and fugitive dust. While the project emissions would be below criteria pollutant threshold levels, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled, and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These measures were adopted as part of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 EIR (GP-MM-Air-1a) and would be applicable to the project. Mitigation Measure Air-2 would be implemented to reduce potential health risks from project construction emissions. General Plan Mitigation Measures GP-MM-Air-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. iii) All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 175 Page 14 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Air-2: Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter During Construction. The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at least 50 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows: 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity. 3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading phases. 4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures: • Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment, • Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, • Use of electrically-powered equipment, • Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage. Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. 176 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 15 Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Biological Impact: Trees in the vicinity of the project site could host the nests of common birds that are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code, so the following mitigation would be applicable to prevent a “take” of these species under these regulations related to disturbance during nesting. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Initiation of construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 15 through September 15) shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting season cannot be avoided, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the project area shall be conducted within 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, a 100-foot buffer area shall be established around the nest in which no construction activity takes place. The buffer width may be modified upon recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity based upon published protocols and/or guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW. The biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with monitoring by the biologist to and stoppage of work in that area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: There are no known cultural or tribal cultural resources at the site. However, given the moderate to high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources and proposed disturbance of native soils which also have the potential to contain paleontological resources, Mitigation Measures Cul-1 through Cul-3 would address the potential for unexpected discovery of such resources. Mitigation Measures Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal artifacts and resources that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. 177 Page 16 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Potential Impact Mitigation Measures Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant, and specific measures can be implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Geological Impact: The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The project site includes undocumented fill and construction activities require substantial excavation and dewatering. To mitigate the potential for damage to structures or people, the following measure shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Hazardous Site Impact: The site is impacted by elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds, total petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of project construction activities and would be performed under Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. Mitigation Measure Haz-1: Implement Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. The applicant’s construction contractor shall implement soil management and health and safety plans to facilitate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at 178 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 17 Potential Impact Mitigation Measures the site as a result of the reported petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compound concentrations in the soil. These plans must be filed with the City before construction permits are granted and are anticipated to include the following components: 1. Soil Management Plan. Recent analytical results indicate that some site soils contain slightly elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, and certain metals. The soil management objectives for the site are to minimize exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and pedestrians, and future users of the site. A site-specific soil management plan will be developed based on recent comprehensive subsurface investigations covering the site soils to depths exceeding planned excavations and the underlying groundwater. The soil management plan is intended to facilitate compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the identified contamination profiles. Some of the excavated material in the upper 5 feet may need to be disposed off-site at a Class II non-hazardous regulated landfill and/or as unrestrictive waste based on disposal facility’s acceptance criteria. The contractor will establish appropriate off-site disposal locations and direct truck loading scheduling and tracking and recording of all shipments per applicable regulations and/or stockpile locations on the site to properly segregate, cover, moisture control, and profile the excavated material. Further testing may instead determine that no special soil handling is required. Unless from a documented clean source such as a quarry, soil imported onto the site will be tested in accordance with the “Clean Imported Fill Material” information advisory developed by the California DTSC in October 2001. 2. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on-site construction workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing the HASP. The HASP plan will describe the health and safety training requirements, specific personal hygiene, and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure to constituents in the soil, which is anticipated to include the following: • the site will be fenced; • exposed soil at the construction site will be watered at least twice daily to prevent visible dust from migrating off-site; • stockpiles will be covered; • water will be misted or sprayed during loading of material onto trucks for off haul; • trucks transporting contaminated material will be covered with a tarpaulin or other cover; 179 Page 18 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Potential Impact Mitigation Measures • the wheels of the trucks exiting the site will be cleaned prior to entering public streets; • public streets will be swept daily if material is visible, excavation and loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 15 miles per hour; and the fence will be posted with requirements of the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act (Proposition 65). 3. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop (if necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and safety plan. 4. Dust Control. During all excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented to reduce potential exposure. These measures may include moisture conditioning the soil and covering exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted down plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil. Dust control measures at a minimum will include: • Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting. • Watering uncovered ground surface at the site; use of water will be limited to prevent runoff. • Misting or spraying of soil during excavation and loading. • Emplacement of gravel and/or rubble plates on site access roads as feasible. • Trucks hauling soil from the site will be covered. • Visible dust will be monitored during excavation and subsurface demolition. • The soil drop height from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks will be minimized. • Windbreaks will be deployed as necessary. • If necessary, the area of excavation may be limited to reduce dust generation. • Site vehicle speed limits. • Street sweeping. • Termination of excavation if winds exceed 25 mph. • Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed. 5. Odor Control. If strong odors are noted during excavation activities, odor suppression measures will be implemented by the General Contractor to minimize odor during excavation activities. 6. Storm Water Pollution Controls. Storm water pollution controls will be implemented to minimize storm water runoff and sediment transport from the site. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will 180 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 19 Potential Impact Mitigation Measures identify Best Management Practices for activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The SWPPP will include protocols (i.e., earth dikes and drainage swales) to control storm water contact with, or runoff from, potentially impacted soil during wet weather conditions. 7. Groundwater Management. Groundwater at the site has been encountered at depths of nine feet to fifteen feet below ground surface. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans. Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the analytical results, the groundwater may need to be treated prior to discharge. Any proposed groundwater treatment prior to discharge will require analytical testing and approval from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to discharging. 8. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unknown historical subsurface features and/or unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage tanks (UST) and associated product lines, sumps, and/or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/or stains. • Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and cover with plastic sheets. • Notify the General Contractor’s site safety officer and site superintendent. • Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on-site to work with the affected materials, once directed by the General Contractor. 9. Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report. A Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report (SGMCR) will be prepared that summarizes the soil and groundwater management activities and any subsequent investigative and removal activities that were completed during redevelopment. The SGMCR will present a chronology of the construction events, a summary of analytical data, a copy of all manifests from the site, and a description of all soil and groundwater management activities at the site. The report will also contain laboratory analytical results and figures, as appropriate, to provide detail regarding the amount and type of contamination encountered (if any) during various activities. The report will also summarize any residual contaminants that were left on the site after 181 Page 20 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Potential Impact Mitigation Measures completion of redevelopment activities and document that soil handling procedures were implemented in accordance with this mitigation measure. Transportation Impact: Sight distance to the south at both project driveways on Dubuque Avenue was found to be inadequate but could be corrected with the measures identified in Mitigation Measure Trans-1. Mitigation Measure Trans-1: Demonstrate Adequate Sight Distance at Project Driveways. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include but is not limited to the following measures: • Coordination with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. • Coordination with the City to remove all line-of-sight obstructions (vegetation, utility poles and sign boards) to create clear sight lines within the City’s right-of-way to the south of the project site. • Coordination with the adjacent property to the south (720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement) to push back the existing metal fence on the southern boundary of the project site and remove vegetation to provide a clear zone to the south of the project’s southern driveway. 182 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 21 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION On the basis of this evaluation, it can be concluded that:  The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures to reduce these impacts will be required of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.  The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.  Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 183 Page 22 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Environmental factors that may be affected by the project are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with an “X” (☒) were determined to be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the following pages. Unmarked factors () were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures.  Aesthetics  Agricultural/Forest Resources  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards/Hazardous Material  Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems  Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of Significance There are no impacts that would remain significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. Four outcomes are possible, as explained below. 1. A “no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the environment would occur due to the project. 2. A “less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of “less than significant.” 3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the project would be “less than significant with mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of project approval in order to effectively reduce potential project-related environmental effects to a level of “less than significant.” 4. A “potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any topics are indicated with a “potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. 184 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 23 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ☒ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ☒ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? ☒ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ☒ Under CEQA Section 21099(d), “Aesthetic… impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site located within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Accordingly, aesthetics is no longer considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three of the following criteria: 1. The project is in a transit priority area. CEQA Section 21099(a)(7) defines a “transit priority area” as an area within one-half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop. A “major transit stop” is defined in CEQA Section 21064.3 as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods. 2. The project is on an infill site. CEQA Section 21099(a)(4) defines an “infill site” as either (1) a lot within an urban area that was previously developed; or (2) a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins (or is separated by only an improved public right-of-way from) parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 3. The project is residential, mixed-use residential, or an employment center. CEQA Section 21099(a)(1) defines an “employment center” as a project situated on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and located within a transit priority area. 185 Page 24 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND The proposed project meets all three of the above criteria because the project (1) is in a transit priority area due to its location less than 0.5 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain (rail) Station;1 (2) is on an infill site that has been previously developed and is fully adjoined by urban uses and public rights-of-way within South San Francisco; and (3) is an employment center with a projected FAR of approximately 3.33. Thus, this section does not consider aesthetics, including the aesthetic impacts of light and glare, in determining the significance of project impacts under CEQA. Nevertheless, the City recognizes that the public and decision makers may be interested in information about the aesthetic effects of a proposed project; therefore, the information contained in this section related to aesthetics, light, and glare is provided solely for informational purposes and is not used to determine the significance of environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. a) Scenic Vistas The project vicinity is predominantly developed with business park and industrial uses and is not considered a scenic resource or vista in any vicinity plans. Policy LU-8.1 of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 aims to “maintain and protect unique public views of the city, the bay, and local landmarks from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces.”2 CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of scenic vistas, taking into consideration whether the view is from a location at which people gather specifically to enjoy views and the environmental context (i.e., if the area is a natural area or a developed urban area). While views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain are considered scenic vistas for purposes of this analysis, there are no designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from public roadways are discussed below to indicate the potential for changed views from public locations. Views toward the Bay (to the east of the project site) and San Bruno Mountain (to the northwest of the project site) from area roadways that would cross the site are already substantially blocked at road level by existing area development, topography, and landscaping. While areas of the adjacent development could experience some blockage of views of the Bay or San Bruno Mountain, these are not public viewing locations where people gather specifically to enjoy views and obstruction of private views is therefore not considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact in this regard. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would not be significant. b) Scenic Highways U.S. 101 is not a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in the vicinity of the project nor are there any scenic corridors identified in the area.3 The project would not be visible from a 1 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Area, accessed at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5 2 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, page 76. 3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at: 186 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 25 designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because this type of project would not have a significant impact pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This informational discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion that the project’s impact would not be significant. c) Visual Character As a project located in an urbanized area, the applicable criteria would have been whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project is consistent with the zoning updates consistent with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. The project is generally consistent with the visual character of other office/R&D development in the vicinity. Other than those discussed elsewhere in this section, there are no other policies or regulations specific to scenic character that would be applicable to the project site. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because this type of project would not have a significant impact pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This informational discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion that the project’s impact would not be significant. Additionally, the City would review the proposed design as part of the approval process, which can include considerations beyond those strictly environmental-focused. d) Light and Glare Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service areas and surface parking lots, pedestrian lighting, and city streetlights. Light and glare associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area also create sources of light and glare. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban commercial/industrial setting. Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts. The project is located in a commercial and industrial area with no immediately adjacent residential uses or natural areas and has lighting consistent with that existing in the area. As a standard condition of project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to the City’s standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties through the use of downcast lighting fixtures. The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial and industrial urban settings and consistent with lighting standards to minimize lighting on adjacent areas and would therefore not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because this type of project would not have a significant impact pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. This informational discussion is consistent with the statutory conclusion that the project’s impact would not be significant. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 187 Page 26 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ☒ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ☒ c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? ☒ d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☒ e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? ☒ a-e) Agriculture and Forestry Resources The project site is located in a developed urban area adjacent to a highway. No part of the site is zoned for, mapped as, or currently being used for agricultural or forestry purposes or is subject to the Williamson Act. There would be no impact to agricultural and forestry resources as a result of this project. 188 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 27 3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☒ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☒ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☒ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this analysis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated February 17, 2023, included in full as Attachment A. a) Air Quality Plan Projects within South San Francisco are subject to the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, first adopted by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (in association with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments) in 1991 to meet state requirements and those of the Federal Clean Air Act. The plan is meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the plan, adopted in April 2017, is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan. BAAQMD recommends analyzing a project’s consistency with current air quality plan primary goals and control measures. The impact would be presumed significant if the project would conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals or implementation of the control measures. The primary goals of the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are: • Attain all state and national air quality standards • Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air contaminants • Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (This standard is addressed in Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.) 189 Page 28 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND The project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions and health risk and would not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants (see items b-d below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Many of the Clean Air Plan’s control measures are targeted to area-wide improvements, large stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the proposed project. However, the project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency (Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and green waste requirements (Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4) and does not conflict with applicable control measures aimed at improving access/connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians (Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures. The EIR for the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 evaluated consistency with the Clean Air Plan and identified a significant and unavoidable impact from buildout under the General Plan due to the increase in VMT compared to population increase. Three mitigation measures were included in the EIR to ensure individual projects could potentially be developed under the General Plan with less than significant impacts. This project would implement relevant General Plan EIR mitigation measures (indicated as “GP-MM”) requiring basic construction management practices to reduce construction dust and emissions (GP-MM-AIR-1a, discussed under item b and included in full, below), diesel emissions reduction during construction (GP-MM-AIR-1b, implemented through analysis by Illingworth and Rodkin and Mitigation Measure Air-2, discussed under item c below), and comply with the City’s TDM Ordinance (see Section 17: Transportation). General Plan Mitigation Measures GP-MM-Air-1a and Mitigation Measure Air-2 requiring compliance with basic construction management practices to reduce construction dust and emissions, and a plan to reduce particulate matter by at least 50 percent during construction, would also reduce the potential impact related to conflict with the Clean Air Plan. The project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant with mitigation impact in this regard. b) Air Quality Standards/Criteria Pollutants Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors including nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gasses (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered “attainment” for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered “nonattainment” for State standards for ozone and particulate matter. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No 190 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 29 single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.4 BAAQMD updated its Guidelines for air quality analysis in coordination with adoption of new recommended CEQA thresholds of significance on June 2, 2010.5 The most recent version of the Guidelines is dated May 2017. Project-related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short-term impacts that would occur during construction of the project and long-term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10. Construction and operational emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) version 2020.4.0. Project details were entered into the model including the proposed land uses, Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions, Peninsula Clean Energy carbon intensity factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults were otherwise used. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 (EMFAC2021) model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks. The CalEEMod results and EMFAC inputs are included in Attachment A. Construction Emissions Construction of the project would involve excavation, site preparation, building erection, paving, and finishing and landscaping. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health-related air quality impacts. BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction of 54 pounds per day of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM10. The results from emissions modeling for construction are summarized in Table 1 (and included in full in Attachment A). Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day) Description ROG NOx PM10* PM2.5 * Maximum Average Daily Emissions 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95 BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No * Applies to exhaust emissions only Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2023, Table 4 in Attachment A. 4 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2-1. 5 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News%20Releases/2010/ceqa _100602.ashx . 191 Page 30 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Construction-period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However, BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These basic measures are included in ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a, which would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices to further reduce construction-period criteria pollutant impacts. General Plan Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. iii) All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. With implementation of General Plan Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a, the impact related to construction-period criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Because construction-period emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures would not be required to mitigate impacts. Operational Emissions Emissions from operation of the project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the region. These air pollutants include ROG and NOx that affect ozone levels (and to some degree, particulate levels), PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were predicted using CalEEMod. This model predicts daily emissions associated with development projects by combining predicted daily traffic activity, including reductions for existing uses and the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (see Section 17, Transportation, and Attachment D), associated with the different land use types, with emission factors from the State’s mobile emission factor model (i.e., EMFAC2021). Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest full year of operation could be 2028 if construction begins in 2023. Other inputs considered for operational emissions include the project’s two emergency diesel generators, six cooling towers, solid waste generation use and water/wastewater use. BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds are emissions during operations of 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10. 192 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 31 Results of operational emissions modeling are included in full in Attachment A and summarized in Table 2, below. As shown in Table 2 below, the project’s operational emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds and the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from operational criteria pollutant emissions. Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations (Tons per Year for Annual) Description ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 2028 Project Emissions, Annual 6.37 2.47 4.26 1.14 Project Generator Emissions 0.61 0.43 0.02 0.02 Project Cooling Tower Emissions -- -- <0.01 <0.01 2022 Existing Use Emissions 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16 Net Total Operational Emissions 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99 BAAQMD Annual Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No Project Emissions, Daily (lbs/day) 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40 BAAQMD Daily Significance Thresholds (lbs/day) 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No Source: Illingworth & Rodkin 2023, Table 5 in Attachment A. As vehicular emissions have improved over the years, carbon monoxide hotspots have become less of a concern. BAAQMD presents traffic-based criteria as screening criteria for carbon monoxide impacts, as follows.6 The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management Program per South San Francisco Municipal Code to reduce project trips. The project is therefore consistent with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), which is the first threshold. The other two screening thresholds are whether the project would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (such as a tunnel or underground parking garage). These hourly traffic volumes are very high and much higher than those in the vicinity. For example, Grand Avenue is one of the highest volume roadways in the vicinity, which carries less than 35,000 vehicles per day under existing conditions. Spread over a day, that would be substantially less than 44,000 vehicles per 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 3-2, 3-3. 193 Page 32 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND hour. The project’s underground parking garage would serve only project vehicles with expected parking for 1,335 vehicles, which is again substantially fewer than the threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, conditions in and around the project would be well below screening levels and the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from CO emissions. The project is below significance thresholds established by BAAQMD and meets localized CO screening criteria. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on regional air quality during the operational period. c) Sensitive Receptors A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. In the Bay Area, a number of urban or industrialized communities exist where the exposure to TACs is relatively high compared to other communities. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is in an overburdened community.7 An overburdened community is a location that is especially vulnerable to air pollution impacts due to high background levels of air pollution or other environmental pollution burdens, presence of sensitive populations, and socioeconomic factors that may lead to inadequate health care or other health stressors.8,9 BAAQMD sets more stringent health risk limits and public noticing requirements for projects located in overburdened communities. Substantial sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as highways and high- volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project would not involve any of these uses. However, construction activity that uses traditional diesel-powered equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine particulate matter, which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk. Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, can be particularly sensitive to air pollution. With respect to air pollutants, examples of sensitive receptors include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. The project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences approximately 350 feet to the west on the other side of U.S. 101, as well as the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA, approximately 750 feet southeast of the project site. These sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet from the proposed project, which is the screening distance recommended by BAAQMD. A community health risk assessment was performed as included in full in Attachment A and summarized below. For the purpose of assessing a proposed project’s impacts on exposure of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds for a project in an “overburdened community” are a project-specific cancer risk exceeding 6 in one million, a non-cancer risk exceeding a Hazard Index of 7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Figure 5-1. 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 2021. Frequently Asked Questions for 2022 Permit Reform and Implementation of Regulation 2-1 and 2-5 Amendments. 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 15, 2021. Regulation 2 Permits Rule 1 General Requirements, Regulation 2-1-243 194 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 33 1.0 (or exceeding a cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively), and/or an annual average PM2.5 concentration exceeding 0.3 µg/m3 (or 0.8 µg/m3 cumulatively). Construction activity that uses traditional diesel-powered equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine particulate matter, which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk. The generation of these emissions would be temporary, confined to the construction-period. Operational emissions from the proposed emergency generator would also contribute to community risk. Community risks assessments from project construction and operations were performed using the recommended EPA dispersion model AERMOD to determine the potential health risks related to diesel exhaust from construction equipment and the routine testing of the diesel generator, as summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Construction and Operation Risk (Maximally Exposed Individual Sensitive Receptor) Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM25 (μg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction (Years 0-4) Unmitigated Mitigated 11.03 2.12 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Project Generator (Years 4-30) 0.14 <0.01 <0.01 Project Cooling Towers (Years 4-30) - <0.01 - Project Operational Trips (Years 4-30) 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0-30) Unmitigated Mitigated 11.46 2.15 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated Yes No No No No No 1Project site and receptors are in an overburdened community as defined by BAAQMD. Notes: Risks in this table are reported for the maximally exposed individual, factoring in age-sensitivity, and represent increased lifetime risks. Risk to all area sensitive receptors would be the same or less than that shown in this table. See Attachment A for additional detail. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 6 in Attachment A As shown in Table 3, project-specific construction-period risk would be above applicable BAAQMD thresholds without mitigation. ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1b requires a project-specific health risk assessment when sensitive receptors may be impacted and implementation of applicable risk reduction measures, a condition that is satisfied by the Construction Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment included as Attachment A and implementation of the identified Mitigation Measure Air-2, which sets requirements to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions by at least 50 percent. 195 Page 34 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Mitigation Measure Air-2: Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter During Construction. The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at least 50 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows: 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity. 3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading phases. 4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures: • Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment, • Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, • Use of electrically-powered equipment, • Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage. Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-2, the project’s construction risks would be reduced below the BAAQMD single source threshold for cancer risks. Community health risk assessments typically also look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors and are located within 1,000 feet of the project site (i.e., influence area). These sources can include railroads, freeways or highways, high-volume surface streets, and stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD. The project vicinity includes three high volume roadways with average daily traffic (ADT) above 10,000 (Highway 101, Dubuque Avenue, and Airport Boulevard), Caltrain, and stationary sources 196 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 35 such as diesel generators and gas stations. Therefore, an additional cumulative community risk analysis was completed. The cumulative cancer risk, hazard index, and annual PM2.5 concentrations are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Cumulative Community Risk (Maximally Exposed Individual Sensitive Receptor, Mitigated) Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM25 (μg/m3) Hazard Index Total/Maximum Project Risk, Mitigated (Years 0-30) 2.15 0.02 <0.01 Additional Cumulative Sources U.S. 101, ADT 179,520 2.29 0.12 <0.01 Caltrain Zone 1 4.50 <0.01 <0.01 Airport Boulevard 0.15 0.01 <0.01 Dubuque Avenue 0.16 0.02 <0.01 Other stationary sources 15.97 0.39 <0.10 Combined Sources 25.22 <0.57 <0.15 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? No No No Notes: Risks in this table are reported for the maximally exposed individual, factoring in age-sensitivity, and represent increased lifetime risks. Risk to all area sensitive receptors would be the same or less than that shown in this table. See Attachment A for additional detail. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 7 in Attachment A As shown in Table 4, cumulative health risks to off-site sensitive receptors would not exceed threshold levels. Exposure risks for the maximally exposed individual are below threshold levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure Air-2; therefore, the impact related to exposure to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation. d) Other Emissions Odors from construction activities are associated with construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Odors emitted from construction activities would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond a project site’s boundaries. The proposed office/R&D use is consistent with the type of development in the area and is not a use type considered by BAAQMD to be a source of substantial objectionable odors.10 Therefore, the potential for objectionable odor impacts to adversely affect a substantial number of people is less than significant. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3-3. 197 Page 36 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ☒ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ☒ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? ☒ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ☒ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ☒ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ☒ a) Special Status Species and Habitat The project site consists entirely of developed land and has been under industrial or commercial usage since the 1920s. It is situated within a heavily urbanized area and is surrounded on all sides by commercial or transportation uses. The site has little or no habitat value. There is a line of trees along the eastern property line between the project site and Caltrain right-of-way, trees between the project site and both adjacent lots, and trees in the central parking lot. Special-status species are unlikely to occur in the project vicinity due to its highly disturbed and urbanized nature. Plant and animal species that may occur in such areas would be common species associated with urban, developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area. 198 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 37 The site does not contain protected habitat, is not in an ecologically sensitive area, and does not provide connections for wildlife.11 Special-status and non-status nesting birds have the potential to nest in trees, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and on bare ground and man-made structures within and adjacent to the project site. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect bird species year-round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. Project construction activities have the potential to impact nests on site or in nearby areas if construction is initiated during the breeding bird season. Indirect visual and acoustic disturbance from construction to off-site nesting birds in adjacent areas has the potential to result in nest abandonment, which is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure Bio-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey . Initiation of construction activities during the avian nesting season (February 15 through September 15) shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting season cannot be avoided, pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the project area shall be conducted within 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, a 100-foot buffer area shall be established around the nest in which no construction activity takes place. The buffer width may be modified upon recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity based upon published protocols and/or guidelines from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW. The biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with monitoring by the biologist to and stoppage of work in that area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season. With implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-1, which requires avoidance of nesting season or a nesting survey and buffers from any nests as appropriate, the impact related to special-status and non-status bird species would be less than significant with mitigation. 11 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, Figures 48, 49, and 50. 199 Page 38 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND b, c) Riparian Habitat and Wetlands No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present at the site.12, 13 Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to riparian habitats and wetlands. d) Wildlife Corridors or Nursery Sites The project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas and does not connect undeveloped areas or otherwise have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor or nursery site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to wildlife nursery sites or movement. e) Local Policies and Ordinances There are approximately 118 mature trees at the existing project site. As part of the proposed development, the project proposes removal of 23 mature trees, two of which qualify as “protected” trees under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s Municipal Code). The applicant is required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance as applicable, which requires demonstrating adequate replacement and obtaining a permit for removal of “protected” trees. Approximately 150 trees would be planted with the project’s landscape plan. This is consistent with Policy LU-8.4 of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, which requires new developments to add street trees along streets and public places, as well as Policy ES-4.3, which requires each removed tree to be replaced with three new trees, when removal cannot be avoided.14 The project would have a less than significant impact regarding conflicts with local policies and ordinances, including tree preservation. f) Conservation Plans There are no habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to conservation plans. 12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html. Accessed August 2022. 13 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022, Figures 48, 49, and 50. 14 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February, 2022. 200 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 39 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5? ☒ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5? ☒ c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ☒ a) Historic Resources A records search was performed by the Northwest Information Center (Attachment B), which indicated that the project site has no recorded buildings or structures listed with the historical registries consulted. The existing structures were built in 1986. There is no potential to impact historic resources, thus the project would have no impact on historic resources. b, c) Archaeological Resources and Human Remains The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center, which indicated that while there are no known cultural resources present in the project area, there is a moderately high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American and historic- period archaeological resources based on the characteristics of the site and history of the region. A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed for the project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see Attachment B). See Section 18: Tribal Cultural Resources for additional discussion of this topic. Although previous studies included field survey of the project site, significant excavation and below- grade levels are proposed, which would disturb previously-undisturbed soils well below the field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation extending approximately 50 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage. Given the moderately high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources, Mitigation Measures Cul-1 through Cul-3 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measures Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal artifacts and resources that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the 201 Page 40 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 100 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant, and specific measures can be implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. If protections are required, they must be approved by the Economic and Community Development Department before work can resume. Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. These mitigation measures are consistent with and expand upon ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Policy ES-10.5, which would require all work to cease within 100 feet if significant historic or prehistoric archaeological artifacts are discovered during construction or grading activities until the resources can be examined by a qualified archaeologist, and if necessary, protected with a plan approved by the Economic and Community Development Department. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of unidentified cultural resources at the project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation. 202 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 41 6. ENERGY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? ☒ b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? ☒ a, b) Energy The threshold of significance related to energy use is whether the project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would include short-term demolition and construction activities that would consume energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel (e.g., mobile construction equipment), gasoline (e.g. vehicle trips by construction workers), and electricity (e.g., power tools). Energy would also be used for conveyance of water used in dust control, transportation and disposal of construction waste, and energy used in production and transport of construction materials. During operation, energy demand from the project would include fuel consumed by employees ’and delivery vehicles, and electricity consumed by the proposed structures, including lighting, research equipment, water conveyance, heating and air conditioning. Table 5 shows the project’s estimated total construction energy consumption and annual energy consumption. As shown in Table 5, project construction would require what equates to 123,942 MMBtu of energy use. The project would implement construction management practices per Mitigation Measure GP- MM-Air-1a (See Section 3: Air Quality). While focused on emissions and dust reduction, the construction management practices would also reduce energy consumption through anti-idling measures and proper maintenance of equipment. The project would comply with the requirements of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris. By reusing or recycling construction and demolition debris, energy that would be used in the extraction, processing and transportation of new resources is reduced. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the project’s construction energy consumption. As also shown in Table 5, project annual energy consumption would equate to 113,050 MMBtu of energy use. Consistent with the City’s Reach Code, the project has proposed all-electric construction. The project’s required TDM plan (see Section 17: Transportation) will also include various measures designed to reduce total vehicle trips, which would reduce the consumption of fuel for vehicles. 203 Page 42 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Table 5: Construction and Operational Energy Usage Source Energy Consumption Amount and Units Converted to MMBtu Construction Energy Use (Total) Construction Worker Vehicle Trips (Gasoline) 155,278 gallons 17,047 MMBtu Construction Equipment and Vendor/Hauling Trips (Diesel) 778,092 gallons 106,895 MMBtu Total Construction Energy Use 123,942 MMBtu Operational Vehicle Fuel Use (Gross Annual) Gasoline 449,307 gallons 49,328 MMBtu Diesel 50,314 gallons 6,912 MMBtu Operational Built Environment (Gross Annual) Site Improvements 16.65 GWh 56,810 MMBtu Total Gross Annual Operational Energy Use 113,050 MMBtu Note: The energy use reported in this table is gross operational energy use for the proposed project with no reduction to account for energy use of existing uses. Source: Energy Calculations included as Attachment C When subtracting existing operational fuel and built environment energy use from the project totals above, the total net increase in annual operational energy use would be 99,297 MMBtu (see Attachment C for additional detail). As detailed in Section 17: Transportation, with implementation of the required TDM Plan, the project would result in reduced levels of vehicle travel relative to regional averages and would help meet regional efforts to reduce vehicle travel and therefore related vehicular consumption of fuel energy. As detailed in Section 3: Air Quality and Section 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project is also consistent with regional and local climate actions plans. The project incorporates energy and energy-related efficiency measures meeting all applicable requirements, including water and waste efficiency. The project would be required to comply with all standards of the City’s Reach Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, and CALGreen, as applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. The project would meet LEED Gold standards and comply with Architecture 2030’s energy target of an 80% reduction in energy use of comparable buildings in the same climate zone. Sustainability features to reduce the use of energy may include, but are not limited to, the following: 204 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 43 • Architectural fin optimization for solar shading and daylighting • High performance windows exceeding energy code thermal performance • High performance walls, roof, and floors exceeding energy code thermal performance • Tight building construction targeting 0.40 CFM/SF air infiltration at 75 Pa pressure • Heat recovery for ventilation air • Air source heat pump space heating and cooling • Low flow domestic hot water fixtures • Daylight harvesting and dimming in common spaces • High efficiency lighting • Occupancy/vacancy sensors to control lighting in back of house spaces Additionally, approximately 15% of the roof area of each building is available to support PV solar panels, which could be readily integrated to meet tenant and market demand. While representing a change from the former uses at the site, the project is consistent with the type of development in the area and allowed under the land use designation and zoning and would be replacing less efficient buildings. Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact related to energy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner or otherwise conflict with energy plans and the impact in this regard would be less than significant. 205 Page 44 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42) ☒ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☒ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ☒ iv) Landslides? ☒ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☒ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ☒ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? ☒ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ☒ f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the applicants by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, dated July 9, 2021, and the Draft Dewatering Assessment also prepared by Langan and dated September 2, 2022, both of which are available as part of project materials on file with the City. a) Seismic Hazards The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward Faults. The closest fault traces are located approximately 3.1 miles from the project site. The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Seismic Hazard Zone, and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the site. Therefore, the project has no impact related to rupture along a fault. 206 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 45 Similarly, the project site is generally flat and is not located proximate to steep slopes and would therefore not be subject to landslide hazards (no impact). However, the San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region, and the site is likely to encounter strong seismic ground shaking during the lifetime of the project, which can result in seismic-related ground failure depending on the characteristics of the site and development. The Geotechnical Investigation determined the potential geological hazards based on site soils to include the potential for seismic hazards, including liquefaction-induced settlement and seismic densification. Geotechnical considerations include the localized presence of marsh and Bay Mud deposits, the need to provide adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of shoring and dewatering systems to support the basement excavation and reduce the potential for impacting surrounding improvements, design and installation of micropiles, and construction considerations, as summarized below. The project site is not within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone, but the project’s Geotechnical Investigation assessed the potential for liquefaction given the characteristics of the site soils. The medium dense sand below the groundwater level is not susceptible to liquefaction and would also be removed from under the proposed building. The medium-dense granular soil present above the groundwater level presents a low risk for cyclic densification and settlement during a seismic event, although portions of the site could see settlement of about ¾ inches during a major earthquake. These would also be removed from the under the building footprint during excavation, but design of utilities and building entrances and other improvements at the building perimeter, if any, should consider this potential differential settlement between the outside ground and building. The Geotechnical Report concluded that the potential seismic hazards can be addressed through appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design-level geotechnical recommendations and structural plans as specified in Mitigation Measure Geo-1. Mitigation Measure Geo-1: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. This mitigation measure is consistent with, and expands upon, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 Action CR-4.4.1, which requires site-specific soils and geologic reports for review and approval by the City Engineer as part of the standard City process, and incorporation of the recommended actions during construction. Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would reduce the potential impact of seismic hazards including seismic ground shaking and liquefaction to a level of less than significant with mitigation. b) Soil Erosion Construction activities, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of topsoil. The project also proposes substantial additional excavation for up to 4 floors of subsurface parking. While intentional removal of soil from the site would not be considered erosion, the disturbance of the site could result in the potential for unintended erosion. 207 Page 46 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Coverage under the NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and various site-specific best management practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with South San Francisco Municipal Code (“SSFMC”) Section 15.56.030, which would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging which may increase flood damage. Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction – which are required under existing regulations - the soil erosion impacts of the project would be less than significant. c) Unstable Soil The soils at the project site and in the surrounding areas contain 4 to 8.5 feet of fill, generally consisting of medium dense to dense sands and very stiff to hard clay. With the exception of the southwestern portion of the site, below the fill is approximately 37.5 to 48.5 feet of Colma formation, which consists of silty and clayey sand and is generally dense to very dense. In the southwestern portion of the project site, the fill is underlain by weak, compressible marsh deposits. Under those deposits is approximately 11 feet of Bay Mud, a weak and compressible marine clay. Characteristics of site soils would largely be addressed through the proposed excavation, which would remove unstable soils in the building basement footprint. The Geotechnical Investigation determined the project site to be at low risk for lateral spreading due to its flat nature, the absence of any nearby steep slopes and its low potential for liquefaction. However, the project would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which could result in on- and off-site subsidence or collapse if not handled appropriately. To minimize the need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using deep soil mixing (DSM) walls with grouted tiebacks and/or internal bracing for additional lateral support for temporary excavation support. Because DSM walls are continuous, they act to temporarily cut off groundwater infiltration through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. Langan performed a series of groundwater drawdown simulations to address potential conditions that could be encountered during excavation and in all cases, the potential for settlement would be 1.75 inches or less at 25 feet from the excavation and declining farther from the site. The Langan report concludes that the potential geological hazards related to unstable soil, including off-site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering, can be addressed through appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design-level geotechnical recommendations and structural plans as specified in Mitigation Measure Geo-1. Mitigation Measure Geo-1 requiring compliance with geotechnical investigation construction methodologies would also reduce the potential impact related to unstable soil or collapse. 208 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 47 Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 would reduce the potential impact of unstable soil hazards including off-site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering to a level of less than significant with mitigation. d) Expansive Soil The Geotechnical Investigation did not identify the potential for expansive soils at the site. Therefore, the project has no impact related to expansive soils. e) Septic Tanks The project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal facilities. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard. f) Unique Geologic Feature or Paleontological Resource The project site is a generally flat infill site and does not contain unique geologic features. The area east of Highway 101 is underlain by deposits of Bay mud, which have some sensitivity for paleontological vertebrates, though there are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the project site.15, 16 The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and the site is underlain by about 4 to 8.5 feet of fill; however, the excavation for the parking garage would dig to a depth of up to about 50 feet, which is likely to encounter native soils that have not been previously disturbed. Therefore, the project has a potential to encounter paleontological resources, which would be addressed through the following measures. Mitigation Measures Cul-1 and Cul-2 would reduce the potential impact related to unknown paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul-1 and Cul-2 would reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of previously-unidentified paleontological resources to less than significant with mitigation. 15 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. 16 University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed August 2022). 209 Page 48 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☒ b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this analysis by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and dated February 17, 2023, included in full as Attachment A. a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions BAAQMD determined that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. Construction and operation of the proposed project would be additional sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption of fuel for transportation and energy usage on an ongoing basis. State Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) required California state and local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. State Senate Bill 32 was subsequently adopted to require that there be a further reduction in GHG emissions to 40% below the 1990 levels by 2030. The additional 40% reduction by 2030 identified in SB 32 equates to a 2030 efficiency standard of 2.8 metric tons CO2e per year per service population. In April 2022, BAAQMD issued new GHG emissions thresholds, revising the quantified threshold to a checklist of compliance, requiring consistency with either criterion A or B as follows: A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: 1. Buildings a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary electrical usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Transportation a. Achieve compliance with electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. b. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: 210 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 49 i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Regarding criterion A, the proposed buildings would be constructed in conformance with CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures, water-efficient irrigation systems, and compliance with current energy efficacy standards and would meet BAAQMD’s checklist as follows: A.1.a. Avoid construction of new natural gas connections for the non-residential building, Conforms – project includes a stub natural gas connection but is designed to be operated with 100% electricity. A.1.b. Avoid wasteful or inefficient use of electricity, Conforms – would meet CALGreen Building Standards Code requirements that are considered to be energy efficient. A.2.a. Include electric vehicle charging infrastructure that meets current Building Code CALGreen Tier 2 compliance, and Conforms – 81 EV parking spaces are proposed to be constructed up front (6% of total) with an additional 268 spaces EV-ready for future operation (20% of total). This is consistent with the requirements under Section 20.330.008 of the City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements at the time of project application. A.2.b. Reduce VMT per service population by 15 percent over regional average. Conforms – The proposed TDM plan would reduce vehicle trips more than 15 percent over regional average (see Section 17: Transportation). As indicated above, all relevant criteria would be met and the project would therefore be considered to have a less than significant impact with respect to Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Note that it is not necessary to consider criterion B since the project meets criterion A. However, the following information is provided for informational purposes. Along with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in October 2022 with the goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2040. There is not currently a checklist for development projects, but the following strategies and actions are indirectly applicable to this proposed project through action and enforcement by the City: BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (e.g. Expedited permitting, FAR increase, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. 211 Page 50 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Supports – The project would meet LEED Gold standards and the Architecture 2030 Energy target of an 80% reduction in energy use of comparable buildings in the same climate zone. BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement residential all- electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. Supports – The project is designed to operate as all-electric. BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require alterations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen requirements. Supports – The project would meet minimum applicable CALGreen requirements. The project would also meet LEED Gold requirements. TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance. Supports – The project would incorporate a TDM plan that follows the City’s TDM Ordinance. TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan. Assumed Support – Pedestrian and bicycle circulation on Dubuque Avenue are currently under study. The project applicant would coordinate with the City to incorporate any applicable bicycle or pedestrian improvements necessary to meet this policy when finalized. WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. Supports – The project would be required to meet the CALGreen and the Title 24 Building Code, which requires high-efficiency water fixtures and water-efficient irrigation systems. To further support conclusions related to the qualitative criteria above, GHG emissions were modeled quantitatively using CalEEMod, as discussed in Section 3: Air Quality, and are included here as an informational item. To meet 2020 reduction targets, BAAQMD had recommended threshold of significance for operational GHGs of 1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e) per year or, if the project was too large to meet that threshold, an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year. Because this is a relatively large office/R&D project, the efficiency threshold would be most applicable to this analysis. While BAAQMD did not update recommendations to address 2030 reduction targets, industry standard is to assume an additional 40% reduction per State directives, which equates to a standard of 2.8 metric tons CO2e per year per service population. A summary of the results is included in Table 6. 212 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 51 Table 6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description GHG in metric tons CO2e per year 1 Project Emissions, Operational 5,510 Project Emissions, Construction (averaged over 40 years) 2 168 Project Emissions, Total 5,678 Project Service Population 3 2,690 Project Emissions, Total (per Service Population) 4 2.11 Project Service Population Extrapolated Significance Threshold 2.8 in 2030 Exceeds Threshold? No Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, 2023, Table 8 in Attachment A. 1 CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses. 2 Standard practice is to divide the construction emissions by 40 years (an average building life) and add that to the operational emissions for comparison to thresholds. 3 Service Population was calculated at approximately 300 square feet per employee for office/R&D. 4 The emissions in this table are gross emissions for the proposed project with no reduction to account for existing uses and emissions. As shown in Table 6 above, quantified GHG emissions would be below the relevant efficiency threshold and therefore consistent with the less than significant impact conclusion. b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans With respect to GHG emissions, the Clean Air Plan includes a goal to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is consistent with the target reductions intended to be met by the BAAQMD thresholds and the City’s CAP. As demonstrated under criterion a) above, the project would be consistent with BAAQMD thresholds and the City’s CAP and would therefore be consistent with the GHG emissions reduction goal of the Clean Air Plan. Additionally, emissions associated with the development of the proposed project were analyzed per the BAAQMD May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as updated. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan, as updated, and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with respect to consistency with GHG reduction plans. 213 Page 52 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ☒ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ☒ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ☒ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ☒ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ☒ f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒ g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the applicants by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., dated January 2021, and the draft Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., dated July 15, 2021, which are available as part of project materials on file with the City. a) Routine Use of Hazardous Materials It is likely that equipment used at the site during construction activities could utilize substances considered by regulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However, all construction activities would be required to conform with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws, ordinances and procedures. While specific tenants have not yet been identified, any commercial uses would involve household hazardous waste such as cleaners. Biotech and pharmaceutical research laboratories typically use limited quantities of materials considered to be biological hazards and/or chemical hazards. The San 214 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 53 Mateo County Environmental Health Division enforces regulations pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent or reduce the potential for injury to human health and the environment. Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials. With compliance with applicable regulations, project construction and operations are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials (less than significant). b, d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release The project site is not identified as a listed hazardous materials site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.17 The site was first developed in 1925 for use by Fontana Food Products Co. as a macaroni factory. By 1950 until 1982, the site was occupied by Dubuque Packing Co., a meat packing facility. A subsurface investigation conducted in 2015 sampled soil and groundwater from areas adjacent to a former 15,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank (UST). There was one detection of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) from a depth of 5 feet below ground surface in the area of the former UST above applicable residential environmental screening levels (ESLs), however, the sample collected from the area near the base of the tank did not exceed ESLs indicating that the shallower contamination was not a result of a leaking UST. There were low-level detections of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and metals in the soil that were either below ESLs or typical of background concentrations in the Bay Area. The groundwater samples collected from each boring did not detect TPH in any of the samples. The report concluded that there was no widespread contamination at the site and that no further investigation was needed at the time. The site was redeveloped in 1986 into a commercial multi-tenant facility, and likely regraded at that time. A comprehensive soil and groundwater investigation was completed in 2021 by Langan. More than 100 soil samples were obtained from 20 borings across the site with samples occurring at approximately 5-foot intervals to approximately 60 feet below ground surface. No Class I Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) or non-RCRA hazardous material was detected in the site soils. Low detections of VOCs, SVOCs, TPH, and metals were found in select borings that exceeded Tier 1 ESLs, primarily in the upper 5 feet. Metals detections were sporadic throughout the site and slightly above either Tier 1 ESLs or typical background metal concentrations for the Bay Area. Based on the extensive sampling done across the site and soluble testing completed, the elevated metal concentrations are not anticipated to present a restriction when disposing of the soil. All remaining material will likely be excavated and disposed of as unrestricted waste depending on the disposal facility’s acceptance criteria or reused on site. Groundwater was sampled from five borings as a part of this investigation. Based on the recorded groundwater elevations at the site and proposed excavation, dewatering activities will be needed during excavation activities, and, depending on the method of discharge pre-treatment may be required. 17 State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker Database, website accessed 8/6/2022 at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/; Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database, website accessed 8/6/2022 at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. 215 Page 54 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND In all, the site history, supported by several in-depth environmental investigations of the site support the finding that minimal impacts due to hazardous materials at the site exist but the existence of residual soil and groundwater impacts are sufficient to warrant health and safety measures and a soil management plan during excavation and construction activities, which are tailored to control fugitive dust that may contain residual hazardous materials and groundwater treatment as needed to neutralize any residual contaminants in dewatering groundwater before discharge. Mitigation Measure Haz-1 is tailored to address these specific risks. Mitigation Measure Haz-1: Implement Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. The applicant’s construction contractor shall implement soil management and health and safety plans to facilitate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the reported petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compound concentrations in the soil. These plans must be filed with the City before construction permits are granted and are anticipated to include the following components: 1. Soil Management Plan. Recent analytical results indicate that some site soils contain slightly elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, and certain metals. The soil management objectives for the site are to minimize exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and pedestrians, and future users of the site. A site-specific soil management plan will be developed based on recent comprehensive subsurface investigations covering the site soils to depths exceeding planned excavations and the underlying groundwater. The soil management plan is intended to facilitate compliance with relevant federal, state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the identified contamination profiles. Some of the excavated material in the upper 5 feet may need to be disposed off-site at a Class II non-hazardous regulated landfill and/or as unrestrictive waste based on disposal facility’s acceptance criteria. The contractor will establish appropriate off-site disposal locations and direct truck loading scheduling and tracking and recording of all shipments per applicable regulations and/or stockpile locations on the site to properly segregate, cover, moisture control, and profile the excavated material. Further testing may instead determine that no special soil handling is required. Unless from a documented clean source such as a quarry, soil imported onto the site will be tested in accordance with the “Clean Imported Fill Material” information advisory developed by the California DTSC in October 2001. 2. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on-site construction workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing the HASP. The HASP plan will describe the health and safety training requirements, specific personal hygiene, and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to 216 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 55 protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure to constituents in the soil, which is anticipated to include the following: • the site will be fenced; • exposed soil at the construction site will be watered at least twice daily to prevent visible dust from migrating off-site; • stockpiles will be covered; • water will be misted or sprayed during loading of material onto trucks for off haul; • trucks transporting contaminated material will be covered with a tarpaulin or other cover; • the wheels of the trucks exiting the site will be cleaned prior to entering public streets; • public streets will be swept daily if material is visible, excavation and loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 15 miles per hour; and the fence will be posted with requirements of the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act (Proposition 65). 3. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop (if necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and safety plan. 4. Dust Control. During all excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented to reduce potential exposure. These measures may include moisture conditioning the soil and covering exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted down plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil. Dust control measures at a minimum will include: • Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting. • Watering uncovered ground surface at the site; use of water will be limited to prevent runoff. • Misting or spraying of soil during excavation and loading. • Emplacement of gravel and/or rubble plates on site access roads as feasible. • Trucks hauling soil from the site will be covered. • Visible dust will be monitored during excavation and subsurface demolition. • The soil drop height from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks will be minimized. • Windbreaks will be deployed as necessary. • If necessary, the area of excavation may be limited to reduce dust generation. • Site vehicle speed limits. 217 Page 56 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND • Street sweeping. • Termination of excavation if winds exceed 25 mph. • Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed. 5. Odor Control. If strong odors are noted during excavation activities, odor suppression measures will be implemented by the General Contractor to minimize odor during excavation activities. 6. Storm Water Pollution Controls. Storm water pollution controls will be implemented to minimize storm water runoff and sediment transport from the site. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will identify Best Management Practices for activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The SWPPP will include protocols (i.e., earth dikes and drainage swales) to control storm water contact with, or runoff from potentially impacted soil during wet weather conditions. 7. Groundwater Management. Groundwater at the site has been encountered at depths of nine feet to fifteen feet below ground surface. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans. Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the analytical results, the groundwater may need to be treated prior to discharge. Any proposed groundwater treatment prior to discharge will require analytical testing and approval from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to discharging. 8. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unknown historical subsurface features and/or unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage tanks (UST) and associated product lines, sumps, and/or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/or stains. • Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and cover with plastic sheets. • Notify the General Contractor’s site safety officer and site superintendent. • Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on-site to work with the affected materials, once directed by the General Contractor. 9. Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report. A Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report (SGMCR) will be prepared that summarizes the soil and groundwater management activities and any subsequent investigative and removal activities that were completed during redevelopment. The SGMCR will present a chronology of the construction 218 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 57 events, a summary of analytical data, a copy of all manifests from the site, and a description of all soil and groundwater management activities at the site. The report will also contain laboratory analytical results and figures, as appropriate, to provide detail regarding the amount and type of contamination encountered (if any) during various activities. The report will also summarize any residual contaminants that were left on the site after completion of redevelopment activities and document that soil handling procedures were implemented in accordance with this mitigation measure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would reduce the impacts associated with upset or accidental release related to a hazardous materials site to a level of less than significant with mitigation. Routine use of hazardous materials as a part of construction activities and operations are discussed under this Section 9(a) above. c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools No school is located within one-quarter mile of the project site. No hazardous materials with the potential for release during operation would be handled on or emitted from the site. Construction activities are discussed above. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to hazardous materials near schools. e) Airport Hazards The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), approximately 2 miles from the project site. The project site is within the boundary of the SFO Airport Land Use Consistency Plan (ALUCP) and as such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to development at the project site. Most of the East of 101 Area, including the project site, is located outside of the ALUCP-designated Safety Compatibility zone that would have restricted types of uses, so the main applicable restrictions are height limitations. Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights of 261 feet above mean sea level but could be modified through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).18 Factoring in the height of the site, the applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach heights of about 218 feet above mean sea level plus additional rooftop elements, all of which would be below the lowest FAA height limit at the site of 261 feet. The project is consistent with airport-related building safety policies identified in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 and would ensure that the project is compatible with the SFO ALUCP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. f) Emergency Response Plan The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site or surrounding area. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the 18 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV-14. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf 219 Page 58 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’s code requirements that require on site access for emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval. No substantial obstruction in public rights-of-way has been proposed with the project’s construction activities. However, any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City to ensure adequate clearance is maintained. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations and standard procedures, the impact with respect to impairment or interference with an Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan would be less than significant. g) Wildland Fire The project site is in a highly developed industrial/commercial area, and no wildlands are intermixed within this urban area. The closest wildlands area is San Bruno Mountain County Park located over 3,000 feet away, which is considered to have moderate to high (not very high) fire hazard. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks of any nature, would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan or emergency response plan, and is not located in or near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation.19, 20 The project is not susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there would be no impact in this regard. 19 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity- zones-maps/. 20 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008, available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf. 220 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 59 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? ☒ b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? ☒ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or ☒ d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ☒ e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Draft Dewatering Assessment prepared by Langan and dated September 2, 2022, which is available as part of project materials on file with the City. a) Water Quality and Discharge Construction Period Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through debris and oil/grease carried in runoff which could result in pollutants and siltation entering stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters if not properly managed. The project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board. Coverage under this permit requires preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval by the City.21 At a minimum, the SWPPP would include a description of construction 21 SWRCB, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit) 221 Page 60 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; best management practices (BMPs); and an inspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to implement BMPs during project construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as keeping sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 would also be implemented during project construction. Per standard City procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would be verified during the construction permitting process. As discussed in more detail in the Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which would need to then be discharged. To minimize the need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using continuous DSM walls for temporary excavation support, which act to temporarily cut off groundwater infiltration through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. As discussed in more detail in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, contaminants were detected in the groundwater above commercial screening levels for groundwater not used as a drinking water resource or for aquatic habitat. Per the analytic results of the groundwater sampling, it is anticipated the groundwater from site dewatering will need to be analyzed and possibly treated to be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The groundwater would be pumped into appropriate containers and samples obtained for chemical analyses and appropriate treatment prior to disposal, if needed. Mitigation Measures Geo-1 and Haz-1 would require construction techniques to minimize necessary dewatering and appropriate handling of dewatering and would also reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge. Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo-1 and implementation of groundwater management as required by Mitigation Measure Haz-1 would reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge to a level of less than significant with mitigation. Operational Period Project operations have the potential to result in sources of stormwater pollutants such as oil, grease, and debris to stormwater drainage flowing over roadways and other impermeable surfaces and entering the city’s stormwater system, served by the City of South San Francisco’s Public Works Department, Maintenance Division. The project site drains to an existing storm drain system that outfalls to a tidally influenced channel that is connected to the San Francisco Bay. With the proposed improvements, runoff from the rooftop and parking areas would be retained and treated via bio-retention basins and flow-through planters. Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits which outline programs and activities to control surface stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or reduce “non-point” pollution, consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of urbanization (e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the “maximum extent practicable” (as required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section 222 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 61 402(p) and USEPA regulations (40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of “best management practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices (BMP) refers to any kind of procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the storm drain system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in San Mateo County joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES permit, which includes Provision C.3. 22 The C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by: designing the project site to minimize imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre-project peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities. Project applicants must prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control measures that meet the “maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in the NPDES permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the stormwater treatment and flow-control facilities are maintained in perpetuity. Project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances, and County of San Mateo’s guidelines would not result in significant impacts on water quality and would not result in a violation of water quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant with respect to water quality and discharge. b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies The project is located in a designated urban area within the Westside groundwater basin.23 The California Water Service (Cal Water) supplies water to the City of South San Francisco and would serve the project site. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates future growth in the region, although the current project is not explicitly included. The majority of the water supply to the Cal Water South San Francisco District (i.e., approximately 80 percent from 2005-2019) is treated water purchased from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and originates largely (85%) from the Hetch Hetchy watershed (surface water). Groundwater makes up approximately 20 percent of the water supply for the South San Francisco District, which comes from the “Westside Basin”, which underlies the South San Francisco District. The Basin is currently categorized by the California Department of Water Resources as a very low priority basin and as such, the Basin is not subject to the requirements of the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act though the Basin has been actively managed for years, including the establishment of pumping limitations.24 As discussed in more detail in Section 19: Utilities and Service Systems, a Water Supply Assessment was done for the project and is included in the project materials on file with the City. 22 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2-2007-0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. 23 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019. 24 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District., available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 223 Page 62 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND The site is currently developed and therefore consists primarily of impervious surfaces, with landscaping along the frontage and in the parking lot areas. The project would result in a decrease of impervious surfaces with the addition of areas of permeable paving and construction of a new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch-basins, storm drainpipe, bio-retention areas, and flow-through planters to capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. The proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow discharge pattern. As discussed in more detail in the Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would require substantial excavation and up to 18 months of related dewatering activities. Because groundwater at the site is not used for drinking water or for aquatic habitat and draw-down from dewatering activities would be temporary, this would not be considered a significant impact on groundwater supplies. As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with stormwater drainage requirements, including bio-retention/treatment areas to address both quality and volumes of runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and would have a less than significant impact related to groundwater. Because groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is not used as a drinking water source and is derived from the Bay, the potential to deplete groundwater supplies is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required. c) Drainage Pattern Alteration The site is currently developed and therefore consists almost entirely of impervious surfaces across the 5.89-acre site. The project would result in approximately 4.63 acres of impervious surface (79% of the site). There are existing storm drainpipes on the project site, located on the long sides of the existing buildings. The project is proposing to remove the existing storm drainpipes and replace them with new drainpipes along all four sides of the project site. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement low-impact development stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using concrete-lined flow-through planters to manage stormwater on the project site. An on-site storm drain detention system would be provided to limit flows into the public storm drain system to pre-project conditions, in accordance with City requirements. As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff from site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation, pollution, or flooding and as discussed above, changes to on-site conditions would meet applicable requirements and would not exceed capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on- or off-site flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns would be less than significant. 224 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 63 d) Inundation The project site is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and according to state hazard mapping is not located in a tsunami hazard area.25 The nearest body of water that could experience seiche (water level oscillations in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water) is the San Francisco Bay located approximately 1 mile northeast and 1.5 miles east of the project site. A seiche would not experience run up higher than a tsunami and as discussed above, the site is not located in a tsunami hazard area and is therefore not in an area at risk for seiche inundation either. No other large bodies of water with the potential to inundate the project site by a seiche are located near the site. The project is not located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone and is therefore not at substantial risk of flooding from 100-year or more common storms.26 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation by a tsunami, seiche, or flooding and the project impact in this regard would be less than significant. e) Implementation of Plans As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with applicable requirements under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, County of San Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which are intended to implement relevant laws and plans related to water quality. As discussed under this Section 10(b) above, the local groundwater basin is not required to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The project would not otherwise conflict with Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan or groundwater management and the project impact with respect to implementation of plans would be less than significant. 25 California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. 26 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), effective 4/5/2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06081C0042F, available at https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps. 225 Page 64 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 11. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Physically divide an established community? ☒ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ☒ a) Physical Division of a Community The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by developed parcels and infrastructure. The site is a development parcel and does not act as a connection point for other parcels. The project would not involve any physical changes that would have the potential to divide an established community and there would therefore be no impact in this regard. b) Conflict with Land Use Plan An environmental impact could occur when a project conflicts with a policy or regulation intended to avoid or reduce an environmental impact. The following discussion does not replace or preclude a consistency assessment for project approval considerations, which take into account more than potential impacts to the environment. The proposed project conforms to the updated height, density and use controls in the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 for the East of 101 Transit Core designation. The site is zoned for East of 101 Transit Core use, under which R&D and office uses are permitted, and the project otherwise conforms with the height and density controls of the zoning code. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to land use plan conflicts. 226 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 65 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ☒ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ☒ a, b) Mineral Resources The site contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on any land use plan.27 The project would have no impact related to mineral resources. 27 U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accessed August 2022, at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/ 227 Page 66 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 13. NOISE Would the project result in: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ☒ b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ☒ c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ☒ a, b) Excessive Noise or Vibration Noise and vibrations from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when construction involves particularly noisy techniques, such as driven piles. The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences approximately 400 feet to the west on the other side of U.S. 101. The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line. The project is not anticipated to require pile driving and the project’s construction activities would comply with the Noise Ordinance. With compliance with Noise Ordinance requirements, temporary construction-period noise and vibration impacts are considered less than significant. Operation of an office/R&D use would not be considered a noise-sensitive receptor and does not produce substantial levels of off-site vibration or noise. Rooftop equipment would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, would be shielded as appropriate, and in any case, would not have the potential to generate noise levels above those of the U.S. 101 at receptors across the highway from the project site. Traffic-related noise impacts generally have the potential to occur with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to areas with noise sensitive uses that are already at or above acceptable noise conditions. The project is located proximate to U.S. 101 and would not require substantial trips to pass by noise sensitive uses other than on high- volume roadways such as U.S. 101, which carries substantially more than the volume of project 228 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 67 traffic under existing conditions and would therefore not experience a doubling in volume with the addition of project traffic. Operationally, the project itself would not be considered a source of substantial noise or vibration. Therefore, operation of the project would be less than significant. c) Airport Noise The closest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, approximately 2 miles to the south. The project site is within the boundary of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), but is not within the area substantially impacted by airplane flyover noise (i.e., the Community Noise Equivalent Level 70 Noise Contours).28 Impacts related to excessive aircraft noise exposure would be less than significant. 28 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf 229 Page 68 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ☒ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ☒ a) Substantial Population Growth While neither housing nor population are directly created as a result of this project, employment opportunities can indirectly increase population and the demand for housing. The applicants project an employment density of 300 gross square footage per employee. Based on this, the project is estimated to introduce up to approximately 3,000 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. Table 2-6 of the EIR for the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 projects a growth of 17,978 jobs in the East of 101 Transit Core.29 The General Plan 2040 projects a growth of 59% from the population of 2018, with approximately 49,800 additional residents by 2040.30 The EIR for the General Plan 2040 determined that this population growth would have a less that significant impact. Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current regional long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on four key issues — the economy, the environment, housing, and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 estimates a total of 5,408,000 total jobs to the Bay Area by 2050 (an addition of 1,403,000 jobs between 2015 and 2050).31 The project’s addition of up to 3,000 employees would increase jobs in the City and region incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the entire Bay Area, the addition of 3,000 jobs would not be substantial. The location of an employment center close to regional transit (Caltrain) would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 goals to locate more jobs near transit. Therefore, the project impact with respect to indirect population growth would be less than significant. b) Displacement of Housing or People There is currently no housing or people at the site that would be displaced by the project. The project would have no impact related to displacement of housing or people. 29 FirstCarbon Solutions, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. June 24, 2022. 30 City of South San Francisco, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. February 2022. 31 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint Growth Pattern, January 2021. Available at: https://www.planbayarea.org/digital-library/plan-bay-area-2050-final- blueprint-growth-pattern 230 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 69 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Fire protection ☒ b) Police protection ☒ c) Schools ☒ d) Parks ☒ e) Other public facilities ☒ a-e) Public Services The proposed project is located on a developed site within the City of South San Francisco that is within the public services area, which includes South San Francisco Fire Department Station 62 located 1.2 miles away from the project site, and the South San Francisco Fire Department located 1.3 miles away. The project would not directly add population, and an office/R&D use would not be anticipated to substantially increase utilization of public services, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required. The minimal increases in demand for services expected with the worker population and potential indirect population growth (see Section 14: Population and Housing), would be offset through payment of development fees and annual taxes, a portion of which go toward ongoing provision of and improvements to public services. Therefore, the impact to public services would be less than significant. 231 Page 70 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 16. RECREATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. ☒ b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. ☒ a, b) Recreation The project proposes onsite open space in the form of landscaped areas and outdoor seating areas. The construction of onsite amenities has been included in the analysis in this document and would not result in significant impacts to the environment. The project would not otherwise construct or cause to be constructed parks or recreational facilities. All commercial development is required to pay development impact fees to the City, which helps fund City parks and recreation facilities and programs. The use of public recreational facilities would not be anticipated to increase substantially due to project employees such that physical deterioration would occur, or construction or expansion would be necessary. Therefore, the impact related to recreation would be less than significant. 232 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 71 17. TRANSPORTATION Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? ☒ b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ☒ c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ☒ d) Result in inadequate emergency services? ☒ This section utilizes information from the Transportation Analysis prepared for this analysis by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., included in full as Attachment D. a) Circulation System Plans and Facilities The Transportation Analysis assessed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access and circulation and consistency with applicable regulations. Pedestrians: Sidewalks and crosswalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. Sidewalks exist along the east side of Dubuque Avenue, on Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, with signalized intersections at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point and Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue. As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project that is currently in progress, an underpass was constructed that provides a direct connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west and east of the Caltrain tracks. This underpass also provides a connection to the new Caltrain station platform. Currently, there is no ADA access from Dubuque Avenue to the Caltrain station platform, which is accessible by stairs, however, the 580 Dubuque project that is under development includes a condition of approval to provide a pedestrian route to the station that is ADA accessible. A significant impact would occur if the proposed project conflicted with applicable or adopted policies, plans or programs related to pedestrian facilities or otherwise decreased the performance or safety of pedestrian facilities. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities nor conflict with Active South City, the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The South San Francisco General Plan requires project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development. The project would reconstruct the sidewalk along its frontage on Dubuque Avenue in order to move it away from the curb and change it to a curving path through plantings and trees. Striped crosswalks would connect the sidewalk across both driveways. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on the existing and planned pedestrian facilities. 233 Page 72 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Bicyclists: Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no bike lanes on Dubuque Avenue. In the vicinity of the project, Class II bike lanes are located on Airport Boulevard (north of Miller Avenue), along Poletti Way, Gateway Boulevard (between E Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard), along Sister Cities Boulevard, and along Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Boulevard). The new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing provides bicycle access between East Grand Avenue /Poletti Way and Airport Boulevard, with direct access to the South San Francisco Caltrain station platform. The existing Caltrain Station access driveway on Dubuque Avenue would provide bicycle access between the Caltrain station and the project site. An impact to bicyclists would occur if the proposed project disrupted existing bicycle facilities or conflicted with or created inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities nor would it conflict with Active South City, which proposes upgrades to some of the existing bike lanes near the project site. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities would be less than significant. Transit: Existing transit service to the study area is provided by Caltrain, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Water Emergency Transit (WETA), and commuter shuttles. The project site is located less than 1/2-mile from the Caltrain station. Since the project is located close to the Caltrain station, it is expected to generate trips via transit services. According to state CEQA guidelines, the addition of new transit riders should not be treated as an adverse impact because such development also improves regional flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Additionally, the recent Caltrain station improvement project has been planned to accommodate increases in ridership. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on transit facilities and services. The Zoning Code Amendments associated with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 included an updated TDM Ordinance. A TDM program is required for the proposed project to meet the TDM Ordinance, which requires a minimum of 50% alternative mode use (less than 50% single occupancy vehicles). TDM program measures further promote alternative modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, and transit options. Per Senate Bill 743 discussed under this Section 17(b) below, auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion are no longer considered as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. The following discussion is provided for informational purposes and is based on the Local Transportation Analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., which is available as part of the project material on file with the City. The proposed project would generate an average of 5,635 new daily trips, with 815 new trips during the AM peak hour and 815 new trips during the PM peak hour. These trips rates factor in implementation of the required TDM program. The Local Transportation Assessment concluded that the project would not cause any study intersections or highway segments to degrade from acceptable operations to unacceptable operations with the exception of the intersection of Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard and Airport Boulevard, which would degrade to an unacceptable level during AM peak hours with the addition of project traffic to existing traffic volumes. Under cumulative conditions expected in 2040, six intersections studied would operate at unacceptable levels during at least one of the peak hours, with or without the addition of project traffic. The project would pay required Citywide Transportation Fees to offset any operational impacts on the City’s transportation system. The General Plan 2040’s Mobility Plan identifies several major transportation projects to improve traffic circulation in the East of 101 area, as most of the study intersections are already built to capacity. The Citywide Transportation Fee is a source of funding for transportation improvements such as those identified in the Mobility Plan. 234 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 73 b) Vehicle Circulation and Congestion Senate Bill (SB) 743 changed CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, level of service (LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA (although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan). The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present vehicles miles traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. The City of South San Francisco provides VMT screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is determined to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within 0.5 miles of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have no impact on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project FAR is less than 0.75, includes parking that is higher than required by the City, is inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate units. The project site is located within 1/2 mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of approximately 3.33, does not exceed required parking spaces, and is consistent with the land use under the City’s 2040 General Plan and related zoning. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required and the impact with respect to VMT would be less than significant. Additionally, South San Francisco Municipal Code requires preparation and implementation of a TDM program, which requires a minimum of 50% alternative mode use (less than 50% single occupancy vehicles). Successful implementation of TDM program measures could serve to further reduce project VMT. c) Hazards The Transportation Analysis evaluated the sight distance at both project driveways on Dubuque Avenue. According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue is 30 mph. The sight distance was found to be adequate from either driveway looking right to the north on Dubuque Avenue with the removal of the existing signboards at the project driveways. However, sight distance looking left to the south is inadequate due to a slight curve to the road and line-of-sight obstructions, including a utility pole, vegetation, signage, and a metal fence. The project proposes to clear all line-of sight obstructions along the project site frontage on Dubuque Avenue, including the utility poles, which would be removed as part of the project’s proposal to underground approximately 462 linear feet of electrical line along the project’s Dubuque Avenue frontage. The following mitigation would improve the safety at both driveways. Mitigation Measure Trans-1: Demonstrate Adequate Sight Distance at Project Driveways. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include but is not limited to the following measures: • Coordination with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. • Coordination with the City to remove all line-of-sight obstructions (vegetation, utility poles and sign boards) to create clear sight lines within the City’s right-of-way to the south of the project site. 235 Page 74 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND • Coordination with the adjacent property to the south (720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement) to push back the existing metal fence on the southern boundary of the project site and remove vegetation to provide a clear zone to the south of the project’s southern driveway. With these improvements, the impact with respect to traffic hazards would be less than significant with mitigation. As is standard practice, landscaping installed along the roadway frontage near driveways should be maintained to be either low-lying or trees with canopies that do not fall below seven feet and parking should be restricted within 25 feet of the driveways. d) Emergency Access The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the city streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. The project would have no impact with regard to inadequate emergency access. 236 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 75 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. ☒ a) Tribal Cultural Resources A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed for the project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present in the vicinity of the site (see Attachment B). While no tribes have requested notification of potential consultation opportunities for projects in this area, per recommendation of the Native American Heritage Commission, notice was sent to listed tribes on October 12, 2022. No responses were received within the required 30 day response period. The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center indicated that there is a moderate to high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American resources based on the characteristics of the site and history of the region (see Attachment B). Although previous studies included field survey of the project site, significant excavation and below- grade levels are proposed, which would disturb previously-undisturbed native soils well below the field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation extending up to approximately 60 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage. Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would require proper handling of any discoveries and would also reduce the potential impact related to unknown tribal cultural resources. Compliance with the protection procedures specified in Mitigation Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3 would require that if any previously-unknown tribal cultural resources and/or human remains are discovered, these would be handled appropriately and the impact of the project would be less than significant with mitigation. 237 Page 76 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? ☒ b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? ☒ c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ☒ d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? ☒ e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ☒ a, b, c) Water, Stormwater, Wastewater, and Other Utilities Water As discussed in Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the City of South San Francisco’s East of 101 Area is served by Cal Water through a combination of local groundwater and water purchased from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which plans for provision of water, anticipates future growth in the region, but does not explicitly include the project. Based on preliminary Fire Flow Calculations and results from Fire Flow Tests performed by Cal Water, the 6-inch water main in Dubuque Avenue has sufficient capacity to serve the project. Two new fire water services and one new domestic water service will be installed between the main and the buildings. A separate Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project per Senate Bill 610 through coordination between the City and Cal Water (available as part of the project materials on file with the City). The WSA, prepared by EKI Environment & Water, Inc., in August 2022, estimates the project’s net annual water demand to be approximately 189 acre-feet per year. Because this project was not explicitly accounted for in the SSF District 2020 UWMP, the water demand of the project was assumed to not be included in the projected SSF District water demands. 238 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 77 In 2021, Cal Water started a Development Offset Program, which requires any new residential, commercial, or industrial development within any of the three Peninsula Districts that is projected to demand more than 50 acre-feet per year to pay a special facilities fee per acre-feet of net demand increase, to fund projects that will increase supply reliability. The project would be responsible for offsetting its actual anticipated net demand, based on detailed calculations for the final project design. Cal Water would verify compliance with the Development Offset Program before establishing a water service connection to the project. With the offset of the net increase of water through payment of the special facilities fee, the project would not be expected to result in a net increase in water demands to Cal Water’s SSF District. Impacts with respect to water would be less than significant. 32, 33, 34 Wastewater The wastewater collection system that serves the project site is owned and operated by the City of South San Francisco. The nearest publicly-owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by the City, is an 8-inch main located within a sewer easement along the southeastern property line of the project site. The project would construct two onsite sanitary sewer lines, as well as connections to the existing public sewer line to the east. The project is also proposing upsizing of the existing 8-inch sewer main to a 10-inch main approximately 1,400 linear feet along the project site and south to the existing 10-inch main that crosses the Caltrain tracks. The existing 10-inch sewer main across the Caltrain tracks (between manhole sJ2750 near the southern edge of the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel and Poletti Way) has sufficient capacity, but is older and developing some deficiencies (pipe roughness and sags). The project is also proposing to rehabilitate this approximately 200 linear foot length in place, which could include sliplining, cured in place pipe, pipe bursting, or replacement of the existing pipe with a new 10-inch sewer main. It is anticipated that with the proposed sewer main improvements, there would be adequate capacity for the project and other anticipated potential future office/R&D development along the Dubuque Avenue corridor consistent with the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. (If residential development is instead proposed along this corridor, further upsizing may be required.) The ShapeSSF General Plan 2040 EIR analyzed buildout of 14,100,523 new square feet of non- residential building space at full buildout and determined that no new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities would be required to provide services to the anticipated new buildout, including the current project.35 The impact related to required wastewater capacity would be less than significant. 32 California State Water Board, amended plan adopted December 12, 2021, Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/plans_policies/docs/2018wqcp.pdf . 33 BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https://bawsca.org/water/reliability 34 California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District., available at: https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2020/SSF_2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 35 FirstCarbon Solutions, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. June 24, 2022. 239 Page 78 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Stormwater As discussed in Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow discharge pattern and connect to the existing storm drain system operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. The existing storm drainpipes on site would be removed and replaced by new storm drainpipes that would loop around the building. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement low-impact development stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using concrete-lined flow-through planters to manage stormwater on the project site. As redevelopment on a currently developed site, the project would result in a decrease in impervious surface (to 79% of the site) and would construct a new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch-basins, storm drainpipe, bio-retention areas, and flow-through planters to capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. With an increase of pervious surface area and on-site storm drainage infrastructure that would reduce the existing runoff rate, the project would reduce demand on the storm drainage facilities compared to existing conditions. Impacts with respect to stormwater would be less than significant. Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications As discussed in Section 6: Energy, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the project would not require the construction of new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban area already served by those utilities. The project proposes to underground the electrical lines along the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue (approximately 462 linear feet) in coordination with PG&E. This is consistent with Policy LU-8.10 of the ShapeSSF General Plan 2040, which includes undergrounding new and existing utilities when feasible.36 The project would be designed to operate on 100% electric energy. As an infill site in applicable service areas, the project impacts with respect to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant. d, e) Solid Waste and Solid Waste Reduction South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. (SSFSC) manages all trash and recycling services in South San Francisco. SSFSC collects, receives, processes, and recycles (or transfers for landfill disposal) over 250,000 tons of waste a year.37 Of all solid waste generated, approximately 84 percent is sent to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) in Half Moon Bay, California. The Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) accepts up to 3,598 tons per day and is anticipated to have available capacity until 2034.38 36 City of South San Francisco, 2040 General Plan. February 2022. 37 South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/, accessed August 2022. 38 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-002), https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223, accessed August 2022. 240 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 79 The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Handling of debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to SSFMC Section 8.16 coordination with Scavengers Company; and SSFMC Section 15.22.030 diversion of at least 65 percent of construction or demolition waste. The project would generate approximately 68.39 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.19 tons per day. The estimate is conservative as it does not factor in any recycling or waste-diversion programs. The 0.19 tons of solid waste generated daily by the project would represent less than 0.001 percent of the permitted landfill throughput.39 The City of South San Francisco is required to meet the statewide waste diversion goal of 50 percent set by AB 939. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the SSFMC, and the City’s recycling program. Impacts related to solid waste and waste facilities would be less than significant. 39 Solid waste estimated from CalEEMod output in Attachment A. 241 Page 80 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND 20. WILDFIRE If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ☒ b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? ☒ c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? ☒ d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ☒ a-d) Wildfire Risk and Emergency Response The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco and is surrounded by existing industrial/commercial development and infrastructure. Neither the project site nor the City of South San Francisco is identified as being within a state responsibility area or a very high fire hazard severity zone.40, 41 The proposed project would have no impact related to wildfire. 40 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building- codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. 41 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008, available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf. 242 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 81 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ☒ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ☒ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ☒ a) Environmental Quality. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-1 to protect nesting birds during construction and Cul-1 through Cul-3 to address the potential discovery of currently unknown cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources at the site, the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. The project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b) Cumulative Impacts. The project would not result in adverse impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project-level mitigation were identified to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. All potential effects of the project were assessed in the context of area development, including assessment of emissions impacts analyzed against cumulative thresholds per the Air District recommendations. Project-specific impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified in this document, including Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a to address construction period dust and emissions, and would not result in contribution of considerable levels to cumulative impacts. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings. The project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measures GP-MM-Air-1a, Air-2, Geo-1, and Haz-1 would minimize the potential for safety impacts related to construction-period emissions, disturbance of site contaminants, and appropriate techniques for safety during excavation and building construction. Therefore, the potential adverse effects on human beings would be less than significant with mitigation. 243 Page 82 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND DOCUMENT PREPARERS Lamphier -Gregory, Inc. (Primary Report Preparers) Rebecca Auld, Vice President Jenna Sunderlin, Environmental Planner 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 510-535-6690 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis) James A. Reyff, Principal Zachary Palm, Emissions Consultant 429 E. Cotati Ave Cotati, CA 94931 707-794-0400 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Transportation Analysis) Trisha Dudala, P.E. Senior Associate 5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175 Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-225-1439 City of South San Francisco This document was prepared in coordination with City of South San Francisco staff, including Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner. SOURCES 1. Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint Growth Pattern, January 2021. 2. BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https://bawsca.org/water/reliability 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, June 2, 2010, News Release http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/News% 20Releases/2010/ceqa_100602.ashx 5. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 2021. Frequently Asked Questions for 2022 Permit Reform and Implementation of Regulation 2-1 and 2-5 Amendments. 6. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. December 15, 2021. Regulation 2 Permits Rule 1 General Requirements, Regulation 2-1-243 7. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas, available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. 244 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/MND Page 83 8. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, November 24, 2008, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf. 9. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-002), website accessed at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223 10. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i- scenic-highways 11. California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. 12. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), November 2019. 13. California Water Service (Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District. 14. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. 15. City of South San Francisco, 2022, ShapeSSF General Plan 2040. 16. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor Database, website accessed at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ 17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), April 2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06081C0042F. 18. FirstCarbon Solutions, June 24, 2022, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. 19. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, July 9, 2021, Geotechnical Investigation. 20. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, September 2, 2022, Draft Dewatering Assessment. 21. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, July 15, 2022, Draft Soil and Groundwater Management Plan 22. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Areas, accessed at: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5 23. Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., January 2021, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. 24. South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, “About Us”, available at: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. 25. State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker Database, website accessed at http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ 26. University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/. 27. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S. Geological Survey, website accessed at: http://tin.er.usgs.gov/mrds/ 245 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT A to the 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 246 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE CONSTRUCTION AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT South San Francisco, California November 22, 2022 Revised March 24, 2023 Prepared for: Rebecca Auld Vice President Lamphier-Gregory 100 Redwood Rd, Suite 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 Prepared by: Zachary Palm James A. Reyff 429 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931 (707) 794-0400 I&R Project#: 22-106 247 1 Introduction The purpose of this report is to address the potential community risk impacts associated with the construction of the proposed residential project located at 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The air quality impacts and GHG emissions would be associated with the demolition of the existing uses at the site, construction of the new building and infrastructure, and operation of the project. Air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the project were predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential project construction health risk impacts and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources affecting the nearby and proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 Project Description The 5.89-acre project site is currently comprised of two one-story buildings and one two-story building, totaling 113,595 square feet (sf) of office/R&D (life science) use and associated parking. The project proposes to demolish the existing buildings and parking to construct three office/R&D (life science) buildings totaling up to 900,000 square feet (sf). Four levels of subterranean parking are also planned which would provide 1,335 parking spaces, of which 81 electric vehicle (EV) parking spaces are proposed to be constructed up front (6% of total) with an additional 268 spaces EV-ready for future operation (20% of total). This is consistent with the requirements under Section 20.330.008 of the City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements at the time of project application. For purposes of this analysis, construction was assumed to begin as early as August 2023 and be completed by March 2027. Setting The project is located in San Mateo County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Air Pollutants of Concern High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort. Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 248 2 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TAC) are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level. Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three- quarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. The most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.2 See Attachment 1 for a detailed description of the community risk modeling methodology used in this assessment. Sensitive Receptors There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are in the multi-family residences to the west of the project site. There are more receptors at further distances, including children at the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA approximately 750 feet southeast of the project site. This project would not introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) to the area. 2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. February. 249 3 Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards. California also has the ability to set motor vehicle emission standards and standards for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the federal standards. In the past decade the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and non-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of NOX and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified DPM as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on- road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.3 In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel (from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel (from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S. All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner. State Regulations To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.4 In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been approved and adopted, including the federal on-road and non-road diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California. 3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 4 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 250 4 CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions. This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road or is retrofitted to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads sooner. CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from in- use (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet- averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600-square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County. BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized. BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.5 The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement 5 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/community- air-risk-evaluation-care-program , accessed 2/18/2021. 251 5 programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks. Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. Overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall CalEnviroScreen score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.6 The BAAQMD has identified six communities as impacted: Concord, Richmond/San Pablo, Western Alameda County, San José, Redwood City/East Palo Alto, and Eastern San Francisco. The project site is located within a BAAQMD overburdened area as the Project site is scored at the 83rd percentile as identified by CalEnviroScreen due to high exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) and traffic, but it is not within a CARE area.7 The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines8 were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA 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 would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions. Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators. Certain emission sources would be subject to BAAQMD Regulations and Rules. The District’s rules and regulations that may apply to the project include:  Regulation 2 – Permits Rule 2-1: General Requirements Rule 2-2: New Source Review  Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Rule 6-3: Wood-Burning Devices  Regulation 9 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants Rule 9-1: Sulfur Dioxide Rule 9-7: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters Rule 9-8: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines 6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities-pdf.pdf?la=en , accessed 10/1/2021. 7 OEHAA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Indicator Maps https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 252 6 Permits Rule 2-1-301 requires that any person installing, modifying, or replacing any equipment, the use of which may reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC). Rule 2-1-302 requires that written authorization from the BAAQMD in the form of a Permit to Operate (PTO) be secured before any such equipment is used or operated. Rule 2-1 lists sources that are exempt from permitting. New Source Review Rule 2-2, New Source Review (NSR), applies to all new and modified sources or facilities that are subject to the requirements of Rule 2-1-301. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of such sources and to provide mechanisms by which no net increase in emissions will result. Rule 2-2-301 requires that an applicant for an ATC or PTO apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions and has emissions of precursor organic compounds, non-precursor organic compounds, NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO of 10.0 pounds or more per highest day. Based on the estimated emissions from the proposed project, BACT will be required for NOx emissions from the diesel-fueled generator engines. Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxic Control Measure The BAAQMD administers the CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) for Stationary Diesel engines (section 93115, title 17 CA Code of Regulations). The project’s stationary sources will be new stationary emergency stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 hp. These limits vary based on maximum engine power. All engines are limited to PM emission rates of 0.15 g/hp-hour, regardless of size. This ACTM limits engine operation 50 hours per year for routine testing and maintenance. Offsets Rule 2-2-302 require that offsets be provided for a new or modified source that emits more than 10 tons per year of NOx or precursor organic compounds. Prohibitory Rules Regulation 6 pertains to particulate matter and visible emissions. Although the engines will be fueled with diesel, they will be modern, low emission engines. Thus, the engines are expected to comply with Regulation 6. 253 7 Rule 6-3 applies to emissions from wood-burning devices. Effective November 1, 2016, no person or builder shall install a wood-burning device in a new building construction. Rule 9-1 applies to sulfur dioxide. The engines will use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15 ppm sulfur) and will not be a significant source of sulfur dioxide emissions and are expected to comply with the requirements of Rule 9-1. Rule 9-7 limits the emissions of NOx CO from industrial, institutional and commercial boilers, steam generators and process heaters. This regulation typically applies to boilers with a heat rating of 2 million British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour Rule 9-8 prescribes NOx and CO emission limits for stationary 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. City of South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Adopted in October 2022, the City of South San Francisco 2040 General Plan includes guiding and implementing policies to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases9. It includes a goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2045 and has set a target of a 40% reduction in communitywide emissions by 2030. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project: 9 City of South San Francisco, URL: https://shapessf.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/11/SSFGPU_PDFPlan_FinalPlan_Resolution.pdf 254 8 General Plan Air Quality Policies Sub-Areas Element SA-28.5 Require sustainable and environmentally sensitive design. Incorporate sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy conservation features, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant or equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. SA-32.5 Create buffering from US-101. Create landscaping buffers and other buffers to reduce noise, visual, and air quality impacts from US-101. A Prosperous economy for All Element A Prosperous Economy for All Element PE-2.1 Reinvest in industrial property. Within areas targeted for retention of industrial uses, support industrial property owners seeking to reinvest in and modernize their properties and come into compliance with environmental regulations, current building codes, and use/production of green energy. Community Health and Environmental Justice CHEJ-3.1 Support regional efforts to improve air quality and protect human health. Action CHEJ-3.1.1 Monitor air quality in Lindenville, East of 101 and downtown. Work with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to establish and identify funding for air quality monitoring and reduction strategies. This action may include purchasing particulate matter (PM2.5) monitors to track local air quality data in Lindenville, East of 101, and Downtown. CHEJ-3.2 Reduce mobile source pollution. Reduce emissions from mobile sources of air pollution, such as diesel-based trucks and vehicles that travel to, from, or through South San Francisco. CHEJ-3.3 Support businesses transitioning their operations to emit fewer air pollutants. Support local business owners in transitioning their operations to emit fewer air pollutants through incentives and development standards. Action CHEJ-3.3.1 Explore incentives for pollution reduction. Explore opportunities for production, distribution, and warehousing uses in Lindenville and East of 101 to reduce pollution, such as greener trucks, energy efficient buildings, and other strategies. Action CHEJ-3.3.2 Reduce indoor air pollution. Explore opportunities to work with property owners to rehabilitate existing buildings and require that new buildings adjacent to production, distribution, and warehousing uses; highways; or rail to implement appropriate mitigation measures to reduce 255 9 indoor air pollution such as air filtration/ventilation systems, landscaping, and other physical improvements as recommended by the California Air Resources Board and/or the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Action CHEJ-3.2.1 Maintain Truck route map to minimize exposure. Maintain an up-to-date truck routes map that minimizes exposures to sensitive land uses. Prohibit the designation of new truck routes on local neighborhood streets in South San Francisco Action CHEJ-3.2.2 Adopt an ordinance establishing vehicle idling restrictions. Establish a local ordinance that exceeds the State vehicle idling restrictions where appropriate, including restrictions for bus layovers, delivery vehicles, trucks at warehouses and distribution facilities and taxis, particularly when these activities take place near sensitive land uses (schools, healthcare facilities, affordable housing, and elder and childcare centers). Manage truck idling in new residential neighborhoods in Lindenville and East of 101. Community Resilience Element CR-6.1 Support resilient building design. Support resilient building design by helping residents weatherize homes to keep them cooler and more energy efficient and to improve indoor air quality. CP-3.1.1 Incentivize energy efficient new construction. Provide incentives to encourage new construction to exceed California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards outlined in Title 24, Part 6. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (e.g., Expedited permitting, FAR increases, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance. WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. Goal CP-1: A Carbon Neutral Community CP-1.1 Maintain and update the Climate Action Plan. Maintain and regularly update the City’s Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 256 10 generated within the City. Ensure the City’s GHG emission target is consistent with California’s GHG reduction goals in order to be a qualified plan for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CP-1.2 Monitor progress towards carbon neutrality goal. Track and report progress towards achieving the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. Goal CP-2: A resilient and fossil fuel free energy system CP-2.1 Maintain Peninsula Clean Energy membership. Maintain City membership in Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and continue to work to maintain a high level of private property owner participation in PCE. Goal CP-3: Green buildings are the standard in South San Francisco for new construction and major renovations CP-3.1 Building code maintenance for new and major renovations (energy efficiency). Regularly update South San Francisco’s building codes to improve the energy performance of new construction and major remodels and to phase in requirements in predictable ways. CP-3.4 Adopt Electric Vehicle charging reach code. Adopt higher electric vehicle charging requirements than CALGreen for multifamily and nonresidential new construction. City of South San Francisco—General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Program EIR The City’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressed air quality impacts associated with land use development in South San Francisco that is consistent with the General Plan Update, zoning code amendments and Climate Action Plan10. Air quality impacts and mitigation measures were identified in the EIR. Significance Thresholds In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld. BAAQMD updated its thresholds in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 and again in 2022 (GHG thresholds only). The latest BAAQMD significance thresholds, which were used in this analysis and are summarized in Table 1. Impacts above the threshold are considered potentially significant. 10 City of South San Francisco. 2022. General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan Draft Program EIR See: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/SSF-GPU-Final-EIR_Combined.pdf 257 11 Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day) Average Daily Emissions (lbs./day) Annual Average Emissions (tons/year) ROG 54 54 10 NOx 54 54 10 PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15 PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10 CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Fugitive Dust Construction Dust Ordinance or other Best Management Practices Not Applicable Health Risks and Hazards Single Sources Within 1,000- foot Zone of Influence Combined Sources (Cumulative from all sources within 1000-foot zone of influence) Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0 Incremental annual PM2.5 0.3 µg/m3 0.8 µg/m3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use Projects – (Must Include A or B) A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: 1. Buildings a. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development). b. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 2. Transportation a. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: i. Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita ii. Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee iii. Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT b. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. 258 12 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact AIR-1: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for overseeing compliance with State and Federal laws, regulations, and programs within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). BAAQMD, with assistance from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), prepares and implements specific plans to meet the applicable laws, regulations, and programs. The most recent and comprehensive of which is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.11 The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The BAAQMD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality and GHG impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, BAAQMD relies on planned land uses established by local general plans. Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which, in turn, affects region-wide emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. The 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted by BAAQMD in April 2017, includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. Plans must show consistency with the control measures listed within the Clean Air Plan. General Plan consistency was evaluated in the EIR for the General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and Climate Action Plan. A significant and unavoidable impact was identified because VMT would increase at a greater rate than population. Mitigation measures would ensure that certain Clean Air Plan measures are properly implemented so that some projects developed under the General Plan would not have significant air quality impacts. Mitigation measure MM AIR-1a would reduce construction period by requiring individual projects facilitated by the General Plan to incorporate Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD Because the General Plan does not contain a land use diagram that identifies special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs, MM AIR-1b would be required to ensure that future development would result in less than significant impacts related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. To reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), MM TRANS-1 from the General Plan EIR requires the City to implement its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The City shall also update its TDM Ordinance and parking requirements every five to ten years and establish an East of 101 Area Trip Cap, to achieve the maximum feasible reductions in vehicle travel. The City shall achieve the performance standards outlined in the TDM Ordinance 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. 259 13 Conclusion AIR-1 The Project is consistent with the General Plan because of its compliance with MM AIR-1a, MM AIR-1b, and MM TRANS-1. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts. Additionally, 1) the Project would have construction and operational emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds (see Impact 2 below), 2) the project would be considered urban infill, and 3) the project would be located near transit with regional connections. Impact AIR-2: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. Construction Period Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from on-site construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions. The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 (EMFAC2021) model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.12 The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 2 and EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions modeling outputs are included in Attachment 3. CalEEMod Inputs Land Uses The proposed project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage Research & Development 900 1,000-sf 900,000 5.9 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,420 Parking Spaces 640,000 12 See CARB’s EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. 260 14 Construction Inputs CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off- site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenario, including equipment list and schedule, were based on CalEEMod defaults that were reviewed and slightly modified by the applicant. The construction equipment worksheets provided by the applicant included the schedule for each phase. Within each phase, the quantity of equipment to be used, average hours per day, and total number of workdays was provided by the applicant. Much of the stationary equipment used during the building phase would be electric powered. Since different equipment would have different estimates of the working days per phase, the hours per day for each phase was computed by dividing the total number of hours that the equipment would be used by the total number of days in that phase. A phase for interior work was not provided. Therefore, it was assumed that interior work would be conducted during the last 6 months of the construction period that involves finishing, landscape and paving work. This phase would occur in 2026 and 2027. The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be August 2023 and would be built out over a period of approximately 44 months, or 954 construction workdays. The earliest year of full operation was assumed to be 2028. Construction Truck Traffic Emissions Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips that were computed based on the estimate of demolition material to be exported, soil material imported and/or exported to the site, and the estimate of concrete and asphalt truck trips. CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. The total trips for those were computed by multiplying the daily trip rate by the number of days in that phase. Haul trips for demolition and grading were estimated from the provided demolition and grading volumes, using CalEEMod default hauling truck trip rates. The number of concrete and asphalt total round haul trips were provided for the project and converted to total one-way trips, assuming two trips per delivery. The latest version of the CalEEMod model is based on the older version of the CARB EMFAC2017 motor vehicle emission factor model. This model has been superseded by the EMFAC2021 model; however, CalEEMod has not been updated to include EMFAC2021. Therefore, the construction traffic information was combined with EMFAC2021 motor vehicle emissions factors. EMFAC2021 provides aggregate emission rates in grams per mile for each vehicle type. The vehicle mix for this study was based on CalEEMod default assumptions, where worker trips are assumed to be comprised of light-duty autos (EMFAC category LDA) and light duty trucks (EMFAC category LDT1and LDT2). Vendor trips are comprised of delivery and large 261 15 trucks (EMFAC category MHDT and HHDT) and haul trips, including cement trucks, are comprised of large trucks (EMFAC category HHDT). Travel distances are based on CalEEMod default lengths, which are 10.8 miles for worker travel, 7.3 miles for vendor trips and 20 miles for hauling (soil import/export). Since CalEEMod does not address cement trucks, these were treated as vendor travel distances. Each trip was assumed to include an idle time of 5 minutes. Emissions associated with vehicle starts were also included. On road emissions in San Mateo County for 2023-2027 was used in these calculations. Table 3 provides the traffic inputs that were combined with the EMFAC2021 emission database to compute vehicle emissions. Table 3. Construction Traffic Data Used for EMFAC2021 Model Runs CalEEMod Run/Land Uses and Construction Phase Trips by Trip Type Notes Total Worker1 Total Vendor1 Total Haul2 Vehicle mix1 50% LDA 25% LDT1 25% LDT2 50% MHDT 50% HHDT 100% HHDT Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 20.0 CalEEMod default distance with 5-min truck idle time. Demolition 3,360 - 539 113,595-sf building and 112 tons pavement demolition. CalEEMod default worker trips. Grading 10,062 - 41,375 331,000-cy soil export. CalEEMod default worker trips. Building Construction 313,591 141,876 16,800 8,400 concrete round trips. CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips. Paving 3,620 - 267 1,111-cy asphalt paving. CalEEMod default worker trips. Building Interior 14,430 - - CalEEMod default worker trips. 1 Based on 2023-2027 EMFAC2021 light-duty vehicle fleet mix for San Mateo County. 2 Includes demolition trips estimated by CalEEMod based on amount of material to be removed. Asphalt trips estimated based on data provided by the applicant. Conclusion AIR-2 Average daily emissions were annualized for each year of construction by dividing the annual construction emissions and dividing those emissions by the number of active workdays during that year. Table 4 shows the annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 4, predicted annualized project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during any year of construction. 262 16 Table 4. Construction Period Emissions  Year ROG NOx PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Construction Emissions Total (Tons) 2023 0.22 2.19 0.10 0.07 2024 0.64 6.58 0.28 0.21 2025 0.22 2.62 0.13 0.06 2026 2.86 3.34 0.15 0.09 2027 2.35 0.89 0.04 0.02 Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) 2023 - 2027 (954 construction workdays) 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less-than-significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1a MM AIR-1a This mitigation requires that individual developments facilitated by the City’s General Plan shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by BAAQMD:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.   All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.   All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.   All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.   All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.   Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure [ATCM] Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  263 17  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.   Prior to the commencement of construction activities, individual project proponents shall post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations  Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic control measures for reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The measures are also consistent with mitigation measure MM AIR-1a found in the South San Francisco General Plan EIR. Operational Period Emissions Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future employees, six diesel-fired emergency generators, and six cooling towers. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical emissions from these types of uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out. CalEEMod Inputs Land Uses The project land uses were input to CalEEMod as described above for the construction period modeling. Model Year Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest year of full operation would be 2028 if construction begins in 2023. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2028 would be lower. Traffic Information CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Project-specific traffic trip generation estimates were provided for this assessment.13 The project would produce approximately 9,972 daily trips. MM TRANS-1 of the General Plan EIR requires the project 13 Email from Rebecca Auld, September 22, 2022. 264 18 sponsor to implement the City’s TDM Ordinance as part of the Zoning Code Amendments and parking requirements. The TDM Ordinance requires that a maximum of 50 percent of the project’s total employees commute alone via car during peak traffic periods. Some of the ways that compliance with this code can be achieved are to allow employees flexible work hours so that their commute is during off peak hours, having employees utilize other methods of travel such as public transit, or encouraging carpooling by reserving parking spaces for carpooling vehicles. This is predicted to result in a 34-percent reduction in trips14. The daily trip generation was calculated using the size of the project and the total automobile trips. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. EMFAC2021 Adjustment The vehicle emission factors and fleet mix used in CalEEMod are based on EMFAC2017, which is an older CARB emission inventory for on road and off road mobile sources. Since the release of CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0, new emission factors have been produced by CARB. EMFAC2021 became available for use in January 2021. It includes the latest data on California’s car and truck fleets and travel activity. The CalEEMod vehicle emission factors and fleet mix were updated with the emission rates and fleet mix from EMFAC2021, which were adjusted with the CARB EMFAC off-model adjustment factors. On road emission rates from 2028 San Mateo County were used (See Attachment 3). More details about the updates in emissions calculation methodologies and data are available in the EMFAC2021 Technical Support Document.15 Energy GHG emissions modeling includes those indirect emissions from electricity consumption. The model has a default rate of 0 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced, which is based on Peninsula Clean Energy’s 2019 emissions rate. Project Generators The project would include two emergency generators for each building, a base generator and a tenant generator, for a total of six generators. All three base generators would be 2,800kW generators powered by a 3,753 horsepower (hp) diesel-fired engine. The tenant generators will be two 1,000kW generators powered by a 1,341-hp diesel-fired engine and one 600kW generator powered by a 804-hp diesel-fired engine. These generators would be tested periodically and power the buildings in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generators would be operated primarily for testing and maintenance purposes. CARB and BAAQMD requirements limit these engine operations to 50 hours each per year of non-emergency 14 The project will be required to implement a TDM program consistent with the revised Chapter 20.400 of the Municipal Code, and would be required to achieve a maximum of 50 percent of employees commuting via driving alone. The TDM reduction assumes that 50% of the employees will drive alone and the rest of the employees will commute via transit, carpool, bike or walk. 15 See CARB 2021: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/road- documentation/msei-modeling-tools-emfac 265 19 operation. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour. The engines would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. The generator emissions were modeled using CalEEMod. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. These include emission limits similar to U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for the engines larger than 1,000 hp. Four of the six generators are larger than 1,000 hp. Project Cooling Towers The project would include two cooling towers to be located on the top of each building for a total of six cooling towers. Based on information provided by the applicant, each cooling tower would have a water flow rate of 750 gallons per minute (GPM), using public water with an average total dissolved solids (TDS) of 96 parts per million (ppm), and a mist eliminator efficiency of 0.001 percent. Details of the cooling tower PM emissions calculations are provided in Attachment 3. Other Inputs Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation use were applied to the project. Water/wastewater use were changed to 100% aerobic conditions to represent wastewater treatment plant conditions since the project site would not send wastewater to septic tanks or facultative lagoons. Existing Uses The existing site is currently developed with two one-story buildings and one two-story building, totaling 113,595 square feet (sf) of office/R&D (life science) use and associated parking. The existing uses are predicted to generate 947 daily trips. A CalEEMod run was developed for the existing use of the site. Additionally, the trip generation information was provided for the existing use of the site. Summary of Computed Operational Period Emissions Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod. The daily emissions were calculated assuming 365 days of operation. Table 5 shows average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. 266 20 Table 5. Operational Period Emissions  Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 2028 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 6.37 2.47 4.26 1.14 Project Generator Emissions (tons/year) 0.61 0.43 0.02 0.02 Project Cooling Tower Emissions (tons/year) - - <0.01 <0.01 2022 Existing Use Emissions (tons/year) 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16 Net Total Operational Emissions 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No Total (lbs./day) 33.08 13.29 20.11 5.45 BAAQMD Thresholds (lbs./day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs. Exceed Threshold? No No No No Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation. Impact AIR-3: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (i.e., mobile sources, generators, cooling towers). MM AIR-1b contained in the General Plan EIR addresses exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs and air pollution. Under this mitigation measure, projects that may result in TAC emissions that are located within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptors are required to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA). Based on the results of the HRA, the Project may be required to identify and implement measures (such as air filtration systems) to reduce potential exposure to particulate matter, carbon monoxide, diesel fumes, and other potential health hazards. Measures identified in the HRA are to be included into the site development plan as a component of a proposed project. There are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site. Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would include the installation of six emergency generators powered by diesel engines and six cooling towers, two atop each building. Traffic generated by the project would consist of mostly light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions in the local area. Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC was also assessed in terms of describing the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution. 267 21 Community Risk Methodology Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation sources. These sources include on-site construction activity, construction truck hauling, increased traffic from the project, and generator and cooling tower operation. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30-year exposure period was used, per BAAQMD guidance,16 with the sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during this timeframe. The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike, the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. The project maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation. The methodology for computing community risks impacts is contained in Attachment 1. This involved the calculation of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, dispersion modeling of these emissions, and computations of cancer risk and non-cancer health effects. Modeled Sensitive Receptors Receptors for this assessment included locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time (i.e., chronic exposures). This includes the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA and the existing residences to the west of the site as shown in Figure 1. Residential receptors are assumed to include all receptor groups (i.e., third trimester, infants, children, and adults) with almost continuous exposure to project emissions. Community Health Risk from Project Construction Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. These exhaust emissions pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.17 This assessment included dispersion modeling to predict the offsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer health effects could be evaluated. The three identified TAC and annual PM2.5 sources associated with the project once in operation would be employee trips, infrequent operation of standby generators (assumed to be powered by 16 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. December 2016. 17 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 268 22 diesel fuel), and cooling towers. Traffic from the project would be made up of mostly gasoline- powered vehicles. Construction Emissions The CalEEMod model and EMFAC2021 emissions provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on- road vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages as 0.35 tons (697 pounds). The on- road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during demolition and grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on- road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.43 tons (863 pounds) for the overall construction period. Dispersion Modeling The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.18 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions. Construction Sources Combustion equipment DPM exhaust emissions were modeled as a series of point sources with a nine-foot release height (construction equipment exhaust stack height) placed at 23 feet (7 meter) intervals throughout the construction site. This resulted in 467 individual point sources being used to represent mobile equipment DPM exhaust emissions in the construction area, with DPM emissions occurring throughout the project construction site. In addition, the following stack parameters were used: a vertical release, a stack diameter of 2.5 inches, an exhaust temperature of 918˚F, and an exit velocity of 309 feet per second. Since these are point sources, plume rise is calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model. Emissions from vehicle travel on- and off-site were also distributed among the point sources throughout the site. The locations of the point sources used for the modeling are identified in Figure 1. For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and unloading (rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the point(s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site. 18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. 269 23 Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data The modeling used a five-year data set (2013 - 2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport was used with the AERMOD model. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring daily between 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., when the majority of construction activity is expected to occur. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2023-2027 period were calculated using the model. DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors. Receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and 15 feet (4.5 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first and second floor of nearby residences.19 A receptor height of 3 feet (1 meter) was used to represent breathing height of children at the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA. Summary of Construction Community Risk Impacts The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by BAAQMD (see Attachment 1). Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated and identified. Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period. The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation refence exposure level of 5 µg/m3. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors (as shown in Figure 1) to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEI). Results of this assessment indicated that the construction residential MEI was located on the first floor (3 feet above ground) of the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA. Table 5 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the construction MEI. Attachment 4 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the construction area source modeling and the cancer risk calculations. 19 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 270 24 Figure 1. Location of Project Construction Site, Project Point Sources, Project Generator, Project Cooling Towers, Project Trips Model, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact Community Risks from Project Operation Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic), emergency generators, and cooling towers. While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors. Project Traffic Diesel powered vehicles are the primary concern with local traffic-generated TAC impacts. This project would generate a net of 5,635 daily trips20 with a majority of the trips being from light- duty gasoline-powered vehicles (i.e., passenger cars). The project is not anticipated to generate large amounts of truck trips that would involve diesel vehicles. These trips were modeled to occur on Dubuque Avenue. This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 20 Email from Rebecca Auld, September 22, 2022. 271 25 emissions for project trips on Dubuque Avenue using the Caltrans version of the CARB EMFAC2017 emissions model, known as CT-EMFAC2017. CT-EMFAC2017 provides aggregate emission factors in for dispersion modeling of mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM2.5. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region (San Mateo County), type of road (major/collector), year of analysis (2028 – operational year), local truck mix for San Mateo County (3.13 percent) 21, and season (annual). For all hours of the day, an average speed of 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was assumed for all vehicles based on posted speed limit signs on the roadways. Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.22 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from project trips within about 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated with the model. Emissions from project trips were modeled in AERMOD using a series of volume sources along a line (line volume sources), with line segments used to represent opposing travel lanes on Dubuque Avenue. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction dispersion modeling were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations and heights. Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2021 on the haul route were calculated using the model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEI. Project Generators As discussed above in the Operational Period Emissions section, the project would include six generators. Operation of a diesel generator would be a source of TAC emissions. The generators would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes, with a maximum of 50 hours per year of non-emergency operation under normal conditions. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour under light engine loads. The generator engines would be required to meet EPA emission standards and consume commercially available low sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. Based on the size of the proposed generator, these include emission limits similar to U.S. EPA Tier 4 engines. The emissions from the operation of the generators were calculated using the CalEEMod model. These diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the BAAQMD, since it will be equipped with an engine larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to these generators that would limit DPM emissions. As part of the BAAQMD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 22 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 272 26 pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be prepared by BAAQMD. Depending on results, BAAQMD would set limits for DPM emissions (e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality community risk impact. To obtain an estimate of potential cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the emergency generators at the project MEI, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the maximum annual DPM concentration at off-site sensitive receptor locations (nearby childcare/school and residences). The same receptors, breathing heights, and BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the generator models. Stack parameters for modeling the generators were based on BAAQMD default parameters (i.e., exhaust gas flowrate, stack diameter, stack height, and exhaust gas temperature) for stand-by diesel generators.23 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year). Project Cooling Towers The project would include two cooling towers on the roof of each building for a total of six cooling towers. Particulate matter emissions from evaporative cooling can occur and are a result of evaporation of liquid water entrained in the discharge air stream and carried out of the tower as “drift” droplets that contain dissolved solids in the water. Drift droplets that evaporate can produce small particulate matter (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) emissions. These emissions are generated when the drift droplets evaporate and leave the particulate matter formed by crystallization of dissolved solids. The cooling towers are not a source of combustion emissions that may contain TACs. For the health risk assessment, the PM2.5 emissions from evaporative cooling were calculated based on a worst-case assumptions including use of evaporative cooling for 100 percent of the time, a water flow rate of 750 gallons per minute (gpm), use of 0.001 percent drift eliminators, a total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration of 96 parts per million (ppm) in the recirculating water.24 Based on a calculated total drift rate, recirculating water TDS concentration of 96 ppm, and PM fractions based on SCAQMD,25 the PM2.5 emissions were calculated as 0.0007 tons per year per cooling tower. To obtain an estimate of potential PM2.5 concentrations from operation of the cooling towers, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the annual PM2.5 concentration at 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Department, 2012. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document, BAAQMD, December. Web: https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Appeal_Response_References/2012_1201_BAAQMD.pdf 24 Recirculating water flow rate and maximum TDS concentration based on South San Francisco 2021 Water Quality Report TDS Range Max. URL: https://www.calwater.com/ccrs/bay-ssf-2021/ 25 South Coast AQMD, Final-Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, Appendix A. October 2006. Web: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized- significance-thresholds/particulate-matter-(pm)-2.5-significance-thresholds-and-calculation- methodology/final_pm2_5methodology.pdf 273 27 off-site sensitive receptor locations. The same receptors, breathing heights, and BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the cooling tower models. Volume source parameters for modeling the cooling tower were based on project-specific cooling tower parameters (i.e., length of side, release height, emission rate (flow rate, TDS, mist eliminator efficiency)). Annual PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that cooling tower would operate at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year). The annual PM2.5 concentration were based on an annual maximum risk. Table 6 lists the community risks from cooling towers at the location of childcare MEI and residential maximum receptor. The particulate matter emissions for the proposed cooling towers are included in Attachment 5. Project Laboratories This type of project may include research and manufacturing type laboratories. Since a specific user or type of lab use is not known at this time, it is not possible to predict whether there would be any TAC emissions and if so the quantities that would be emitted. Typically, laboratory uses have fume hoods and would employ appropriate exhaust systems to control any emission of air pollutants. Emissions of air pollutants or TACs are subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements that would require the District to apply all applicable rules and regulations to limit or control these emissions. Regulation 2, Rule 1: General Requirements, and Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants would apply to any potential emissions from these sources. The District’s risk policy is to not issue a permit to any source that would cause a cancer risk of greater than 10 chances per million. Summary of Project-Related Community Risks at the Offsite Project MEI The cumulative risk impacts from a project are the combination of construction and operation sources. For this project, these sources include the on-site construction activity, generators, cooling towers, and operational vehicle trips. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk for an infant to the increased cancer risk for the project operational conditions for the generator and vehicle trips at the MEI over a 30-year period. The project MEI is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation. For this project, the sensitive receptor identified in Figure 1 as the construction MEI is also the project MEI. At this location, the MEI would be exposed to 4 years of construction cancer risks and 26 years of operational cancer risks. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI risks are not additive but based on an annual maximum risk for the entirety of the project. Project risk impacts are shown in Table 6. The unmitigated maximum cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentration, and Hazard Index from construction activities at the residential project MEI location would not exceed the single-source significance thresholds. 274 28 Table 6. Construction Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Construction (Years 0 – 4) Unmitigated Mitigated 11.03 2.12 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 Project Generators (Years 4 – 30) 0.38 <0.01 <0.01 Project Cooling Towers (Years 4 – 30) - <0.01 - Project Operational Trips (Years 4 – 30) 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0 – 30) Unmitigated Mitigated 11.46 2.15 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.01 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated Yes No No No No No 1 Project site and receptors are located in an overburdened community as defined by BAAQMD. Note: Risks in this are reported for the maximally exposed individual (MEI), factoring in age-sensitivity at all receptors, and represent increased lifetime risk. See Attachment A for additional details. Cumulative Community Risks of all TAC Sources at the Offsite Project MEI Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project area based on provided traffic information indicated that traffic on U.S. Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, and Dubuque Avenue would exceed 10,000 vehicles per day. Other nearby streets would have less than 10,000 vehicles per day. A review of BAAQMD’s highway and railway raster data identified from one railway with the potential to affect the project MEI. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source map website identified eleven stationary sources with the potential to affect the project MEI. Figure 2 shows the location of the sources affecting the MEI. Community risk impacts these sources upon the MEI are reported in Table 7. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 5. 275 29 Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources Highways & Railways – U.S. Highway 101, CalTrain Zone 1 The project MEI is approximately 75 feet southeast of U.S. Highway 101 and CalTrain Zone 1 borders the project on the southeast side. A refined analysis of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 to the MEI receptor is necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from Highway 101. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans indicates that Highway 101 traffic includes 184,000 vehicles per day (based on an annual average)26 that are about 5.1 percent trucks, of which 1.5 percent are considered diesel heavy duty trucks and 3.7 percent are medium duty trucks.27 Local Roadways – Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue was conducted. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic volume and mix of vehicle types on the roadway near the project site and using an atmospheric dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed 26 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Traffic Volumes California State Highways. 27 Caltrans. 2022. 2020 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. 276 30 based on the modeled exposures. Attachment 1 includes a description of how community risk impacts, including cancer risk are computed. Traffic Emissions Modeling This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for traffic on Highway 101, Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue using the Caltrans version of the CARB EMFAC2017 emissions model, known as CT-EMFAC2017. CT-EMFAC2017 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. 28 Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM2.5. All PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just the PM2.5 fraction from diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear from re-entrained roadway dust were included in these emissions. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region (San Mateo County), type of road (freeway and major/collector), traffic mix assigned by CT-EMFAC2017 for the county, adjusted for the local truck mix on Highway 101 and truck percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County (3.13 percent)29 for the local roadways, year of analysis (2023 – construction start year), and season (annual). To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the 30-year exposure period used for calculating the increased cancer risks for sensitive receptors at the MEI, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2023 (construction start year). Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CT-EMFAC2017. Year 2023 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the time period that cancer risks are evaluated since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular diesel truck emissions, will decrease in the future. The ADT volumes and truck percentages were based on Caltrans data for Highway 101. Traffic volumes were assumed to increase 1 percent per year for a total of 189,520 vehicles. Hourly traffic distributions specific to these segments of Highway 101 were obtained from Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS). PeMS data is collected in real-time from nearly 40,000 individual detectors spanning the freeway system across all major metropolitan areas of California.30 The fraction of traffic volume each hour was calculated and applied to the 2023 average daily traffic volumes estimate to estimate hourly traffic emission rates for Highway 101. 28 The CT-EMFAC2017 version was used in the analysis because Caltrans has not yet release a CT-EMFAC version with the updated EMFAC2021 emissions that would provide TAC emission rates. 29 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 30 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/mpr/pems-source 277 31 Based on traffic data from the Caltrans PeMS, traffic speeds during the daytime and nighttime periods were identified. For northbound traffic, the following was assumed for all vehicles: - 70 mph – All hours of the day except 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. - 65 mph – From 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. For southbound traffic, the following was assumed for all vehicles: - 65 mph – All hours of the day except 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. - 60 mph – From 10:00 a.m. until 7:00 p.m.  The ADT for each local roadway was calculated based on traffic data provided by the project’s traffic consultant.31 Assuming a 1 percent per year increase, the predicted ADT on Airport Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue was 22,392 and 18,650 vehicles, respectively. Average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,32 which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for each roadway. An average travel speed of 35 mph for traffic on Airport Boulevard and 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs on each roadway. This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for future traffic on Highway 101 and each local roadway and using these emissions with an air quality dispersion model to calculate TAC and PM2.5 concentrations at the project MEI receptor locations. Maximum increased lifetime cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the receptors were then computed using modeled TAC and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD methods and exposure parameters described in Attachment 1. Rail Line Community Risk Impacts The project site is located near the Caltrain rail lines, about 120 feet east of the site. Rail activity on these lines currently generates TAC and PM2.5 emissions from locomotive exhaust. These rail lines are used primarily for Caltrain passenger service; however, there is some freight service by trains using diesel-fueled locomotives. Based on the current Caltrain schedule effective September 12, 2022 there are 104 trains that pass the project site during weekdays and 32 on weekends. In addition to the passenger trains there are about four freight trains that use the rail lines on a daily basis.33 Currently all of Caltrain’s trains use diesel locomotives. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization Program that would electrify the Caltrain Corridor from San Francisco to the Tamien Caltrain station in San José. As part of the program to 31 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. File: Figure 1 Existing Traffic Volumes.pdf 32 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2021 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information. 33 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form for Crossing 922739G. Revision Date 1/28/2022. 278 32 modernize operation of the Caltrain rail corridor between San José and San Francisco, Caltrain is planning to phase in the change from using diesel locomotives to use of electric trains.34 This plan was formally adopted on January 8, 201535 and electrified service is anticipated to begin in late 2024.36 Caltrain plans are that initial service between San José and San Francisco would use a mixed fleet of electric and diesel locomotives, with approximately 75 percent of the service being electric and 25 percent being diesel. After the initial implementation period, diesel locomotives would be replaced with electric trains over time as they reach the end of their service life. Caltrain’s diesel- powered locomotives would continue to be used to provide service between the San José Diridon Station and Gilroy. It is expected that all of the San José to San Francisco fleet would be electric trains about five to eight years after initial electric service begins.37 Starting in late 2024 with Caltrain electrification, there would be 24 daily weekday trips and 4 daily weekend trips using trains with diesel locomotives38. On an annual average basis this would be an average of 18 daily trains using diesel locomotives. Use of these diesel trains by Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose would be phased out over time and replaced by electric trains. All trains used for freight service were assumed to use diesel powered locomotives. Rail Line Emissions For this evaluation the rail exposure period was assumed to begin in 2023, coincident with the beginning of project construction. In calculating cancer risks from DPM emissions from rail line diesel locomotives a 5-year exposure period was used as this is the maximum length of time a child would be at the location of the construction MEI (YMCA Gateway Child Development Center). In this case, the exposure period at the construction MEI would be from 2023 through 2027. For calculating emissions from Caltrain locomotives it was assumed that during the 2023 and 2024 construction period all trains would continue to use diesel locomotives. Along the rail line near the project site there would be an average of 83 daily trains using diesel locomotives on an annual average basis. Starting in 2025 when Caltrain electrification occurs there would be 24 daily weekday trips and 4 daily weekend trips using trains with diesel locomotives39. On an annual average basis there would be a total of 18 daily trains using diesel locomotives. Although these diesel locomotives would be replaced over time with electric locomotives, it was conservatively assumed for this evaluation that diesel emissions would remain at the 2025 levels in the future. All trains used for freight service were assumed to use diesel powered locomotives. In the vicinity of the project site all trains were assumed to be traveling at an average speed 40 mph. 34 Caltrain, 2014. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. Final Environmental Impact Report. December 2014. 35 Caltrain, 2015. Peninsula Corridor Electrification Fact Sheet. May 2015. 36 Caltrain, 2021. Caltrain Electrification Delayed to 2024. June 3, 2021. See: www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_Electrification_Delayed_to_2024.html 37 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015. 38 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015. 39 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015. 279 33 DPM and PM2.5 emissions from trains on the rail line were calculated using EPA emission factors for locomotives40 and CARB adjustment factors to account for fuels used in California41. Caltrain’s current locomotive fleet consists of twenty-three 3,200 horsepower (hp) locomotives of model year or overhaul date of 1999 or later, three 3,200 hp locomotives of model year 1998, and six 3,600 hp locomotives of model year 2003.42 The current fleet average locomotive engine size is about 3,285 hp. In estimating diesel emissions for 2023 and 2024 prior to electrification a fleet average locomotive engine size of 3,285 hp was used. When electrification occurs, Caltrain will initially retain the six 3,600 hp locomotives and the three model year 1998 3,200 hp locomotives43. In estimating diesel locomotive emissions for the case of electrification, an average locomotive horsepower of 3,467 hp was used. Emissions from the freight trains were calculated assuming they would use two diesel locomotives with 2,300 hp engines (total of 4,600 hp) and would be traveling at 40 mph. Since the exposure duration used in calculating child cancer risks at the MEI location is 5 years, the passenger and freight train average DPM and PM2.5 emissions were calculated based on average EPA emission factors for the periods 2023-2024 and 2025-2027. Dispersion Modeling Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.44 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from traffic on the roadways within about 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated with the model. Emissions from vehicle traffic and locomotives were modeled in AERMOD using a series of volume sources along a line (line volume sources), with line segments used to represent the travel lanes on the roadways and railways. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction dispersion modeling were used in the highway, roadway, and railway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations and heights. Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2023 from traffic on the roadways were calculated using the model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEIs with receptor heights of 3 feet (1 meter) to represent the breathing heights of children on the first floor of the nearby school. Figure 2 shows the roadway and railway segments modeled and residential MEI receptor location used in the modeling. Table 6 lists the risks and hazards from the roadway. The emission rates and roadway calculations used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 5. BAAQMD Permitted Stationary Sources Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2020 GIS website,45 which identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments to account for new OEHHA guidance. Eleven sources were identified using this tool, 40 Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025) 41 Offroad Modeling, Change Technical Memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006. 42 Caltrain Commute Fleets. Available at: http://www.caltrain.com/about/statsandreports.html. Accessed January 4, 2022. 43 Caltrain 2015. Short Range Transit Plan:FY2015-2024. October 1, 2015. 44 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 45 BAAQMD, https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 280 34 seven are generators, one is a gasoline dispensing facility, and two have no data and were treated as a “generic case” for worst-case risk screening purposes. One source was identified as part of the existing site and would be demolished during construction. A Stationary Source Information Form (SSIF) containing the identified sources was prepared and submitted to BAAQMD. BAAQMD provided input and clarification about the stationary sources. The screening level risks and hazards provided by BAAQMD for the stationary sources were adjusted for distance using BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines, Gasoline Dispensing Facility, and Generic Equipment. Community risk impacts from the stationary source upon the MEI are reported in Table 7. Nearby Construction Projects The City has entitled two nearby development projects that could conceivably be active consecutively with the proposed Project46. These include the 915 Airport Boulevard project that would construct a 5-story hotel with 115 rooms about 350 feet north of the proposed Project. The other project is located at 651 Gateway Boulevard about 800 feet southeast of the proposed Project that would renovate the exterior of the existing building. Neither project is downwind of the project site; therefore, dispersion conditions that would transport pollutants of contaminants to the Project site or the project MEI generally would not occur. Furthermore, both Projects are conditioned (through mitigation) to control emissions from construction activities to reduce nearby construction health risk impacts. There are other entitled developments in the area, but they are outside of this project’s 1,000-foot influence area. Conclusion AIR-3 Table 7 reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by construction (i.e. the MEI). The project would have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities since the cancer risk exceeds the BAAQMD single-source thresholds. However, with the implementation of MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b, the cancer risk would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source threshold. Annual PM2.5 concentration, and hazard index do not exceed the BAAQMD single-source and cumulative- source thresholds. 46 South San Francisco Development and Construction Map. 2022. See https://construction.ssf.net/# accessed November 3, 2022. 281 35 Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI Source Cancer Risk (per million) Annual PM2.5 (µg/m3) Hazard Index Project Impacts Total/Maximum Project Impacts (Years 0 – 30) Unmitigated Mitigated 11.46 2.15 0.05 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 6.0 0.3 1.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated Yes No No No No No Cumulative Impacts Highway 101 2.29 0.12 <0.01 CalTrain Zone 1 4.50 <0.01 <0.01 Airport Boulevard 0.15 0.01 <0.01 Dubuque Avenue 0.16 0.02 <0.01 Genentech, Inc. (Facility ID #16024, Generator), MEI at 200 feet 0.80 <0.01 <0.01 Boston Properties (Facility ID #14010, Generator), MEI at 150 feet 3.52 <0.01 <0.01 Biotech Gateway – HCP c/o CBRE (Facility ID #20236, Generator), MEI at 950 feet 0.07 <0.01 <0.01 MacroGenics West, Inc (Facility ID #19179, Generator), MEI at 850 feet 2.38 <0.01 <0.01 Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc (Facility ID #17584, Generator), MEI at 530 feet 1.75 <0.01 <0.01 Lowes HIW Inc (Facility ID #18401, Generator), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.38 <0.01 <0.01 Health Plan of San Mateo (Facility ID #23311, Generator) MEI at 1000+ feet 0.06 <0.01 <0.01 611 Gateway Center LP (Facility ID #24794, No Data), MEI at 320 feet 1.23 0.22 <0.01 601 & 651 Gateway Boulevard (Facility ID #24795, No Data), MEI at 630 feet 5.49 0.09 0.01 Airport Boulevard Shell (Facility ID #111170_1, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.29 <0.01 <0.01 Cumulative Total Unmitigated Mitigated 34.53 25.22 <0.60 <0.57 <0.15 <0.15 BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0 Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated No No No No No No Mitigation Measure AQ-1 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1a (see above) Mitigation Measure AQ-2 - Implement General Plan MM AIR-1b MM AIR-1b The Project is located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, therefore, a health risk assessment of project emissions was conducted. Cancer risk thresholds would be exceeded at the Gateway Child Development Center YMCA (i.e., school children). Additional measures to reduce construction period TAC emissions are required under MM AIR-1b. The Project would be required to implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at least 50 percent such that 282 36 increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows: 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity. 3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading phases. 4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures: • Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment, • Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, • Use of electrically-powered equipment, • Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage. Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2 (MM AIR-1a and MM AIR-1b) CalEEMod was used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that all equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 Interim engine standards. With these implemented, the project’s construction cancer risk levels (assuming infant exposure) would be reduced by 81 percent to 2.12 chances per million. Assuming a lesser level of mitigation that achieves a 50- percent reduction in the project’s cancer risk, increased cancer risks would be reduced to below 6 283 37 chances per million. As a result, the project’s construction risks would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds. 284 38 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Setting Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:  CO2, CH4, and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.  N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.  CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.  Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.  HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling.  PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing. Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential (GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution. Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions The U.S. EPA reported that in 2022, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 5,215.6 million metric tons (MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).47 These emissions were lower than peak levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission 47 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2022. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2020. February. Web: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and- sinks 285 39 inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2019 emissions.48 In 2019, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 418.2 MMT CO2e. The 2019 emissions have decreased by 30 percent since peak levels in 2007 and are 7.2 MMT CO2e lower than 2018 emissions level and almost 13 MMT CO2e below the State’s 2020 GHG limit of 431 MMT CO2e. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.0 MT CO2e per person to 10.5 MT CO2e per person in 2019. Recent Regulatory Actions for GHG Emissions Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows: (1) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, (2) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) reduce California’s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels. A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State’s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business-as-usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. Business-as-usual (BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector- or facility-specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions forecast, in light of the economic downturn, to 545 MMT of CO2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020. 48 CARB. 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emission for 2000 to 2019. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-19.pdf 286 40 Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 GHG Reduction Targets – 2030 GHG Reduction Target In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a GHG emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. 49 While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets, this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target. SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. CARB has drafted a 2022 Scoping Plan Update to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The 2022 draft plan:  Identifies a path to keep California on track to meet its SB 32 GHG reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 emissions by 2030.  Identifies a technologically feasible, cost-effective path to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier.  Focuses on strategies for reducing California’s dependency on petroleum to provide consumers with clean energy options that address climate change, improve air quality, and support economic growth and clean sector jobs.  Integrates equity and protecting California’s most impacted communities as a driving principle.  Incorporates the contribution of natural and working lands to the state’s GHG emissions, as well as its role in achieving carbon neutrality.  Relies on the most up to date science, including the need to deploy all viable tools, including carbon capture and sequestration as well a direct air capture.  Evaluates multiple options for achieving our GHG and carbon neutrality targets, as well as the public health benefits and economic impacts associated with each. The draft Scoping Plan Update was published on May 10, 2022 and, once final, will lay out how the state can get to carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. It is also the first Scoping Plan that adds carbon neutrality as a science-based guide and touchstone beyond statutorily established emission reduction targets.50 The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S- 3-05. The 2022 Draft Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue driving down GHG emissions and to not only obtain the statewide goals, but cost-effectively achieve carbon-neutrality by 2045 or earlier. In the draft 2022 Scoping Plan, CARB recommends: 49 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 50 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping-plan-documents 287 41  VMT per capita reduced 12% below 2019 levels by 2030 and 22% below 2019 levels by 2045.  100% of Light-duty vehicle sales are zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) by 2035.  100% of medium duty/heavy duty vehicle sales are ZEV by 2040.  100% of passenger and other locomotive sales are ZEV by 2030.  100% of line haul locomotive sales are ZEV by 2035.  All electric appliances in new residential and commercial building beginning 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial).  80% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of residential appliance sales are electric by 2035.  80% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2030 and 100% of commercial appliance sales are electric by 2045. Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and create policies/programs that would meet this goal. Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008) California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organizations (e.g. Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area. Senate Bill 350 - Renewable Portfolio Standards In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increases the states Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030. 288 42 Senate Bill 100 – Current Renewable Portfolio Standards In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’s RPS program goals, furthering California’s focus on using renewable energy and carbon-free power sources for its energy needs. The bill would require all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44 percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31, 2026 the target would be 40 percent, by December 31, 2017 the target would be 52 percent, and by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California utilities would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon-free and sourced from eligible renewable energy resource to all California end-use customers. California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6 The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.51 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that involve planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and non-residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2019 California Building Standard Code) was effective as of January 1, 2020. The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments, while being cost effective for homeowners. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The current energy efficiency standards (2019 Energy Code) replaced the 2016 Energy Code as of January 1,2020. Under the 2019 standards, single-family homes are predicted to be 53 percent more efficient than homes built under the 2016 standard due more stringent energy-efficiency standards and mandatory installation of solar photovoltaic systems. For nonresidential developments, it is predicted that these buildings will use 30 percent less energy due to lightening upgrades.52 CEC studies have identified the most aggressive electrification scenario as putting the building sector on track to reach the carbon neutrality goal by 2045.53 Installing new natural gas infrastructure in new buildings will interfere with this goal. To meet the State’s goal, communities have been adopting “Reach” codes that prohibit natural gas connections in new and remodeled buildings. Requirements for EV charging infrastructure are set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are regularly updated on a 3-year cycle. The CALGreen standards consist of a set of mandatory standards required for new development, as well as two more voluntary standards 51 See: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/Page-Content/Building-Standards-Commission-Resources-List- Folder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020. 52 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf 53 California Energy Commission. 2021. Final Commission Report: California Building Decarbonization Assessment. Publication Number CEC-400-2021-006-CMF.August 289 43 known as Tier 1 and Tier 2. The CalGreen standards have recently been updated (2022 version) to require deployment of additional EV chargers in various building types, including multifamily residential and nonresidential land uses. They include requirements for both EV capable parking spaces and the installation of Level 2 EV supply equipment for multifamily residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2022 CALGreen standards include requirements for both EV readiness and the actual installation of EV chargers. The 2022 CALGreen standards include both mandatory requirements and more aggressive voluntary Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions. Providing EV charging infrastructure that meets current CALGreen requirements will not be sufficient to power the anticipated more extensive level of EV penetration in the future that is needed to meet SB 30 climate goals. SB 743 Transportation Impacts Senate Bill 743 required lead agencies to abandon the old “level of service” metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts, which was based solely on the amount of delay experienced by motor vehicles. In response, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) developed a VMT metric that considered other factors such as reducing GHG emissions and developing multimodal transportation54. A VMT-per-capita metric was adopted into the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in November 2017. Given current baseline per-capita VMT levels computed by CARB in the 2030 Scoping Plan of 22.24 miles per day for light-duty vehicles and 24.61 miles per day for all vehicle types, the reductions needed to achieve the 2050 climate goal are 16.8 percent for light-duty vehicles and 14.3 percent for all vehicle types combined. Based on this analysis (as well as other factors), OPR recommended using a 15-percent reduction in per capita VMT as an appropriate threshold of significance for evaluating transportation impacts. Advanced Clean Cars The Advanced Clean Cars Program, originally adopted by CARB in 2012, was designed to bring together CARB’s traditional passenger vehicle requirements to meet federal air quality standards and also support California’s AB 32 goals to develop and implement programs to reduce GHG emissions back down to 1990 levels by 2020, a goal achieved in 2016 as a result of numerous emissions reduction programs. This recent rule, Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) is phase two of the original rule. ACC II establishes a year-by-year process, starting in 2026, so all new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The regulation codifies the light-duty vehicle goals set out in Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N- 79-20. Currently, 16 percent of new light-duty vehicles sold in California are zero emissions or plug-in hybrids. By 2030, 68 percent of new vehicles sold in California would be zero emissions and 100 percent by 2035. 54 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December. 290 44 City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Also adopted in October 2022, the City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was developed alongside the October 2022 update to the City’s General Plan55. The updated CAP extends the horizon year to 2040 and sets a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 to align with State targets. The updated CAP aims to achieve the following: 1. Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2040. 2. Equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change. 3. Realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions that help create a sustainable community. To achieve these goals, the CAP includes various strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The following are strategies and actions that may be implemented citywide which could indirectly apply to this proposed project: BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction. Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (eg. Expedited permitting, FAR increase, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. BNC 2.1 All-Electric Reach Code for Nonresidential New Construction. Implement residential all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs. Update zoning and building codes to require alternations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen requirements. BE 2.4 All-Electric Major Renovations. Adopt an all-electric reach code for major renovations, alterations, additions. TL 2.2 TDM Program. Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance. TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy. Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan. WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards. Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CalGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. 55 City of South San Francisco, URL: https://shapessf.com/wp- content/uploads/2022/11/SSFCAP_AdoptedResolution.pdf 291 45 BAAQMD GHG Significance Thresholds On April 20, 2022, BAAQMD adopted new thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for projects beginning the CEQA process. The following framework is how BAAQMD will determine GHG significance moving forward.56 Note BAAQMD intends that the thresholds apply to projects that begin the CEQA process after adoption of the thresholds, unless otherwise directed by the lead agency. The new thresholds of significance are: A. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements: a. Buildings i. The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and non-residential development). ii. The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. b. Transportation i. Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA: 1. Residential Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita 2. Office Projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee 3. Retail Projects: no net increase in existing VMT ii. Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2. B. Be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Any new land use project would have to include either section A or B from the above list, not both, to be considered in compliance with BAAQMD’s GHG thresholds of significance. As shown in Impact GHG-2, the project is complying with section B from this list. Impact GHG-1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the short- term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal. 56 Justification Report: BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Project and Plans. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa-thresholds- 2022/justification-report-pdf.pdf?la=en 292 46 Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. CalEEMod Modeling CalEEMod was used to predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build-out of the project. The project land use types and size and other project-specific information were input to the model, as described above within the construction period emissions. CalEEMod output is included in Attachment 1. Construction GHG Emissions GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 6,735 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction. BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable. Construction emissions have been amortized over the average 40-year life-span of a building and added to the operational emissions for this analysis. Operational GHG Emissions The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully-developed site under the proposed project. As shown in Table 8, annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be a net of 4,810 MT of CO2e in 2028. Table 8. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category Existing Use in 2022 Proposed Project in 2028 Net Increase Construction (Amortized) 0.00 168.38 168.38 Area 0.00 0.04 0.04 Energy Consumption 149.83 1,187.05 1,037.22 Mobile 637.45 3,903.00 3,265.55 Stationary 0.00 281.69 281.69 Solid Waste Generation 4.34 34.39 30.05 Water Usage 76.02 271.50 195.48 Total (MT CO2e/year) 868 5,678 4,810 Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? For this impact to be considered less than significant, it must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy or meet the minimum project design elements recommended by BAAQMD. The City’s CAP was developed alongside the October 2022 update to the City’s General Plan. 293 47 The EIR provided the environmental review and subsequent public review process that would qualify the updated 2022 CAP under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Further, the CAP quantified GHG emissions in the South San Francisco area, established a level where emissions from activities in the South San Francisco area would not be cumulatively considerable, identified GHG emissions resulting from actions within the South San Francisco area, specified project-level measures to achieve the emissions level specified by the CAP, and established a set time-period to monitor the CAPs progress towards achieving the emissions level specified. As such, the City’s CAP is considered a qualified GHG reduction strategy under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1). Furthermore, the Project meets the project-level thresholds recommended by BAAQMD. The Project would be energy efficient and not utilize natural gas, include EV charging stations consistent with the requirements under Section 20.330.008 of the City’s Municipal Code and the CalGreen Tier 2 requirements at the time of project application, and has VMT per employee of 12.4 after TDM plan implementation, more than 15% below the existing regional VMT per employee. Conclusion GHG-1 and GHG-2 The project is considered to have less than significant impacts from GHG emissions because it is consistent with the newly adopted Climate Action Plan, a qualified plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Operational GHG emissions analyzed by the EIR were found to have less than significant impacts. 294 48 Supporting Documentation Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions. Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction emissions. Also included are any modeling assumptions. Attachment 3 includes the EMFAC2021 emissions modeling. The input files for these calculations are voluminous and are available upon request in digital format. Attachment 4 is the construction health risk assessment. This includes the summary of the dispersion modeling and the cancer risk calculations for construction. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format Attachment 5 includes the cumulative community risk calculations, modeling results, and health risk calculations from sources affecting the construction MEI and project site receptors. 295 Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology A health risk assessment (HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates (TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.57 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.58 This HRA used the 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.59 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation. Cancer Risk Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs is calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location. The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 (child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 (adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors (ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day) or liters per kilogram of body weight per 8-hour period for the case of worker or school child exposures. As recommended by the BAAQMD for residential exposures, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates. Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 57 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. February. 58 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 59 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. December 2016. 296 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. 297 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. 298 Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs 299 Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: 800 Dubuque See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size N/A Dwelling Units 5.9 total project acres disturbed N/A s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y N/A s.f. retail 900,000 s.f. office/R&D Project include on-site GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP during project OPERATION (not construction)? Y ____ 0 s.f. other, specify: IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> 640000 s.f. parking garage 1420 spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: __(6) total generators 11,000 total kW_______ 0 s.f. parking lot spaces Fuel Type: ____Diesel_________ Construction Days 8/1/2023 to 3/26/2027 Location in project (Plans Desired if Available): Various Construction Hours 7:00 am to 3:30 pm DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day Total Work Days Avg. Hours per day HP Annual Hours Comments Site Preparation (includes demo and underground utilities)Start Date: 8/1/2023 Total phase: 120 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 1/15/2024 3 Excavators 300 0.38 8 120 8 328320 Demolition Volume 1 Generators 50 0.74 8 120 8 35520 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 1 Compressors 49 0.6 8 120 8 28224 (or total tons to be hauled) 2 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 120 8 49728 _113,595_ square feet or 1 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 8 120 8 57600 _?_ Hauling volume (tons) 1 Plate Compactors 8 0.43 8 120 8 3302.4 1 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 120 8 24864 1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 120 4 14131.2 Any pavement demolished and hauled? _112_ tons Grading (includes shoring and 4 levels of excavation)Start Date: 1/16/2024 Total phase: 234 AL to get from estimating End Date: 12/6/2024 3 Excavators 300 0.38 8 234 8 640224 1 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 234 8 48485 1 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 8 234 8 112320 1 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 234 8 48484.8 Soil Hauling Volume 1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 234 4 27555.84 Export volume = 331,000 cubic yards? 2 Grout Pump 40 0.74 8 234 8 110822 Import volume = 0 cubic yards? 5 Drill Rig/Tieback drill rig 200 0.5 8 234 8 936000 1 Mobile Crane 150 0.29 8 234 8 81432 1 Roller/Compactor 100 0.37 4 234 4 34632 1 Dewatering pumps (electric) N/A N/A 24 563 24 N/A Dewaterin Building Construction (includes all construction from bottom of excavation to finished building)Start Date: 12/7/2024 Total phase: 563 End Date: 2/3/2027 Cement Trucks? _8,400_ Total Round-Trips 1 Mobile Crane 150 0.29 8 234 3.3250444 81432 2 Sky Jack Lift 75 0.31 8 563 8 209436 6 Spider Lift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 1 Compressor (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 2 Tower Crane (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 12 Welding Machine (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 1 Backhoe 70 0.37 4 563 4 58327 1 Forklift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 12 Scissor Lift (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 6 Personnel Hoist (electric) N/A N/A 8 563 8 N/A Electric? (Y/N) __Y___ Otherwise assumed diesel 1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 563 4 66299 Paving (includes site improvements, hardscape, landscape)Start Date: 7/17/2026 Total phase: 181 End Date: 3/26/2027 1 Backhoe 70 0.37 8 181 8 37503 1 Bobcat Loader 70 0.37 8 181 8 37503 1 Asphalt Paver 175 0.36 8 181 8 91224 1 Roller 140 0.38 8 181 8 77034 1 Bulldozer (D6) 150 0.4 4 181 4 43440 1 Plate Compactors 8 0.43 8 181 8 4981 1 Sky Jack Lift 75 0.31 8 181 8 33666 1 Sweeper 64 0.46 4 181 4 21315 1.6 tons of asphalt is a cubic yard Additional Phases Start Date: Total phase: Start Date: Complete ALL Portions in Yellow Asphalt? __1,111 _ cubic yards or ____ round trips? 300 Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust  PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e  Year MT 2023 0.15 1.34 0.06 0.05 0.01 247.69 2024 0.49 4.64 0.18 0.16 0.40 1128.19 2025 0.08 0.80 0.02 0.02 0.00 172.87 2026 2.73 1.62 0.05 0.04 0.00 337.26 2027 2.32 0.51 0.02 0.01 0.00 102.78 2023 0.07 0.85 0.05 0.02 592.81 2024 0.15 1.93 0.11 0.04 1390.83 2025 0.14 1.82 0.11 0.04 1355.81 2026 0.13 1.72 0.11 0.04 1461.81 2027 0.03 0.38 0.02 0.01 332.35 2023 0.22 2.19 0.10 0.07 840.51 2024 0.64 6.58 0.28 0.21 2519.02 2025 0.22 2.62 0.13 0.06 1528.67 2026 2.86 3.34 0.15 0.09 1799.08 2027 2.35 0.89 0.04 0.02 435.13 Tons 6.28 15.62 0.71 0.45 7122.40 Pounds/Workdays 2023 3.97 40.15 1.90 1.35 109 2024 4.89 50.20 2.17 1.60 262 2025 1.67 20.09 0.96 0.47 261 2026 21.89 25.63 1.17 0.66 261 2027 76.94 29.04 1.32 0.80 61 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Pounds 109.37 165.10 7.53 4.87 0.00 Average 13.16 32.74 1.48 0.95 0.00 954.00 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Year Total 6.98 2.89 4.28 1.16 Total 0.95 0.47 0.61 0.16 Tons/year 6.04 2.43 3.67 0.99 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Pounds Per Day 33.08 13.29 20.11 5.45 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Category  Project  Existing Project 2030 Existing Area 0.04 0.00 Energy 1187.05 149.83 Mobile 3903.00 637.45 Stationary 281.69 Waste 34.39 4.34 Water 271.50 76.02 TOTAL 5677.68 867.64 Net GHG Emissions 4810.04 Workdays Total Construction Emissions  Construction Equipment Total Construction Emissions by Year CO2e Tons Total Construction Emissions  Average Daily Emissions  Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Operational Criteria Air Pollutants Tons Existing Use Emissions  Net Annual Operational Emissions  Average Daily Emissions  EMFAC 301 Land Use  Size Daily Trips New TripsWeekday Trip Gen Weekday Sat SunResearch & Development ksf900 9972 65827.3111.26 1.9 1.11TDM Reduction34%‐3390Rev1.23 0.72ExistingResearch & Development  ksf113.595 947 9478.3411.26 1.9 1.11Rev1.41 0.82Traffic Consultant Trip Gen CalEEMod Default 302 Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet. Electric pump = 0 HP and 0 Load Factor.Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet.Trips and VMT - EMFAC2021 adjustment 0 trips, pavement demo = 112 tons, building const = 8,400 concrete truck round trips, paving = 1,111-cy asphalt.Demolition - Existing building demo = 113,595-sqft.Construction Phase - Provided in construction worksheet. 6 months of arch coating added for ROG emissions calculations.Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet. Electric lifts, electric air compressors, electric cranes, electric forklifts, electric welders = 0 HP and 0 Load FactorOff-road Equipment - Default equipment since no phase provided.Off-road Equipment - Provided by construction worksheet.N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Total square footage and lot acreage provided in project construction sheet.Utility CompanyPeninsula Clean EnergyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year20281.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.20Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1,420.00 Space 0.00 640,000.00 0Research & Development 900.00 1000sqft 5.90 900,000.00800 Dubuque Ave, SSFSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied303 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 8.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 12.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 27.00Fleet Mix - EMFAC2021 fleet mix San Mateo County 2028.Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - 6 11,000-kW total, 14,745.31-hp total diesel generators - 50hrs/yrStationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps EF - Tier 4/BACT emission factors for generators (NOx, PM10 PM2 5)Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValueVehicle Trips - Provided trip gen with reduction adjustments.Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions factors San Mateo County 2028.Energy Use - No reach code passed for new non-residential.Water And Wastewater - Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - BMPs, tier 4 interim mitigation.Grading - Grading = 331,000-cy exported.304 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblFleetMix LHD2 6.8710e-003 7.0230e-003tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LHD1 0.03 0.03tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.30tblFleetMix LDT2 0.24 0.30tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDT1 0.08 0.04tblFleetMix LDA 0.45 0.41tblFleetMix LDA 0.45 0.41tblFleetMix HHD 1.8670e-003 2.4360e-003tblFleetMix HHD 1.8670e-003 2.4360e-003tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 181.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 130.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 234.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 563.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 120.00tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 InterimtblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Interim 305 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.20 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.45 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.29 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 63.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 78.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 89.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 46.00 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 12.78 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 231.00 0.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 568,000.00 640,000.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 20.66 5.90tblGrading AcresOfGrading 234.00 117.00tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 331,000.00tblFleetMix UBUS 5.2200e-004 6.7900e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 5.2200e-004 6.7900e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2400e-004 4.0200e-004tblFleetMix SBUS 4.2400e-004 4.0200e-004tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3840e-003 2.2460e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.3840e-003 2.2460e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.4200e-003tblFleetMix MHD 0.01 8.4200e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.8140e-003 2.1040e-003tblFleetMix MH 2.8140e-003 2.1040e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.17tblFleetMix MDV 0.15 0.17tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblFleetMix LHD2 6.8710e-003 7.0230e-003 306 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM10_EF 0.15 0.02tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 4.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF NOX_EF 4.56 0.50tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 3.30tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 12.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.74 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.31 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.00 307 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 0.19 0.21tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 25.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 111.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 45.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 557.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 252.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 30.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 517.00 0.00tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 41,375.00 0.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 1,340.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 804.30tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 1,340.50tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 3,753.40tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF PM2_5_EF 0.15 0.02 308 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 7.8960e-003 5.9300e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.2600e-004 9.3100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7100e-004 1.2900e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.28tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 4.4100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 8.7420e-003 8.6320e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0080e-003 2.3510e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.09tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.40 2.73tblVehicleEF HHD 3.1440e-003 2.4630e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.10 3.48tblVehicleEF HHD 2.86 2.12tblVehicleEF HHD 0.24 0.26tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.32 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 0.14 0.12tblVehicleEF HHD 891.28 724.85tblVehicleEF HHD 1,480.38 1,615.27tblVehicleEF HHD 1.02 1.55tblVehicleEF HHD 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 5.40 4.64 309 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 3.5660e-003 4.5380e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.22tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 9.0600e-004 8.4400e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2680e-003 1.5140e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3790e-003 1.6460e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2280e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.3670e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 9.8400e-004 9.1800e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 0.13 0.19tblVehicleEF LDA 3.1120e-003 3.0940e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LDA 206.14 220.37tblVehicleEF LDA 43.85 57.42tblVehicleEF LDA 0.40 0.46tblVehicleEF LDA 1.80 2.32tblVehicleEF LDA 1.0040e-003 1.2470e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF HHD 1.2600e-004 9.3100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6000e-005 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.22 0.24tblVehicleEF HHD 2.7100e-004 1.2900e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.43 0.55tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 2.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0000e-006 4.4100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.01 310 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.0540e-003 1.1300e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4500e-003 1.8690e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.5780e-003 2.0320e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.7930e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 7.9810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.1460e-003 1.2280e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.26tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.4700e-003 5.2590e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 244.99 288.33tblVehicleEF LDT1 52.13 74.24tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.49 0.76tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.91 3.29tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.4820e-003 2.8080e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.07tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.15 0.24tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 5.1800e-003 6.6150e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.22tblVehicleEF LDA 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LDA 2.0390e-003 2.1780e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 4.3400e-004 5.6800e-004tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDA 0.14 0.22 311 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.0230e-003 9.2500e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3500e-003 1.5460e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.4690e-003 1.6810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.7080e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.7370e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.1110e-003 1.0050e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.16 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.6670e-003 3.8830e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT2 252.30 291.96tblVehicleEF LDT2 54.02 73.80tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.50 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.32 2.62tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.5100e-003 1.5860e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.17 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 8.3040e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.35tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.4240e-003 2.8500e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.1600e-004 7.3400e-004tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.28tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.15 0.32tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.6920e-003 0.01 312 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.22 0.33tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.9400e-004 6.2600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.23 0.23tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 10.37 17.46tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.1300e-004 5.5200e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.26 7.85tblVehicleEF LHD1 710.72 690.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.44 0.56tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.90 2.29tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.4150e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.18 0.19tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.2250e-003 4.4750e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 4.9800e-003 3.7050e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.20 0.27tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 8.1560e-003 8.3650e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.4960e-003 2.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.3500e-004 7.3000e-004tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.18 0.24tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.6150e-003 5.7420e-003 313 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 4.7090e-003 8.4910e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.5880e-003 2.4980e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 5.0540e-003 4.0030e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.05tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.0300e-004 1.7300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.3800e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.0000e-005 7.6000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.9340e-003 6.7410e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.14 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.9300e-004 1.1700e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.3800e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4660e-003 2.3250e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.9600e-003 6.9240e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.5600e-004 5.9900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 6.2770e-003 7.2710e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.1000e-004 1.2800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.8630e-003 9.3010e-003 314 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2300e-004 1.2400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.2200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 9.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.0200e-004 5.4000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6300e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.7010e-003 2.6410e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3930e-003 1.3390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.1100e-004 5.8000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.13 0.18tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.4560e-003 1.3990e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.26 0.34tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.81 9.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6210e-003 1.5880e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 12.86 12.94tblVehicleEF LHD2 689.13 728.14tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.44 0.35tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.51 1.23 315 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.14 0.82tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 2.88tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0520e-003 1.9230e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 2.8510e-003 3.4470e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.0480e-003 3.6830e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 2.2000e-003 2.0600e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.48tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 6.0840e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 212.64 185.56tblVehicleEF MCY 59.12 41.28tblVehicleEF MCY 17.92 9.97tblVehicleEF MCY 9.35 7.60tblVehicleEF MCY 0.32 0.13tblVehicleEF MCY 0.25 0.15tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.06 0.06tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.2200e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 9.8860e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.7000e-005 9.0000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6300e-004 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.6510e-003 7.0090e-003 316 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.18tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 1.0090e-003 9.0700e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 1.3260e-003 1.5220e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4420e-003 1.6560e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7150e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7570e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.0940e-003 9.8600e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MDV 0.17 0.24tblVehicleEF MDV 4.7890e-003 4.4600e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 302.50 347.83tblVehicleEF MDV 63.56 87.43tblVehicleEF MDV 0.48 0.54tblVehicleEF MDV 2.34 2.64tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4480e-003 1.6360e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.69tblVehicleEF MCY 2.07 1.18tblVehicleEF MCY 0.35 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.69 1.01tblVehicleEF MCY 0.60 0.07tblVehicleEF MCY 0.49 3.54tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1040e-003 1.8340e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.8500e-004 4.0800e-004tblVehicleEF MCY 0.39 3.69tblVehicleEF MCY 1.90 1.09 317 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 9.5540e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.1100e-004 2.4200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2860e-003 3.3310e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 2.3000e-004 2.6400e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.87 1.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.22 0.26tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,349.53 1,661.12tblVehicleEF MH 15.57 20.41tblVehicleEF MH 0.29 0.40tblVehicleEF MH 1.65 1.99tblVehicleEF MH 4.5770e-003 5.8310e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF MDV 0.21 0.29tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 7.8770e-003 8.8830e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.18tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF MDV 2.9890e-003 3.4370e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 6.2900e-004 8.6400e-004tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.14tblVehicleEF MDV 0.19 0.27tblVehicleEF MDV 5.4420e-003 6.1050e-003 318 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 1.67 1.22tblVehicleEF MHD 0.30 0.66tblVehicleEF MHD 1.30 0.70tblVehicleEF MHD 0.12 0.14tblVehicleEF MHD 8.0390e-003 7.4940e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 8.95 9.99tblVehicleEF MHD 8.1890e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 57.82 138.62tblVehicleEF MHD 988.39 1,180.59tblVehicleEF MHD 0.15 0.21tblVehicleEF MHD 0.92 1.08tblVehicleEF MHD 8.7640e-003 9.7490e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.65tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9050e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0560e-003 9.8890e-003tblVehicleEF MH 4.0680e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.08 0.10tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 0.06tblVehicleEF MH 0.19 14.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 3.78tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.5400e-004 2.0200e-004tblVehicleEF MH 4.0680e-003 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.19 14.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 3.78 319 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 9.0140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.66 0.50tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7640e-003 6.8190e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.9830e-003 9.0900e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 4.7930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 8.9000e-005 9.9000e-005tblVehicleEF MHD 2.2600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 5.4900e-004 1.2780e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 9.4340e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 0.04 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5800e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 4.7930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0400e-004 1.1300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 2.2600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 5.9980e-003 6.9320e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1400e-004 1.2300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 1.4800e-004 9.2500e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MHD 6.2770e-003 7.2580e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 1.5500e-004 9.6700e-004 320 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2200e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 9.9700e-004 8.4600e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 7.2060e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3400e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.1800e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5160e-003 7.5540e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4500e-004 8.9000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.4600e-004 2.0900e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.8700e-003 7.9020e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.22 1.09tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.5300e-004 2.1800e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.46 0.36tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.47 0.67tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.16tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.5290e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 12.28 8.29tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 105.15 90.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,226.73 1,236.24tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.25 0.18tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.39 0.91 321 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 2.3380e-003 9.4900e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.7430e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.6300e-004 8.9000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.8530e-003 9.9480e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.88 0.50tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4440e-003 9.9400e-004tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.66 1.15tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.08 1.86tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.10tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 6.1650e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.78 6.43tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 371.24 204.41tblVehicleEF SBUS 917.94 906.87tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.60 1.08tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.80 1.23tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 8.9030e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.05 2.68tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.6470e-003 0.08tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.8900e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 7.2060e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.1800e-004 0.03 322 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 0.68 0.23tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.27 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.4330e-003 7.1890e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,627.29 1,017.30tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.93 5.32tblVehicleEF UBUS 12.61 6.86tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.82 0.89tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.67 0.60tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 4.5430e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.09 0.14tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.3080e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.89 0.49tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.7000e-005 6.4000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.8900e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.5650e-003 1.8670e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.8560e-003 8.4930e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.3080e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.61 0.31tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.5000e-004 8.2000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.8900e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.4630e-003 2.4870e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.02 8.3410e-003 323 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedtblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 7.31tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.23tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.72tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.8190e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 1.71 0.65tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9200e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 3.3320e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.9550e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 8.8000e-005 5.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.8190e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.07 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.9200e-004 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 3.3320e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.7320e-003 4.1280e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.7000e-005 2.3000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.9480e-003 4.3210e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.2000e-005 2.5000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.15tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.11 0.05 324 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.51,120.1436 1,120.1436 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18670.0288 0.0000 102.7781Maximum 2.7277 4.6443 4.9617 0.0128 0.7905 0.1931 0.9835 0.3976 0.1800 0.5776 0.00000.0207 0.0207 0.0000 102.0591 102.05911.1700e-003 0.0000 0.0223 0.0223 0.00002027 2.3183 0.5065 0.7091335.1525 335.1525 0.0845 0.0000 337.26460.0345 0.0000 172.86862026 2.7277 1.6237 2.2706 3.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0679 0.0679 0.0000 0.06360.0636 0.00000.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0000 0.0310 0.0310 0.00002025 0.0794 0.8015 1.12541,120.1436 1,120.1436 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18670.0577 0.0000 247.69102024 0.4919 4.6443 4.9617 0.0128 0.7905 0.1931 0.9835 0.3976 0.1800 0.5776 0.00000.0613 0.0690 0.0000 246.2476 246.24762.8300e-003 0.0508 0.0649 0.1157 7.6900e-0032023 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH42.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.002.0 Emissions SummarytblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00 325 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied13 8-1-2026 10-31-20261.6662 1.579612 5-1-2026 7-31-20260.2989 0.282611 2-1-2026 4-30-20260.2146 0.211610 11-1-2025 1-31-20260.2218 0.21879 8-1-2025 10-31-20250.2218 0.21878 5-1-2025 7-31-20250.2218 0.21877 2-1-2025 4-30-20250.2146 0.21166 11-1-2024 1-31-20250.6812 0.62265 8-1-2024 10-31-20241.3851 1.24904 5-1-2024 7-31-20241.3851 1.24903 2-1-2024 4-30-20241.3550 1.22192 11-1-2023 1-31-20240.9736 0.80121 8-1-2023 10-31-20230.8954 0.70880.00 0.00 0.00Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)N20 CO2ePercent Reduction7.99 7.01 -29.34 0.00 55.00 68.01 59.04 55.00 66.46 60.35 0.00 0.00 0.00PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx CO SO21,120.1422 1,120.1422 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18540.0288 0.0000 102.7780Maximum 2.6548 4.3784 7.4200 0.0128 0.3557 0.0404 0.3961 0.1789 0.0391 0.2180 0.00008.5600e-0038.5600e-003 0.0000 102.0589 102.05891.1700e-003 0.0000 8.8600e-0038.8600e-003 0.00002027 2.2920 0.4503 0.7782335.1521 335.1521 0.0845 0.0000 337.26420.0345 0.0000 172.86842026 2.6548 1.5297 2.5323 3.8500e-003 0.0000 0.0350 0.0350 0.0000 0.03440.0344 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0000 0.0215 0.0215 0.00002025 0.0497 0.8190 1.27961,120.1422 1,120.1422 0.3217 0.0000 1,128.18540.0577 0.0000 247.69072024 0.2437 4.3784 7.4200 0.0128 0.3557 0.0404 0.3961 0.1789 0.0391 0.2180 0.00000.0156 0.0190 0.0000 246.2473 246.24732.8300e-003 0.0229 0.0156 0.0384 3.4600e-0032023 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658Year tons/yrMT/yr326 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.5917 0.5130 5,677.6753Mitigated Operational0.1198 1.1572 170.4484 5,314.5491 5,484.99750.0512 4.1617 0.1214 4.2831 1.0374Total 6.9842 2.8924 17.93270.0000 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.50090.8204 0.0000 34.3934Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 156.56590.0000 0.0000 13.8826 0.0000 13.88260.0000 0.0000Waste280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.1703 0.1509 3,903.0021Stationary 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.01610.00000.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374Mobile 2.2192 1.3803 15.45861,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04621.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Energy 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Area 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH42.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5Highest3.1776 3.087015 2-1-2027 4-30-20271.7422 1.690714 11-1-2026 1-31-20273.1776 3.0870 327 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied5 130Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1175 Building Interior Architectural Coating 9/26/2026 3/26/20275 5634 Paving Paving 7/17/2026 3/26/2027 5 1813 Building Construction Building Construction 12/7/2024 2/3/20275 1202 Grading Grading 1/16/2024 12/6/2024 5 2341 Demolition Demolition 8/1/2023 1/15/2024Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description3.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.5917 0.5130 5,677.6753ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO20.1198 1.1572 170.4484 5,314.5491 5,484.99750.0512 4.1617 0.1214 4.2831 1.0374Total 6.9842 2.8924 17.93270.0000 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.50090.8204 0.0000 34.3934Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 156.56590.0000 0.0000 13.8826 0.0000 13.88260.0000 0.0000Waste280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.1703 0.1509 3,903.0021Stationary 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.01610.00000.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374Mobile 2.2192 1.3803 15.45861,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04621.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Energy 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Area 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213Category tons/yrMT/yr328 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.00Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 00.00Building Construction Cranes 1 3.30 231 0.29Building Construction Air Compressors 1 8.00 00.31Building Construction Aerial Lifts 24 8.00 0 0.00Building Construction Aerial Lifts 2 8.00 630.46Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Grading Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.38Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Rollers 1 4.00 800.74Grading Pumps 1 24.00 0 0.00Grading Pumps 2 8.00 840.38Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Excavators 3 8.00 1580.50Grading Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29Grading Bore/Drill Rigs 5 8.00 2210.46Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Demolition Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.43Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Demolition Plate Compactors 1 8.00 80.38Demolition Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 1580.48Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73Demolition Air Compressors 1 8.00 78Acres of Paving: 0Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,350,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 450,000; Striped Parking Area: 38,400 OffRoad EquipmentPhase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor329 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionUse Cleaner Engines for Construction EquipmentWater Exposed AreaReduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved RoadsHHDTBuilding Interior 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixPaving 10 0.00 0.00 0.00HHDTBuilding Construction 46 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixGrading 18 0.00 0.00 0.00Hauling VehicleClassDemolition 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT0.48Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassBuilding Interior Air Compressors 1 6.00 780.46Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37Paving Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 640.38Paving Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4.00 247 0.40Paving Rollers 1 8.00 800.36Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 1320.31Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Paving Aerial Lifts 1 8.00 630.37Building Construction Welders 12 8.00 0 0.00Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 970.74Building Construction Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4.00 64 0.46Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84Building Construction Forklifts 1 8.00 0 0.00 330 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0577 0.0000 247.6910Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0613 0.0690 0.0000 246.2476 246.24762.8300e-003 0.0508 0.0649 0.1157 7.6900e-003Total 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614246.2476 246.2476 0.0577 0.0000 247.69100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.1488 1.3364 1.6614 2.8300e-003 0.0649 0.0649 0.0613 0.0613 0.00000.0000 7.6900e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0508 0.0000 0.0508 7.6900e-003Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.53.2 Demolition - 2023331 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.2 Demolition - 20240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0577 0.0000 247.6907Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0156 0.0190 0.0000 246.2473 246.24732.8300e-003 0.0229 0.0156 0.0384 3.4600e-003Total 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658246.2473 246.2473 0.0577 0.0000 247.69070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0648 1.1108 1.8658 2.8300e-003 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.0156 0.00000.0000 3.4600e-003 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0229 0.0000 0.0229 3.4600e-003Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5332 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.8100e-0030.0000 25.0010Unmitigated Construction Off-Site5.6500e-0036.4300e-003 0.0000 24.8558 24.85582.9000e-004 5.1200e-0035.9900e-0030.0111 7.8000e-004Total 0.0145 0.1283 0.167924.8558 24.8558 5.8100e-0030.0000 25.00100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0145 0.1283 0.1679 2.9000e-004 5.9900e-0035.9900e-003 5.6500e-0035.6500e-003 0.00000.0000 7.8000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.1200e-0030.0000 5.1200e-003 7.8000e-004Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5333 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.3 Grading - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.8100e-0030.0000 25.0009Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.4300e-0031.7800e-003 0.0000 24.8558 24.85582.9000e-004 2.3100e-0031.4300e-0033.7400e-003 3.5000e-004Total 6.3700e-0030.1107 0.188224.8558 24.8558 5.8100e-0030.0000 25.00090.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 6.3700e-0030.1107 0.1882 2.9000e-004 1.4300e-0031.4300e-003 1.4300e-0031.4300e-003 0.00000.0000 3.5000e-004 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.3100e-0030.0000 2.3100e-003 3.5000e-004Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5334 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.3137 0.0000 1,091.9269Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.1722 0.5690 0.0000 1,084.0855 1,084.08550.0124 0.7853 0.1848 0.9701 0.3968Total 0.4719 4.4602 4.72021,084.0855 1,084.0855 0.3137 0.0000 1,091.92690.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.4719 4.4602 4.7202 0.0124 0.1848 0.1848 0.1722 0.1722 0.00000.0000 0.3968 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.7853 0.0000 0.7853 0.3968Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5335 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied3.4 Building Construction - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.3137 0.0000 1,091.9256Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0362 0.2148 0.0000 1,084.0842 1,084.08420.0124 0.3534 0.0375 0.3909 0.1786Total 0.2340 4.2137 7.14841,084.0842 1,084.0842 0.3137 0.0000 1,091.92560.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.2340 4.2137 7.1484 0.0124 0.0375 0.0375 0.0362 0.0362 0.00000.0000 0.1786 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.3534 0.0000 0.3534 0.1786Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5336 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction On-Site0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.511.2023 11.2023 2.2600e-0030.0000 11.25892.2600e-0030.0000 11.2589Total 5.5200e-0030.0559 0.0736 1.3000e-004 2.3100e-0032.3100e-003 2.2000e-0032.2000e-003 0.00002.2000e-0032.2000e-003 0.0000 11.2023 11.20231.3000e-004 2.3100e-0032.3100e-003Off-Road 5.5200e-0030.0559 0.0736N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5337 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2025Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.511.2023 11.2023 2.2600e-0030.0000 11.25892.2600e-0030.0000 11.2589Total 3.3200e-0030.0540 0.0834 1.3000e-004 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003 0.00001.4700e-0031.4700e-003 0.0000 11.2023 11.20231.3000e-004 1.4700e-0031.4700e-003Off-Road 3.3200e-0030.0540 0.0834N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5338 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0061 172.0061 0.0345 0.0000 172.86860.0345 0.0000 172.8686Total 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254 1.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0295 0.0295 0.00000.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310Off-Road 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254Category tons/yrMT/yr339 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0345 0.0000 172.86860.0295 0.0295 0.0000 172.0061 172.00611.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310Off-Road 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0059 172.0059 0.0345 0.0000 172.86840.0345 0.0000 172.8684Total 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796 1.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215Off-Road 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796 340 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied172.0059 172.0059 0.0345 0.0000 172.86840.0345 0.0000 172.8684Total 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796 1.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.0215 0.00000.0215 0.0215 0.0000 172.0059 172.00591.9800e-003 0.0215 0.0215Off-Road 0.0497 0.8190 1.2796N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5172.0061 172.0061 0.0345 0.0000 172.8686Total 0.0794 0.8015 1.1254 1.9800e-003 0.0310 0.0310 0.0295 0.0295 0.0000341 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied15.8167 15.8167 3.1700e-0030.0000 15.89603.1700e-0030.0000 15.8960Total 7.3000e-0030.0737 0.1035 1.8000e-004 2.8500e-0032.8500e-003 2.7100e-0032.7100e-003 0.00002.7100e-0032.7100e-003 0.0000 15.8167 15.81671.8000e-004 2.8500e-0032.8500e-003Off-Road 7.3000e-0030.0737 0.1035N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5342 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedMitigated Construction Off-Site15.8166 15.8166 3.1700e-0030.0000 15.89593.1700e-0030.0000 15.8959Total 4.5700e-0030.0753 0.1177 1.8000e-004 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003 0.00001.9800e-0031.9800e-003 0.0000 15.8166 15.81661.8000e-004 1.9800e-0031.9800e-003Off-Road 4.5700e-0030.0753 0.1177N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5343 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0495 0.0000 155.5753Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0324 0.0324 0.0000 154.3377 154.33771.7700e-003 0.0351 0.0351Total 0.0807 0.7827 1.08280.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0495 0.0000 155.5753Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0324 0.0324 0.0000 154.3377 154.33771.7700e-003 0.0351 0.0351Off-Road 0.0807 0.7827 1.0828N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Paving - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5344 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0495 0.0000 155.5751Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0127 0.0127 0.0000 154.3375 154.33751.7700e-003 0.0133 0.0133Total 0.0415 0.6741 1.18950.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0495 0.0000 155.5751Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0127 0.0127 0.0000 154.3375 154.33751.7700e-003 0.0133 0.0133Off-Road 0.0415 0.6741 1.1895N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 345 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0252 0.0000 79.0841Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0164 0.0164 0.0000 78.4550 78.45509.0000e-004 0.0179 0.0179Total 0.0410 0.3979 0.55040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0252 0.0000 79.0841Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0164 0.0164 0.0000 78.4550 78.45509.0000e-004 0.0179 0.0179Off-Road 0.0410 0.3979 0.5504N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Paving - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 346 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0252 0.0000 79.0840Mitigated Construction Off-Site6.4600e-0036.4600e-003 0.0000 78.4549 78.45499.0000e-004 6.7700e-0036.7700e-003Total 0.0211 0.3427 0.60460.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0252 0.0000 79.0840Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00006.4600e-0036.4600e-003 0.0000 78.4549 78.45499.0000e-004 6.7700e-0036.7700e-003Off-Road 0.0211 0.3427 0.6046N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 347 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.8000e-0040.0000 8.8207Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 0.0000 8.8087 8.80871.0000e-004 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003Total 2.5676 0.0395 0.06248.8087 8.8087 4.8000e-0040.0000 8.82070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.8900e-0030.0395 0.0624 1.0000e-004 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 1.7800e-0031.7800e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.5617N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Building Interior - 2026Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 348 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.8000e-0040.0000 8.8207Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 0.0000 8.8087 8.80871.0000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004Total 2.5636 0.0366 0.06328.8087 8.8087 4.8000e-0040.0000 8.82070.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.8800e-0030.0366 0.0632 1.0000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 1.4000e-0041.4000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.5617N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 349 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.2000e-0040.0000 7.7980Unmitigated Construction Off-Site1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 0.0000 7.7874 7.78749.0000e-005 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003Total 2.2699 0.0349 0.05527.7874 7.7874 4.2000e-0040.0000 7.79800.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 5.2100e-0030.0349 0.0552 9.0000e-005 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 1.5700e-0031.5700e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.2647N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Building Interior - 2027Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 350 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied4.2000e-0040.0000 7.7980Mitigated Construction Off-Site1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 0.0000 7.7874 7.78749.0000e-005 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004Total 2.2664 0.0323 0.05597.7874 7.7874 4.2000e-0040.0000 7.79800.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.6600e-0030.0323 0.0559 9.0000e-005 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 1.2000e-0041.2000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 2.2647N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 351 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.1703 0.1509 3,903.00213,903.0021Unmitigated 2.2192 1.3803 15.4586 0.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374 0.0213 1.0586 0.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.76910.0000 3,853.7691 3,853.7691 0.1703 0.1509CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 2.2192 1.3803 15.4586 0.0418 4.1617 0.0228 4.1846 1.0374 0.0213 1.0586Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures MobileROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO 352 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.000402 0.0021045.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104Research & Development 0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.008420 0.002436 0.002246 0.000679 0.0243610.030624 0.007023 0.008420 0.002436 0.002246Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD4.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT248.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.000.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W4.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %12,405,925Total 6,579.00 1,107.00 648.00 12,405,925 12,405,925Research & Development 6,579.00 1,107.00 648.00 12,405,925Annual VMTEnclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT4.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated 353 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedCH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.51,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0216 1,187.0462Total 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.02260.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.2113e+0070.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.08240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.51,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0226 0.0216 1,187.0462NaturalGas Unmitigated0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.03396.5000e-003 0.0824 0.0824NaturalGas Mitigated0.1192 1.0840 0.91050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Electricity Mitigated354 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator3.4816e+0060.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.687e+0060.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator3.4816e+0060.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.0226 0.0216 1,187.04620.0216 1,187.0462Total 0.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.0824 0.00000.0824 0.0000 1,180.0339 1,180.0339 0.02260.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development2.2113e+0070.1192 1.0840 0.9105 6.5000e-0030.0824 0.0824 0.08240.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 355 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.4826CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04426.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated0.0442Unmitigated 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 0.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.687e+0060.0000 0.0000 356 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied7.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures Water0.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04421.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Total 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Landscaping 1.9600e-0031.9000e-004 0.02130.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products3.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.4826N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0415 0.0415 1.1000e-0040.0000 0.04421.1000e-0040.0000 0.0442Total 4.0409 1.9000e-004 0.0213 0.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.00008.0000e-0058.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0415 0.04150.0000 8.0000e-0058.0000e-005Landscaping 1.9600e-0031.9000e-004 0.02130.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products3.5563 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 357 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use MgaltonMT/yrMitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.3405 271.5009Total 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Research & Development442.525 / 0 156.5659 0.5389Land Use MgaltonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000271.50097.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e 358 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLand Use tonstonMT/yr34.39348.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000tonMT/yr Mitigated 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.39348.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.3405 271.5009Total 156.5659 0.5389 0.3405 271.5009Research & Development442.525 / 0 156.5659 0.5389Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 359 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedLoad Factor Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4 0.73 DieselEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse PowerHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency Generators9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year0.0000 34.3934Total 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.3934Research & Development68.39 13.8826 0.8204Land Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 34.3934Total 13.8826 0.8204 0.0000 34.3934Research & Development68.39 13.8826 0.8204Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 360 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 11/22/2022 10:48 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied11.0 Vegetation280.7047 280.7047 0.0394 0.0000 281.68850.0394 0.0000 281.6885Total 0.6049 0.4279 1.5423 2.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.0161 0.00000.0161 0.0161 0.0000 280.7047 280.70472.9100e-003 0.0161 0.0161Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 9999 HP)0.6049 0.4279 1.5423CH4 N2O CO2eEquipment Type tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx COUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type Number10.1 Stationary SourcesUnmitigated/Mitigated0.73 DieselBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 0 50 804.30.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 1340.5 0.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 1340.50.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4 0.73 DieselEmergency Generator 1 0 50 3753.4 361 800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - ExistingSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedClimate Zone5Operational Year2022Utility CompanyPeninsula Clean Energy01.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.2Precipitation Freq (Days)70Research & Development 113.60 1000sqft 2.61 113,595.00Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValuetblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 0.00Off-road Equipment - Existing run - no construction.Grading - Vehicle Trips - Provided trip gen with reduction adjustments.Vehicle Emission Factors - EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions factors San Mateo County 2022.Fleet Mix - EMFAC2021 fleet mix San Mateo County 2022.01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Land Use - Provided in construction sheet - amount of square footage of existing buildings demo'ed.Construction Phase - Existing run - no construction.CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/7/2022 11/3/2022 362 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblFleetMix LDT2 0.22 0.25tblFleetMix LHD1 0.02 0.03tblFleetMix LDA 0.49 0.50tblFleetMix LDT1 0.07 0.05tblFleetMix HHD 2.2470e-003 2.7140e-003tblFleetMix MHD 9.9900e-003 9.3450e-003tblFleetMix OBUS 1.5780e-003 2.4380e-003tblFleetMix MDV 0.14 0.14tblFleetMix MH 2.4690e-003 1.9850e-003tblFleetMix LHD2 5.8150e-003 5.4440e-003tblFleetMix MCY 0.03 0.02tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00tblFleetMix SBUS 4.4000e-004 4.3700e-004tblFleetMix UBUS 6.3600e-004 8.2800e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.86 4.44tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.26tblVehicleEF HHD 0.17 0.28tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.24 0.31tblVehicleEF HHD 0.16 0.13tblVehicleEF HHD 986.47 817.56tblVehicleEF HHD 1,722.89 1,847.10tblVehicleEF HHD 1.00 1.69tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03 363 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 2.10 2.39tblVehicleEF HHD 5.0230e-003 3.8270e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 5.83 4.43tblVehicleEF HHD 4.02 3.26tblVehicleEF HHD 0.28 0.30tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 1.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 4.8060e-003 3.6570e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 6.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 0.06 0.10tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6300e-004 2.7700e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.36 0.29tblVehicleEF HHD 1.0000e-006 5.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 9.9100e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 8.6930e-003 8.6220e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 8.8510e-003 6.9760e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF HHD 7.5000e-005 2.2870e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.5000e-005 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 0.09 0.05tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 0.00tblVehicleEF HHD 1.6300e-004 2.7700e-004tblVehicleEF HHD 0.42 0.58tblVehicleEF HHD 2.0000e-006 3.0000e-006tblVehicleEF HHD 3.0000e-006 9.9100e-004 364 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF HHD 0.27 0.33tblVehicleEF LDA 0.56 0.66tblVehicleEF LDA 2.27 3.35tblVehicleEF LDA 2.0280e-003 2.3190e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.05 0.07tblVehicleEF HHD 7.5000e-005 2.2870e-003tblVehicleEF HHD 1.7000e-005 4.0000e-006tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LDA 0.19 0.25tblVehicleEF LDA 4.3020e-003 4.5170e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF LDA 248.55 259.69tblVehicleEF LDA 52.84 67.48tblVehicleEF LDA 1.2630e-003 1.1820e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.6690e-003 1.9750e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.8150e-003 2.1480e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.02 2.2660e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.04 6.4730e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 1.3710e-003 1.2840e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.23 0.34tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 7.9940e-003 9.2860e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.27tblVehicleEF LDA 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LDA 2.4430e-003 2.5670e-003tblVehicleEF LDA 5.1900e-004 6.6700e-004 365 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.00tblVehicleEF LDA 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.78 1.36tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.37 5.61tblVehicleEF LDT1 3.2790e-003 6.2870e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.11tblVehicleEF LDA 0.03 0.21tblVehicleEF LDA 0.25 0.37tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.06 0.13tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.21 0.39tblVehicleEF LDT1 5.4800e-003 9.5160e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 289.50 330.05tblVehicleEF LDT1 61.76 87.64tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.6130e-003 1.8230e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.0780e-003 2.7890e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.2600e-003 3.0330e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 2.8320e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.04 8.0920e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 1.7530e-003 1.9810e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.45tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.27 0.57tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.01 0.03tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.54tblVehicleEF LDT1 2.8460e-003 3.2630e-003tblVehicleEF LDT1 6.0700e-004 8.6600e-004 366 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT1 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.02 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.12 0.16tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.66 0.74tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.78 3.68tblVehicleEF LDT2 2.6450e-003 2.6020e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.07 0.45tblVehicleEF LDT1 0.30 0.62tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.06tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.25 0.32tblVehicleEF LDT2 5.3110e-003 5.5370e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LDT2 308.05 340.61tblVehicleEF LDT2 66.28 87.10tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.3620e-003 1.2760e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.7220e-003 2.0160e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.8730e-003 2.1920e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 2.7000e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 7.7140e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 1.4790e-003 1.3870e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.28 0.37tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LDT2 3.0280e-003 3.3670e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 6.5200e-004 8.6100e-004 367 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.00tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.04 0.22tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.09 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.19 0.21tblVehicleEF LHD1 5.3000e-003 5.8430e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.2240e-003 7.3840e-003tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.05 0.17tblVehicleEF LDT2 0.31 0.41tblVehicleEF LHD1 12.03 20.18tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.1700e-004 5.7900e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.84 8.65tblVehicleEF LHD1 796.65 802.84tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.62 0.87tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.08 2.43tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.31 0.47tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 5.8300e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.05 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.52 0.56tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.04 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.6300e-004 5.5800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.2510e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4800e-004 2.2600e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD1 9.6980e-003 9.2050e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.4250e-003 2.3010e-003 368 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD1 2.2800e-004 2.0800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.2870e-003 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.8460e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD1 8.6000e-005 8.4000e-005tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.7840e-003 7.8580e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.16 0.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.12tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.08 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD1 7.9700e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.10 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.1900e-004 2.0000e-004tblVehicleEF LHD1 1.2870e-003 0.11tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.1370e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.14 0.15tblVehicleEF LHD2 3.3550e-003 3.6130e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 6.3020e-003 6.7180e-003tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.16 0.16tblVehicleEF LHD1 0.07 0.13tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.39 11.54tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.6520e-003 1.5390e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 13.62 13.35tblVehicleEF LHD2 772.49 845.43tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.52 0.58tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.67 1.46 369 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 0.19 0.28tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3540e-003 1.2420e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.57 0.73tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.07 0.08tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2960e-003 1.1880e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.03tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3800e-004 1.2400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.09 0.09tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.2700e-004 1.1400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5600e-004 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 2.6700e-003 2.6260e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 1.3000e-004 1.2800e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.4680e-003 8.1630e-003tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.07tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 4.6600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF LHD2 8.3000e-005 1.1400e-004tblVehicleEF LHD2 7.5600e-004 0.07 370 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF LHD2 0.11 0.12tblVehicleEF MCY 19.02 12.33tblVehicleEF MCY 9.17 7.96tblVehicleEF MCY 0.33 0.16tblVehicleEF MCY 0.26 0.19tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.10 0.10tblVehicleEF LHD2 0.04 0.08tblVehicleEF MCY 1.15 0.56tblVehicleEF MCY 0.27 0.15tblVehicleEF MCY 0.07 0.04tblVehicleEF MCY 0.02 8.6710e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 213.08 188.69tblVehicleEF MCY 60.80 50.07tblVehicleEF MCY 1.9560e-003 1.8800e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.1380e-003 3.8360e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 3.3370e-003 4.0700e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 5.0400e-003 4.2000e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MCY 2.0940e-003 2.0070e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 0.44 3.72tblVehicleEF MCY 1.97 1.43tblVehicleEF MCY 0.38 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.21 1.05tblVehicleEF MCY 0.62 3.59tblVehicleEF MCY 0.57 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 0.62 0.08tblVehicleEF MCY 0.57 3.56tblVehicleEF MCY 2.1090e-003 1.8650e-003tblVehicleEF MCY 6.0200e-004 4.9500e-004 371 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MCY 0.38 0.00tblVehicleEF MCY 2.75 1.26tblVehicleEF MDV 0.69 0.80tblVehicleEF MDV 3.04 3.95tblVehicleEF MDV 2.8920e-003 3.2010e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.07 0.10tblVehicleEF MCY 0.44 3.72tblVehicleEF MCY 2.14 1.56tblVehicleEF MDV 0.06 0.08tblVehicleEF MDV 0.29 0.40tblVehicleEF MDV 6.9690e-003 7.1680e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF MDV 370.99 409.20tblVehicleEF MDV 79.06 104.08tblVehicleEF MDV 1.4320e-003 1.3380e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.8200e-003 2.1540e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.9790e-003 2.3430e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 2.7170e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 7.7630e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 1.5530e-003 1.4520e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.20tblVehicleEF MDV 0.34 0.48tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.26tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.08tblVehicleEF MDV 0.04 0.26tblVehicleEF MDV 3.6430e-003 4.0430e-003tblVehicleEF MDV 7.7700e-004 1.0290e-003 372 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.00tblVehicleEF MDV 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MDV 0.10 0.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.73 1.52tblVehicleEF MH 2.03 2.75tblVehicleEF MH 7.8210e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MDV 0.05 0.20tblVehicleEF MDV 0.37 0.52tblVehicleEF MH 1.03 1.39tblVehicleEF MH 0.24 0.29tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF MH 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF MH 1,502.52 1,675.54tblVehicleEF MH 18.02 23.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 3.2730e-003 3.3160e-003tblVehicleEF MH 0.02 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.7100e-004 3.6600e-004tblVehicleEF MH 0.13 0.04tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.05 0.09tblVehicleEF MH 0.38 30.99tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 9.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 2.4900e-004 3.3600e-004tblVehicleEF MH 8.9160e-003 0.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.09 0.12 373 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MH 0.38 30.99tblVehicleEF MH 0.04 9.08tblVehicleEF MH 0.01 0.02tblVehicleEF MH 1.7800e-004 2.2800e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.9210e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 4.7020e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF MH 8.9160e-003 0.21tblVehicleEF MH 0.10 0.13tblVehicleEF MH 0.16 0.00tblVehicleEF MH 0.07 0.12tblVehicleEF MHD 68.23 157.17tblVehicleEF MHD 1,119.63 1,289.87tblVehicleEF MHD 0.43 0.60tblVehicleEF MHD 1.26 1.48tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.38 0.65tblVehicleEF MHD 0.49 1.01tblVehicleEF MHD 1.73 1.59tblVehicleEF MHD 0.14 0.15tblVehicleEF MHD 8.1860e-003 7.8620e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 10.33 11.01tblVehicleEF MHD 9.7120e-003 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.2700e-004 1.4400e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 9.5000e-004 3.0550e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 1.39 1.20tblVehicleEF MHD 9.9300e-004 3.1930e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.02 374 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 8.8150e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 1.1700e-004 1.3300e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.4300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF MHD 6.4800e-004 1.4600e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.07 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 2.1300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF MHD 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 8.8150e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.03 0.05tblVehicleEF MHD 1.0200e-004 1.0900e-004tblVehicleEF MHD 3.4300e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.58 0.46tblVehicleEF OBUS 6.7140e-003 8.1590e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 5.0760e-003 8.2520e-003tblVehicleEF MHD 0.02 0.07tblVehicleEF MHD 0.06 0.07tblVehicleEF OBUS 13.26 10.27tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 107.54 92.23tblVehicleEF OBUS 1,354.47 1,344.38tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.49 0.31tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.56 1.18 375 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 1.06 1.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.9200e-004 2.5800e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.54 0.43tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.87 0.94tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.14 0.17tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.02tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 8.8370e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3600e-004 1.0300e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.5800e-004 2.4700e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.13 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.02 9.2440e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.9500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.9140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.2500e-004 9.4000e-005tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.7900e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.3100e-004 1.0100e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 7.7900e-004 0.03tblVehicleEF OBUS 1.0200e-003 8.6700e-004tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.06tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF OBUS 3.9500e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.07 0.05tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.01 8.9140e-003tblVehicleEF OBUS 0.06 0.05 376 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF OBUS 0.08 0.06tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.00 1.81tblVehicleEF SBUS 1.26 1.18tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.1020e-003 7.9980e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.98 2.07tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.08 0.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.09tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.12 0.12tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.9500e-003 4.8570e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.23 5.49tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.03tblVehicleEF SBUS 360.00 206.71tblVehicleEF SBUS 1,028.45 1,021.11tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.74 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.62 0.44tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.5830e-003 1.8680e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.52 1.58tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.24 3.32tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5990e-003 2.6000e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 4.3850e-003 1.7860e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.32 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.03 0.02tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.6000e-005 7.3000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.2750e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.36 0.24tblVehicleEF SBUS 8.9000e-005 6.7000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6200e-004 0.05 377 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.11 0.10tblVehicleEF SBUS 6.2000e-005 5.4000e-005tblVehicleEF SBUS 5.6200e-004 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 3.4360e-003 1.8970e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 9.8650e-003 9.5730e-003tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.01 0.04tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.05 0.05tblVehicleEF SBUS 2.5600e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.14 0.20tblVehicleEF SBUS 7.2750e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF SBUS 0.51 0.38tblVehicleEF UBUS 1,802.99 1,395.58tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.26 5.76tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.26 2.06tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.82 0.83tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.84 0.16tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 7.7750e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.08 0.11tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.45 2.45tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.09 0.08tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.28 0.20tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.0140e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.03 0.04tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.7550e-003 6.8420e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 5.0000e-005 1.5000e-005 378 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedtblVehicleEF UBUS 7.4180e-003 6.5410e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 4.6000e-005 1.4000e-005tblVehicleEF UBUS 7.8010e-003 7.3410e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.2390e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.03tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.8300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.01 0.14tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.7600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3660e-003 8.2350e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.8300e-004 0.00tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.86 0.31tblVehicleEF UBUS 3.7600e-004 0.02tblVehicleEF UBUS 6.3660e-003 8.2350e-003tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.02 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 9.2000e-005 5.7000e-005tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 8.342.0 Emissions SummarytblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 1.41tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.82tblVehicleEF UBUS 2.2390e-003 0.01tblVehicleEF UBUS 0.06 0.032.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5N2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 379 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0000 0.0000Area 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-003Category tons/yrMT/yr0.4297 0.3298 3.0222148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.8251.0000e-0050.0000 2.16E-03Energy 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.00000.0000 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.340.0340 0.0271 637.4487Waste0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.75184.3300e-0030.1535 0.0000 628.5220 628.52206.8200e-003 0.5987 4.6500e-0030.6034 0.1492Mobile867.63881.8199 0.0430 76.0229Total 0.9478 0.4666 3.1382 7.6400e-003 0.5987 0.0151 0.6138 0.1492 0.0147 0.1639 19.47090.0000 0.0000 17.7191 0.0000 17.71910.0000 0.0000WaterMitigated OperationalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5777.4639 796.9349 1.9603 0.07280.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Area 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-003N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH46.8200e-003 0.5987 4.6500e-0030.6034 0.1492Mobile 0.4297 0.3298 3.0222148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.82501.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Energy 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0000Water0.0000 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.34000.0340 0.0271 637.4487Waste0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.75184.3300e-0030.1535 0.0000 628.5220 628.5220777.4639 796.9349 1.9603 0.0728 867.63881.8199 0.0430 76.0229Total 0.9478 0.4666 3.1382 7.6400e-003 0.5987 0.0151 0.6138 0.1492 0.0147 0.1639 19.47090.0000 0.0000 17.7191 0.0000 17.71910.0000 0.0000 380 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedCO SO20.00N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx0.00 0.00Annual VMTResearch & Development 947.38 160.17 93.15 1,786,678 1,786,678Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT4.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated MitigatedH-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W1,786,6784.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %Total 947.38 160.17 93.15 1,786,678OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD4.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT248.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00Historical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures EnergyROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.000828 0.022216 0.000437 0.0019855.0 Energy Detail0.026659 0.005444 0.009345 0.002714 0.002438Research & Development 0.495110 0.045708 0.246625 0.140491N2O CO2ePM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 381 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0000 0.0000Electricity MitigatedCategory tons/yrMT/yr0.0151 0.1368 0.11490.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.82502.8500e-0032.7300e-003 149.8250NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.00000.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.93998.2000e-004 0.0104 0.0104NaturalGas MitigatedCH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5148.9399 2.8500e-003 2.7300e-003149.8250Total 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104 0.01040.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.93990.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104Research & Development2.79103e+0060.0151 0.13682.7300e-003149.8250MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-003N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 382 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied0.0104 0.0104 0.0000 148.93990.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104Research & Development2.79103e+0060.0151 0.13682.7300e-003149.82505.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0104 0.0000 148.9399 148.9399 2.8500e-003148.9399 2.8500e-003 2.7300e-003149.8250Total 0.0151 0.1368 0.1149 8.2000e-0040.0104 0.0104 0.01040.0000 0.0000MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eTotal 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrResearch & Development844011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Total 0.0000 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrResearch & Development844011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 383 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total1.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0036.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated2.1600e-003Unmitigated 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.0592CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.0000e-0041.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.4437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00002.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Total 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping384 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedN2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products0.4437 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.05922.0300e-0032.0300e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Landscaping 1.0000e-0041.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00007.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e2.0300e-0032.0300e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-0031.0000e-0050.0000 2.1600e-003Total 0.5030 1.0000e-005 1.0500e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.0229 385 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied76.02297.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 17.7191 1.8199 0.04300.0430 76.0229MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eTotal 17.7191 1.8199Land Use MgaltonMT/yrResearch & Development55.8515 / 0 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.02290.0430 76.02298.0 Waste DetailTotal 17.7191 1.8199Land Use MgaltonMT/yrResearch & Development55.8515 / 0 17.7191 1.8199 0.0430 76.0229 386 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/Year4.34008.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000CO2etonMT/yr Mitigated 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400Total CO2 CH4 N2O0.0000 4.3400MitigatedTotal 1.7518 0.1035Land Use tonstonMT/yrResearch & Development8.63 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400 387 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1Date: 10/6/2022 11:04 AM800 Dubuque Ave, SSF - Existing - San Mateo County, AnnualEMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule AppliedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eDays/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary Equipment0.0000 4.34009.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/DayTotal 1.7518 0.1035Land Use tonstonMT/yrResearch & Development8.63 1.7518 0.1035 0.0000 4.3400User Defined EquipmentEquipment Type Number11.0 VegetationHorse Power Load Factor Fuel TypeBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel TypeFire Pumps and Emergency GeneratorsEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year 388 Attachment 3: EMFAC2021 Calculations 389 PollutantsROG NOx CO SO2Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 TotalFugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total NBio‐ CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eYEAR2023 0.0674 0.8518 1.0156 0.0057 0.2246 0.0458 0.2704 0.0338 0.0191 0.0529 569.9644 0.0626 0.0714 592.81412024 0.1493 1.9314 2.3119 0.0135 0.5373 0.1086 0.6459 0.0808 0.0450 0.1258 1337.3074 0.1440 0.1675 1390.83422025 0.1385 1.8198 2.1973 0.0131 0.5359 0.1074 0.6432 0.0806 0.0441 0.1247 1303.7241 0.1364 0.1633 1355.80612026 0.1294 1.7208 2.1061 0.0128 0.5359 0.1067 0.6426 0.0806 0.0435 0.1241 1405.7950 0.1428 0.1760 1461.81042027 0.0284 0.3793 0.4709 0.0029 0.1248 0.0247 0.1495 0.0188 0.0100 0.0288 319.6496 0.0314 0.0400 332.34742023 0.0524 0.2029 0.3223 0.0007 0.0206 0.0041 0.0247 0.0031 0.0018 0.0049 65.1222 0.0117 0.0093 68.17172024 0.1170 0.4714 0.7330 0.0015 0.0494 0.0097 0.0590 0.0074 0.0042 0.0116 152.8887 0.0269 0.0217 160.01712025 0.1094 0.4542 0.6967 0.0015 0.0492 0.0095 0.0587 0.0074 0.0041 0.0115 149.2199 0.0256 0.0211 156.14822026 0.1030 0.4388 0.6674 0.0015 0.0492 0.0094 0.0586 0.0074 0.0040 0.0114 161.0637 0.0269 0.0227 168.51122027 0.0228 0.0986 0.1494 0.0003 0.0115 0.0022 0.0136 0.0017 0.0009 0.0026 36.6679 0.0060 0.0052 38.3573Summary of Construction Traffic Emissions (EMFAC2021) TonsCriteria PollutantsToxic Air Contaminants (1 Mile Trip Length)Metric Tons390 Phase CalEEMod WORKER TRIPSCalEEMod VENDOR TRIPSTotal Worker TripsTotal Vendor TripsCalEEMod HAULING TRIPSWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassHauling Vehicle ClassWorker VMTVendor VMTHauling VMTDemolition28 03360 0539.410.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 36288 0 10788Grading43 010062 041,37510.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 108669.6 0 827500Building Construction557 252313591 1418761680010.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3386783 1035695 336000Paving20 03620 026710.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 39096 0 5340Building Interior111 014430 0010.8 7.3 20 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 155844 0 02023 8/1/23 12/31/23 153 1092024 1/1/24 12/31/24 366 2622025 1/1/25 12/31/25 365 2612026 1/1/26 12/31/2026 365 26120271/1/2027 3/26/202785 611334954Total WorkdaysPhase  Start Date End Date  Days/Week WorkdaysDemolition 8/1/2023 1/15/20245120Grading 1/16/2024 12/6/20245234Building Construction 12/7/2024 2/3/20275563Paving 7/17/2026 3/26/20275181Building Interior9/26/2026 3/26/2027 5130Number of Days Per YearCalEEMod Construction Inputs391 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2022Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.26179 607.5295 607.5295 0 85.26989 4.217209 0 0.00281 0.00146 0 0.000935 0.005 0.031258 0.001588 0 0.001017 0.02 0.089308 2276.876 0 54.98009 0.116906 0 0.000119 0.151563 0 0.000135 0.60109 0 0.000644 0.048478 0.400153 3.469663 0.877108 0 0.000705 0.048478 0.400153 3.469663 0.045 33.53367 0 6.080621 0.022509 0 0.000544San Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1289.917 118758.5 118758.5 0 13886.59 3.367467 50.13908 2.567805 0.026697 0.041054 0 0.00861 0.031515 0.027904 0.04291 0 0.03444 0.090042 1868.7 8522.619 0 0.001942 0.155104 0 0.294414 1.342742 0 0.041821 3.33935500000.04761 3.80160100000.186789 0.159005 43.82276 0 0.017695 0.080704 0San Mateo 2022 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 144.1612 9768.638 9768.638 0 950.7524 1.845139 10.30429 0 0.002051 0.011217 0 0.009 0.058943 0.00223 0.012199 0 0.036 0.168408 1557.751 8370.006 0 3.666383 25.60841 0 0.317558 1.706281 0 0.087249 0.42939300003.781534 26.207600000.734123 18.35301 67.582460000San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 240666.4 7995565 7995565 0 1130997 0.047702 0 0.275282 0.001241 0 0.002105 0.002 0.002347 0.001350 0.002289 0.008 0.006707 282.0072 0 72.08796 0.002546 0 0.077367 0.004869 0 0.033486 0.010142 0 0.368004 0.090257 0.23026 1.365279 0.014797 0 0.402916 0.090257 0.23026 1.365279 0.034582 0.726065 0 3.617602 0.002788 0 0.000713San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 888.5395 22501.88 22501.88 0 3790.786 0.240012 0 0 0.015881 0 0 0.002 0.002391 0.016599 0 0 0.008 0.006831 236.5354 0 0 0.001267 0 0 0.037266 0 0 0.02727000000.031045000000.0031 0.330004 0 0 0.002241 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14591.4 568258.7 0 568258.7 72996.660000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043680000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb6271.758 249381.9 127562.4 121819.5 25933.72 0.003286 0 0.117199 0.000663 0 0.002168 0.002 0.001311 0.000722 0 0.002358 0.008 0.003747 138.0528 066.27115 0.00043 0 0.042806 0.00058 0 0.020671 0.001381 0 0.176635 0.036142 0.032302 0.39726 0.002015 0 0.193393 0.036142 0.032302 0.39726 0.020013 0.206229 0 1.37819 0.001365 0 0.000655San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24136.47 736196.1 736196.1 0 109571 0.134919 0 0.395074 0.001791 0 0.002798 0.002 0.002838 0.001948 0 0.003043 0.008 0.008107 331.1881 0 87.90421 0.00631 0 0.109218 0.009543 0 0.038745 0.028415 0 0.569782 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.041436 0 0.623836 0.157522 0.456069 2.467901 0.036499 1.368916 0 5.624448 0.003274 0 0.000869San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 8.510916 119.4982 119.4982 0 25.11455 1.690269 0 0 0.241464 0 0 0.002 0.00334 0.252382 0 0 0.008 0.009543 418.4363 0 0 0.014886 0 0 0.065925 0 0 0.320488000000.364855000000.0031 1.709562 0 0 0.003965 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 61.93893 2054.9 0 2054.9 294.1870000000.002 0.001538 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043940000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb19.40692 849.1339 406.2744 442.8594 80.24761 0.003074 0 0.117199 0.000413 0 0.001456 0.002 0.001322 0.000449 0 0.001583 0.008 0.003777 129.1531 072.4859 0.000404 0 0.042967 0.000546 0 0.02082 0.001292 0 0.176635 0.024905 0.022892 0.287748 0.001885 0 0.193393 0.024905 0.022892 0.287748 0.020095 0.193011 0 1.37819 0.001277 0 0.000717San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 128775.8 4489208 4489208 0 617258.5 0.062575 0 0.324659 0.001272 0 0.002033 0.002 0.002716 0.001384 0 0.002212 0.008 0.007761 343.7915 0 87.85962 0.002639 0 0.081429 0.005428 0 0.036476 0.010335 0 0.378106 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.015078 0 0.413978 0.068121 0.172205 1.07279 0.03686 0.748119 0 3.725451 0.003399 00.000869San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 498.9179 17455.1 17455.10 2406.111 0.047726 0 0 0.005147 0 0 0.002 0.002738 0.00538 0 0 0.008 0.007822 317.6065 0 0 0.000624 0 0 0.050039 0 0 0.013436000000.015295000000.0031 0.124515 0 0 0.003009 0 0San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 502.691 16536.35 0 16536.35 2591.330000000.002 0.001523 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043530000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb938.5352 39780.13 19647.25 20132.88 3880.843 0.003173 0 0.117199 0.000533 0 0.001824 0.002 0.001316 0.00058 0 0.001984 0.008 0.003761 133.3142 0 78.34077 0.000417 0 0.042967 0.000564 0 0.02082 0.001334 0 0.176635 0.026237 0.024762 0.312901 0.001946 0 0.193393 0.026237 0.024762 0.312901 0.020712 0.199208 0 1.37819 0.001318 0 0.000774San Mateo 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10003.64 379521.5 379521.5 0 149039.3 0.147855 0.036625 0.627998 0.001475 0 0.00028 0.002 0.0273 0.001604 0 0.000304 0.008 0.078 873.9961 119.3318 27.2104 0.00734 0.115266 0.0324 0.008388 0.003078 0.051835 0.036131 0.419759 0.159081 0.039876 0.21247 2.143205 0.052722 0.612512 0.174174 0.039876 0.21247 2.143205 0.044922 1.060707 3.758503 3.2802 0.00864 0.00118 0.000269San Mateo 2022 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4125.911 163656.9 163656.9 0 51898.77 1.504213 1.931831 0 0.031512 0.027157 0 0.003 0.0273 0.032937 0.028385 0 0.012 0.078 637.8215 131.7515 0 0.007485 0.005098 0 0.1004890.020757 0 0.161141 0.1097600000.183448 0.12495400000.175401 0.431298 0.909745 0 0.006044 0.001248 0San Mateo 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1166.848 41928.69 41928.69 0 17384.3 0.172444 0.036335 0.63879 0.001438 0 0.000256 0.002 0.03185 0.001563 0 0.000279 0.008 0.091 987.4952 138.4793 25.88997 0.006917 0.113246 0.032524 0.010039 0.002938 0.050567 0.032554 0.416435 0.161154 0.042451 0.223651 2.256912 0.047503 0.60766 0.176444 0.042451 0.223651 2.256912 0.044984 0.96909 3.758162 3.27211 0.009762 0.001369 0.000256San Mateo 2022 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1718.365 70077.77 70077.77 0 21614.87 1.063364 1.845339 0 0.026451 0.026962 0 0.003 0.03185 0.027647 0.028181 0 0.012 0.091 760.4369 209.0317 0 0.0066 0.005098 0 0.119807 0.032933 0 0.142091 0.1097600000.161761 0.12495400000.190222 0.33983 0.909745 0 0.007206 0.001981 0San Mateo 2022 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11775.11 70029.62 70029.62 0 23550.22 0.563376 0 0.148145 0.00188 0 0.003836 0.001 0.0042 0.002007 0 0.00407 0.004 0.012 188.692 0 50.07102 0.159449 0 0.191389 0.038859 0 0.008671 1.054922 0 1.43267 3.559039 3.722371 3.591267 1.259821 0 1.5571563.559039 3.722371 3.591267 0.008767 12.33015 0 7.963377 0.001865 0 0.000495San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 72399.54 2561532 2561532 0 344969.9 0.082284 0 0.405736 0.001302 0 0.002201 0.002 0.002736 0.001416 0 0.002394 0.008 0.007817 414.086 0 106.4165 0.003285 0 0.097944 0.006421 0 0.03969 0.013708 0 0.489899 0.078175 0.208676 1.264413 0.019977 0 0.536373 0.078175 0.208676 1.264413 0.037279 0.822259 0 4.057961 0.004094 00.001052San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1048.144 37479.46 37479.46 0 5036.896 0.047538 0 0 0.004777 0 0 0.002 0.002777 0.004993 0 0 0.008 0.007934 413.8543 0 0 0.000486 0 0 0.065203 0 0 0.010456000000.011904000000.0031 0.180998 0 0 0.003921 0 0San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 497.6274 16375.41 0 16375.41 2565.5980000000.002 0.001523 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043510000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb517.8537 21966.08 11106.12 10859.96 2141.325 0.003248 0 0.117199 0.000662 0 0.002216 0.002 0.001313 0.00072 0 0.00241 0.008 0.003752 136.4653 0 97.81049 0.000428 0 0.043094 0.000581 0 0.020938 0.001365 0 0.176635 0.028658 0.027868 0.344841 0.001992 0 0.193393 0.028658 0.027868 0.344841 0.021235 0.203885 0 1.37819 0.001349 0 0.000967San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 751.6488 7043.926 7043.926 0 75.19494 0.465552 0 0.403779 0.001863 0 0.00047 0.003 0.015756 0.002026 0 0.000512 0.012 0.045017 1948.174 0 32.24518 0.017921 0 0.039048 0.027477 0 0.041219 0.080748 0 0.17064 12.70927 0.296989 4.339134 0.117828 0 0.186829 12.70927 0.296989 4.339134 0.044744 2.072946 0 3.847624 0.01926 00.000319San Mateo 2022 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 300.3894 3250.689 3250.6890 30.03894 3.401996 0 0 0.063019 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.065868 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1084.767 0 0 0.00458 0 0 0.170906 0 0 0.09861000000.112261000000.179676 0.315592 0 0 0.010279 0 0San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 756.5401 44483.7 44483.7 0 15136.85 0.604094 0.088245 0.46581 0.00141 0 0.000575 0.003 0.0157560.001534 0 0.000625 0.012 0.045017 1795.462 537.4412 47.64422 0.019663 0.256996 0.051354 0.028235 0.007106 0.034029 0.098372 1.009116 0.2880810.038151 0.314095 2.937981 0.143545 1.4725 0.315413 0.038151 0.314095 2.937981 0.044954 2.080066 15.07471 6.396341 0.01775 0.005313 0.000471San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4156.051 174304 174304 0 49995.69 1.853334 15.89701 1.436117 0.023182 0.047988 0 0.003 0.015983 0.02423 0.050158 0 0.012 0.045666 1163.775 2327.752 0 0.002813 0.013999 0 0.183353 0.366738 0 0.060556 0.30140400000.068939 0.34312600000.193605 0.190383 7.265304 0 0.01102 0.022042 0San Mateo 2022 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 40.6324 1873.257 1873.257 0 381.7521 0.153851 6.514328 0 0.001104 0.016957 0 0.003 0.016076 0.001201 0.018442 0 0.012 0.045932 1016.708 5323.016 0 0.747144 17.79445 0 0.207263 1.085132 0 0.010675 0.25424800000.762515 18.1605500001.06 3.046292 32.121840000San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 256.1924 15869.04 15869.04 0 5125.898 0.334451 0.065049 0.372974 0.000967 0 0.000281 0.003 0.01568 0.001052 0 0.000306 0.012 0.044799 1762.688 376.5742 30.5752 0.010394 0.20597 0.033776 0.01844 0.005899 0.032179 0.049248 0.746076 0.1668320.02655 0.111811 1.875172 0.071862 1.088672 0.18266 0.02655 0.111811 1.875172 0.044917 1.079968 5.773479 3.517583 0.017426 0.003723 0.000302San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1024.18 74221.67 74221.67 0 10035.19 1.072703 6.342591 1.429669 0.010592 0.00365 0 0.003 0.01742 0.011071 0.003815 0 0.012 0.04977 1257.365 1266.668 0 0.001405 0.014292 0 0.198098 0.199564 0 0.030244 0.30769800000.03443 0.35029100000.210134 0.116655 5.413261 0 0.011906 0.011995 0San Mateo 2022 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 11.96887 654.3713 654.3713 0 106.5229 0.293719 1.58105 0 0.000566 0.002858 0 0.003 0.016148 0.000615 0.003109 0 0.012 0.046137 1069.812 1202.184 0 0.733013 4.775652 0 0.218088 0.245073 0 0.010473 0.06823500000.748094 4.87390300001.06 3.101343 5.0063280000San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 57.57285 3267.931 3267.931 0 230.2914 0.981493 0.921357 0.655387 0.001299 0 0.000777 0.002 0.015721 0.001412 0 0.000845 0.008 0.044917 807.8108 2570.697 63.52492 0.024786 2.43655 0.092559 0.045477 0.081943 0.056213 0.121107 10.56494 0.538292 0.15493 0.449507 2.231691 0.17672 15.41634 0.589362 0.15493 0.449507 2.231691 0.045 3.134679 81.77802 13.70908 0.007986 0.025414 0.000628San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.1521 3799.171 3799.171 0 2434.843 5.308039 24.50088 0.415745 0.025509 0.027927 0 0.003 0.015721 0.026662 0.02919 0 0.012 0.044917 1155.182 2256.975 0 0.003351 0.008427 0 0.181999 0.355587 0 0.072141 0.1814300000.082127 0.20654500000.128799 0.214547 4.164591 0 0.010939 0.021372 0San Mateo 2022 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 5.747464 147.755 147.755 0 83.22328 0.580038 5.278861 0 0.003378 0.011167 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012145 0 0.012 0.044917 1270.028 4071.06 0 3.473989 15.35501 0 0.258904 0.829912 0 0.049636 0.21939300003.545461 15.6709100001.06 11.82462 20.318510000San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.08139 4153.342 4153.342 0 244.3256 0.052732 0 0.593554 0.000924 0 0.000101 0.002073 0.0323330.001005 0 0.00011 0.00829 0.092379 1026.004 0 41.36564 0.002283 0 0.05585 0.006009 0 0.07764 0.006738 0 0.216361 0.059157 0.09606 0.592841 0.009832 0 0.236888 0.059157 0.09606 0.592841 0.045 0.562776 0 5.939286 0.010143 0 0.000409San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 341.0475 28477.87 28477.87 0 1364.19 2.903167 0 0 0.007622 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007966 0 0 0.031652 0.11 1452.079 0 0 0.00732 0 0 0.228776 0 0 0.157595000000.179409000000.12243 0.193248 0 0 0.013759 0 0San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.018703 15.3193 0 15.3193 8.0748110000000.009 0.01925 0 0 0 0.036 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2022 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 34.62042 1174.257 1174.257 0 138.4817 0.063543 0 0 0.000296 0 0 0.008807 0.0385 0.00031 0 0 0.035229 0.11 1350.881 0 0 4.451808 0 0 0.275386 0 0 0.063608000004.543397000000.97 52.6410900000392 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2023Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.303891 593.3265 593.3265 0 86.11225 4.056089 0 0.0028 0.00142 0 0.000834 0.005 0.031149 0.001544 0 0.000907 0.02 0.088996 2258.184 0 54.48492 0.114491 0 0.000118 0.150249 0 0.000135 0.581376 0 0.000638 0.041838 0.335524 2.939257 0.848342 0 0.000699 0.041838 0.335524 2.939257 0.045 33.28789 0 6.069294 0.022324 0 0.000539San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1295.72 119079.6 119079.6 0 14027.66 2.889862 47.02809 2.876808 0.025432 0.037858 0 0.008609 0.030943 0.026582 0.03957 0 0.034434 0.08841 1843.774 8291.615 0 0.001322 0.156217 0 0.290487 1.306347 0 0.028463 3.36331600000.032403 3.82887900000.197741 0.123869 46.58006 0 0.017459 0.078517 0San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.738781 40.81187 040.81187 9.6365890000000.008666 0.01378 0 0 0 0.034663 0.0393720000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 157.5655 10602.72 10602.72 0 1067.368 1.650268 10.1232 0 0.001897 0.012167 0 0.009 0.058575 0.002063 0.013232 0 0.036 0.167357 1522.593 8490.533 0 3.343054 25.56751 0 0.310391 1.730851 0 0.076973 0.41813500003.445109 26.153700000.73711 17.41229 66.412560000San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 240378.8 7727537 7727537 0 1129355 0.042338 0 0.260506 0.001198 0 0.002031 0.002 0.002348 0.001303 0 0.002208 0.008 0.006708 276.584 0 70.47869 0.002267 0 0.072534 0.004517 0 0.032351 0.008874 0 0.341649 0.087062 0.222247 1.324707 0.012948 0 0.374061 0.087062 0.222247 1.324707 0.035408 0.677749 0 3.395649 0.002734 00.000697San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 833.7612 19906.52 19906.52 0 3528.191 0.213764 0 0 0.014362 0 0 0.002 0.002398 0.015012 0 0 0.008 0.006851 234.4981 0 0 0.001164 0 0 0.036945 0 0 0.02507000000.02854000000.0031 0.317118 0 0 0.002222 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 16299 630419.6 0 630419.6 81240.990000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.004370000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb6930.414 264587.6 131767.9 132819.8 28657.26 0.003199 0 0.117199 0.000615 0 0.002065 0.002 0.001318 0.000669 0 0.002246 0.008 0.003766 134.4061 065.24503 0.000415 0 0.042451 0.000556 0 0.02034 0.001345 0 0.176635 0.03705 0.032896 0.392427 0.001962 0 0.193393 0.03705 0.032896 0.392427 0.019696 0.200772 0 1.37819 0.001329 0 0.000645San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 24557.61 732297.8 732297.8 0 111855.3 0.11638 0 0.364578 0.001649 0 0.002601 0.002 0.002829 0.001794 0 0.002828 0.008 0.008082 324.4279 0 85.42907 0.005448 0 0.099842 0.008499 0 0.037022 0.024289 0 0.513929 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.035435 00.562687 0.14557 0.416379 2.294434 0.037022 1.217988 0 5.093009 0.003207 0 0.000845San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 7.655601 101.9185 101.9185 0 22.20173 1.676086 0 0 0.239368 0 0 0.002 0.003332 0.250191 0 0 0.008 0.00952 418.152 0 0 0.014739 0 0 0.06588 0 0 0.317327000000.361255000000.0031 1.688168 0 0 0.003962 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 74.62311 2574.77 0 2574.77 357.95260000000.002 0.001535 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043860000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb34.67073 1451.31 668.3078 783.0024 143.3635 0.002958 0 0.117199 0.000383 0 0.001401 0.002 0.001331 0.000416 0 0.001524 0.008 0.003802 124.2993 0 70.89548 0.000385 0 0.042531 0.000515 0 0.020414 0.001243 0 0.176635 0.024383 0.02158 0.274849 0.001814 0 0.193393 0.024383 0.02158 0.274849 0.01934 0.185749 0 1.37819 0.001229 0 0.000701San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 139222.3 4716888 4716888 0 668266.1 0.05408 0 0.29713 0.001207 0 0.001949 0.002 0.002716 0.001313 0 0.002119 0.008 0.007759 334.8986 0 85.30301 0.00237 0 0.075845 0.004959 0 0.034716 0.009113 0 0.347984 0.063629 0.160781 1.007437 0.013297 0 0.380999 0.063629 0.160781 1.007437 0.037748 0.693563 0 3.480515 0.003311 00.000843San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 541.6894 18280.98 18280.98 0 2609.031 0.042759 0 0 0.004694 0 0 0.002 0.002739 0.004906 0 0 0.008 0.007825 310.458 0 0 0.000594 0 0 0.048913 0 0 0.012791000000.014562000000.0031 0.121058 0 0 0.002942 0 0San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 855.0521 26877.43 026877.43 4389.9340000000.002 0.001524 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1293.229 52235.96 24959.1 27276.86 5347.502 0.00307 0 0.117199 0.0004780 0.001688 0.002 0.001325 0.00052 0 0.001836 0.008 0.003785 128.97 0 76.74084 0.000399 0 0.042537 0.000535 0 0.02042 0.00129 0 0.176635 0.025663 0.02377 0.299211 0.001883 0 0.193393 0.025663 0.02377 0.299211 0.020047 0.192704 0 1.37819 0.001275 0 0.000759San Mateo 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 10572.08 392533.1 392533.1 0 157508.2 0.12528 0.035112 0.59784 0.00142 0 0.000253 0.002 0.02730.001545 0 0.000275 0.008 0.078 853.4932 117.883 26.97693 0.006321 0.111177 0.030421 0.00715 0.002997 0.050012 0.03091 0.4025 0.148384 0.0369240.198922 2.014404 0.045104 0.587327 0.162462 0.036924 0.198922 2.014404 0.044937 0.986439 3.761565 3.318076 0.008438 0.001165 0.000267San Mateo 2023 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4577.109 179686.5 179686.5 0 57574.27 1.224717 1.76206 0 0.0273 0.026942 0 0.003 0.0273 0.028534 0.02816 0 0.012 0.078 630.6192 129.0392 0 0.006697 0.005098 0 0.099354 0.02033 0 0.144187 0.1097600000.164147 0.12495400000.184546 0.371953 0.909745 0 0.005975 0.001223 0San Mateo 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1231.236 43549.94 43549.94 0 18343.59 0.144 0.03443 0.605262 0.001368 0 0.000226 0.002 0.031850.001487 0 0.000246 0.008 0.091 963.6905 136.6851 25.60031 0.005686 0.108022 0.030291 0.008533 0.002829 0.048554 0.026382 0.394722 0.148891 0.038757 0.204501 2.085419 0.038496 0.575977 0.163017 0.038757 0.204501 2.085419 0.044989 0.878989 3.762499 3.300689 0.009527 0.001351 0.000253San Mateo 2023 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1952.709 77798.97 77798.97 0 24562.62 0.883685 1.679482 0 0.023677 0.026872 0 0.003 0.03185 0.024747 0.028087 0 0.012 0.091 747.9998 204.9987 0 0.006098 0.005098 0 0.117848 0.032298 0 0.131288 0.1097600000.149463 0.12495400000.196309 0.303972 0.909745 0 0.007088 0.001942 0San Mateo 2023 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12536.77 73820.04 73820.04 0 25073.54 0.537143 0 0.136291 0.001883 0 0.003663 0.001 0.0042 0.002012 0 0.003894 0.004 0.012 187.6396 0 47.90752 0.151085 0 0.181429 0.0377350 0.008068 0.98245 0 1.347169 3.555217 3.717102 3.435381 1.181139 0 1.464498 3.555217 3.717102 3.435381 0.008844 11.57445 0 7.838613 0.001855 0 0.000474San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 78398.02 2704273 2704273 0 374408 0.068743 0 0.362909 0.001222 0 0.002069 0.002 0.002734 0.0013290 0.002251 0.008 0.00781 403.6262 0 103.3496 0.002844 0 0.089064 0.0057030 0.037349 0.01161 0 0.437746 0.072395 0.194625 1.190411 0.016926 0 0.479274 0.072395 0.194625 1.190411 0.038092 0.747341 0 3.739188 0.00399 0 0.001022San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1107.903 37908.13 37908.13 0 5305.818 0.04176 0 0 0.004328 0 0 0.002 0.002788 0.004524 0 0 0.008 0.007965 406.2615 0 0 0.000449 0 0 0.064007 0 0 0.009665000000.011002000000.0031 0.175602 0 0 0.00385 0 0San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 906.5115 28548.82 0 28548.82 4657.0210000000.002 0.001524 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043540000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb678.1174 27547.88 13448.47 14099.41 2804.015 0.003136 0 0.117199 0.000578 0 0.002002 0.002 0.001322 0.000628 0 0.002177 0.008 0.003776 131.7621 095.52682 0.000409 0 0.04268 0.00055 0 0.020553 0.001318 0 0.176635 0.027976 0.026258 0.325091 0.001923 0 0.193393 0.027976 0.026258 0.325091 0.020504 0.196851 0 1.37819 0.001303 0 0.000944San Mateo 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 774.8115 7442.976 7442.976 0 77.51215 0.375927 0 0.404893 0.001719 0 0.000436 0.003 0.015756 0.001869 0 0.000474 0.012 0.045017 1947.17 0 31.89355 0.01417 0 0.038105 0.023764 0 0.042528 0.061382 0 0.16244 11.11371 0.261936 3.902966 0.089569 0 0.177852 11.11371 0.261936 3.902966 0.044861 1.492455 0 3.64337 0.01925 0 0.000315San Mateo 2023 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 328.5822 3487.262 3487.2620 32.85822 3.229197 0 0 0.055455 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.057962 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1085.349 0 0 0.004377 0 0 0.170997 0 0 0.094242000000.107288000000.185977 0.297993 0 0 0.010284 0 0San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 780.1924 45998.29 45998.29 0 15610.09 0.48063 0.088485 0.45368 0.001377 0 0.000542 0.003 0.015756 0.001498 0 0.00059 0.012 0.045017 1763.945 530.3326 46.39494 0.0155190.261469 0.049092 0.023565 0.00737 0.034436 0.076573 1.012695 0.2705740.033571 0.274671 2.598982 0.111736 1.477722 0.296245 0.033571 0.274671 2.598982 0.044979 1.599932 15.11623 5.97113 0.017438 0.005243 0.000459San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4189.443 175901.2 175901.2 0 50462.49 1.42648 14.09475 1.586053 0.018782 0.040011 0 0.003 0.015983 0.019631 0.041821 0 0.012 0.045665 1155.919 2264.351 0 0.002009 0.012779 0 0.182115 0.356749 0 0.043248 0.27512100000.049234 0.31320500000.206918 0.148734 7.579195 0 0.010946 0.021442 0San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.059294 44.11104 044.11104 25.565960000000.003 0.007991 0 0 0 0.012 0.0228330000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 38.13508 1832.77 1832.77 0 342.2075 0.132951 6.609544 0 0.001228 0.018659 0 0.003 0.016094 0.001336 0.020293 0 0.012 0.045982 1008.408 5458.884 0 0.769477 17.52611 0 0.20557 1.112829 0 0.010994 0.25041400000.785307 17.8866800001.06 3.064735 35.818030000San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 256.5607 15177.04 15177.04 0 5133.267 0.308106 0.065063 0.369453 0.001 0 0.000287 0.003 0.015680.001088 0 0.000312 0.012 0.044799 1742.276 373.6354 30.27704 0.009595 0.205564 0.033157 0.017281 0.005903 0.031894 0.045405 0.746279 0.1638780.026481 0.113352 1.902307 0.066255 1.088969 0.179425 0.026481 0.113352 1.902307 0.044919 0.985887 5.774707 3.460301 0.017224 0.003694 0.000299San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1051.799 74746.95 74746.95 0 10288.18 0.843686 5.779548 1.508936 0.009565 0.003378 0 0.003 0.017376 0.009998 0.003531 0 0.012 0.049647 1250.895 1225.784 0 0.000947 0.013995 0 0.197079 0.193123 0 0.020398 0.30131300000.023222 0.34302200000.217631 0.094166 5.629794 0 0.011845 0.011607 0San Mateo 2023 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.660994 415.1452 415.1452 0 59.28285 0.232948 1.556882 0 0.000856 0.003435 0 0.003 0.016148 0.000931 0.003736 0 0.012 0.046137 1029.36 1194.248 0 0.766347 4.477255 0 0.209842 0.243455 0 0.01095 0.06397100000.782113 4.56936700001.06 3.19115 6.3060960000San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 62.11288 3411.923 3411.923 0 248.4515 0.897656 0.923288 0.643317 0.001164 0 0.000721 0.002 0.015721 0.001266 0 0.000784 0.008 0.044917 797.3184 2541.99 62.30631 0.021738 2.445799 0.089765 0.041731 0.084017 0.05658 0.106456 10.59413 0.521132 0.139121 0.406864 2.094566 0.15534 15.45893 0.570574 0.139121 0.406864 2.094566 0.045 2.707181 81.95312 13.2835 0.007882 0.02513 0.000616San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.8118 3793.041 3793.041 0 2444.395 5.00314 23.87172 0.437587 0.023953 0.025817 0 0.003 0.015721 0.025036 0.026985 0 0.012 0.044917 1149.738 2246.853 0 0.003233 0.008312 0 0.181142 0.353993 0 0.069615 0.17896400000.079252 0.20373700000.134019 0.208594 4.289616 0 0.010887 0.021276 0San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.041475 0.481131 00.481131 0.6005640000000.003 0.00786 0 0 0 0.012 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.023036 153.4041 153.4041 0 87.21356 0.556332 5.264261 0 0.003378 0.011516 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012524 0 0.012 0.044917 1258.036 4080.42 0 3.408583 15.17474 0 0.256459 0.83182 0 0.048702 0.21681700003.478709 15.4869400001.06 11.51682 21.103710000San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.26278 4165.676 4165.676 0 245.0511 0.037017 0 0.578233 0.000989 0 0.000127 0.002073 0.0323330.001076 0 0.000139 0.00829 0.092379 1025.682 0 41.23868 0.002259 0 0.053565 0.004956 0 0.077039 0.006631 0 0.206281 0.070589 0.114555 0.693653 0.009677 0 0.225852 0.070589 0.114555 0.693653 0.045 0.556154 0 5.887541 0.01014 0 0.000408San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 341.8463 28540.62 28540.62 0 1367.385 2.897593 0 0 0.007619 0 0 0.007913 0.0385 0.007964 0 0 0.0316520.11 1451.453 0 0 0.007311 0 0 0.228677 0 0 0.157395000000.179182000000.122644 0.192989 0 0 0.013753 0 0San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.018703 15.3193 0 15.3193 8.0748110000000.009 0.01925 0 0 0 0.036 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2023 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 34.94319 1199.611 1199.611 0 139.7728 0.063405 0 0 0.000296 0 0 0.008789 0.0385 0.000309 0 0 0.035157 0.11 1349.38 0 0 4.445831 0 0 0.27508 0 0 0.063522000004.537297000000.97 52.5367100000393 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2024Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.38411 570.1519 570.1519 0 87.71727 4.048188 0 0.002195 0.001412 0 0.000781 0.005 0.031087 0.001536 0 0.000849 0.02 0.08882 2242.616 0 52.51813 0.114927 0 9.83E‐05 0.151409 0 0.000106 0.580011 0 0.000534 0.038164 0.298441 2.621146 0.84635 0 0.000584 0.038164 0.298441 2.621146 0.045 33.76595 0 5.064106 0.022171 0 0.000519San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1314.625 119489.1 119489.1 0 14359.46 2.758523 46.36193 2.948259 0.025016 0.035273 0 0.008607 0.030666 0.026147 0.036868 0 0.034429 0.087616 1815.874 8218.84 0 0.001264 0.157243 0 0.286092 1.294882 0 0.027205 3.38540400000.030971 3.85402400000.19939 0.118425 47.19978 0 0.017195 0.077828 0San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 4.22305 364.2879 0 364.2879 41.83420000000.008582 0.016829 0 0 0 0.034329 0.0480820000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 168.5495 11187.83 11187.83 0 1132.175 1.492552 9.520927 0 0.001788 0.012243 0 0.009 0.059336 0.001944 0.013315 0 0.036 0.169533 1498.953 8407.645 0 3.081874 24.13874 00.305571 1.713953 0 0.069062 0.38954400003.173794 24.6862200000.729125 16.65962 64.843980000San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 239419.7 7454000 7454000 0 1124271 0.038087 0 0.247841 0.001162 0 0.001964 0.002 0.002348 0.001263 0 0.002136 0.008 0.006709 270.9813 0 68.88096 0.002038 0 0.068169 0.004236 0 0.031309 0.007847 0 0.318313 0.083377 0.213338 1.277502 0.01145 0 0.348512 0.083377 0.213338 1.277502 0.036176 0.637775 0 3.199778 0.002679 00.000681San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 770.443 17557.03 17557.030 3247.138 0.188593 0 0 0.01271 0 0 0.002 0.002404 0.013285 0 0 0.008 0.006869 232.2271 0 0 0.001054 0 0 0.036587 0 0 0.022696000000.025838000000.0031 0.304144 0 0 0.0022 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17934.86 689392.1 0 689392.1 89072.050000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043710000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb7500.936 275231.1 133857.4 141373.7 31016.37 0.003125 0 0.117199 0.000577 0 0.001988 0.002 0.001324 0.000628 0 0.002162 0.008 0.003783 131.2547 064.21414 0.000402 0 0.042117 0.000534 0 0.020029 0.001313 0 0.176635 0.037635 0.03379 0.393665 0.001916 0 0.193393 0.037635 0.03379 0.393665 0.0194 0.196055 0 1.37819 0.001298 0 0.000635San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25010.05 728708.6 728708.6 0 114230.1 0.101175 0 0.337766 0.001531 0 0.002433 0.002 0.002823 0.001665 0 0.002647 0.008 0.008066 317.5486 0 83.06159 0.004741 0 0.091509 0.007635 0 0.035447 0.020943 0 0.464929 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.0305570 0.509038 0.13393 0.378571 2.119435 0.03751 1.098083 0 4.642443 0.003139 0 0.000821San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.907674 87.50597 87.50597 0 19.69868 1.656035 0 0 0.236493 0 0 0.002 0.003323 0.247186 0 0 0.008 0.009495 417.4053 0 0 0.014564 0 0 0.065762 0 0 0.313559000000.356966000000.0031 1.668132 0 0 0.003955 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 91.59654 3278.131 03278.131 443.54420000000.002 0.001533 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043810000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb54.25069 2174.893 971.2907 1203.602 224.3266 0.002869 0 0.117199 0.000364 0 0.001376 0.002 0.001338 0.000396 0 0.001496 0.008 0.003823 120.5464 069.35514 0.00037 0 0.042142 0.000491 0 0.020052 0.001206 0 0.176635 0.024003 0.020809 0.269408 0.00176 0 0.193393 0.024003 0.020809 0.269408 0.018757 0.180131 0 1.37819 0.001192 0 0.000686San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 149536 4914901 49149010 718035.6 0.047837 0 0.275637 0.001155 0 0.001881 0.002 0.002719 0.001256 0 0.002046 0.008 0.007768 326.4023 0 82.90242 0.002154 0 0.070859 0.004613 0 0.03323 0.008159 0 0.321903 0.059457 0.151098 0.950815 0.011906 0 0.352443 0.059457 0.151098 0.950815 0.038479 0.65082 0 3.265171 0.003227 0 0.00082San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 582.1748 18954.02 18954.02 0 2798.233 0.039602 0 0 0.004525 0 0 0.002 0.002742 0.00473 0 0 0.008 0.007835 303.3367 0 0 0.000583 0 0 0.047791 0 0 0.012549000000.014287000000.0031 0.119356 0 0 0.002874 0 0San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1250.957 37598.89 037598.89 6394.2450000000.002 0.001525 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043580000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1631.391 62724.85 29203.5 33521.35 6745.803 0.002991 0 0.117199 0.000445 0 0.001613 0.002 0.001331 0.000484 0 0.001754 0.008 0.003803 125.6641 0 75.33035 0.000385 0 0.042141 0.000512 0 0.020051 0.001257 0 0.176635 0.025289 0.023061 0.291714 0.001834 0 0.193393 0.025289 0.023061 0.291714 0.019538 0.187751 0 1.37819 0.001242 0 0.000745San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11110.29 401258.4 401258.4 0 165526.8 0.108054 0.033789 0.571117 0.001381 0 0.000231 0.002 0.0273 0.001502 0 0.000252 0.008 0.078 836.8766 116.5649 26.73629 0.005557 0.107506 0.028745 0.006197 0.00292 0.048292 0.02703 0.387394 0.139437 0.033968 0.18488 1.873078 0.039443 0.565284 0.152666 0.033968 0.18488 1.873078 0.044949 0.932434 3.763967 3.345475 0.008273 0.001152 0.000264San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4996.692 191551.4 191551.4 0 62852.09 1.027551 1.628055 0 0.024469 0.026784 0 0.003 0.0273 0.025575 0.027995 0 0.012 0.078 625.1858 126.8159 0 0.006142 0.005098 0 0.0984980.01998 0 0.132227 0.1097600000.150532 0.12495400000.191039 0.331515 0.909745 0 0.005924 0.001202 0San Mateo 2024 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 56.88552 3530.6420 3530.642 794.65460000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1289.385 44551.76 44551.76 0 19209.92 0.122228 0.032802 0.574333 0.001317 0 0.000203 0.002 0.03185 0.001432 0 0.00022 0.008 0.091 944.5417 135.0667 25.31696 0.004775 0.10351 0.028373 0.007371 0.002735 0.046606 0.02185 0.376166 0.138457 0.035403 0.189345 1.948594 0.031883 0.5489 0.151593 0.035403 0.189345 1.948594 0.04499 0.81417 3.766002 3.313222 0.009338 0.001335 0.00025San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2173.662 83732.44 83732.44 0 27341.93 0.758817 1.552593 0 0.021905 0.026813 0 0.003 0.03185 0.022896 0.028026 0 0.012 0.091 738.893 201.7788 0 0.00575 0.005098 0 0.116413 0.03179 0 0.123794 0.1097600000.140931 0.12495400000.200587 0.280863 0.909745 0 0.007001 0.001912 0San Mateo 2024 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14.72375 865.83830 865.8383 194.89790000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 13263.89 76675.37 76675.37 0 26527.78 0.518793 0 0.126152 0.001881 0 0.003482 0.001 0.0042 0.002012 0 0.003708 0.004 0.012 186.9256 0 46.09461 0.145168 0 0.173078 0.0369690 0.007549 0.930365 0 1.275208 3.551353 3.70872 3.28364 1.125127 0 1.386524 3.551353 3.70872 3.28364 0.008901 11.0461 0 7.750076 0.001848 0 0.000456San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 84173.19 2823183 2823183 0 402441.6 0.058434 0 0.328591 0.001156 0 0.001958 0.002 0.002737 0.001258 0 0.002129 0.008 0.007819 393.5743 0 100.4473 0.002492 0 0.08141 0.005161 0 0.035386 0.009941 0 0.393656 0.066904 0.180975 1.115277 0.014501 0 0.431003 0.066904 0.180975 1.115277 0.038746 0.686178 0 3.45873 0.003891 00.000993San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1163.667 38157.5 38157.5 05552.1 0.037261 0 0 0.004001 0 0 0.002 0.002798 0.004182 0 0 0.008 0.007995 398.2713 0 0 0.000421 0 0 0.062748 0 0 0.009074000000.01033000000.0031 0.171126 0 0 0.003774 0 0San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1347.217 40547.66 0 40547.66 6889.4150000000.002 0.001525 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043570000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb894.3672 35015.17 16467.11 18548.06 3698.208 0.003021 0 0.117199 0.000509 0 0.001829 0.002 0.00133 0.000553 0 0.001989 0.008 0.0038 126.9296 0 92.90761 0.000391 0 0.042289 0.000521 0 0.020188 0.00127 0 0.176635 0.0281150.024943 0.310017 0.001853 0 0.193393 0.028115 0.024943 0.310017 0.019752 0.189627 0 1.37819 0.001255 0 0.000918San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 801.8479 7786.339 7786.339 0 80.21686 0.31412 0 0.403344 0.001626 0 0.000414 0.003 0.015756 0.001768 0 0.00045 0.012 0.045017 1946.554 0 31.59379 0.011734 0 0.037106 0.021154 0 0.043344 0.049091 0 0.154768 9.691274 0.229932 3.473479 0.071633 0 0.169451 9.691274 0.229932 3.473479 0.044918 1.137792 0 3.470688 0.0192440 0.000312San Mateo 2024 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 356.6509 3693.518 3693.5180 35.66509 3.096233 0 0 0.049578 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.05182 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1085.795 0 0 0.004225 0 0 0.171067 0 0 0.090961000000.103553000000.190835 0.284597 0 0 0.010288 0 0San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 803.5707 46997.14 46997.14 0 16077.84 0.392706 0.088662 0.440106 0.001362 0 0.000524 0.003 0.015756 0.001481 0 0.00057 0.012 0.045017 1738.217 524.0271 45.30167 0.012668 0.264735 0.046933 0.020191 0.007577 0.034475 0.061766 1.015329 0.254725 0.030087 0.246862 2.353612 0.090129 1.481566 0.278892 0.030087 0.246862 2.353612 0.044986 1.274083 15.14683 5.603458 0.017184 0.005181 0.000448San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4233.233 177028 177028 0 51051.04 1.307284 13.57456 1.607655 0.016259 0.033511 0 0.003 0.015983 0.016994 0.035026 0 0.012 0.045664 1151.344 2248.491 0 0.001748 0.011985 0 0.181395 0.354251 0 0.037635 0.25804300000.042845 0.29376300000.208724 0.13444 7.547588 0 0.010903 0.021292 0San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 14.28233 871.0875 0871.0875 206.31190000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227180000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 40.94682 1935.863 1935.863 0 369.2827 0.126627 6.578363 0 0.00126 0.019031 0 0.003 0.016095 0.001371 0.020698 0 0.012 0.045986 1003.333 5452.112 0 0.773152 17.27614 0 0.204536 1.111449 0 0.011047 0.24684200000.789058 17.6315700001.06 3.066853 36.670550000San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 254.1967 14438.68 14438.68 0 5085.967 0.276687 0.065109 0.370674 0.00102 0 0.000283 0.003 0.01568 0.00111 0 0.000308 0.012 0.044799 1723.101 370.7574 29.97676 0.0084780.205512 0.032818 0.016007 0.005919 0.031879 0.039535 0.746984 0.162428 0.025788 0.11331 1.92621 0.05769 1.089998 0.177838 0.025788 0.11331 1.92621 0.044947 0.847792 5.778931 3.396221 0.017035 0.003665 0.000296San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1077.493 75002.36 75002.36 0 10539.7 0.835238 5.759378 1.510482 0.009497 0.003284 0 0.003 0.017376 0.009927 0.003433 0 0.012 0.049647 1241.911 1216.11 0 0.000936 0.0139850 0.195664 0.191599 0 0.020157 0.30109300000.022947 0.34277200000.217754 0.093918 5.631167 0 0.01176 0.011516 0San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.873406 79.58076 079.58076 17.475120000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.797528 492.5585 492.5585 0 69.398 0.196374 1.542446 0 0.001031 0.003779 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001121 0.00411 0 0.012 0.046137 1012.331 1198.177 0 0.786409 4.299019 0 0.20637 0.244256 0 0.011236 0.06142400000.802588 4.38746400001.06 3.2452 7.0824620000San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 66.88141 3561.549 3561.549 0 267.5256 0.835223 0.92382 0.639831 0.001152 0 0.000724 0.002 0.015721 0.001252 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 789.442 2519.886 61.00487 0.019632.446302 0.087874 0.039135 0.085207 0.056875 0.09611 10.60191 0.5098050.133122 0.399591 2.076885 0.140243 15.47029 0.558173 0.133122 0.399591 2.076885 0.045 2.460202 82.00038 12.72081 0.007804 0.024912 0.000603San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.96 3777.202 3777.2020 2446.541 4.696712 23.20536 0.459253 0.022409 0.023726 0 0.003 0.0157210.023422 0.024798 0 0.012 0.044917 1144.311 2236.593 0 0.003112 0.0082080 0.180287 0.352376 0 0.067 0.17671600000.076275 0.20117700000.139187 0.202372 4.417573 0 0.010836 0.021179 0San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 0.90883 36.62057 0 36.62057 8.1402170000000.002304 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009214 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.288614 158.6097 158.6097 0 91.05913 0.535215 5.251389 0 0.003378 0.011823 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.012858 0 0.012 0.044917 1247.354 4088.672 0 3.35032 15.01581 0 0.254281 0.833502 0 0.047869 0.21454600003.419247 15.3247400001.06 11.24264 21.795980000San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.44418 4178.01 4178.01 0 245.7767 0.036235 0 0.500251 0.001083 0 0.000148 0.002073 0.032333 0.001178 0 0.000161 0.00829 0.092379 1002.317 0 40.2745 0.00211 0 0.046538 0.004853 0 0.069658 0.006117 0 0.175043 0.050072 0.096281 0.505947 0.008925 0 0.19165 0.050072 0.096281 0.505947 0.045 0.556675 0 6.169996 0.009909 0 0.000398San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 277.5893 21477.78 21477.78 0 1110.357 0.375565 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.0323880.11 1223.727 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192799 0 0 0.067719000000.077093000000.22 0.077195 0 0 0.011595 0 0San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.0794 3851.303 0 3851.303 148.31760000000.007366 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029466 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2024 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.26114 4514.573 4514.573 0 261.0446 0.055424 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007741 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030963 0.11 1262.656 0 0 4.100531 0 0 0.257401 0 0 0.058588000004.184893000000.97 46.5063300000394 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2025Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.335984 539.4434 539.4434 0 86.75436 3.993891 0 0.002022 0.001378 0 0.00069 0.005 0.031006 0.001498 0 0.000751 0.02 0.088589 2223.743 0 51.99251 0.111171 0 9.85E‐05 0.151221 0 0.000104 0.548787 0 0.000535 0.032327 0.240688 2.160104 0.800789 00.000585 0.032327 0.240688 2.160104 0.045 33.0787 0 5.031545 0.021984 0 0.000514San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1328.41 119560.7 119560.7 0 14621.91 2.632025 45.4127 3.000431 0.02461 0.033159 0 0.008607 0.030397 0.025723 0.034658 0 0.034427 0.086848 1783.935 8133.144 0 0.001211 0.15815 0 0.28106 1.28138 0 0.02607 3.40492800000.029679 3.87625200000.201044 0.113335 47.75386 0 0.016893 0.077016 0San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 10.02384 901.0022 0901.0022 96.277970000000.008517 0.017099 0 0 0 0.034067 0.0488540000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 180.5549 11842.66 11842.66 0 1200.105 1.331412 8.859598 0 0.001692 0.012232 0 0.009 0.060148 0.00184 0.013304 0 0.036 0.171851 1473.274 8308.135 0 2.792898 22.57518 0 0.300337 1.693668 0 0.061153 0.36000700002.874566 23.082300000.720658 15.82056 63.04070000San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238618 7185689 7185689 01119872 0.034615 0 0.235851 0.001128 0 0.001911 0.002 0.002349 0.001227 00.002078 0.008 0.00671 265.0863 0 67.26068 0.001838 0 0.063866 0.004 0 0.030182 0.006975 0 0.296397 0.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.010177 0 0.3245170.080623 0.207795 1.246636 0.036919 0.602664 0 3.018989 0.002621 0 0.000665San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 710.5834 15407.46 15407.46 0 2980.227 0.166025 0 0 0.01142 0 0 0.002 0.00241 0.011937 0 0 0.008 0.006884 229.7322 0 0 0.00097 0 0 0.036194 0 0 0.020877000000.023767000000.0031 0.292415 0 0 0.002177 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 19564.98 745853.8 0 745853.8 96825.510000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043730000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8044.117 283509.4 134548.1 148961.4 33262.42 0.003049 0 0.117199 0.000543 0 0.001919 0.002 0.00133 0.000591 0 0.002087 0.008 0.0038 128.0771 0 63.14069 0.00039 0 0.041777 0.000513 0 0.019713 0.001281 0 0.176635 0.0379740.033851 0.389847 0.00187 0 0.193393 0.037974 0.033851 0.389847 0.019071 0.1913 0 1.37819 0.001266 0 0.000624San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25473.09 722986.2 722986.2 0 116608.1 0.088465 0 0.313819 0.001428 0 0.002288 0.002 0.002819 0.001554 0 0.002489 0.008 0.008056 310.5241 0 80.75369 0.004138 0 0.083876 0.006908 0 0.033921 0.018105 0 0.421017 0.123314 0.343281 1.948219 0.026418 0 0.460961 0.123314 0.343281 1.948219 0.037997 0.996198 0 4.245316 0.00307 0 0.000798San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6.297196 75.91061 75.91061 0 17.6629 1.633241 0 0 0.233227 0 0 0.002 0.003314 0.243773 0 0 0.008 0.009467 416.405 0 0 0.014366 0 0 0.065605 0 0 0.309282000000.352097000000.0031 1.645498 0 0 0.003946 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 114.3013 4207.979 04207.979 557.93940000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043760000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb78.69736 3019.599 1309.635 1709.964 325.4136 0.002786 0 0.117199 0.00035 0 0.001361 0.002 0.001345 0.000381 0 0.00148 0.008 0.003842 117.0671 0 67.81017 0.000356 0 0.041758 0.000468 0 0.019694 0.001171 0 0.176635 0.023751 0.020249 0.266848 0.001709 0 0.193393 0.023751 0.020249 0.266848 0.018216 0.174923 0 1.37819 0.001157 0 0.00067San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 159673.6 5072144 5072144 0 766397.2 0.043155 0 0.259038 0.001111 0 0.001824 0.002 0.002725 0.001208 0 0.001983 0.008 0.007785 318.166 0 80.62425 0.001976 0 0.066383 0.004349 0 0.031999 0.007386 0 0.299178 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.010777 0 0.327563 0.056614 0.145016 0.911896 0.039093 0.616696 0 3.075211 0.003145 0 0.000797San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 618.9276 19447.24 19447.24 0 2972.356 0.035316 0 0 0.004147 0 0 0.002 0.002746 0.004334 0 0 0.008 0.007845 295.9024 0 0 0.00056 0 0 0.04662 0 0 0.012057000000.013726000000.0031 0.116837 0 0 0.002804 0 0San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1700.502 48819.4 0 48819.4 8654.2220000000.002 0.001526 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043610000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1989.466 72787.26 33032.95 39754.31 8226.444 0.002916 0 0.117199 0.00042 0 0.00156 0.002 0.001337 0.000457 0 0.001696 0.008 0.003821 122.4885 0 73.88529 0.000372 0 0.041746 0.00049 0 0.019683 0.001225 0 0.176635 0.025353 0.02271 0.287953 0.001788 0 0.193393 0.025353 0.02271 0.287953 0.019048 0.182994 0 1.37819 0.001211 0 0.00073San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 11613.82 405927.2 405927.2 0 173028.5 0.093969 0.032618 0.546788 0.00135 0 0.000213 0.002 0.0273 0.001468 0 0.000231 0.008 0.078 823.2657 115.3954 26.50069 0.004903 0.104178 0.027302 0.005418 0.002847 0.046638 0.023679 0.374027 0.131854 0.03142 0.171421 1.736909 0.034552 0.545779 0.144364 0.03142 0.171421 1.736909 0.044961 0.885236 3.766067 3.36368 0.008139 0.001141 0.000262San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5396.711 200335.3 200335.3 0 67883.84 0.878137 1.51814 0 0.022391 0.026666 0 0.003 0.0273 0.023404 0.027871 0 0.012 0.078 621.1678 124.9932 0 0.005716 0.005098 0 0.097865 0.019693 0 0.123053 0.1097600000.140088 0.12495400000.196014 0.301645 0.909745 0 0.005886 0.001184 0San Mateo 2025 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 157.5841 8786.5460 8786.546 2203.7750000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1342.429 45031.5 45031.5 0 20000.19 0.105135 0.031386 0.546043 0.001282 0 0.000185 0.002 0.03185 0.001395 0 0.000201 0.008 0.091 929.119 133.658 25.05861 0.00412 0.099506 0.026702 0.006445 0.00265 0.044736 0.018664 0.360001 0.12953 0.032846 0.178071 1.845904 0.027234 0.525313 0.141819 0.032846 0.178071 1.845904 0.044991 0.769359 3.768677 3.317456 0.009185 0.001321 0.000248San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2386.592 88314.97 88314.97 0 30020.32 0.665843 1.451157 0 0.020707 0.02679 0 0.003 0.03185 0.021644 0.028001 0 0.012 0.091 732.0694 199.191 0 0.00549 0.005098 0 0.115338 0.031383 0 0.118205 0.1097600000.134569 0.12495400000.203813 0.264963 0.909745 0 0.006937 0.001887 0San Mateo 2025 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 40.48817 2145.2240 2145.224 536.91310000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 13994.78 78703.42 78703.42 0 27989.55 0.505421 0 0.117673 0.001897 0 0.003489 0.001 0.0042 0.002031 0 0.003719 0.004 0.012 186.4281 0 44.64197 0.140818 0 0.16646 0.036419 00.007111 0.891986 0 1.219242 3.548067 3.701315 3.154868 1.084139 0 1.325883 3.548067 3.701315 3.154868 0.008947 10.66577 0 7.691483 0.001843 0 0.000441San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 89810.74 2915872 2915872 0 429459.7 0.050748 0 0.301319 0.001104 0 0.001871 0.002 0.002743 0.00120 0.002035 0.008 0.007838 383.757 0 97.70306 0.002219 0 0.074825 0.0047490 0.03376 0.008671 0 0.356712 0.062664 0.169351 1.048331 0.012652 0 0.390555 0.062664 0.169351 1.048331 0.039288 0.640699 0 3.225835 0.003794 0 0.000966San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1216.213 38222.55 38222.55 0 5783.756 0.033166 0 0 0.003666 0 0 0.002 0.002807 0.003832 0 0 0.008 0.008021 389.8225 0 0 0.000395 0 0 0.061417 0 0 0.008497000000.009674000000.0031 0.166794 0 0 0.003694 0 0San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1824.97 52408.32 0 52408.32 9288.7460000000.002 0.001526 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043610000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1131.124 42471.44 19328.41 23143.04 4677.198 0.002924 0 0.117199 0.000462 0 0.001715 0.002 0.001337 0.000502 0 0.001865 0.008 0.003821 122.8274 090.54251 0.000374 0 0.041896 0.000495 0 0.019823 0.001229 0 0.176635 0.027524 0.023796 0.299651 0.001793 0 0.193393 0.027524 0.023796 0.299651 0.019114 0.183493 0 1.37819 0.001214 0 0.000895San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 830.5401 8053.177 8053.177 0 83.08723 0.268304 0 0.400493 0.001562 0 0.000397 0.003 0.015756 0.001698 0 0.000432 0.012 0.045017 1946.149 0 31.33114 0.010026 0 0.036115 0.019184 0 0.043891 0.040666 0 0.147699 8.452557 0.201566 3.076801 0.05934 0 0.161711 8.452557 0.201566 3.076801 0.044943 0.905305 0 3.320123 0.019240 0.00031San Mateo 2025 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 384.5125 3863.222 3863.2220 38.45125 2.990063 0 0 0.044795 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.04682 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.155 0 0 0.004106 0 0 0.171124 0 0 0.088396000000.100633000000.194759 0.273956 0 0 0.010292 0 0San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 825.6427 47612.58 47612.58 0 16519.46 0.323037 0.085434 0.420472 0.001351 0 0.000505 0.003 0.015756 0.00147 0 0.00055 0.012 0.045017 1716.102 518.1406 44.32653 0.010425 0.267434 0.04506 0.017424 0.007433 0.033886 0.050062 1.017725 0.241229 0.026732 0.218345 2.098508 0.073051 1.485063 0.264116 0.026732 0.218345 2.098508 0.044995 1.017203 15.17464 5.286069 0.016965 0.005122 0.000438San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4294.917 177557.8 177557.8 0 51845.95 1.188939 12.87917 1.614768 0.013944 0.027675 0 0.003 0.015982 0.014575 0.028927 0 0.012 0.045664 1145.121 2228.697 0 0.001506 0.011276 0 0.180414 0.351132 0 0.032415 0.24277100000.036902 0.27637600000.210368 0.120818 7.522952 0 0.010844 0.021104 0San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 41.49574 2407.793 02407.793 583.41180000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227160000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 44.4449 2054.281 2054.281 0 404.8873 0.119383 6.528501 0 0.001296 0.019376 0 0.003 0.016094 0.001409 0.021073 0 0.012 0.045982 997.1964 5429.729 0 0.776466 16.96742 0 0.203285 1.106886 0 0.011094 0.24243100000.79244 17.316500001.06 3.065754 37.478110000San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 252.722 13715.02 13715.02 0 5056.462 0.254289 0.063619 0.364813 0.00105 0 0.000289 0.003 0.01568 0.001142 0 0.000314 0.012 0.044799 1704.936 368.0466 29.69841 0.0078420.204874 0.032288 0.014975 0.005762 0.031384 0.036425 0.747093 0.159999 0.025822 0.116247 1.973857 0.053152 1.090157 0.175179 0.025822 0.116247 1.973857 0.044948 0.777227 5.779588 3.340614 0.016855 0.003639 0.000294San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1111.576 75305.13 75305.13 0 10889.45 0.812155 5.594758 1.4975 0.009252 0.003188 0 0.003 0.01738 0.009671 0.003332 0 0.012 0.049657 1227.827 1209.887 0 0.000915 0.014161 00.193445 0.190618 0 0.019696 0.30488800000.022422 0.34709200000.217867 0.092546 5.69186 0 0.011627 0.011457 0San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2.143949 185.5536 0185.5536 42.896130000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 9.18414 584.7868 584.7868 0 81.73885 0.165457 1.529579 0 0.001178 0.004086 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001282 0.004444 0 0.012 0.046137 991.5916 1195.033 0 0.803368 4.140164 0 0.202142 0.243615 0 0.011479 0.05915500000.819896 4.22534100001.06 3.290889 7.774410000San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 71.37135 3679.781 3679.781 0 285.4854 0.767242 0.883319 0.626471 0.001129 0 0.000724 0.002 0.015721 0.001228 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 782.2289 2499.775 59.80097 0.017691 2.446506 0.085381 0.036296 0.082358 0.056445 0.086658 10.61248 0.494948 0.122618 0.362839 1.907752 0.126452 15.4857 0.541906 0.122618 0.362839 1.907752 0.045 2.216556 82.06454 12.20654 0.007733 0.024713 0.000591San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.9397 3758.24 3758.240 2446.247 4.387797 22.39071 0.476886 0.020913 0.021713 0 0.003 0.0157210.021858 0.022694 0 0.012 0.044917 1138.881 2225.679 0 0.002986 0.00812 00.179431 0.350657 0 0.064283 0.17481800000.073182 0.19901700000.144353 0.19584 4.548944 0 0.010785 0.021076 0San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 1.984894 78.89105 078.89105 17.79860000000.002318 0.00786 0 0 0 0.00927 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.552799 163.6295 163.6295 0 94.88454 0.515656 5.239615 0 0.003378 0.012103 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013164 0 0.012 0.044917 1237.46 4096.22 0 3.296356 14.87044 0 0.252264 0.835041 0 0.047098 0.21246900003.364173 15.1763800001.06 10.9887 22.42920000San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.62557 4190.344 4190.344 0 246.5023 0.03738 0 0.492117 0.001105 0 0.000151 0.002073 0.032333 0.001202 0 0.000164 0.00829 0.092379 995.3027 0 40.11712 0.002043 0 0.046071 0.00491 0 0.06861 0.005911 0 0.17302 0.05773 0.119898 0.618422 0.008625 0 0.189435 0.05773 0.119898 0.618422 0.045 0.562303 0 6.218459 0.00984 00.000397San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 278.2185 21526.83 21526.83 0 1112.874 0.375553 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007136 0 0 0.0323870.11 1223.606 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.19278 0 0 0.067717000000.077091000000.22 0.077193 0 0 0.011594 0 0San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.31748 3870.538 03870.538 149.26990000000.007369 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029474 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2025 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.5154 4534.391 4534.391 0 262.0616 0.055433 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007742 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030968 0.11 1262.747 0 0 4.100892 0 0 0.257419 0 0 0.058594000004.185261000000.97 46.5126300000395 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2026Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.283898 504.3899 504.3899 0 85.71223 3.767128 0 0.001928 0.001363 0 0.000634 0.005 0.031039 0.001482 0 0.00069 0.02 0.088682 2206.809 0 51.03869 0.109196 0 9.88E‐05 0.147264 0 0.0001 0.53602 0 0.000536 0.029322 0.212948 1.905434 0.782159 0 0.000587 0.029322 0.212948 1.905434 0.045 33.33714 0 4.679779 0.021817 0 0.000505San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1339.121 119591.7 119591.7 0 14836.49 2.513316 44.39177 3.042683 0.024334 0.030988 0 0.008607 0.030272 0.025434 0.032389 0 0.034426 0.086492 1752.991 8044.886 0 0.00116 0.158921 0 0.276185 1.267475 0 0.024964 3.42153600000.02842 3.89515800000.202556 0.108407 48.25142 0 0.0166 0.07618 0San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 17.24092 1568.579 01568.579 167.60970000000.008499 0.017277 0 0 0 0.033994 0.0493640000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 190.6077 12388.44 12388.44 0 1253.654 1.199642 8.304539 0 0.001614 0.012208 0 0.009 0.06089 0.001755 0.013277 0 0.036 0.17397 1452.495 8216.396 0 2.557538 21.22587 0 0.296101 1.674966 0 0.054701 0.33499600002.630844 21.6986900000.713158 15.13386 61.65390000San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238617.8 6969047 6969047 0 1119592 0.031815 0 0.225592 0.00108 0 0.001846 0.002 0.002349 0.0011740 0.002007 0.008 0.00671 259.6018 0 65.74318 0.001674 0 0.060063 0.0038060 0.029206 0.006262 0 0.277135 0.077036 0.201162 1.205717 0.009138 0 0.303428 0.077036 0.201162 1.205717 0.037625 0.572674 0 2.857953 0.002566 0 0.00065San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 645.0664 13511.27 13511.27 0 2704.797 0.144803 0 0 0.010068 0 0 0.002 0.002414 0.010523 0 0 0.008 0.006897 227.0711 0 0 0.000882 0 0 0.035775 0 0 0.01898000000.021607000000.0031 0.280265 0 0 0.002152 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 20627.64 751657.4 0 751657.4 1016060000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043750000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8434.471 284060.2 132539.9 151520.3 34876.54 0.002998 0 0.117199 0.00051 0 0.001839 0.002 0.001334 0.000555 0 0.002 0.008 0.003813 125.9186 0 62.33942 0.00038 0 0.041451 0.000497 0 0.019409 0.00126 0 0.176635 0.037598 0.034095 0.388535 0.001838 0 0.193393 0.037598 0.034095 0.388535 0.0188590.188068 0 1.37819 0.001245 0 0.000616San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 25945.79 717326.6 717326.6 0 118989.9 0.078016 0 0.293254 0.001334 0 0.002155 0.002 0.002818 0.001451 0 0.002344 0.008 0.008052 304.0076 0 78.61644 0.003639 0 0.077166 0.006309 0 0.032586 0.015756 0 0.382671 0.113653 0.314838 1.794906 0.022991 0 0.418976 0.113653 0.314838 1.794906 0.038437 0.911226 0 3.898361 0.003005 0 0.000777San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5.731399 66.09906 66.09906 0 15.81841 1.607443 0 0 0.22953 0 0 0.002 0.003303 0.239908 0 0 0.008 0.009438 415.2037 0 0 0.01414 0 0 0.065416 0 0 0.304424000000.346566000000.0031 1.619672 0 0 0.003934 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 141.9822 5160.147 05160.147 697.07160000000.002 0.001531 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043740000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb104.7443 3837.146 1635.987 2201.159 433.1175 0.002739 0 0.117199 0.00033 0 0.001308 0.002 0.001349 0.000359 0 0.001423 0.008 0.003854 115.0787 0 66.76301 0.000347 0 0.041425 0.000453 0 0.019385 0.001151 0 0.176635 0.02329 0.019927 0.265458 0.00168 0 0.193393 0.02329 0.019927 0.265458 0.017907 0.171942 0 1.37819 0.001138 0 0.00066San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 169697.7 5206694 5206694 0 813724.2 0.039564 0 0.246415 0.001061 0 0.001756 0.002 0.002732 0.001154 0 0.001909 0.008 0.007806 310.9212 0 78.61365 0.001836 0 0.062615 0.004145 0 0.031058 0.006772 0 0.280198 0.053684 0.140038 0.877766 0.009881 00.306782 0.053684 0.140038 0.877766 0.039596 0.591205 0 2.920622 0.003074 0 0.000777San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 655.1696 19853.42 19853.42 0 3139.478 0.033548 0 0 0.004079 0 0 0.002 0.002751 0.004264 0 0 0.008 0.00786 289.3493 0 0 0.000555 0 0 0.045587 0 0 0.011952000000.013607000000.0031 0.11634 0 0 0.002742 0 0San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2139.962 58794.02 058794.02 10836.180000000.002 0.001528 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043640000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb2330.737 81093.05 36145.09 44947.96 9637.596 0.002864 0 0.117199 0.000395 0 0.001497 0.002 0.001342 0.00043 0 0.001628 0.008 0.003835 120.2973 0 72.79128 0.000362 0 0.041388 0.000473 0 0.01935 0.001204 0 0.176635 0.024917 0.022518 0.286085 0.001756 0 0.193393 0.024917 0.022518 0.286085 0.018711 0.179707 0 1.37819 0.001189 0 0.00072San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12091.27 409379.7 409379.7 0 180141.9 0.082078 0.031581 0.525207 0.001324 0 0.000197 0.002 0.0273 0.00144 0 0.000214 0.008 0.078 811.9901 114.3649 26.27179 0.004327 0.101211 0.026073 0.004771 0.00278 0.045144 0.020676 0.362188 0.125413 0.029477 0.164217 1.658906 0.03017 0.528503 0.137311 0.029477 0.164217 1.658906 0.044975 0.843514 3.767862 3.376982 0.008027 0.001131 0.00026San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 5774.561 207453.3 207453.3 0 72636.71 0.759826 1.425846 0 0.020834 0.026593 0 0.003 0.0273 0.021776 0.027795 0 0.012 0.078 618.0427 123.4649 0 0.005378 0.005098 0 0.0973730.019452 0 0.11579 0.1097600000.131819 0.12495400000.199971 0.278839 0.909745 0 0.005856 0.00117 0San Mateo 2026 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 302.9677 15691.660 15691.66 4239.8810000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1390.219 45322.23 45322.23 0 20712.2 0.089949 0.030134 0.521013 0.001251 0 0.000168 0.002 0.03185 0.001361 0 0.000183 0.008 0.091 916.2773 132.4121 24.82523 0.00347 0.095994 0.025248 0.005641 0.002576 0.043086 0.015364 0.345713 0.121706 0.030304 0.166922 1.734893 0.02242 0.504463 0.133253 0.030304 0.166922 1.734893 0.044997 0.721895 3.771186 3.317909 0.009058 0.001309 0.000245San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2589.799 92139.39 92139.39 0 32576.42 0.594292 1.367929 0 0.019861 0.026777 0 0.003 0.03185 0.020759 0.027987 0 0.012 0.091 726.711 197.0583 0 0.00529 0.005098 0 0.114494 0.031047 0 0.113884 0.1097600000.129649 0.12495400000.206359 0.253765 0.909745 0 0.006886 0.001867 0San Mateo 2026 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 77.23784 3810.55 03810.55 1024.590000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 14692.86 80438.96 80438.96 0 29385.71 0.495123 0 0.110033 0.001908 0 0.003479 0.001 0.0042 0.002043 0 0.003711 0.004 0.012 186.0574 0 43.36877 0.137447 0 0.160662 0.0360060 0.006719 0.86185 0 1.169727 3.545629 3.697544 3.067415 1.052189 0 1.272239 3.545629 3.697544 3.067415 0.008984 10.37381 0 7.649946 0.001839 0 0.000429San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 95415.04 2995462 2995462 0 456021.9 0.045043 0 0.280293 0.001049 0 0.001787 0.002 0.002752 0.001141 0 0.001943 0.008 0.007862 375.0476 0 95.27447 0.002014 0 0.069417 0.004439 0 0.032516 0.007733 0 0.326682 0.058677 0.159655 0.988966 0.011284 0 0.357675 0.058677 0.159655 0.988966 0.039732 0.608979 0 3.043816 0.003708 0 0.000942San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1264.364 38163.09 38163.09 0 5993.722 0.029639 0 0 0.00336 0 0 0.002 0.002815 0.003512 0 0 0.008 0.008044 381.8352 0 0 0.000371 0 0 0.060158 0 0 0.007978000000.009083000000.0031 0.162819 0 0 0.003618 0 0San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2288.176 62843.93 0 62843.93 11585.670000000.002 0.001528 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043650000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1352.288 48514.48 21600.3 26914.18 5591.711 0.00286 0 0.117199 0.0004240 0.001613 0.002 0.001343 0.000461 0 0.001754 0.008 0.003836 120.1646 0 88.85404 0.000363 0 0.041542 0.000476 0 0.019493 0.001202 0 0.176635 0.027524 0.02439 0.302424 0.001754 0 0.193393 0.027524 0.02439 0.302424 0.01870.179507 0 1.37819 0.001188 0 0.000878San Mateo 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 860.1629 8288.685 8288.685 0 86.0507 0.23256 0 0.397384 0.001512 0 0.000384 0.003 0.015756 0.001645 0 0.000418 0.012 0.045017 1945.826 0 31.10578 0.008668 0 0.035239 0.017644 0 0.044254 0.033949 0 0.14164 7.387206 0.177323 2.704624 0.049538 0 0.155079 7.387206 0.177323 2.704624 0.044967 0.720477 0 3.190918 0.019236 00.000308San Mateo 2026 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 411.7686 4016.353 4016.3530 41.17686 2.902322 0 0 0.040701 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.042542 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.443 0 0 0.004006 0 0 0.17117 0 0 0.086257000000.098197000000.198004 0.264984 0 0 0.010295 0 0San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 848.5573 48169.43 48169.43 0 16977.94 0.269412 0.081996 0.401399 0.001349 0 0.000495 0.003 0.015756 0.001467 0 0.000539 0.012 0.045017 1697.118 512.7637 43.45365 0.008779 0.269455 0.043465 0.015276 0.007246 0.033229 0.041527 1.019578 0.229834 0.024222 0.200008 1.911848 0.060596 1.487766 0.251639 0.024222 0.200008 1.911848 0.044997 0.830138 15.19618 5.005077 0.016778 0.005069 0.00043San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4345.03 177809.3 177809.3 0 52490.37 1.079543 12.1982 1.615228 0.011982 0.022721 0 0.003 0.0159820.012524 0.023749 0 0.012 0.045664 1138.556 2209.16 0 0.001294 0.010675 00.17938 0.348054 0 0.027853 0.22983200000.031709 0.26164600000.211826 0.108771 7.505293 0 0.010781 0.020919 0San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 76.01194 4276.512 04276.512 1058.5440000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227170000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 48.05658 2179.843 2179.843 0 442.254 0.112977 6.480284 0 0.001327 0.019663 0 0.003 0.016091 0.001443 0.021385 0 0.012 0.045974 991.4871 5407.178 0 0.778786 16.68583 0 0.202121 1.102289 0 0.011127 0.23840800000.794808 17.0291100001.06 3.063718 38.155580000San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 250.2122 13078.36 13078.36 0 5006.245 0.228578 0.061817 0.359747 0.001067 0 0.000285 0.003 0.01568 0.00116 0 0.00031 0.012 0.044799 1687.446 365.3109 29.42229 0.0069270.20465 0.03203 0.013867 0.005591 0.030955 0.031574 0.747709 0.159032 0.025716 0.122353 2.090543 0.046073 1.091056 0.17412 0.025716 0.122353 2.090543 0.044974 0.662703 5.783272 3.284676 0.016682 0.003611 0.000291San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1145.492 75611.47 75611.47 0 11233.17 0.7922 5.412165 1.482498 0.00906 0.003089 0 0.003 0.017403 0.00947 0.003228 0 0.012 0.049724 1214.431 1202.439 0 0.000896 0.014277 0 0.191334 0.189445 0 0.019283 0.30737100000.021953 0.34991900000.21794 0.09136 5.733335 0 0.0115 0.011386 0San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3.59381 297.3898 0 297.3898 71.904950000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 10.41211 669.454 669.454 0 92.66776 0.14486 1.520375 0 0.001277 0.004306 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001389 0.004683 0 0.012 0.046137 977.2919 1192.33 0 0.814665 4.026517 0 0.199227 0.243064 0 0.01164 0.05753100000.831426 4.10935600001.06 3.321327 8.2694360000San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 75.66977 3792.283 3792.283 0 302.6791 0.689408 0.850076 0.614008 0.001104 0 0.000723 0.002 0.015721 0.001201 0 0.000787 0.008 0.044917 775.7798 2481.854 58.67483 0.015917 2.447247 0.082067 0.033238 0.080267 0.056021 0.077973 10.62297 0.474628 0.118813 0.369995 1.975658 0.113778 15.50102 0.519658 0.118813 0.369995 1.975658 0.045 1.98957 82.12826 11.72979 0.007669 0.024536 0.00058San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 168.4764 3737.054 3737.054 0 2439.538 4.092097 21.5298 0.494851 0.019631 0.01977 0 0.003 0.0157210.020519 0.020664 0 0.012 0.044917 1133.73 2214.261 0 0.002862 0.008051 00.17862 0.348858 0 0.06162 0.17333100000.07015 0.19732500000.149335 0.189386 4.685291 0 0.010736 0.020968 0San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3.281397 127.7057 0127.7057 29.509640000000.002326 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009303 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 6.807777 168.2676 168.2676 0 98.5766 0.49789 5.22911 0 0.003378 0.012354 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013436 0 0.012 0.044917 1228.474 4102.954 0 3.247338 14.74074 0 0.250432 0.836414 0 0.046398 0.21061600003.314147 15.04400001.06 10.75802 22.994170000San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.80696 4202.678 4202.678 0 247.2278 0.033837 0 0.38239 0.001186 0 0.000163 0.002073 0.032333 0.00129 0 0.000177 0.00829 0.092379 954.5156 0 39.0065 0.001796 0 0.0361130.004527 0 0.057552 0.005058 0 0.130834 0.029473 0.090867 0.345962 0.007381 0 0.143246 0.029473 0.090867 0.345962 0.045 0.558823 0 6.549286 0.009436 0 0.000386San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 278.8478 21575.87 21575.87 0 1115.391 0.37554 0 0 0.006827 0 0 0.008097 0.0385 0.007135 0 0 0.032386 0.11 1223.487 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192761 0 0 0.067715000000.077089000000.22 0.07719 0 0 0.011593 0 0San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 37.55556 3889.774 03889.774 150.22220000000.007371 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029483 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2026 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.76966 4554.21 4554.21 0 263.0787 0.055441 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007743 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030972 0.11 1262.837 0 0 4.101249 0 0 0.257438 0 0 0.058599000004.185626000000.97 46.5188700000396 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2027Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.22201 465.9735 465.9735 0 84.47398 3.784401 0 0.001809 0.00137 0 0.000612 0.005 0.031101 0.00149 0 0.000666 0.02 0.088859 2187.915 0 50.77401 0.10848 0 9.38E‐05 0.147815 0 9.4E‐05 0.529357 0 0.000508 0.02999 0.222639 2.054582 0.772437 0 0.000556 0.02999 0.222639 2.054582 0.045 33.09537 0 4.725369 0.02163 0 0.000502San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1346.151 119374.9 119374.9 0 15003.58 2.407204 43.42964 3.064838 0.024107 0.029271 0 0.008607 0.030209 0.025197 0.030595 0 0.034429 0.086312 1721.1 7957.443 0 0.001113 0.159723 0 0.27116 1.253698 0 0.023958 3.43879300000.027275 3.91480400000.203961 0.103951 48.72467 0 0.016298 0.075352 0San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 27.72379 2533.074 02533.074 269.75160000000.008486 0.017473 0 0 0 0.033946 0.0499220000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 199.6437 12874.54 12874.54 0 1300.878 1.084345 7.803952 0 0.001553 0.012198 0 0.009 0.061541 0.001689 0.013266 0 0.036 0.175831 1433.526 8133.569 0 2.341828 20.00939 00.292234 1.658081 0 0.049129 0.31305100002.407859 20.4519900000.706678 14.49829 60.402740000San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238471.3 6787745 6787745 0 1118595 0.029557 0 0.217198 0.001019 0 0.001761 0.002 0.002348 0.001108 0 0.001916 0.008 0.00671 254.8128 0 64.39911 0.001542 0 0.056785 0.003650 0.02841 0.00568 0 0.260517 0.07439 0.198496 1.18951 0.008288 0 0.2852340.07439 0.198496 1.18951 0.038281 0.547784 0 2.718673 0.002519 0 0.000637San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 577.6306 11859.15 11859.15 0 2430.953 0.125063 0 0 0.008723 0 0 0.002 0.002417 0.009117 0 0 0.008 0.006905 224.26 0 0 0.000794 0 0 0.035332 0 0 0.01709000000.019456000000.0031 0.267761 0 0 0.002125 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 21755.83 763478.8 0 763478.8 106722.50000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043770000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb8813.935 285623.3 131294.8 154328.5 36445.62 0.002953 0 0.117199 0.000473 0 0.001738 0.002 0.001338 0.000514 0 0.00189 0.008 0.003824 124.0518 0 61.66268 0.000372 0 0.041171 0.000483 0 0.019149 0.001241 0 0.176635 0.03859 0.038322 0.416371 0.001811 0 0.193393 0.03859 0.038322 0.416371 0.018683 0.185275 0 1.37819 0.001226 0 0.00061San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26419.18 713999.1 713999.1 0 121334.5 0.069103 0 0.27581 0.001241 0 0.002022 0.002 0.002818 0.001349 0 0.002199 0.008 0.008051 298.1151 0 76.68438 0.003215 0 0.071337 0.005799 0 0.031456 0.01376 0 0.349477 0.105239 0.292408 1.687165 0.020078 00.382633 0.105239 0.292408 1.687165 0.03886 0.838518 0 3.597733 0.002947 0 0.000758San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1.374283 18.5258 18.52580 4.138205 0.988299 0 0 0.1471 0 0 0.002 0.003155 0.153751 0 0 0.008 0.009016377.4379 0 0 0.011093 0 0 0.059465 0 0 0.238825000000.271887000000.0031 1.735378 0 0 0.003576 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 175.6332 6297.196 06297.196 865.69090000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043730000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb134.7957 4749.74 2001.346 2748.394 557.3801 0.002707 0 0.117199 0.000303 0 0.001221 0.002 0.001352 0.00033 0 0.001328 0.008 0.003862 113.7277 0 66.0325 0.000341 0 0.041159 0.000442 0 0.019137 0.001138 0 0.176635 0.023077 0.019848 0.265427 0.00166 0 0.193393 0.023077 0.019848 0.265427 0.017697 0.169916 0 1.37819 0.001124 0 0.000653San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 179414.4 5337772 5337772 0 859058.8 0.036713 0 0.236885 0.001002 0 0.001674 0.002 0.002741 0.00109 0 0.00182 0.008 0.00783 304.7363 0 76.89745 0.001725 0 0.059485 0.003982 0 0.030367 0.006284 0 0.264449 0.051332 0.135343 0.845955 0.00917 0 0.289538 0.051332 0.135343 0.845955 0.040019 0.572376 0 2.798095 0.003013 0 0.00076San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 689.4223 20263.35 20263.35 0 3297.619 0.031701 0 0 0.003958 0 0 0.002 0.002756 0.004137 0 0 0.008 0.007875 283.5314 0 0 0.000547 0 0 0.04467 0 0 0.011786000000.013417000000.0031 0.115725 0 0 0.002687 0 0San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2621.122 69186.62 069186.62 13210.510000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043670000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb2686.495 89530.08 39333.03 50197.05 11108.66 0.002822 0 0.117199 0.000367 0 0.001415 0.002 0.001346 0.000399 0 0.001539 0.008 0.003845 118.5678 071.91759 0.000355 0 0.041086 0.000459 0 0.01907 0.001186 0 0.176635 0.025013 0.022284 0.283634 0.001731 0 0.193393 0.025013 0.022284 0.283634 0.018444 0.177113 0 1.37819 0.001172 0 0.000711San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12519.56 410499.8 410499.8 0 186522.8 0.072401 0.030667 0.505801 0.001305 0 0.000184 0.002 0.0273 0.001419 0 0.0002 0.008 0.078 802.6261 113.4583 26.05478 0.003836 0.098555 0.025023 0.004246 0.002719 0.043775 0.018096 0.351746 0.119942 0.027725 0.156123 1.578557 0.026406 0.513267 0.131322 0.027725 0.156123 1.578557 0.044987 0.808003 3.769346 3.38625 0.007935 0.001122 0.000258San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6121.922 212564.8 212564.8 0 77006.08 0.667178 1.348518 0 0.019684 0.026527 0 0.003 0.0273 0.020574 0.027726 0 0.012 0.078 615.5765 122.1868 0 0.005114 0.005098 0 0.0969840.019251 0 0.110092 0.1097600000.125333 0.12495400000.203121 0.261855 0.909745 0 0.005833 0.001158 0San Mateo 2027 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 519.4144 25488.910 25488.91 7271.1820000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1431.729 45337.82 45337.82 0 21330.63 0.077643 0.029036 0.498496 0.001227 0 0.000155 0.002 0.03185 0.001334 0 0.000168 0.008 0.091 905.6598 131.3222 24.61878 0.0029780.092887 0.023985 0.004985 0.002508 0.041598 0.012914 0.333181 0.114904 0.028288 0.158472 1.660759 0.018844 0.486177 0.125806 0.028288 0.158472 1.660759 0.045 0.687204 3.773249 3.317151 0.008953 0.001298 0.000243San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2777.037 94986.53 94986.53 0 34931.64 0.539543 1.299818 0 0.019303 0.02677 0 0.003 0.03185 0.020176 0.02798 0 0.012 0.091 722.452 195.305 0 0.005137 0.005098 0 0.113823 0.03077 0 0.110593 0.1097600000.125902 0.12495400000.208358 0.246416 0.909745 0 0.006846 0.001851 0San Mateo 2027 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 131.984 6178.283 06178.283 1750.7240000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 15361.78 81910.47 81910.47 0 30723.56 0.487065 0 0.103341 0.001915 0 0.003454 0.001 0.0042 0.002051 0 0.003688 0.004 0.012 185.7732 0 42.22847 0.134785 0 0.155421 0.0356890 0.006376 0.837827 0 1.124359 3.543525 3.694561 2.980616 1.026866 0 1.223091 3.543525 3.694561 2.980616 0.009015 10.14745 0 7.620964 0.001837 0 0.000417San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 100853.9 3072334 3072334 0 481493.9 0.040639 0 0.264467 0.000989 0 0.001695 0.002 0.002761 0.001075 0 0.001844 0.008 0.007889 367.608 0 93.19698 0.001858 0 0.065023 0.004199 0 0.031612 0.007009 0 0.302374 0.055687 0.152422 0.944599 0.010227 0 0.331061 0.055687 0.152422 0.944599 0.040108 0.585727 0 2.900745 0.0036340 0.000921San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1306.722 38182.61 38182.61 0 6183.555 0.025409 0 0 0.002915 0 0 0.002 0.002822 0.003047 0 0 0.008 0.008064 374.4434 0 0 0.000339 0 0 0.058994 0 0 0.007306000000.008318000000.0031 0.158269 0 0 0.003548 0 0San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 2770.892 73029.24 0 73029.24 13959.050000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043680000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1580.566 54464.83 23853.74 30611.09 6535.639 0.002814 0 0.117199 0.000387 0 0.001503 0.002 0.001347 0.000421 0 0.001634 0.008 0.003848 118.2012 087.58088 0.000355 0 0.041243 0.000462 0 0.019216 0.001183 0 0.176635 0.027198 0.0246 0.30315 0.001726 0 0.193393 0.027198 0.0246 0.30315 0.0183950.176568 0 1.37819 0.001169 0 0.000866San Mateo 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 889.7275 8482.343 8482.343 0 89.00834 0.205598 0 0.394341 0.001477 0 0.000374 0.003 0.015756 0.001606 0 0.000407 0.012 0.045017 1945.602 0 30.91944 0.007677 0 0.034481 0.016471 0 0.044506 0.029111 0 0.136554 6.497034 0.156813 2.414317 0.042478 00.149509 6.497034 0.156813 2.414317 0.044981 0.592155 0 3.084243 0.019234 0 0.000306San Mateo 2027 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 438.9117 4153.858 4153.8580 43.89117 2.832054 0 0 0.037464 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.039158 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.701 0 0 0.003935 0 0 0.17121 0 0 0.084726000000.096455000000.20065 0.258294 0 0 0.010297 0 0San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 867.5241 48390.56 48390.56 0 17357.42 0.227578 0.078989 0.386341 0.001347 0 0.000485 0.003 0.015756 0.001465 0 0.000528 0.012 0.045017 1680.333 507.7545 42.67241 0.007475 0.271014 0.042102 0.013626 0.007061 0.032711 0.034686 1.021219 0.219918 0.022149 0.184846 1.785685 0.050614 1.490161 0.240782 0.022149 0.184846 1.785685 0.045 0.678531 15.21525 4.76187 0.016612 0.00502 0.000422San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4381.456 177451.1 177451.1 0 52965.25 0.98012 11.57543 1.609464 0.01032 0.018608 0 0.003 0.0159830.010787 0.019449 0 0.012 0.045664 1131.943 2189.732 0 0.001114 0.0101780 0.178338 0.344993 0 0.023977 0.21912700000.027296 0.2494600000.213081 0.098415 7.494036 0 0.010719 0.020735 0San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 127.7802 7032.616 07032.616 1769.6480000000.003 0.007951 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227180000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 51.5504 2296.644 2296.644 0 479.4474 0.107496 6.432876 0 0.001352 0.019879 0 0.003 0.016088 0.001471 0.021621 0 0.012 0.045965 986.2486 5381.374 0 0.780237 16.43266 0 0.201053 1.097028 0 0.011148 0.2347900000.796289 16.7707300001.06 3.061376 38.676940000San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 248.2101 12473.77 12473.77 0 4966.188 0.211311 0.060192 0.357193 0.00109 0 0.00029 0.003 0.01568 0.001186 0 0.000315 0.012 0.044799 1671.441 362.8494 29.18588 0.0064560.203928 0.031666 0.013066 0.005413 0.030606 0.029254 0.747798 0.157480.025953 0.127029 2.17 0.042687 1.091184 0.172421 0.025953 0.127029 2.17 0.044975 0.611503 5.783803 3.243094 0.016524 0.003587 0.000289San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1179.467 75909.96 75909.96 0 11575.44 0.775196 5.241419 1.466802 0.008873 0.002989 0 0.003 0.017435 0.009274 0.003124 0 0.012 0.049814 1200.115 1193.83 0 0.000878 0.014362 0 0.189079 0.188088 0 0.018903 0.30921600000.021519 0.35201900000.218013 0.090292 5.765682 0 0.011364 0.011305 0San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.720233 456.3866 0456.3866 114.45040000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 11.58861 747.5342 747.5342 0 103.1386 0.129807 1.513364 0 0.001349 0.004473 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001467 0.004865 0 0.012 0.046137 963.6185 1186.95 0 0.822922 3.939956 0 0.19644 0.241968 0 0.011758 0.05629400000.839853 4.02101400001.06 3.343572 8.6464820000San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 79.49692 3883.503 3883.503 0 317.9877 0.632481 0.822307 0.600742 0.001079 0 0.000721 0.002 0.015721 0.001174 0 0.000784 0.008 0.044917 769.995 2465.835 57.55214 0.014081 2.448145 0.080367 0.03084 0.078539 0.055535 0.068887 10.63321 0.464416 0.112849 0.357376 1.946706 0.100519 15.51596 0.508477 0.112849 0.357376 1.946706 0.045 1.780147 82.19044 11.21377 0.007612 0.024377 0.000569San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 167.5641 3706.878 3706.878 0 2426.328 3.793477 20.61416 0.5128 0.018391 0.017915 0 0.003 0.0157210.019223 0.018725 0 0.012 0.044917 1128.583 2201.776 0 0.002731 0.0080030 0.177809 0.346891 0 0.058797 0.17229900000.066936 0.19614900000.15435 0.182463 4.828329 0 0.010687 0.02085 0San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 5.310741 202.8314 0202.8314 47.876910000000.002333 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009332 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.053679 172.5017 172.5017 0 102.1373 0.481743 5.219695 0 0.003378 0.012579 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.01368 0 0.012 0.044917 1220.305 4108.986 0 3.202788 14.62449 0 0.248767 0.837644 0 0.045762 0.20895500003.26868 14.9253700001.06 10.54837 23.500510000San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 61.98533 4214.564 4214.564 0 247.9413 0.036041 0 0.380804 0.001186 0 0.000163 0.002072 0.0323320.00129 0 0.000177 0.00829 0.092377 954.3343 0 38.82137 0.001768 0 0.036766 0.004675 0 0.057249 0.004986 0 0.133306 0.032636 0.102703 0.407958 0.007275 0 0.145953 0.032636 0.102703 0.407958 0.045 0.565023 0 6.43097 0.009435 0 0.000384San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 279.2472 21607.25 21607.25 0 1116.989 0.375529 0 0 0.006826 0 0 0.008096 0.0385 0.007135 0 0 0.0323850.11 1223.405 0 0 0.003145 0 0 0.192748 0 0 0.067714000000.077087000000.22 0.077188 0 0 0.011592 0 0San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 38.11938 3934.273 03934.273 152.47750000000.007377 0.01925 0 0 0 0.029507 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2027 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 65.93105 4566.887 4566.887 0 263.7242 0.055445 0 0 0.000272 0 0 0.007744 0.0385 0.000285 0 0 0.030974 0.11 1262.884 0 0 4.101438 0 0 0.257447 0 0 0.058601000004.185818000000.97 46.5221600000397 Source: EMFAC2021 (v1.0.2) Emission RatesRegion Type: CountyRegion: San MateoCalendar Year: 2028Season: AnnualVehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 CategoriesUnits:  miles/day for CVMT and EVMT, trips/day for Trips, g/mile for RUNEX, PMBW and PMTW, g/trip for STREX, HOTSOAK and RUNLOSS, g/vehicle/day for IDLEX and DIURN. PHEV calculated based on total VMT.Region Calendar Y Vehicle CatModel Yea Speed Fuel PopulationTotal VMT CVMT EVMT Trips NOx_RUNENOx_IDLEXNOx_STREXPM2.5_RU PM2.5_IDLPM2.5_STRPM2.5_PMPM2.5_PMPM10_RUNPM10_IDLEPM10_STR PM10_PMTPM10_PMBCO2_RUNECO2_IDLEXCO2_STREXCH4_RUNECH4_IDLEXCH4_STREXN2O_RUNEN2O_IDLEXN2O_STREXROG_RUNEROG_IDLEXROG_STREXROG_HOTSROG_RUNLROG_DIURTOG_RUNETOG_IDLEXTOG_STREXTOG_HOTSTOG_RUNLTOG_DIUR NH3_RUNECO_RUNEXCO_IDLEX CO_STREX SOx_RUNE SOx_IDLEX SOx_STREXSan Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 4.087369 426.9851 426.9851 0 81.78009 3.785923 0 0.000743 0.001359 0 0.000569 0.005 0.031153 0.001478 0 0.000618 0.02 0.089009 2169.605 0 49.72279 0.109696 0 8.65E‐05 0.148497 0 4.84E‐05 0.532974 0 0.000469 0.02665 0.192885 1.828464 0.777714 00.000513 0.02665 0.192885 1.828464 0.045 33.60705 0 4.299787 0.021449 0 0.000492San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1348.7 118863.6 118863.60 15118.87 2.305759 42.54712 3.062001 0.02389 0.027666 0 0.008609 0.030151 0.02497 0.028917 0 0.034435 0.086144 1688.482 7871.283 0 0.001068 0.160574 0 0.266021 1.240124 0 0.022983 3.45711300000.026165 3.9356600000.20529 0.099669 49.19936 0 0.015989 0.074536 0San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 42.61913 3900.691 03900.691 410.63630000000.008472 0.017636 0 0 0 0.033886 0.050390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 HHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 207.2611 13277.54 13277.54 0 1340.296 0.986115 7.372316 0 0.001507 0.012221 0 0.009 0.062091 0.001639 0.013292 0 0.036 0.177403 1416.611 8063.993 0 2.149289 18.9597 0 0.288785 1.643898 0 0.04445 0.29455400002.209162 19.3767100000.701215 13.92351 59.34830000San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 238224 6625096 6625096 01117181 0.027731 0 0.210074 0.000951 0 0.001665 0.002 0.002348 0.001034 00.00181 0.008 0.00671 250.5221 0 63.1731 0.001433 0 0.053849 0.003522 0 0.027728 0.005198 0 0.245617 0.071362 0.19449 1.165638 0.007584 0 0.2689190.071362 0.19449 1.165638 0.038871 0.52715 0 2.594942 0.002477 0 0.000625San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 518.2623 10422.73 10422.73 0 2185.907 0.108554 0 0 0.007604 0 0 0.002 0.002418 0.007948 0 0 0.008 0.00691 221.3861 0 0 0.000725 0 0 0.034879 0 0 0.015608000000.017769000000.0031 0.255789 0 0 0.002098 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 22943.23 778703.3 0 778703.3 112146.20000000.002 0.001532 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043790000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDA Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb9174.453 287067.5 130150.4 156917.1 37936.36 0.002913 0 0.117199 0.000434 0 0.00163 0.002 0.001342 0.000472 0 0.001773 0.008 0.003833 122.3509 0 61.04893 0.000364 0 0.040915 0.00047 0 0.018911 0.001224 0 0.176635 0.039127 0.042399 0.443788 0.001786 0 0.193393 0.039127 0.042399 0.443788 0.018519 0.182732 0 1.37819 0.00121 0 0.000604San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 26871.73 710860.9 710860.9 0 123556 0.061142 0 0.260378 0.001145 0 0.001889 0.002 0.002819 0.001246 0 0.002054 0.008 0.008053 292.8336 0 74.93146 0.002858 0 0.066199 0.005353 0 0.03047 0.012073 0 0.320302 0.098602 0.279171 1.625538 0.017617 0 0.350691 0.098602 0.279171 1.625538 0.039234 0.777188 0 3.333143 0.002895 0 0.000741San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1.279991 17.08643 17.08643 0 3.850863 0.926773 0 0 0.137922 0 0 0.002 0.003128 0.144159 0 0 0.008 0.008938 374.9032 0 0 0.010417 0 0 0.059066 0 0 0.224274000000.255321000000.0031 1.631356 0 0 0.003552 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 215.382 7602.43 0 7602.43 1064.3150000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043720000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb168.7717 5738.6 2397.775 3340.825 697.8708 0.002684 0 0.117199 0.0002740 0.00112 0.002 0.001354 0.000298 0 0.001218 0.008 0.003869 112.7738 0 65.50656 0.000336 0 0.040926 0.000434 0 0.018921 0.001128 0 0.176635 0.0229 0.019715 0.264869 0.001646 0 0.193393 0.0229 0.019715 0.264869 0.017549 0.168483 0 1.37819 0.001115 0 0.000648San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 188791.4 5454076 5454076 0 902311 0.034414 0 0.229703 0.000938 0 0.001582 0.002 0.002749 0.001020 0.001721 0.008 0.007856 299.4341 0 75.41282 0.001635 0 0.056817 0.003851 0 0.029851 0.005886 0 0.25108 0.049035 0.130934 0.815973 0.008588 0 0.274901 0.049035 0.130934 0.815973 0.040367 0.558186 0 2.697318 0.00296 0 0.000746San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 721.4435 20620.51 20620.51 0 3444.651 0.030404 0 0 0.003874 0 0 0.002 0.002761 0.00405 0 0 0.008 0.00789 278.3943 0 0 0.000543 0 0 0.043861 0 0 0.011695000000.013314000000.0031 0.115462 0 0 0.002638 0 0San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3148.148 80104.27 080104.27 15796.570000000.002 0.001529 0 0 0 0.008 0.004370000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb3055.991 97890.29 42500.25 55390.04 12636.52 0.002789 0 0.117199 0.000337 0 0.001324 0.002 0.001349 0.000367 0 0.001439 0.008 0.003854 117.1712 071.20282 0.000348 0 0.040816 0.000448 0 0.01882 0.001172 0 0.176635 0.025087 0.022531 0.285181 0.001711 0 0.193393 0.025087 0.022531 0.285181 0.018229 0.175018 0 1.37819 0.001158 0 0.000704San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 12894.54 409468.1 409468.1 0 192109.4 0.064108 0.029866 0.488744 0.00129 0 0.000174 0.002 0.0273 0.001403 0 0.000189 0.008 0.078 794.8073 112.6645 25.85055 0.003419 0.096188 0.024141 0.003805 0.002663 0.042539 0.0159 0.342597 0.115396 0.026106 0.148763 1.503764 0.023201 0.499917 0.126344 0.026106 0.148763 1.503764 0.045 0.777673 3.770584 3.391678 0.007857 0.001114 0.000256San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 6434.479 215842.1 215842.1 0 80937.65 0.593324 1.283254 0 0.018835 0.026477 0 0.003 0.0273 0.019687 0.027674 0 0.012 0.078 613.5743 121.1087 0 0.004903 0.005098 0 0.0966690.019081 0 0.105551 0.1097600000.120162 0.12495400000.205669 0.24918 0.909745 0 0.005814 0.001148 0San Mateo 2028 LHDT1 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 815.9233 38136.820 38136.82 11425.030000000.002 0.01365 0 0 0 0.008 0.0390000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 1466.531 45093.53 45093.53 0 21849.12 0.067968 0.028072 0.478763 0.001212 0 0.000145 0.002 0.03185 0.001318 0 0.000157 0.008 0.091 896.8671 130.3704 24.43935 0.0026340.090113 0.022894 0.004463 0.002446 0.040267 0.011246 0.322167 0.109059 0.026654 0.152607 1.608504 0.016409 0.470106 0.119406 0.026654 0.152607 1.608504 0.045 0.664739 3.774704 3.316521 0.008866 0.001289 0.000242San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 2946.348 96950.8 96950.8 0 37061.35 0.496841 1.243506 0 0.018964 0.026767 0 0.003 0.03185 0.019821 0.027977 0 0.012 0.091 718.9999 193.8475 0 0.00502 0.005098 0 0.113279 0.030541 0 0.108083 0.1097600000.123045 0.12495400000.209959 0.2419 0.909745 0 0.006813 0.001837 0San Mateo 2028 LHDT2 Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 206.8476 9233.1040 9233.104 2743.6450000000.002 0.015925 0 0 0 0.008 0.04550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MCY Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 16024.84 83191.06 83191.06 0 32049.68 0.480774 0 0.097717 0.001923 0 0.003447 0.001 0.0042 0.00206 0 0.003683 0.004 0.012 185.5578 0 41.2827 0.132675 0 0.151107 0.035446 0 0.006084 0.818771 0 1.08739 3.541021 3.687565 2.884103 1.006867 0 1.183043 3.541021 3.687565 2.884103 0.00904 9.971326 0 7.601536 0.001834 0 0.000408San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 106046.8 3139229 3139229 0 505616.6 0.037084 0 0.252753 0.000922 0 0.001593 0.002 0.002771 0.001003 0 0.001732 0.008 0.007918 361.2163 0 91.37377 0.00172 0 0.061312 0.004005 0 0.03096 0.006353 0 0.281783 0.052632 0.145505 0.901798 0.00927 0 0.308517 0.052632 0.145505 0.901798 0.040421 0.566677 0 2.776662 0.003571 0 0.000903San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1344.624 38138.7 38138.7 06350.78 0.022126 0 0 0.002553 0 0 0.002 0.002828 0.002669 0 0 0.008 0.00808 367.7263 0 0 0.000316 0 0 0.057935 0 0 0.006813000000.007757000000.0031 0.154195 0 0 0.003484 0 0San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 3273.507 83057.65 0 83057.65 16411.370000000.002 0.00153 0 0 0 0.008 0.0043710000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MDV Aggregate Aggregate Plug‐in Hyb1812.403 60147.57 26000.4 34147.16 7494.288 0.002777 0 0.117199 0.000350 0.001388 0.002 0.00135 0.000381 0 0.00151 0.008 0.003858 116.664 0 86.55979 0.000348 0 0.040976 0.00045 0 0.018968 0.001167 0 0.176635 0.027415 0.02651 0.316449 0.001703 0 0.193393 0.027415 0.02651 0.316449 0.018156 0.174266 0 1.37819 0.001153 0 0.000856San Mateo 2028 MH Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 918.1328 8640.917 8640.917 0 91.85001 0.182853 0 0.391887 0.001446 0 0.000365 0.003 0.015756 0.001573 0 0.000397 0.012 0.045017 1945.394 0 30.76138 0.006797 0 0.033875 0.015497 0 0.044709 0.024735 0 0.132426 5.693158 0.137911 2.141844 0.036093 00.14499 5.693158 0.137911 2.141844 0.045 0.473286 0 2.993366 0.019232 0 0.000304San Mateo 2028 MH Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 465.6535 4277.963 4277.9630 46.56535 2.773275 0 0 0.034738 0 0 0.004 0.015675 0.036308 0 0 0.016 0.044785 1086.92 0 0 0.003879 0 0 0.171245 0 0 0.083504000000.095063000000.202893 0.252824 0 0 0.010299 0 0San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 882.2879 48208.29 48208.29 0 17652.82 0.192737 0.075927 0.365526 0.001346 0 0.000477 0.003 0.015756 0.001464 0 0.000519 0.012 0.045017 1665.814 503.224 41.97811 0.00648 0.272074 0.040965 0.012105 0.006866 0.031489 0.029453 1.02262 0.211628 0.020138 0.169219 1.647752 0.042978 1.492204 0.231706 0.020138 0.169219 1.647752 0.045 0.560554 15.23151 4.548122 0.016468 0.004975 0.000415San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 4396.245 176136.6 176136.6 0 53168.12 0.894905 11.00751 1.58431 0.008976 0.015354 0 0.003 0.015983 0.009382 0.016048 0 0.012 0.045665 1125.346 2171.217 0 0.000968 0.009787 0 0.177299 0.342076 0 0.020831 0.21072100000.023715 0.23988900000.214104 0.08991 7.487192 0 0.010656 0.02056 0San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 205.6395 11169.03 011169.03 2839.8270000000.003 0.007952 0 0 0 0.012 0.0227190000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 MHDT Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 54.70168 2394.418 2394.418 0 514.2228 0.103085 6.387434 0 0.001372 0.020029 0 0.003 0.016084 0.001492 0.021784 0 0.012 0.045955 981.6838 5353.703 0 0.780893 16.21102 00.200123 1.091387 0 0.011157 0.23162400000.796958 16.5445400001.06 3.059145 39.048260000San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 244.3586 11852.4 11852.4 0 4889.127 0.189256 0.058492 0.348522 0.001102 0 0.000286 0.003 0.01568 0.001198 0 0.000311 0.012 0.044799 1656.69 360.4769 28.94764 0.005671 0.203559 0.031483 0.012019 0.005247 0.029789 0.024998 0.748329 0.1569440.025167 0.126217 2.177423 0.036477 1.091959 0.171834 0.025167 0.126217 2.177423 0.045 0.520195 5.786979 3.194706 0.016378 0.003564 0.000286San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 1211.393 76199.48 76199.48 0 11894.78 0.759172 5.051633 1.425614 0.008693 0.002895 0 0.003 0.017466 0.009086 0.003026 0 0.012 0.049902 1185.134 1184.015 0 0.000861 0.014413 0 0.186718 0.186542 0 0.018529 0.31031600000.021094 0.35327100000.21809 0.089377 5.786939 0 0.011223 0.011212 0San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8.935831 691.3658 0691.3658 178.78810000000.003 0.00784 0 0 0 0.012 0.0223990000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 OBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 12.72738 821.4822 821.4822 0 113.2737 0.117916 1.507582 0 0.001405 0.004611 0 0.003 0.016148 0.001529 0.005015 0 0.012 0.046137 950.7451 1180.472 0 0.829445 3.868569 00.193816 0.240647 0 0.011851 0.05527400000.846509 3.94815800001.06 3.361144 8.9574340000San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 82.76405 3950.797 3950.797 0 331.0562 0.573197 0.792827 0.582796 0.001058 0 0.000719 0.002 0.015721 0.001151 0 0.000782 0.008 0.044917 764.9791 2451.955 56.61559 0.012554 2.448346 0.078437 0.028355 0.076641 0.054315 0.061351 10.64152 0.452518 0.104317 0.332084 1.837104 0.089523 15.52808 0.495451 0.104317 0.332084 1.837104 0.045 1.593965 82.24088 10.79588 0.007563 0.02424 0.00056San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 166.0168 3662.699 3662.699 0 2403.923 3.486175 19.62238 0.524341 0.017155 0.016119 0 0.003 0.015721 0.01793 0.016848 0 0.012 0.044917 1123.427 2188.308 0 0.002589 0.007973 0 0.176996 0.344769 0 0.055749 0.1716500000.063466 0.19541100000.159444 0.174936 4.978986 0 0.010638 0.020722 0San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 8.410812 315.9164 0315.9164 76.163520000000.002342 0.00786 0 0 0 0.009369 0.0224590000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 SBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 7.283353 176.1298 176.1298 0 105.463 0.467367 5.211463 0 0.003378 0.012775 0 0.003 0.015721 0.003674 0.013894 0 0.012 0.044917 1213.033 4114.256 0 3.163125 14.52286 0 0.247285 0.838718 0 0.045195 0.20750300003.228201 14.8216400001.06 10.36172 23.943230000San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Gasoline 62.16369 4226.45 4226.45 0 248.6548 0.033873 0 0.3307 0.001202 0 0.000164 0.002072 0.032331 0.001307 0 0.000179 0.00829 0.092375 932.6347 0 38.1862 0.001598 0 0.032638 0.004398 0 0.051649 0.004432 0 0.116715 0.023934 0.090544 0.316913 0.006466 0 0.127788 0.023934 0.090544 0.316913 0.045 0.558751 0 6.359155 0.009220 0.000378San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Diesel 260.7992 19902.79 19902.79 0 1043.197 0.374953 0 0 0.006816 0 0 0.008085 0.0385 0.007124 0 0 0.0323420.11 1245.48 0 0 0.003141 0 0 0.196226 0 0 0.067634000000.076996000000.22 0.077071 0 0 0.011802 0 0San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Electricity 53.31881 5326.696 05326.696 213.27520000000.007594 0.01925 0 0 0 0.030377 0.0550000000000000000000000000000San Mateo 2028 UBUS Aggregate Aggregate Natural Ga 70.30426 4967.469 4967.469 0 281.217 0.055732 0 0 0.000273 0 0 0.007781 0.0385 0.000286 0 0 0.031125 0.11 1265.998 0 0 4.113837 0 0 0.258082 0 0 0.058779000004.198472000000.97 46.738700000398 Year 2022Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.005843 0.003613 0.014892 0.260799534 0.008159 0 0 0.08628 0ACH4_RUNEX0.002319 0.006287 0.002602 0.003201 0.007384 0.006718 0.012528 0.279686949 0.008252 0.161010459 0.159449 0.085895 0.013708ACH4_STREX0.071825 0.108853 0.080541 0.095514 0.024032 0.014498 0.011865 6.77534E‐07 0.01134 0.007774918 0.191389 0.007998 0.027902ACO_IDLEX00000.205796 0.152528 0.654892 4.440944093 0.463936 0 0 2.073163 0ACO_RUNEX0.663688 1.363815 0.738237 0.80289 0.87107 0.575388 0.595575 1.692340791 0.306637 2.059527265 12.33015 1.812081 1.518033ACO_STREX3.345366 5.605019 3.681168 3.95481 2.432982 1.458578 1.477853 0.034745524 1.180982 0.826814725 7.963377 1.184587 2.749322ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00008.646179 13.35354 157.1739 817.5579223 92.23189 0 0 206.7122 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX259.6914 330.0495 340.6104 409.1994 802.8379 845.4343 1289.87 1847.097548 1344.381 1395.583774 188.692 1021.106 1675.54ACO2_NBIO_STREX67.47888 87.63773 87.09938 104.0838 20.18243 11.54073 11.00803 0.314163972 10.26522 5.758558013 50.07102 5.489121 23.04082ANOX_IDLEX00000.04149 0.082396 1.013523 4.433588742 0.427804 0 0 1.577129 0ANOX_RUNEX0.04387 0.134644 0.061774 0.080621 0.556519 0.729856 1.587068 3.256305124 0.937984 2.453214755 0.563376 3.319508 1.392781ANOX_STREX0.254825 0.393724 0.320782 0.395298 0.465797 0.284748 1.203563 2.389547531 1.064922 0.082629307 0.148145 0.436452 0.288521APM10_IDLEX00000.000583 0.001242 0.003193 0.00382705 0.000258 0 0 0.001868 0APM10_PMBW0.006473 0.008092 0.007714 0.007763 0.078 0.091 0.045537 0.095966343 0.048875 0.108503795 0.012 0.045856 0.044944APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009205 0.010503 0.012 0.034489957 0.012 0.029362212 0.004 0.010401 0.013263APM10_RUNEX0.001284 0.001981 0.001387 0.001452 0.011044 0.017883 0.019459 0.025838358 0.009244 0.006841902 0.002007 0.015063 0.022185APM10_STREX0.002148 0.003033 0.002192 0.002343 0.000226 0.000124 0.000144 5.80933E‐06 0.000103 1.53331E‐05 0.00407 7.3E‐05 0.000366APM25_IDLEX00000.000558 0.001188 0.003055 0.0036571 0.000247 0 0 0.001786 0APM25_PMBW0.002266 0.002832 0.0027 0.002717 0.0273 0.03185 0.015938 0.03358822 0.017106 0.037976328 0.0042 0.01605 0.01573APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002301 0.002626 0.003 0.008622489 0.003 0.007340553 0.001 0.0026 0.003316APM25_RUNEX0.001182 0.001823 0.001276 0.001338 0.010525 0.017087 0.018606 0.024714035 0.008837 0.006541322 0.00188 0.014384 0.021174APM25_STREX0.001975 0.002789 0.002016 0.002154 0.000208 0.000114 0.000133 5.34147E‐06 9.43E‐05 1.40982E‐05 0.003836 6.72E‐05 0.000336AROG_DIURN0.26835 0.541709 0.221107 0.258579 0.106699 0.067526 0.033927 0.000990911 0.031466 0.020632524 3.591267 0.04821 30.99292AROG_HTSK0.083501 0.156968 0.067318 0.076201 0.029577 0.018923 0.008815 0.000277007 0.008914 0.008235262 3.559039 0.013387 9.081418AROG_IDLEX00000.023151 0.017296 0.030931 0.292803386 0.033214 0 0 0.240147 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.009286 0.028352 0.010231 0.013474 0.073796 0.101087 0.067756 0.047888834 0.033424 0.1357341 1.054922 0.095821 0.086389AROG_RUNLS0.211767 0.454429 0.169917 0.203112 0.157593 0.099695 0.072571 0.00228653 0.037539 0.013372663 3.722371 0.038841 0.212214AROG_STREX0.341077 0.56784 0.37384 0.477508 0.117993 0.071836 0.06656 3.67766E‐06 0.056012 0.030119815 1.43267 0.046513 0.121931ASO2_IDLEX00008.44E‐05 0.000128 0.00146 0.006976097 0.000867 0 0 0.001897 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002567 0.003263 0.003367 0.004043 0.007858 0.008163 0.012283 0.016379507 0.012786 0.012831163 0.001865 0.009573 0.016424ASO2_STREX0.000667 0.000866 0.000861 0.001029 0.0002 0.000114 0.000109 3.10583E‐06 0.000101 5.69292E‐05 0.000495 5.43E‐05 0.000228ATOG_DIURN0.26835 0.541709 0.221107 0.258579 0.106699 0.067526 0.033927 0.000990911 0.031466 0.020632524 0.079785 0.04821 30.99292ATOG_HTSK0.083501 0.156968 0.067318 0.076201 0.029577 0.018923 0.008815 0.000277007 0.008914 0.008235262 3.559039 0.013387 9.081418ATOG_IDLEX00000.033059 0.023687 0.050034 0.581792813 0.045587 0 0 0.379854 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.013526 0.041328 0.014909 0.019588 0.092109 0.11899 0.089867 0.333972521 0.046122 0.310020775 1.259821 0.199994 0.11607ATOG_RUNLS0.211767 0.454429 0.169917 0.203112 0.157593 0.099695 0.072571 0.00228653 0.037539 0.013372663 3.722371 0.038841 0.212214ATOG_STREX0.373434 0.621711 0.409307 0.522807 0.129188 0.078652 0.072875 4.02657E‐06 0.061326 0.032977406 1.557156 0.050926 0.133499A N2O_IDLEX00000.000579 0.001539 0.02402 0.13255086 0.013678 0 0 0.025995 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.004517 0.009516 0.005537 0.007168 0.036138 0.078716 0.152285 0.295493031 0.166825 0.202933551 0.038859 0.124283 0.072767A N2O_STREX 0.031132 0.03862 0.036088 0.038726 0.038447 0.022541 0.007862 7.71952E‐07 0.010804 0.010808291 0.008671 0.004857 0.029453CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input399 Year 2022FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHResearch & Development0.49511 0.045708 0.246625 0.140491 0.026659 0.005444 0.009345 0.0027140.002438 0.000828 0.022216 0.000437 0.001985CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input400 Year 2028Season EmissionType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHACH4_IDLEX00000.004475 0.002498 0.015771 0.244589156 0.006819 0 0 0.106197 0ACH4_RUNEX0.001247 0.002808 0.001586 0.001636 0.003705 0.004003 0.009889 0.210385046 0.00909 0.595659616 0.132675 0.076022 0.005831ACH4_STREX0.048613 0.065494 0.05543 0.058423 0.016303 0.008491 0.009749 4.17389E‐07 0.009014 0.004543104 0.151107 0.008903 0.022479ACO_IDLEX00000.19149 0.139468 0.653726 4.640025913 0.500022 0 0 2.676938 0ACO_RUNEX0.460643 0.764226 0.542025 0.540657 0.561033 0.353178 0.210941 1.546629378 0.175707 6.857789564 9.971326 1.081134 0.400282ACO_STREX2.324869 3.293847 2.623919 2.63916 2.290464 1.230054 1.082402 0.020743608 0.914696 0.885179045 7.601536 1.225412 1.986345ACO2_NBIO_IDLEX00007.846213 12.94056 138.6188 724.8498733 90.034 0 0 204.4141 0ACO2_NBIO_RUNEX220.3739 288.3348 291.9577 347.8262 690.1582 728.1358 1180.586 1615.273795 1236.239 1017.304249 185.5578 906.8736 1661.119ACO2_NBIO_STREX57.41998 74.24031 73.80262 87.42518 17.45737 9.064233 9.99032 0.239879315 8.288181 5.315426302 41.2827 6.426288 20.41271ANOX_IDLEX00000.03038 0.062892 0.658013 3.475268353 0.360331 0 0 1.152442 0ANOX_RUNEX0.024111 0.060057 0.033364 0.035363 0.232595 0.338676 0.70264 2.116091531 0.672011 0.228990266 0.480774 1.864861 1.040647ANOX_STREX0.188378 0.257362 0.22345 0.240121 0.330058 0.177567 1.222614 2.730957724 1.092842 0.04603264 0.097717 0.498324 0.260049APM10_IDLEX00000.000626 0.001399 0.000967 0.002463221 0.000218 0 0 0.000994 0APM10_PMBW0.006367 0.007981 0.007737 0.007757 0.075758 0.088223 0.044459 0.094010231 0.048979 0.14979202 0.012 0.044042 0.044941APM10_PMTW0.008 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009301 0.010564 0.012 0.03452676 0.012 0.056781734 0.004 0.009948 0.013325APM10_RUNEX0.000918 0.001228 0.001005 0.000986 0.007271 0.013096 0.007258 0.021912582 0.007902 0.004320657 0.00206 0.008743 0.013075APM10_STREX0.001646 0.002032 0.001681 0.001656 0.000128 5.84E‐05 0.000123 2.98369E‐06 8.89E‐05 2.48804E‐05 0.003683 8.88E‐05 0.000264APM25_IDLEX00000.000599 0.001339 0.000925 0.002350605 0.000209 0 0 0.000949 0APM25_PMBW0.002228 0.002793 0.002708 0.002715 0.026515 0.030878 0.015561 0.032903581 0.017143 0.052427207 0.0042 0.015415 0.015729APM25_PMTW0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002325 0.002641 0.003 0.00863169 0.003 0.014195433 0.001 0.002487 0.003331APM25_RUNEX0.000844 0.00113 0.000925 0.000907 0.006924 0.012515 0.006932 0.020958537 0.007554 0.004127766 0.001923 0.008341 0.012471APM25_STREX0.001514 0.001869 0.001546 0.001522 0.000117 5.37E‐05 0.000113 2.7434E‐06 8.18E‐05 2.28766E‐05 0.003447 8.17E‐05 0.000242AROG_DIURN0.22195 0.348907 0.165834 0.179532 0.068163 0.040042 0.019599 0.00044088 0.031159 0.011028389 2.884103 0.052131 14.20722AROG_HTSK0.063971 0.09734 0.047701 0.050044 0.01763 0.009886 0.004793 0.000128569 0.007206 0.003331603 3.541021 0.011841 3.77788AROG_IDLEX00000.018012 0.01351 0.024824 0.27865587 0.032764 0 0 0.312261 0AROG_RESTL0000000 00 0000AROG_RUNEX0.004538 0.011865 0.005742 0.006105 0.044152 0.07262 0.021503 0.026010681 0.019181 0.048130302 0.818771 0.056077 0.044196AROG_RUNLS0.172428 0.275347 0.126771 0.13766 0.100462 0.0566 0.040272 0.000930540.036138 0.012603449 3.687565 0.037694 0.091515AROG_STREX0.221434 0.316772 0.244902 0.268343 0.077929 0.040449 0.050365 2.26167E‐06 0.044936 0.016246414 1.08739 0.051364 0.087876ASO2_IDLEX00007.64E‐05 0.000124 0.001278 0.005930253 0.000846 0 0 0.001867 0ASO2_RUNEX0.002178 0.00285 0.002886 0.003437 0.006741 0.007009 0.011227 0.013993365 0.011715 0.007955402 0.001834 0.008493 0.016274ASO2_STREX0.000568 0.000734 0.00073 0.000864 0.000173 8.96E‐05 9.88E‐05 2.37145E‐06 8.19E‐05 5.25484E‐05 0.000408 6.35E‐05 0.000202ATOG_DIURN0.22195 0.348907 0.165834 0.179532 0.068163 0.040042 0.019599 0.00044088 0.031159 0.011028389 0.070259 0.052131 14.20722ATOG_HTSK0.063971 0.09734 0.047701 0.050044 0.01763 0.009886 0.004793 0.000128569 0.007206 0.003331603 3.541021 0.011841 3.77788ATOG_IDLEX00000.025487 0.017952 0.044168 0.550040886 0.04363 0 0 0.488774 0ATOG_RESTL0000000 00 0000ATOG_RUNEX0.006615 0.017312 0.008365 0.008883 0.053412 0.083749 0.034287 0.240160079 0.030537 0.651171439 1.006867 0.142462 0.055621ATOG_RUNLS0.172428 0.275347 0.126771 0.13766 0.100462 0.0566 0.040272 0.000930540.036138 0.012603449 3.687565 0.037694 0.091515ATOG_STREX0.242442 0.346826 0.268137 0.293802 0.085322 0.044286 0.055143 2.47624E‐06 0.049199 0.017787779 1.183043 0.056237 0.096213A N2O_IDLEX00000.000552 0.001588 0.021161 0.118765975 0.013488 0 0 0.023894 0A N2O_RUNEX 0.003094 0.005259 0.003883 0.00446 0.033798 0.073929 0.135731 0.260264408 0.162224 0.151235705 0.035446 0.099175 0.067071A N2O_STREX 0.024967 0.030146 0.029087 0.029477 0.028727 0.014935 0.007494 2.33716E‐07 0.008529 0.007189405 0.006084 0.006165 0.029668CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Emission Factors Input401 Year 2028FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHEnclosed Parking with Elevator0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.00842 0.0024360.002246 0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104Research & Development0.411757 0.041436 0.297526 0.170986 0.030624 0.007023 0.00842 0.0024360.002246 0.000679 0.024361 0.000402 0.002104CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input402 Attachment 4: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk Calculations 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated Emiss ions per Construction DPM Source No. DPM Emissions Point Source Year Activity (ton/year) Type Sources (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s) 2023 Construction 0.0620 Point 467 123.9 0.03994 5.03E-03 1.08E-05 2024 Construction 0.1853 Point 467 370.5 0.11943 1.50E-02 3.22E-05 2025 Construction 0.0279 Point 467 55.9 0.01800 2.27E-03 4.86E-06 2026 Construction 0.0554 Point 467 110.9 0.03574 4.50E-03 9.64E-06 2027 Construction 0.0179 Point 467 35.7 0.01151 1.45E-03 3.11E-06 Total 0.3484 696.9 0.2246 0.0283 Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over each construction areas hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated PM2.5 Modeled Emission Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2) g/s/m 2 2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0107 21.4 0.00691 8.70E-04 23,245 3.74E-08 2024 Construction CON_FUG 0.4048 809.7 0.26097 3.29E-02 23,245 1.41E-06 2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08 2026 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08 2027 Construction CON_FUG 0.0017 3.4 0.00108 1.36E-04 23,245 5.87E-09 Total 0.4316 863.3 0.2783 0.0351 Construction Hours hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 403 DPM Construction Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - With M itigation Emiss ions per Construction DPM Source No. DPM Emissions Point Source Year Activity (ton/year) Type Sources (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (g/s) 2023 Construction 0.0094 Point 467 18.7 0.00604 7.61E-04 1.63E-06 2024 Construction 0.0328 Point 467 65.5 0.02112 2.66E-03 5.70E-06 2025 Construction 0.0241 Point 467 48.3 0.01555 1.96E-03 4.20E-06 2026 Construction 0.0298 Point 467 59.7 0.01923 2.42E-03 5.19E-06 2027 Construction 0.0065 Point 467 12.9 0.00416 5.24E-04 1.12E-06 Total 0.1026 205.1 0.0661 0.0083 Emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over each construction areas hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Construction Emissions for Modeling - With Mitigation PM2.5 Modeled Emission Construction Area PM2.5 Emissions Area Rate Year Activity Source (ton/year) (lb/yr) (lb/hr) (g/s) (m2) g/s/m 2 2023 Construction CON_FUG 0.0065 13.0 0.00418 5.27E-04 23,245 2.27E-08 2024 Construction CON_FUG 0.1861 372.3 0.11999 1.51E-02 23,245 6.50E-07 2025 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08 2026 Construction CON_FUG 0.0072 14.4 0.00465 5.86E-04 23,245 2.52E-08 2027 Construction CON_FUG 0.0017 3.4 0.00108 1.36E-04 23,245 5.87E-09 Total 0.2087 417.4 0.1345 0.0170 Construction Hours hr/day = 8.5 (7am - 3:30pm) days/yr = 365 hours/year = 3102.5 404 800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Construction Health Impact Summary Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Without Mitigation Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 Index Concentration Year (μg/m 3 )(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m 3) 2023 0.0048 0.0010 2.63 0.00 0.01 2024 0.0145 0.0370 7.84 0.00 0.05 2025 0.0022 0.0007 0.15 0.00 0.00 2026 0.0043 0.0007 0.31 0.00 0.00 2027 0.0014 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.00 Total --11.03 - Maximum 0.0145 0.0370 - 0.00 0.05 Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 Index Concentration Year (μg/m 3 )(μg/m3) Infant/Child (-) (μg/m 3) 2023 0.0007 0.0006 0.40 0.00 0.00 2024 0.0026 0.0170 1.39 0.00 0.02 2025 0.0019 0.0007 0.13 0.00 0.00 2026 0.0023 0.0007 0.16 0.00 0.00 2027 0.0005 0.0002 0.04 0.00 0.00 Total --2.12 -- Maximum 0.0026 0.0170 - 0.00 0.02 - Electrified dewatering pumps, lifts, compressors, cranes, welders, forklifts, and hoists also included as Mitigation Measures - Tier 4 interim engines, and BMPs as Mitigation Measures. Cancer Risk (per million) Cancer Risk (per million) 405 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3 ) SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source op eration and exposures different than 8 hours/day = (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs) SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation SDay = Number of days per week of source operation SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation 8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant Child Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16 Parameter ASF = 10 3 DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 8-Hr BR* = 1200 520 SCHR = 9 9 SHR = 9 9 SDay = 5 5 A = 1 1 EF = 250 250 AT = 70 70 SCAF = 4.20 4.20 * 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Preschool Impact Receptor Location Child - Exposure Information Child Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0048 10 2.63 0.0010 0.001 0.01 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0145 10 7.84 0.0029 0.037 0.05 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0022 3 0.15 0.0004 0.001 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0043 3 0.31 0.0009 0.001 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0014 3 0.10 0.0003 0.000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 11.03 * Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions 406 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - With Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3 ) SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source op eration and exposures different than 8 hours/day = (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs) SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation SDay = Number of days per week of source operation SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation 8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant Child Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16 Parameter ASF = 10 3 DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 8-Hr BR* = 1200 520 SCHR = 9 9 SHR = 9 9 SDay = 5 5 A = 1 1 EF = 250 250 AT = 70 70 SCAF = 4.20 4.20 * 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Preschool Impact Receptor Location Child - Exposure Information Child Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0007 10 0.40 0.0001 0.001 0.00 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0026 10 1.39 0.0005 0.017 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0019 3 0.13 0.0004 0.001 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0023 3 0.16 0.0005 0.001 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0005 3 0.04 0.0001 0.000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 2.12 * Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions 407 Attachment 5: Community Risk Modeling Information and Calculations 800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Standby Emergency Generator Impacts Off‐site Sensitive Receptors MEI Location = 1 meter receptor height DPM Emissions per Generator  Max Daily  Annual  Source Type  (lb/day)  (lb/year) (3) 2,800kw, (2) 1,000kw, (1) 600kw  Generator 0.088 32.20 CalEEMod DPM Emissions  1.61E‐02 tons/year  Model  AERMOD Source  Diesel Generator Engine  Source Type  Point Meteorological Data  2013 ‐ 2017 San Francisco International Meteorological Data Generator Engine Size (hp) 3753, 1341, & 804 Stack Height (ft) 10.00 Stack Diameter (ft)** 0.60 Exhaust Gas Flowrate (CFM)* 2527.73 Stack Exit Velocity (ft/sec)** 149.00 Exhaust Temperature (˚F)**  872.00 Emissions Rate (lb/hr) 0.003676 * AERMOD default  **BAAQMD default generator parameters  DPM Emission Rates Modeling Information  Point Source Stack Parameters  408 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Cancer Risks from Project Operation Project Emergency Generators Impacts at Off-Site Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1m MEI Receptor Heights Impact at Project MEI (5-year Exposure) Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) SAF = Student Adjustment Factor (unitless) = (24 hrs/9 hrs) x (7 days/5 days) = 3.73 8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 DBR* = 361 1200 520 240 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 250 250 250 250 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 3.73 1.00 * 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child Exposure Age Cancer Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 2028 0.0012 3 0.08 2 1 1 - 2 2029 0.0012 3 0.08 3 1 2 - 3 2030 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024 4 1 3 - 4 2031 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024 5 1 4 - 5 2032 0.0012 3 0.08 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.38 Max 0.00024 0.0012 0.0024 409 Evaporative Cooling Tower PM Emissions Total Water Flow Rate (gpm) 750 Cooling Tower Circulating Water TDS (ppm)* 96 Mist Eliminator Efficiency (%) 0.001 Total Cooling Tower Drift (gpm) 0.01 Particulate Matter Emissions PM PM10 PM2.5 Fraction of PM**1.00 0.70 0.42 Hourly (lb/hr) 3.60E-04 2.52E-04 1.51E-04 Daily (lb/day) 0.01 0.01 0.00 Annual lb/yr) 3.16 2.21 1.33 Annual (ton/yr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 * Maximum TDS value based on 2021 South San Francisco Water Qua lity Report ** South Coast AQMD, Final-Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM2.5 Significance Thresholds, Appendix A. 410 800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA - Project Cooling Tower - PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations - Project Cooling Tower at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA MEI Receptor (1 m rece ptor height) Emis s ion Year 2028 Receptor Information Childcare MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1 meter Receptor Distances At Childcare MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAQMD San Francisco International Airp2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years 2013-2017 PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3) Preschool MEI 0.00075 411 412 413 414 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Highway 101 DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day DPM_NB_101 Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 67.7 3.4 68 94,760 DPM_SB_101 Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 67.7 3.4 63 94,760 Total 189,520 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00054 0.000544 0.000486 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_101 Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.26% 1196 8.51E-05 9 6.16% 5840 4.16E-04 17 6.02% 5704 4.06E-04 2 0.78% 736 5.24E-05 10 5.95% 5641 4.02E-04 18 6.33% 6001 4.27E-04 3 0.60% 571 4.06E-05 11 5.73% 5430 3.86E-04 19 5.61% 5319 3.79E-04 4 0.65% 620 4.41E-05 12 5.85% 5548 3.95E-04 20 4.51% 4269 3.04E-04 5 1.29% 1219 8.67E-05 13 6.07% 5749 4.09E-04 21 3.87% 3669 2.61E-04 6 3.08% 2922 2.08E-04 14 5.84% 5532 3.94E-04 22 3.48% 3297 2.35E-04 7 4.76% 4512 3.21E-04 15 5.96% 5644 4.02E-04 23 2.69% 2552 1.82E-04 8 5.70% 5403 3.85E-04 16 5.98% 5666 4.03E-04 24 1.82% 1722 1.23E-04 Total 94,760 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_101 Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 1062 7.56E-05 9 5.45% 5167 3.68E-04 17 6.96% 6599 4.20E-04 2 0.69% 653 4.65E-05 10 5.52% 5229 3.32E-04 18 6.86% 6502 4.13E-04 3 0.62% 584 4.15E-05 11 5.57% 5275 3.35E-04 19 5.66% 5367 3.41E-04 4 0.80% 761 5.41E-05 12 5.89% 5580 3.55E-04 20 4.46% 4228 3.01E-04 5 1.49% 1416 1.01E-04 13 5.97% 5656 3.60E-04 21 3.71% 3513 2.50E-04 6 2.76% 2611 1.86E-04 14 6.13% 5807 3.69E-04 22 3.30% 3129 2.23E-04 7 3.87% 3663 2.61E-04 15 6.76% 6404 4.07E-04 23 2.68% 2536 1.80E-04 8 5.11% 4845 3.45E-04 16 6.83% 6474 4.12E-04 24 1.79% 1700 1.21E-04 Total 94,760 415 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Highway 101 PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Leng th (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_NB_101 Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760 PM2.5_SB_101 Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760 Total 189,520 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001734 0.00163 0.001434 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_101 Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.26% 1196 2.71E-04 9 6.16% 5840 1.24E-03 17 6.02% 5704 1.22E-03 2 0.78% 736 1.67E-04 10 5.95% 5641 1.20E-03 18 6.33% 6001 1.28E-03 3 0.60% 571 1.29E-04 11 5.73% 5430 1.16E-03 19 5.61% 5319 1.21E-03 4 0.65% 620 1.41E-04 12 5.85% 5548 1.18E-03 20 4.51% 4269 9.69E-04 5 1.29% 1219 2.76E-04 13 6.07% 5749 1.23E-03 21 3.87% 3669 8.32E-04 6 3.08% 2922 6.63E-04 14 5.84% 5532 1.18E-03 22 3.48% 3297 7.48E-04 7 4.76% 4512 1.02E-03 15 5.96% 5644 1.20E-03 23 2.69% 2552 5.79E-04 8 5.70% 5403 1.15E-03 16 5.98% 5666 1.21E-03 24 1.82% 1722 3.91E-04 Total 94,760 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_101 Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 1062 2.26E-04 9 5.45% 5167 1.10E-03 17 6.96% 6599 1.24E-03 2 0.69% 653 1.39E-04 10 5.52% 5229 9.81E-04 18 6.86% 6502 1.22E-03 3 0.62% 584 1.24E-04 11 5.57% 5275 9.90E-04 19 5.66% 5367 1.01E-03 4 0.80% 761 1.62E-04 12 5.89% 5580 1.05E-03 20 4.46% 4228 9.01E-04 5 1.49% 1416 3.02E-04 13 5.97% 5656 1.06E-03 21 3.71% 3513 7.49E-04 6 2.76% 2611 5.56E-04 14 6.13% 5807 1.09E-03 22 3.30% 3129 6.67E-04 7 3.87% 3663 7.81E-04 15 6.76% 6404 1.20E-03 23 2.68% 2536 5.40E-04 8 5.11% 4845 1.03E-03 16 6.83% 6474 1.21E-03 24 1.79% 1700 3.62E-04 Total 94,760 416 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Highway 101 TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEXH_NB_AIR Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760 TEXH_SB_AIR Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760 Total 189,520 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03830 0.03537 0.03132 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.26% 1196 5.99E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.70E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.64E-02 2 0.78% 736 3.69E-03 10 5.95% 5641 2.61E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.78E-02 3 0.60% 571 2.86E-03 11 5.73% 5430 2.51E-02 19 5.61% 5319 2.67E-02 4 0.65% 620 3.11E-03 12 5.85% 5548 2.57E-02 20 4.51% 4269 2.14E-02 5 1.29% 1219 6.11E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.66E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.84E-02 6 3.08% 2922 1.46E-02 14 5.84% 5532 2.56E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.65E-02 7 4.76% 4512 2.26E-02 15 5.96% 5644 2.61E-02 23 2.69% 2552 1.28E-02 8 5.70% 5403 2.50E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.62E-02 24 1.82% 1722 8.63E-03 Total 94,760 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.26% 1196 5.53E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.70E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.34E-02 2 0.78% 736 3.40E-03 10 5.95% 5641 2.31E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.46E-02 3 0.60% 571 2.64E-03 11 5.73% 5430 2.22E-02 19 5.61% 5319 2.18E-02 4 0.65% 620 2.87E-03 12 5.85% 5548 2.27E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.98E-02 5 1.29% 1219 5.64E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.36E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.70E-02 6 3.08% 2922 1.35E-02 14 5.84% 5532 2.27E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.53E-02 7 4.76% 4512 2.09E-02 15 5.96% 5644 2.31E-02 23 2.69% 2552 1.18E-02 8 5.70% 5403 2.50E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.32E-02 24 1.82% 1722 7.97E-03 Total 94,760 417 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Highway 101 TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEVAP_NB_AIR Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.70833394,760 TEVAP_SB_AIR Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.91666794,760 Total 189,520 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.22842 1.22842 1.22842 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.01755 0.01890 0.02047 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.26% 1196 2.75E-03 9 6.16% 5840 1.44E-02 17 6.02% 5704 1.41E-02 2 0.78% 736 1.69E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.39E-02 18 6.33% 6001 1.48E-02 3 0.60% 571 1.31E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.34E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.22E-02 4 0.65% 620 1.42E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.37E-02 20 4.51% 4269 9.80E-03 5 1.29% 1219 2.80E-03 13 6.07% 5749 1.42E-02 21 3.87% 3669 8.42E-03 6 3.08% 2922 6.71E-03 14 5.84% 5532 1.37E-02 22 3.48% 3297 7.57E-03 7 4.76% 4512 1.04E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.40E-02 23 2.69% 2552 5.86E-03 8 5.70% 5403 1.34E-02 16 5.98% 5666 1.40E-02 24 1.82% 1722 3.95E-03 Total 94,760 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.26% 1196 2.96E-03 9 6.16% 5840 1.44E-02 17 6.02% 5704 1.53E-02 2 0.78% 736 1.82E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.51E-02 18 6.33% 6001 1.61E-02 3 0.60% 571 1.41E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.45E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.42E-02 4 0.65% 620 1.53E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.49E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.06E-02 5 1.29% 1219 3.01E-03 13 6.07% 5749 1.54E-02 21 3.87% 3669 9.07E-03 6 3.08% 2922 7.22E-03 14 5.84% 5532 1.48E-02 22 3.48% 3297 8.15E-03 7 4.76% 4512 1.12E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.51E-02 23 2.69% 2552 6.31E-03 8 5.70% 5403 1.34E-02 16 5.98% 5666 1.52E-02 24 1.82% 1722 4.26E-03 Total 94,760 418 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Highway 101 Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_AIR Highway 101 Northbound NB 4 758.0 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 67.708333 94,760 FUG_SB_AIR Highway 101 Southbound SB 4 757.9 0.47 20.6 68 1.3 62.916667 94,760 Total 189,520 Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 70 65 60 Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00206 0.00206 0.00206 Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01720 0.01720 0.01720 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00769 0.00769 0.00769 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.02694 0.02694 0.02694 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.26% 1196 4.22E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.06E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.01E-02 2 0.78% 736 2.59E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.99E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.11E-02 3 0.60% 571 2.01E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.91E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.87E-02 4 0.65% 620 2.19E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.96E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.50E-02 5 1.29% 1219 4.29E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.03E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.29E-02 6 3.08% 2922 1.03E-02 14 5.84% 5532 1.95E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.16E-02 7 4.76% 4512 1.59E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.99E-02 23 2.69% 2552 8.99E-03 8 5.70% 5403 1.90E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.00E-02 24 1.82% 1722 6.07E-03 Total 94,760 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.26% 1196 4.22E-03 9 6.16% 5840 2.06E-02 17 6.02% 5704 2.01E-02 2 0.78% 736 2.59E-03 10 5.95% 5641 1.99E-02 18 6.33% 6001 2.11E-02 3 0.60% 571 2.01E-03 11 5.73% 5430 1.91E-02 19 5.61% 5319 1.87E-02 4 0.65% 620 2.18E-03 12 5.85% 5548 1.95E-02 20 4.51% 4269 1.50E-02 5 1.29% 1219 4.29E-03 13 6.07% 5749 2.03E-02 21 3.87% 3669 1.29E-02 6 3.08% 2922 1.03E-02 14 5.84% 5532 1.95E-02 22 3.48% 3297 1.16E-02 7 4.76% 4512 1.59E-02 15 5.96% 5644 1.99E-02 23 2.69% 2552 8.99E-03 8 5.70% 5403 1.90E-02 16 5.98% 5666 2.00E-02 24 1.82% 1722 6.07E-03 Total 94,760 419 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day DPM_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 11,196 DPM_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 11,196 Total 22,392 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00025 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 3.81% 427 1.42E-05 9 6.66% 746 2.47E-05 17 6.50% 728 2.41E-05 2 3.15% 353 1.17E-05 10 8.16% 913 3.03E-05 18 3.85% 431 1.43E-05 3 2.32% 260 8.62E-06 11 6.33% 709 2.35E-05 19 2.35% 263 8.74E-06 4 1.00% 111 3.69E-06 12 7.66% 858 2.84E-05 20 1.19% 133 4.43E-06 5 1.00% 111 3.69E-06 13 6.83% 765 2.54E-05 21 3.02% 338 1.12E-05 6 2.16% 241 8.00E-06 14 6.66% 746 2.47E-05 22 5.01% 560 1.86E-05 7 4.67% 523 1.74E-05 15 6.00% 672 2.23E-05 23 3.32% 371 1.23E-05 8 3.35% 375 1.24E-05 16 4.34% 486 1.61E-05 24 0.66% 74 2.46E-06 Total 11,196 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 3.81% 427 1.42E-05 9 6.66% 746 2.48E-05 17 6.50% 728 2.41E-05 2 3.15% 353 1.17E-05 10 8.16% 913 3.03E-05 18 3.85% 431 1.43E-05 3 2.32% 260 8.62E-06 11 6.33% 709 2.35E-05 19 2.35% 263 8.74E-06 4 1.00% 111 3.70E-06 12 7.66% 858 2.84E-05 20 1.19% 133 4.43E-06 5 1.00% 111 3.70E-06 13 6.83% 765 2.54E-05 21 3.02% 338 1.12E-05 6 2.16% 241 8.01E-06 14 6.66% 746 2.48E-05 22 5.01% 560 1.86E-05 7 4.67% 523 1.74E-05 15 6.00% 672 2.23E-05 23 3.32% 371 1.23E-05 8 3.35% 375 1.24E-05 16 4.34% 486 1.61E-05 24 0.66% 74 2.46E-06 Total 11,196 420 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Leng th (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 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 PM2.5_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 Total 22,392 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001407 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 125 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 797 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 832 1.53E-04 2 0.41% 46 8.53E-06 10 4.37% 490 9.03E-05 18 8.24% 922 1.70E-04 3 0.37% 42 7.74E-06 11 4.65% 521 9.60E-05 19 5.72% 640 1.18E-04 4 0.17% 19 3.52E-06 12 5.89% 659 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 482 8.88E-05 5 0.46% 52 9.50E-06 13 6.17% 691 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 364 6.71E-05 6 0.85% 95 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 678 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 371 6.84E-05 7 3.73% 418 7.70E-05 15 7.06% 790 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 278 5.13E-05 8 7.77% 870 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 805 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 210 3.87E-05 Total 11,196 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 125 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 797 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 832 1.54E-04 2 0.41% 46 8.53E-06 10 4.37% 490 9.03E-05 18 8.24% 922 1.70E-04 3 0.37% 42 7.74E-06 11 4.65% 521 9.61E-05 19 5.72% 640 1.18E-04 4 0.17% 19 3.52E-06 12 5.89% 659 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 482 8.89E-05 5 0.46% 52 9.50E-06 13 6.17% 691 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 364 6.71E-05 6 0.85% 95 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 678 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 371 6.84E-05 7 3.73% 418 7.71E-05 15 7.06% 790 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 278 5.13E-05 8 7.77% 870 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 805 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 210 3.87E-05 Total 11,196 421 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEXH_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 TEXH_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 Total 22,392 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03611 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 125 5.94E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.77E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.94E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.19E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.32E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.37E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.99E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.46E-03 19 5.72% 640 3.03E-03 4 0.17% 19 9.03E-05 12 5.89% 659 3.12E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.28E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.44E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.27E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.72E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.49E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.21E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.76E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.98E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.74E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.32E-03 8 7.77% 870 4.12E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.81E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.93E-04 Total 11,196 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust 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% 125 5.94E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.77E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.94E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.19E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.32E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.37E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.99E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.47E-03 19 5.72% 640 3.03E-03 4 0.17% 19 9.03E-05 12 5.89% 659 3.12E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.28E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.44E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.27E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.72E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.49E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.21E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.76E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.98E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.74E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.32E-03 8 7.77% 870 4.12E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.81E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.93E-04 Total 11,196 422 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEVAP_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 TEVAP_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 Total 22,392 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.19210 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03406 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 125 5.60E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.56E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.72E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.07E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.19E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.12E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.87E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.32E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.86E-03 4 0.17% 19 8.52E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.94E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.15E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.30E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.08E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.62E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.24E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.03E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.66E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.87E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.53E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.24E-03 8 7.77% 870 3.88E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.59E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.37E-04 Total 11,196 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 125 5.60E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.56E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.72E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.07E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.19E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.12E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.87E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.33E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.86E-03 4 0.17% 19 8.52E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.94E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.15E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.30E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.08E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.62E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.24E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.03E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.66E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.87E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.53E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.24E-03 8 7.77% 870 3.88E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.59E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.37E-04 Total 11,196 423 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 759.4 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 FUG_SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 759.6 0.47 13.3 44 1.3 35 11,196 Total 22,392 Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 35 Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205 Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01681 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01487 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03373 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 125 5.54E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.68E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.04E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.17E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.08E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.86E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.83E-03 4 0.17% 19 8.43E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.13E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.28E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.61E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.20E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.00E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.64E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.85E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.23E-03 8 7.77% 870 3.85E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.28E-04 Total 11,196 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_AIR Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 125 5.55E-04 9 7.12% 797 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 832 3.68E-03 2 0.41% 46 2.05E-04 10 4.37% 490 2.17E-03 18 8.24% 922 4.08E-03 3 0.37% 42 1.86E-04 11 4.65% 521 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 640 2.83E-03 4 0.17% 19 8.43E-05 12 5.89% 659 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 482 2.13E-03 5 0.46% 52 2.28E-04 13 6.17% 691 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 364 1.61E-03 6 0.85% 95 4.20E-04 14 6.05% 678 3.00E-03 22 3.31% 371 1.64E-03 7 3.73% 418 1.85E-03 15 7.06% 790 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 278 1.23E-03 8 7.77% 870 3.85E-03 16 7.19% 805 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 210 9.28E-04 Total 11,196 424 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day DPM_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 9,325 DPM_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 9,325 Total 18,650 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00026 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 3.81% 356 1.25E-05 9 6.66% 621 2.19E-05 17 6.50% 606 2.13E-05 2 3.15% 294 1.04E-05 10 8.16% 761 2.68E-05 18 3.85% 359 1.26E-05 3 2.32% 216 7.63E-06 11 6.33% 591 2.08E-05 19 2.35% 219 7.73E-06 4 1.00% 93 3.27E-06 12 7.66% 714 2.52E-05 20 1.19% 111 3.92E-06 5 1.00% 93 3.27E-06 13 6.83% 637 2.24E-05 21 3.02% 281 9.91E-06 6 2.16% 201 7.08E-06 14 6.66% 621 2.19E-05 22 5.01% 467 1.64E-05 7 4.67% 436 1.54E-05 15 6.00% 560 1.97E-05 23 3.32% 309 1.09E-05 8 3.35% 312 1.10E-05 16 4.34% 405 1.43E-05 24 0.66% 62 2.18E-06 Total 9,325 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 3.81% 356 1.24E-05 9 6.66% 621 2.17E-05 17 6.50% 606 2.12E-05 2 3.15% 294 1.03E-05 10 8.16% 761 2.66E-05 18 3.85% 359 1.25E-05 3 2.32% 216 7.57E-06 11 6.33% 591 2.07E-05 19 2.35% 219 7.67E-06 4 1.00% 93 3.24E-06 12 7.66% 714 2.50E-05 20 1.19% 111 3.89E-06 5 1.00% 93 3.24E-06 13 6.83% 637 2.23E-05 21 3.02% 281 9.84E-06 6 2.16% 201 7.03E-06 14 6.66% 621 2.17E-05 22 5.01% 467 1.63E-05 7 4.67% 436 1.52E-05 15 6.00% 560 1.96E-05 23 3.32% 309 1.08E-05 8 3.35% 312 1.09E-05 16 4.34% 405 1.42E-05 24 0.66% 62 2.16E-06 Total 9,325 425 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Leng th (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 PM2.5_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 Total 18,650 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001668 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 104 2.33E-05 9 7.12% 664 1.48E-04 17 7.43% 693 1.54E-04 2 0.41% 39 8.58E-06 10 4.37% 408 9.08E-05 18 8.24% 768 1.71E-04 3 0.37% 35 7.78E-06 11 4.65% 434 9.65E-05 19 5.72% 533 1.19E-04 4 0.17% 16 3.54E-06 12 5.89% 549 1.22E-04 20 4.30% 401 8.93E-05 5 0.46% 43 9.55E-06 13 6.17% 575 1.28E-04 21 3.25% 303 6.75E-05 6 0.85% 79 1.76E-05 14 6.05% 564 1.26E-04 22 3.31% 309 6.88E-05 7 3.73% 348 7.74E-05 15 7.06% 658 1.46E-04 23 2.48% 232 5.15E-05 8 7.77% 724 1.61E-04 16 7.19% 670 1.49E-04 24 1.87% 175 3.89E-05 Total 9,325 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 104 2.31E-05 9 7.12% 664 1.47E-04 17 7.43% 693 1.53E-04 2 0.41% 39 8.51E-06 10 4.37% 408 9.01E-05 18 8.24% 768 1.70E-04 3 0.37% 35 7.72E-06 11 4.65% 434 9.58E-05 19 5.72% 533 1.18E-04 4 0.17% 16 3.51E-06 12 5.89% 549 1.21E-04 20 4.30% 401 8.86E-05 5 0.46% 43 9.48E-06 13 6.17% 575 1.27E-04 21 3.25% 303 6.70E-05 6 0.85% 79 1.75E-05 14 6.05% 564 1.25E-04 22 3.31% 309 6.83E-05 7 3.73% 348 7.69E-05 15 7.06% 658 1.45E-04 23 2.48% 232 5.12E-05 8 7.77% 724 1.60E-04 16 7.19% 670 1.48E-04 24 1.87% 175 3.86E-05 Total 9,325 426 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEXH_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 TEXH_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 Total 18,650 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03611 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 104 5.03E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.20E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.34E-03 2 0.41% 39 1.86E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.97E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.70E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.68E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.09E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.57E-03 4 0.17% 16 7.66E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.64E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.93E-03 5 0.46% 43 2.07E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.77E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.46E-03 6 0.85% 79 3.81E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.72E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.49E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.68E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.17E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.12E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.49E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.23E-03 24 1.87% 175 8.42E-04 Total 9,325 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 104 5.00E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.17E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.32E-03 2 0.41% 39 1.84E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.95E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.67E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.67E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.07E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.55E-03 4 0.17% 16 7.60E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.63E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.92E-03 5 0.46% 43 2.05E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.75E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.45E-03 6 0.85% 79 3.78E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.70E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.48E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.66E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.15E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.11E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.47E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.21E-03 24 1.87% 175 8.36E-04 Total 9,325 427 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEVAP_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 TEVAP_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 Total 18,650 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.19210 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03974 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 104 5.54E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.52E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.68E-03 2 0.41% 39 2.04E-04 10 4.37% 408 2.16E-03 18 8.24% 768 4.07E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.85E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.30E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.83E-03 4 0.17% 16 8.42E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.91E-03 20 4.30% 401 2.13E-03 5 0.46% 43 2.27E-04 13 6.17% 575 3.05E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.61E-03 6 0.85% 79 4.19E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.99E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.64E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.84E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.49E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.23E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.84E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.56E-03 24 1.87% 175 9.27E-04 Total 9,325 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 104 5.50E-04 9 7.12% 664 3.49E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.65E-03 2 0.41% 39 2.03E-04 10 4.37% 408 2.15E-03 18 8.24% 768 4.04E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.84E-04 11 4.65% 434 2.28E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.81E-03 4 0.17% 16 8.36E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.89E-03 20 4.30% 401 2.11E-03 5 0.46% 43 2.26E-04 13 6.17% 575 3.03E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.60E-03 6 0.85% 79 4.16E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.97E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.63E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.83E-03 15 7.06% 658 3.46E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.22E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.81E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.53E-03 24 1.87% 175 9.20E-04 Total 9,325 428 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Dubuque Ave Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2023 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 FUG_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 9,325 Total 18,650 Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205 Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01681 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01487 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03373 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 104 4.70E-04 9 7.12% 664 2.99E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.12E-03 2 0.41% 39 1.73E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.84E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.46E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.57E-04 11 4.65% 434 1.95E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.40E-03 4 0.17% 16 7.15E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.47E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.81E-03 5 0.46% 43 1.93E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.59E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.36E-03 6 0.85% 79 3.56E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.54E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.39E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.57E-03 15 7.06% 658 2.96E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.04E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.26E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.02E-03 24 1.87% 175 7.86E-04 Total 9,325 2023 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 104 4.67E-04 9 7.12% 664 2.97E-03 17 7.43% 693 3.10E-03 2 0.41% 39 1.72E-04 10 4.37% 408 1.82E-03 18 8.24% 768 3.43E-03 3 0.37% 35 1.56E-04 11 4.65% 434 1.94E-03 19 5.72% 533 2.38E-03 4 0.17% 16 7.10E-05 12 5.89% 549 2.45E-03 20 4.30% 401 1.79E-03 5 0.46% 43 1.92E-04 13 6.17% 575 2.57E-03 21 3.25% 303 1.35E-03 6 0.85% 79 3.53E-04 14 6.05% 564 2.52E-03 22 3.31% 309 1.38E-03 7 3.73% 348 1.55E-03 15 7.06% 658 2.94E-03 23 2.48% 232 1.03E-03 8 7.77% 724 3.24E-03 16 7.19% 670 3.00E-03 24 1.87% 175 7.81E-04 Total 9,325 429 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Highway 101 Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2023 Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1 Meter Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.1201 0.1133 0.0068 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 430 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2023 Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1 Meter Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0143 0.0137 0.0006 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 431 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2023 Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1 Meter Receptor Distances At Construction School MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0154 0.0147 0.0007 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 432 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Highway 101 Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.030 0.012 0.0004 0.04 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.360 0.141 0.0044 0.50 0.0004 0.11 0.12 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.360 0.141 0.0044 0.50 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.057 0.022 0.0007 0.08 17 1 16-17 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 18 1 17-18 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 19 1 18-19 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 20 1 19-20 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 21 1 20-21 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 22 1 21-22 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 23 1 22-23 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 24 1 23-24 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 25 1 24-25 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 26 1 25-26 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 27 1 26-27 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 28 1 27-28 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 29 1 28-29 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 30 1 29-30 1 0.0022 0.1500 0.0789 0.006 0.002 0.0001 0.01 Total Increased Cancer Risk 1.63 0.637 0.020 2.29 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2027 2028 2029 2030 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2026 Maximum 2023 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2031 2044 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2032 2051 2052 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 433 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.001 0.001 0.0001 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.018 0.014 0.0008 0.03 0.0000 0.01 0.01 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.018 0.014 0.0008 0.03 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.003 0.002 0.0001 0.01 17 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0147 0.0138 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.08 0.062 0.003 0.15 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2051 2052 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2031 2044 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2032 Maximum 2023 2023 2024 2025 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2027 2028 2029 2030 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2026 434 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.002 0.001 0.0001 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.020 0.015 0.0010 0.04 0.0000 0.01 0.02 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.020 0.015 0.0010 0.04 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.003 0.002 0.0002 0.01 17 1 16-17 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0001 0.0157 0.0173 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.09 0.067 0.004 0.16 * Third trimester of pregnancy TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2034 Maximum 2025 2025 2026 2027 2028 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2046 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2053 2054 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 435 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2028 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day DPM_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,818 DPM_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,818 Total 5,635 Emission Factors Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00022 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 4.02% 113 3.25E-06 9 6.62% 187 5.35E-06 17 6.46% 182 5.22E-06 2 3.38% 95 2.73E-06 10 8.04% 226 6.50E-06 18 3.89% 110 3.14E-06 3 2.57% 72 2.08E-06 11 6.11% 172 4.94E-06 19 2.28% 64 1.85E-06 4 0.96% 27 7.80E-07 12 7.59% 214 6.13E-06 20 0.96% 27 7.80E-07 5 0.96% 27 7.80E-07 13 7.11% 200 5.74E-06 21 2.89% 82 2.34E-06 6 2.25% 63 1.82E-06 14 6.62% 187 5.35E-06 22 4.82% 136 3.90E-06 7 4.50% 127 3.64E-06 15 6.14% 173 4.96E-06 23 3.54% 100 2.86E-06 8 3.25% 92 2.63E-06 16 4.21% 119 3.40E-06 24 0.80% 23 6.50E-07 Total 2,818 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 4.02% 113 3.23E-06 9 6.62% 187 5.32E-06 17 6.46% 182 5.19E-06 2 3.38% 95 2.71E-06 10 8.04% 226 6.45E-06 18 3.89% 110 3.12E-06 3 2.57% 72 2.06E-06 11 6.11% 172 4.90E-06 19 2.28% 64 1.83E-06 4 0.96% 27 7.74E-07 12 7.59% 214 6.09E-06 20 0.96% 27 7.74E-07 5 0.96% 27 7.74E-07 13 7.11% 200 5.70E-06 21 2.89% 82 2.32E-06 6 2.25% 63 1.81E-06 14 6.62% 187 5.32E-06 22 4.82% 136 3.87E-06 7 4.50% 127 3.61E-06 15 6.14% 173 4.93E-06 23 3.54% 100 2.84E-06 8 3.25% 92 2.61E-06 16 4.21% 119 3.38E-06 24 0.80% 23 6.45E-07 Total 2,818 436 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2028 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Leng th (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Averag e Vehicles per Day PM2.5_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 PM2.5_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 Total 5,635 Emission Factors - PM2.5 Speed Category 1 234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.001299 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 31 5.46E-06 9 7.12% 201 3.48E-05 17 7.43% 209 3.63E-05 2 0.41% 12 2.02E-06 10 4.37% 123 2.14E-05 18 8.23% 232 4.02E-05 3 0.37% 10 1.82E-06 11 4.65% 131 2.27E-05 19 5.74% 162 2.80E-05 4 0.18% 5 8.70E-07 12 5.89% 166 2.88E-05 20 4.31% 121 2.10E-05 5 0.46% 13 2.24E-06 13 6.16% 174 3.01E-05 21 3.25% 92 1.59E-05 6 0.85% 24 4.13E-06 14 6.05% 170 2.95E-05 22 3.31% 93 1.62E-05 7 3.73% 105 1.82E-05 15 7.06% 199 3.45E-05 23 2.48% 70 1.21E-05 8 7.76% 219 3.79E-05 16 7.19% 202 3.51E-05 24 1.88% 53 9.16E-06 Total 2,818 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 31 5.42E-06 9 7.12% 201 3.45E-05 17 7.43% 209 3.60E-05 2 0.41% 12 2.00E-06 10 4.37% 123 2.12E-05 18 8.23% 232 3.99E-05 3 0.37% 10 1.81E-06 11 4.65% 131 2.25E-05 19 5.74% 162 2.78E-05 4 0.18% 5 8.64E-07 12 5.89% 166 2.86E-05 20 4.31% 121 2.09E-05 5 0.46% 13 2.22E-06 13 6.16% 174 2.99E-05 21 3.25% 92 1.58E-05 6 0.85% 24 4.10E-06 14 6.05% 170 2.93E-05 22 3.31% 93 1.61E-05 7 3.73% 105 1.81E-05 15 7.06% 199 3.42E-05 23 2.48% 70 1.20E-05 8 7.76% 219 3.76E-05 16 7.19% 202 3.48E-05 24 1.88% 53 9.09E-06 Total 2,818 437 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2028 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEXH_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 TEXH_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 Total 5,635 Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03916 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 31 1.65E-04 9 7.12% 201 1.05E-03 17 7.43% 209 1.09E-03 2 0.41% 12 6.08E-05 10 4.37% 123 6.44E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.21E-03 3 0.37% 10 5.49E-05 11 4.65% 131 6.84E-04 19 5.74% 162 8.44E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.62E-05 12 5.89% 166 8.68E-04 20 4.31% 121 6.34E-04 5 0.46% 13 6.74E-05 13 6.16% 174 9.07E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.79E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.25E-04 14 6.05% 170 8.90E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.88E-04 7 3.73% 105 5.49E-04 15 7.06% 199 1.04E-03 23 2.48% 70 3.66E-04 8 7.76% 219 1.14E-03 16 7.19% 202 1.06E-03 24 1.88% 53 2.76E-04 Total 2,818 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 31 1.63E-04 9 7.12% 201 1.04E-03 17 7.43% 209 1.09E-03 2 0.41% 12 6.04E-05 10 4.37% 123 6.39E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.20E-03 3 0.37% 10 5.45E-05 11 4.65% 131 6.80E-04 19 5.74% 162 8.38E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.60E-05 12 5.89% 166 8.61E-04 20 4.31% 121 6.29E-04 5 0.46% 13 6.69E-05 13 6.16% 174 9.01E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.75E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.24E-04 14 6.05% 170 8.84E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.84E-04 7 3.73% 105 5.45E-04 15 7.06% 199 1.03E-03 23 2.48% 70 3.63E-04 8 7.76% 219 1.13E-03 16 7.19% 202 1.05E-03 24 1.88% 53 2.74E-04 Total 2,818 438 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2028 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Height ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day TEVAP_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 TEVAP_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 Total 5,635 Emission Factors - PM2.5 - Evaporative TOG Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Emissions per Vehicle per Hour (g/hour)1.01325 Emissions per Vehicle per Mile (g/VMT) 0.03377 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 31 1.42E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.04E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.44E-04 2 0.41% 12 5.25E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.55E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.05E-03 3 0.37% 10 4.73E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.90E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.28E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.26E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.48E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.47E-04 5 0.46% 13 5.81E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.83E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.13E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.68E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.21E-04 7 3.73% 105 4.74E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.96E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.15E-04 8 7.76% 219 9.86E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.12E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.38E-04 Total 2,818 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 31 1.41E-04 9 7.12% 201 8.98E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.37E-04 2 0.41% 12 5.21E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.51E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.04E-03 3 0.37% 10 4.70E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.86E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.23E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.25E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.43E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.43E-04 5 0.46% 13 5.77E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.77E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.10E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.62E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.18E-04 7 3.73% 105 4.70E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.89E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.13E-04 8 7.76% 219 9.79E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.06E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.36E-04 Total 2,818 439 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2028 Road Link Description Direction No. Lanes Link Length (m) Link Length (mi) Link Width (m) Link Width (ft) Release Hei ght ( m) Average Speed (mph) Average Vehicles per Day FUG_NB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Northbound NB 1 773.1 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 FUG_SB_DUB Dubuque Avenue Southbound SB 1 767.5 0.48 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,818 Total 5,635 Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2.5 Speed Category 1234 Travel Speed (mph) 30 Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00204 Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01682 Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.01506 otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03393 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s Hour % Per Hour VPH g/s 1 1.12% 31 1.43E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.08E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.48E-04 2 0.41% 12 5.27E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.58E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.05E-03 3 0.37% 10 4.75E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.93E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.32E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.27E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.52E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.49E-04 5 0.46% 13 5.84E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.86E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.15E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.08E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.71E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.23E-04 7 3.73% 105 4.76E-04 15 7.06% 199 9.00E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.17E-04 8 7.76% 219 9.90E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.16E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.39E-04 Total 2,818 2028 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DUB Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile Hour % Per Hour VPH g/mile 1 1.12% 31 1.42E-04 9 7.12% 201 9.02E-04 17 7.43% 209 9.41E-04 2 0.41% 12 5.23E-05 10 4.37% 123 5.54E-04 18 8.23% 232 1.04E-03 3 0.37% 10 4.72E-05 11 4.65% 131 5.89E-04 19 5.74% 162 7.26E-04 4 0.18% 5 2.26E-05 12 5.89% 166 7.46E-04 20 4.31% 121 5.45E-04 5 0.46% 13 5.80E-05 13 6.16% 174 7.81E-04 21 3.25% 92 4.12E-04 6 0.85% 24 1.07E-04 14 6.05% 170 7.66E-04 22 3.31% 93 4.20E-04 7 3.73% 105 4.72E-04 15 7.06% 199 8.93E-04 23 2.48% 70 3.14E-04 8 7.76% 219 9.83E-04 16 7.19% 202 9.10E-04 24 1.88% 53 2.37E-04 Total 2,818 440 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 - Project Trips AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors (1 Location - 1 meter receptor height) Emiss ion Year 2023 Receptor Information Construction School MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1 Receptor Height 1.5 Meters Receptor Distances At School MEI location Meteorological Conditions BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017 Land Use Classification Urban Wind Speed Variable Wind Direction Variable Construction School MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG 2013-2017 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 Construction School MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5 2013-2017 0.0046 0.0045 0.0002 Concentration (μg/m3)* PM2.5 Concentration (μg/m3)* 441 800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic Cancer Risk - Project Trips Impacts at Construction School MEI - 1 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure Cancer Risk Calculation Method Cancer Risk (per million) =CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless) Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Cancer Potency Factors (mg/kg-day)-1 CPF 1.10E+00 Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6.28E-03 Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3.70E-04 Values Infant/Child Adult Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30 Parameter ASF = 10 10 3 1 DBR* = 361 1090 572 261 A = 1 1 1 1 EF = 350 350 350 350 AT = 70 70 70 70 FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 * 95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Exposure Exposure Duration DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG DPM Year (years) Age 0 0.25 -0.25 - 0* 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Hazard Index Fugitive PM2.5 Total PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.005 0.005 0.0002 0.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.005 0.005 0.0002 0.01 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 17 1 16-17 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17-18 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26-27 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27-28 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0000 0.0051 0.0044 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.02 0.022 0.001 0.05 * Third trimester of pregnancy 2029 2030 2031 2032 TAC DPM Maximum - Exposure Information 2028 Maximum 2025 2025 2026 2027 TOTAL Year Age Sensitivity Factor Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG Concentration (ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million) 2033 2046 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2034 2053 2054 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 442 Rail Line Emissions 800 Dubuque Ave - South San Francisco DPM Modeling - Rail Line Information and DPM Emission Rates Caltrain Electrification and Diesel-Powered Freight DPM Emission Rates Year Description Modeled No. Lines Link Width (ft) Link Width (m) Link Length (ft) Link Length (miles) Link Length (m) Release Height (m) No. Trains per Day Train Travel Speed (mph) Average Daily Emission Rate (g/mi/day) Average Daily Emission Rate (g/day) Link Emission Rate (g/s) Link Emission Rate (lb/hr) 2023-2024 Caltrain 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 83 40 186.3 85.5 9.89E-04 7.85E-03 Freight Trains 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 4 40 16.7 7.7 8.88E-05 7.05E-04 Total - - - 2,935 0.56 894 - 87 - 203.0 93.1 1.08E-03 8.56E-03 2025-2027 Caltrain 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 18 40 33.2 15.2 1.76E-04 1.40E-03 Freight Trains 1 15 4.6 2,422 0.46 738 5.0 4 40 13.9 6.4 7.40E-05 5.87E-04 Total - - - 2,935 0.56 894 - 22 - 47.2 21.6 2.50E-04 1.99E-03 Notes:Emission based on Emission Factors for Locomotives, USEPA 2009 (EPA-420-F-09-025) Average emissions calculated for periods 2023-2024 and 2025-2027. Fuel correction factors from Offroad Modeling Change Technical memo, Changes to the Locomotive Inventory, CARB July 2006. PM2.5 calculated as 92% of PM emissions (CARB CEIDERS PM2.5 fractions) Passenger trains assumed to operate for Freight trains assumed to operate for Caltrain Passenger Trains Passenger trains - weekday = Passenger trains - weekend = Passenger trains - Sat only = Total Trains = Annual average daily trains = Locomotive horsepower = Locomotives per train = Engine load = Freight Freight trains per day = 4 7 days/week Locomotive horsepower = 2300 Locomotives per train = 2 Total horsepower = 4600 Locomotive engine load = 0.5 DPM Locomotive Emission Factors (g/hp-hr) Train Type 2023- 2024 2025- 2027 Passenger 0.077 0.059 Freight 0.087 0.072 2025+ emissions are average for 2025-2054. PM2.5 to PM ratio = 1 CARB Fuel Adj Factor 2010 2011+ Passenger 0.717 0.709 Freight 0.851 0.840 Diesel Trains 0.5 24 4 0 28 18 3467 1 0.5 136 83 3285 1 Diesel Trains 104 32 0 24 hours per day 24 hours per day 2023-2024 (Existing) 2025-2027 (with Electrification) 443 Rail Line Impacts at Project Construction MEI 800 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Rail Impacts at Construction MEI Receptor Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2.5 Calculations For Rail Operation at MEI Impacts at Gateway Child Development Center YMCA - 1 meter - Infant Exposure Student Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group ED = Exposure duration (years) AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years) Inhalation Dose = Cair x SCAF x 8-Hr BR x A x (EF/365) x 10-6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (μg/m3) SCAF = School Child Adjustment Factor (unitless) for source operation and exposures different than 8 hours/day = (24/SHR) x (7days/SDay) x (SCHR/8 hrs) SHR = Hours/day of emission source operation SDay = Number of days per week of source operation SCHR = School operation hours while emission source in operation 8-Hr BR = Eight-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-per 8 hrs) A = Inhalation absorption factor EF = Exposure frequency (days/year) 10-6 = Conversion factor Values Infant Child Age --> 0 - <2 2 - <16 Parameter ASF = 10 3 DPM CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 8-Hr BR* = 1200 520 SCHR = 9 9 SHR = 24 24 SDay = 7 7 A = 1 1 EF = 250 250 AT = 70 70 SCAF = 1.13 1.13 * 95th percentile 8-hr breathing rates for moderate intensity activities Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Child Development Center Receptor Child - Exposure Information Child Exposure Age* Cancer Maximum Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Total Year (years) Age Year Annual Factor (per million) Index PM2.5 1 1 0 - 1 2023 0.0148 10 2.15 0.0030 0.015 2 1 1 - 2 2024 0.0148 10 2.15 0.0030 0.015 3 1 2 - 3 2025 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003 4 1 3 - 4 2026 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003 5 1 4 - 5 2027 0.0034 3 0.06 0.0007 0.003 Total Increased Cancer Risk 4.50 * Children assumed to be 3 months of age with 5 years of exposure to construction emissions 444 Date of Request 6/28/2022Contact NameZachary PalmAffiliationIllingworth & Rodkin, Inc.Phone707‐794‐0400 x117Emailzpalm@illingworthrodkin.comProject Name800 DubuqueAddress800 Dubuque AveCitySouth San FranciscoCountySan MateoType (residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, etc.)Office/R&DProject Size (# of units or building square feet)900ksqftTable A: Requester Contact InformationComments:Risk & Hazard Stationary Source Inquiry FormThis form is required when users request stationary source data from BAAQMDThis form is to be used with the BAAQMD's Google Earth stationary source screening tables. Click here forguidance on coductingrisk & hazard screening, including roadways & freeways, refer to the District's Risk & Hazard Analysis flow chart. Click here for District's Recommended Methodsfor Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards document.For Air District assistance, the following steps must be completed:1. Complete all the contact and project information requested in  . Incomplete forms will not be processed. Please include a project site map.2. Download and install the free program Google Earth, http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/, and then download the county specific Google Earth stationary source application files  from the District's website, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning‐and‐Research/CEQA‐GUIDELINES/Tools‐and‐Methodology.aspx. The small points on the map represent stationary sources permitted by the District (Map A on right). These permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc. Click on a point to view the source's Information Table, including the name, location, and preliminary estimated cancer risk, hazard index, and PM2.5 concentration.3. Find the project site in Google Earth by inputting the site's address in the Google Earth search box.4. Identify stationary sources within at least a 1000ft radius of project site. Verify that the location of the source on themap matches with the source's address in the Information Table, by using the Google Earth address search box to confirm the source's address location. Please report any mapping errors to the District.5. List the stationary source information in  blue section only. 6. Note that a small percentage of the stationary sources have Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) data INSTEAD of screening level data. These sources will be noted by an asterisk next to the Plant Name (Map B on right). If HRSA values are presented, these values have already been modeled and cannot be adjusted further.7. Email this completed form to District staff.  District staff will provide the most recent risk, hazard, and PM2.5 data that are available for the source(s). If this information or data are not available, source emissions data will be provided. Staff will respond to inquiries within three weeks.  Note that a public records request received for the same stationary source information will cancel the processing of your SSIF request.Submit forms, maps, and questions to Areana Flores at 415‐749‐4616, or aflores@baaqmd.govTable A: Requester Contact Information Table B Table A 445 Construction MEIsDistance from Receptor (feet) or MEI1Plant No. Facility Name Address Cancer Risk2Hazard Risk2PM2.52Source No.3Type of Source4Fuel Code5Status/CommentsDistance Adjustment MultiplierAdjusted Cancer Risk EstimateAdjusted Hazard RiskAdjusted PM2.5200 16024 Genentech, Inc 611 Gateway Boulevard 1.95 0.00 0.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.41 0.80 0.002 0.00150 14010 Boston Properties 601 Gateway Boulevard 6.07 0.00 0.01 Generator 2020 Dataset0.58 3.52 0.001 0.00950 20236Biotech Gateway ‐ HCP c/o CBRE 2 Corporate Drive 1.66 0.00 0.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.04 0.07 0.000 0.00850 19179 MacroGenics West,Inc One Corporate Drive 39.61 0.02 0.05 Generator 2020 Dataset 0.06 2.38 0.001 0.00530 17584Alexandria Real Estate Equities  Inc 681 GATEWAY BLVD 17.49 0.01 0.02 Generator 2020 Dataset0.10 1.75 0.001 0.001000+ 18401 Lowe's HIW  Inc 720 Dubuque Avenue 9.47 0.00 0.01 Generator2020 Dataset 0.04 0.38 0.000 0.001000+ 23311 Health Plan of San Mateo 801 Gateway Boulevard 1.49 0.000.00 Generator 2020 Dataset0.04 0.06 0.000 0.00320 24794 611 Gateway Center LP 611 Gateway Boulevard 2.44 0.01 0.43 No Data 2020 Dataset0.51 1.23 0.003 0.22630 24795 601 & 651 Gateway Center LP 651 Gateway Boulevard 20.25 0.03 0.33 No Data 2020 Dataset0.27 5.49 0.009 0.091000+ 111170_1 Airport Boulevard Shell 899 Airport Blvd 19.36 0.09 0.00Gas Dispensing Facility 2020 Dataset0.02 0.29 0.001 0.00Footnotes:1. Maximally exposed individual c. BAAQMD Reg 11 Rule 16 required that all co‐residential (sharing a wall, floor, ceiling or is in the same building as a residential unit) dry cleaners cease use of perc on July 1, 2010. Date last updated: 03/13/2018g. This spray booth is considered to be insignificant.4. Permitted sources include diesel back‐up generators, gas stations, dry cleaners, boilers, printers, auto spray booths, etc.11. Further information about common sources:a. Sources that only include diesel internal combustion engines can be adjusted using the BAAQMD's Diesel Multiplier worksheet. b. The risk from natural gas boilers used for space heating when <25 MM BTU/hr would have an estimated cancer risk of one in a million or less, and a chronic hazard index of Therefore, there is no cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentrations from co‐residential dry cleaning businesses in the BAAQMD.d. Non co‐residential dry cleaners must phase out use of perc by Jan. 1, 2023. Therefore, the risk from these dry cleaners does not need to be factored in over a 70‐year period, but instead should reflect the number of years perc use will continue after the project's residents or other sensitive receptors (such as students, patients, etc) take occupancy.e. Gas stations can be adjusted using BAAQMD's Gas Station Distance Mulitplier worksheet.6. If a Health Risk Screening Assessment (HRSA) was completed for the source, the application number will be listed here.7. The date that the HRSA was completed.8. Engineer who completed the HRSA. For District purposes only.9. All HRSA completed before 1/5/2010 need to be multiplied by an age sensitivity factor of 1.7.10. The HRSA "Chronic Health" number represents the Hazard Index.5. Fuel codes: 98 = diesel, 189 = Natural Gas.2. These Cancer Risk, Hazard Index, and PM2.5 columns represent the values in the Google Earth Plant Information Table.3. Each plant may have multiple permits and sources.f. Unless otherwise noted, exempt sources are considered insignificant. See BAAQMD Reg 2 Rule 1 for a list of exempt sources.Table B: Google Earth data446 447 448 449 CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT B to the 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 450 July 26, 2022 NWIC File No.: 22-0094 Jenna Sunderlin Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601 Oakland, CA 94619 Re: Record search results for the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue Project in the City of South San Francisco Dear Jenna Sunderlin: Per your request received by our office on the 18th of July, 2022, a rapid response records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Alameda County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. The project proposes to demolish all existing improvements and construct approximately 900,000 square feet of office/R&D space in 3 new buildings, including accessory event center, food/beverage, and fitness center uses. The project will involve excavation for subsurface parking across the majority of the site extending to depths of approximately 48 feet below ground surface. Review of the information at our office indicates that there has been five cultural resource studies that cover up to approximately 100% of the 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. One study by Cartier (1984: S-6529) covered up to 100% of the project area with field survey and testing. Jurich et al (2011: S-48738) included 100% of the project area within its Research Area only, and the other three studies were larger adjacent studies that included up to 10% of the current project area; Hatoff et al 1995: S-17993, Carrico et al 2000: S-26045, and Nelson et al 2002: S-29657. See enclosed Report List. This 800 Dubuque Avenue project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no recorded buildings or structures within or adjacent to the proposed 800 451 2            22‐0094  Dubuque Avenue project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, which is part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978:485). There is one Native American resource within or adjacent to the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area that are referenced in the ethnographic literature [village of Sipliskin (Levy 1978: 485, Milliken 1995, Nelson 1909)]. Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to San Francisco Bay and inland on ridges, midslope benches, in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The 800 Dubuque Avenue project area is located at the western end of Point San Bruno, at a low point between San Bruno Mountain and the westernmost hill of Point San Bruno. The project area is located approximately 140 meters from the historic San Francisco bayshore margins and associated marshlands, and adjacent to a former creek. Aerial maps indicate a fully paved over parcel with buildings. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the archaeological and ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderately high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the landholdings of the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co, and adjacent to a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad. As there are no buildings indicated on the maps at that time, it is unclear if the area was developed at that time. With this information in mind, there is a moderate potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. The 1956 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle depicts one building and a railroad spur within the 800 Dubuque Avenue project area. If present, these unrecorded building and structure meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a moderately high potential for Native American archaeological resources and a moderate potential for historic-period archaeological resources to be within the project area. Due to the passage of time since the previous study that included approximately 100% of the project area (Cartier 1984), and the changes in archaeological theory and method since that time, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study for the entire project area to identify archaeological resources. Our usual recommendation would include archival research and a field examination. The proposed project area, however, has been highly developed and is presently covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection. 452 3            22‐0094  Field study may include, but is not limited to, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of buried archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 3) If the proposed project area contains buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive. 5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat- affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351 Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact 453 4            22‐0094  the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts. The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law. Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455. Sincerely, Jillian Guldenbrein Researcher 454 5            22‐0094  LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Barrows, Henry D., and Luther A. Ingersoll 2005 Memorial and Biographical History of the Coast Counties of Central California. Three Rocks Research, Santa Cruz (Digital Reproduction of The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago: 1893.) Bowman, J.N. 1951 Adobe Houses in the San Francisco Bay Region. In Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Bulletin 154. California Division of Mines, Ferry Building, San Francisco, CA. Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller 1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Bromfield, Davenport 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California General Land Office 1858, 1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Buri Buri, Township 3 South/Range 5 West. Heizer, Robert F., editor 1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976) Levy, Richard 1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Milliken, Randall 1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA. 455 6            22‐0094  Myers, William A. (editor) 1977 Historic Civil Engineering Landmarks of San Francisco and Northern California. Prepared by The History and Heritage Committee, San Francisco Section, American Society of Civil Engineers. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964) Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. Postel, Mitchell P. 1994 San Mateo, A Centennial History. Scottwall Associates, San Francisco, CA. San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board 1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning and Development Department of Environmental Management. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2021 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 14-15, 2021). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Woodbridge, Sally B. 1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA. Works Progress Administration 1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.) **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review. 456 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-006529 1984 Subsurface Archaeological Testing of the Dubuque Packing Plant Site on Dubuque Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo Archaeological Resource Management Robert Cartier S-017993 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project Woodward-Clyde Consultants Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss, Sharon Waechter, Stephen Wee, and Vance Bente S-017993a 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix A - Native American Consultation Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993b 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix B - Looping Segments - Class 1 Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993c 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix C -Monitoring and Emergency Discovery Plan Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993d 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix D - General Construction Information Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993e 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix E - Archaeological Site Records Woodward-Clyde Consultants Page 1 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:36 AM 457 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-017993f 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix F - Historic Features Evaluation Forms Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993g 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix G - Railroad Crossing Evaluation Forms Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993h 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix H - Crossing Diagrams and Plan View Maps Woodward Clyde Consultants S-017993I 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix I - Railroad Depot NRHP Nomination Forms and Related Records Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993j 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix J - Looping Segment and Compressor Station Site Records Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993k 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix K - Historic Site Records / Isolate Forms Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993l 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix L - Photodocumentation Woodward-Clyde Consultants S-017993m 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion Project: Appendix M - Curricula Vitae of Key Preparers Woodward-Clyde Consultants Page 2 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:36 AM 458 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-026045 2000 Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Inventory Report for the Metromedia Fiberoptic Cable Project, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin Networks Mooney & AssociatesRichard Carrico, Theodore Cooley, and William Eckhardt Page 3 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM 459 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-029657 2002 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Wendy J. Nelson, Tammara Norton, Larry Chiea, and Reinhard Pribish OHP PRN - FTA021021A; Voided - S-37863; Voided - S-42672; Voided - S-43525 S-029657a 2002 Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services Rand F. Herbert S-029657b 2002 Historic Property Survey for the Proposed Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Parsons; JRP Historical Consulting Services; Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. S-029657c 2002 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties Office of Historic Preservation Knox Mellon S-029657d 2003 Final Finding of Effect Amendment, Caltrain Electrification Project, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services Meta Bunse Page 4 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM 460 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-029657e 2001 Draft Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting Services Rand F. Herbert S-029657f 2008 Cultural Resources Addendum for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Sharon A. Waechter, Jack Meyer, and Laura Leach-Palm S-029657g 2008 Addendum Finding of Effect, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco to San Jose (MP 0.0 to 52.0); San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California JRP Historical Consulting, LLC Meta Bunse S-029657h 2002 Inventory and Evaluation of Historic Resources, Caltrain Electrification Program, San Francisco to Gilroy (MP 0.0 to 77.4) (Draft) JRP Historical Consulting Services Page 5 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM 461 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-048738 2011 California High-Speed Train Project, Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, San Francisco to San Jose Section, Archaeological Survey Report, Technical Report [Draft] PBS&JDenise Jurich and Amber Grady Page 6 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM 462 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)Other IDs NWIC File # 22-0094 800 Dubuque Ave, South SF S-048738a 2011 California High-Speed Train Project, Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, San Francisco to San Jose Section, Historic Architectural Survey Report, Technical Report [Draft] PBS&JAmber Grady and Richard Brandi Page 7 of 7 NWIC 7/22/2022 11:51:37 AM 463 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 August 25, 2022 Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: rauld@lamphier-gregory.com Re: Native American Consultation, Pursuant to Senate Bill 18 (SB18), Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4, as well as Assembly Bill 52 (AB52), Public Resources Codes §21080.1, §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2, 800 Dubuque Ave Project, San Mateo County Dear Ms. Auld: Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the above referenced counties or projects. Government Codes §65352.3 and §65352.4 require local governments to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to cultural places when creating or amending General Plans, Specific Plans and Community Plans. Public Resources Codes §21080.3.1 and §21080.3.2 requires public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the purpose of avoiding, protecting, and/or mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects. The law does not preclude local governments and agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction. The NAHC believes that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law. Best practice for the AB52 process and in accordance with Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(d), is to do the following: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that lead agencies include in their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential affect (APE), such as: CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Luiseño VICE CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash PARLIAMENTARIAN Russell Attebery Karuk SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER William Mungary Paiute/White Mountain Apache COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok/Nisenan NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 nahc@nahc.ca.gov NAHC.ca.gov 464 Page 2 of 2 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: • A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10. 3. The result of the Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event, that they do, having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: Cody.Campagne@nahc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Cody Campagne Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment 465 Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson 3030 Soda Bay Road Lakeport, CA, 95453 Phone: (650) 851 - 7489 Fax: (650) 332-1526 amahmutsuntribal@gmail.com Costanoan Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe Tony Cerda, Chairperson 244 E. 1st Street Pomona, CA, 91766 Phone: (909) 629 - 6081 Fax: (909) 524-8041 rumsen@aol.com Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA, 95024 Phone: (831) 637 - 4238 ams@indiancanyons.org Costanoan Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan Kanyon Sayers-Roods, MLD Contact 1615 Pearson Court San Jose, CA, 95122 Phone: (408) 673 - 0626 kanyon@kanyonkonsulting.com Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Phone: (408) 464 - 2892 cnijmeh@muwekma.org Costanoan Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman 20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232 Castro Valley, CA, 94546 Phone: (408) 205 - 9714 marellano@muwekma.org Costanoan The Ohlone Indian Tribe Andrew Galvan, P.O. Box 3388 Fremont, CA, 94539 Phone: (510) 882 - 0527 Fax: (510) 687-9393 chochenyo@AOL.com Bay Miwok Ohlone Patwin Plains Miwok Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson 1179 Rock Haven Ct. Salinas, CA, 93906 Phone: (831) 443 - 9702 kwood8934@aol.com Foothill Yokut Mono 1 of 1 This list is current only as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list is applicable only for consultation with Native American tribes under Government Code Sections 65352.3, 65352.4 et seq. and Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed 800 Dubuque Ave Project, San Mateo County. PROJ-2022- 005001 08/25/2022 07:35 AM Native American Heritage Commission Tribal Consultation List San Mateo County 8/25/2022 466 ENERGY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT C to the 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 467 To support the Energy Analysis for the following project:800 Dubuque Construction Equipment/Vehicles # of Vehicles Hrs per Day Horse- power Load Factor Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 120 5,017 Air Compressors 1 8 78 0.48 120 2,113 Concrete Saws 1 8 81 0.73 120 3,338 Excavators 3 8 153 0.38 120 8,858 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 120 3,509 Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 120 194 Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 120 831 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 97 0.37 120 6,078 Grading / Excavation Bore/Drill Rigs 5 8 221 0.5 234 54,713 Cranes 1 8 231 0.29 234 6,634 Excavators 3 8 153 0.38 234 17,273 Graders 1 8 187 0.41 234 7,593 Pumps 2 8 84 0.74 234 13,684 Pumps 1 24 84 0.74 234 20,527 Rollers 1 4 80 0.38 234 1,673 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 234 9,784 Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 234 1,620 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 234 7,901 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 2 8 63 0.31 563 10,344 Aerial Lifts 24 8 63 0.31 563 124,134 Air Compressors 1 8 78 0.48 563 9,915 Cranes 1 3.3 231 0.29 563 6,584 Cranes 2 8 231 0.29 563 31,922 Forklifts 1 8 89 0.2 563 4,714 Generator Sets 1 8 84 0.74 563 16,462 Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 563 3,898 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4 97 0.37 563 4,752 Welders 12 8 46 0.45 563 65,785 Building - Interior / Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6 78 0.48 130 1,717 Paving Aerial Lifts 1 8 63 0.31 181 1,663 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 181 4,182 Paving Equipment 2 8 132 0.36 181 7,280 Plate Compactors 1 8 8 0.43 181 293 Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 181 2,588 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4 247 0.4 181 3,784 Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 4 64 0.46 181 1,253 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 181 6,112 Total Fuel Used for Construction Equipment/Vehicles 478,724 (diesel) Compression-Ignition Engine Brake-Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1] used in the above calculations are (in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC) 0.0588 <100 horsepower Construction Energy Use Energy Calculations Page 1 of 5 468 0.0529 >100 horsepower Worker Trips Phase MPG [2]Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 24 28 10.8 302.4 120 1,512 Grading Phase 24 43 10.8 464.4 234 4,528 Building Construction 24 557 10.8 6015.6 563 141,116 Paving 24 20 10.8 216 181 1,629 Building Interior 24 111 10.8 1198.8 130 6,494 Total Fuel Used for Construction Worker Trips 155,278 (gasoline) Construction Energy Use, Continued Vendor Trips Phase MPG [2]Trips Trip Length (miles) Total Miles per Day Days in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 7.4 0 7.3 0 120 0 Grading Phase 7.4 0 7.3 0 234 0 Building Construction 7.4 252 7.3 1839.6 563 139,959 Paving 7.4 0 7.3 0 181 0 Building Interior 7.4 0 7.3 0 130 0 Total Fuel Used for Vendor Trips 139,959 (diesel) Hauling Trips Phase MPG [2] Trips in Phase Trip Length (miles) Total Miles in Phase Fuel Used (gallons) Demolition 7.4 539.4 20 10788 1,458 Grading Phase 7.4 41375 20 827500 111,824 Building Construction 7.4 16800 20 336000 45,405 Paving 7.4 267 20 5340 722 Building Interior 7.4 0 20 0 0 Total Fuel Used for Hauling Trips 159,409 (diesel) Fuel Use Converted to MMBtu Source Fuel Converted to Energy Use Diesel [3]106,895 MMBtu Gasoline [4]17,047 MMBtu Total Energy Use from Construction Fuel 123,942 MMBtu Sum of above 155,278 137,381 109,786 Total Construction Fuel Use (gallons) Conversion Factor Btu/gallon 778,092 Energy Calculations Page 2 of 5 469 Operational Vehicular Fuel Use Gross Annual VMT 12,405,925 Fleet Class Fleet Mix VMT per Class Fuel Ecomony [5] Fuel Consumption (gallons) Light Duty Auto (LDA)0.411757 5108226.5 30.9 165314.77 Light Duty Truck 1 (LDT1)0.041436 514051.91 26.63 19303.49 Light Duty Truck 2 (LDT2)0.297526 3691085.2 24.36 151522.38 Medium Duty Vehicle (MDV)0.170986 2121239.5 20.2 105011.86 Motorcycle (MCY)0.024361 302220.74 37.06 8154.90 Total Gasoline 449,307 Light Heavy Duty 1 (LHD1)0.030624 379919.05 18.23 20840.32 gallons Light Heavy Duty 2 (LHD2)0.007023 87126.811 16.24 5364.95 Medium Heavy Duty (MHD)0.00842 104457.89 9.43 11077.19 Heavy Heavy Duty (HHD)0.002436 30220.833 6.42 4707.29 Other Bus (OBUS)0.002246 27863.708 8.26 3373.33 Urban Bus (UBUS)0.000679 8423.6231 5.17 1629.33 School Bus (SBUS)0.000402 4987.1819 7.25 687.89 Motorhome (MH )0.002104 26102.066 9.91 2633.91 Total Diesel 50,314 gallons Note that the above numbers represent gross fuel consumption. Source Diesel 50,314 [3]6,912 MMBtu Gasoline 449,307 [4]49,328 MMBtu Total Energy Use from Operational Fuel 56,240 MMBtu Operational Built Environment Type of Energy Annual Usage Units Converted to MMBtu Electricity 1.02E+07 kWh 34697 Natural Gas 2.21E+07 kBtu 22113 *Note that because this analysis was performed prior to adoption of the General Plan 2040, some natural gas usage was assumed in the CalEEMod report. Electricity equivalency conversion does not change conclusions. Sum of above Total Annual Operational Energy Use 113,050 MMBtu Operational Energy Use 137,381 109,786 Fuel Converted to Energy Use Total Fuel Use (gallons) Conversion Factor Btu/gallon Energy Calculations Page 3 of 5 470 Net Operational Vehicular Fuel Energy Use Existing Use VMT:1,786,678 Resultant Net Annual Gasoline Use:384,599 gallons Resultant Net Annual Diesel Use:43,068 gallons Source Diesel 43,068 [3]5,917 MMBtu Gasoline 384,599 [4]42,224 MMBtu Total Energy Use from Net Operational Fuel 48,140 MMBtu Existing and Net Operational Built Environment Net Type of Energy Annual Usage Units Converted to MMBtu Energy Use in MMBtu Electricity 8.44E+05 kWh 2880 31817 Natural Gas 2.79E+06 kBtu 2791.03 19322 Total 5671 51139 Sum of above Total Net Annual Operational Energy Use 99,279 MMBtu Existing and Net Energy Use To determine the net increase in fuel usage, fuel usage of the existing uses at the site can be subtracted from the gross consumption above. The following number also incorproates the TDM reduction identified in the Operational calculations. Existing Net Fuel Use (gallons) Conversion Factor Fuel Converted to Energy UseBtu/gallon 137,381 109,786 Energy Calculations Page 4 of 5 471 Sources Unless otherwise noted, information in these calculations is from the project-specific Air Quality/Emissions Assessment for the project, including CalEEMod output tables. [1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in MOVES2014b . July 2018. Available at: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100UXEN.pdf. [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2018. National Transportation Statistics 2018 . Available at: https://www.bts.gov/sites/bts.dot.gov/files/docs/browse-statistical-products-anddata/national- transportation-statistics/223001/ntsentire2018q4.pdf. https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/archive/00352205.pdf [4] California Air Resources Board, CA-GREET 2.0 Supplemental Document and Tables of Changes, Appendix C, Supplement to the LCFS CA-GREET 2.0 Model, 12/15/2014 , page C-24, Table 10. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2015/lcfs2015/lcfs15appc.pdf [5] California Air Resources Board (CARB), EMFAC2021 v1.0.0., 2021. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools-emfac-software-and [6] Anticipated TDM reduction information is from the the project-specific CEQA Transportation Analysis. Acronyms used include: Btu = British Thermal Units hrs = hours kBtu = Thousand British Thermal Units kWH = kilowatt hours MMBtu = Million British Thermal Units MPG = miles per gallon TDM = Transportation Demand Management VMT = vehicle miles traveled Energy Calculations Page 5 of 5 472 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT D to the 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 473 800 Dubuque Avenue CEQA Transportation Analysis Prepared for: Lamphier-Gregory March 24, 2023 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Hexagon Office: 4 North Second Street, Suite 400 San Jose, CA 95113 Phone: 408.971.6100 Hexagon Job Number: 22TD03 Client Name: Lamphier-Gregory 474 800 Dubuque Avenue – CEQA Transportation Analysis i | Page Executive Summary As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this report includes an analysis of Vehicles Miles Travelled (VMT) and an evaluation of potential impacts to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities for the proposed redevelopment of 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco to a higher density Office/Research & Development uses. The project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT as it is located less than ½ mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.3, would not exceed the required number of parking spaces and is consistent with the land use designation under the City’s 2040 General Plan. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required by the Municipal Code that requires all non-residential projects that would generate more than 100 daily trips to implement various trip reduction measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) and achieve a minimum 50% alternative mode use. Given its proximity to the Caltrain station, the project is expected to achieve higher than the minimum 50% alternative mode use. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new pedestrian facilities. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on pedestrian facilities. The project would provide on-site bicycle parking facilities. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on bicycle facilities. The project is expected to add a high number of new transit riders. However, given the extensive services available, the new riders could be accommodated. The project would therefore have no significant impact on transit service. Adequate corner sight distance should be provided for drivers exiting both project driveways. The project would underground 462 linear feet of electrical line and clear all line-of-sight obstructions along the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue. The project shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the site sight distance is adequate at both project driveways. With the provision of adequate sight distance at both project driveways, the project’s impact on safety would be reduced to less than significant. 475 800 Dubuque Avenue – CEQA Transportation Analysis ii | Page The project would not reroute or change any of the City streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in any emergency vehicle access impact that would be considered significant. 476 800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis 1 | Page Project Description The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation-related impacts of the proposed Office/Research & Development project at 800 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project would involve demolition of the three existing buildings located on the 800 to 890 Dubuque Avenue parcels and construction of three new office/research and development (R&D) buildings. The project would be comprised of three buildings: the 10-story North building, the 6-story South building, and the 9-story West building, for a total of up to approximately 900,000 square feet of floor area. The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet (including the mechanical penthouse). The buildings would be connected by a two-story podium that provides open space and an approximately 7,200 square foot fitness center. The center of the site would contain a plaza and courtyard lined with on-site food/beverage and tenant amenity uses totaling approximately 6,600 square feet, as well as an approximately 7,500 square foot event center. The project is intended to be a mix of R&D space and offices. The west building would be oriented along Dubuque Avenue, and the north and south buildings would be oriented along the internal roadways. The project is located one-quarter mile north of the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The development is consistent with the land use designation in the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040, and related zoning, which plan for higher-density, transit- oriented uses at and around the project site. Structured parking would be provided in four stories below grade, with approximately 1,335 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on Dubuque Avenue. This report includes an analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), potential impacts to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit services, and the project’s safety and emergency access. 477 800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis 2 | Page CEQA Analysis VMT Analysis Pursuant to SB 743, the CEQA 2019 Update Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states that vehicle miles travelled (VMT) will be the metric in analyzing transportation impacts for land use projects for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes. The City of South San Francisco has adopted certain thresholds of significance based on the project type to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. For non-retail land use projects, a significant impact would occur if the VMT would be above the threshold, which is defined as 15% below the regional average. The City of South San Francisco provides screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is expected to result in less-than-significant impacts, and a detailed CEQA VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within ½ mile of an existing or planned high- quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project FAR is less than 0.75, includes parking that is higher than required by the City, is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate units. The project site is located less than one- quarter mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.3, would not exceed the required number of parking spaces, and is consistent with the land use proposed in the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040. Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The project would also implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as required by the Municipal Code, which requires all new developments to implement various trip reduction measures to reduce single occupancy vehicle trips (SOV) based on their anticipated effect on the City’s transportation network. The project would be categorized as a Tier 4 development, which includes all office and R&D projects with at least 400,000 s.f. of gross floor area and requires a minimum 50% alternative mode use. The project would implement TDM measures to encourage employees and visitors to use transit, given its proximity to the Caltrain station. Cumulative Impact Analysis According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), a finding of a less-than-significant project impact based on project screening criteria would imply a less than significant cumulative impact. The project aligns with the land use controls under the City’s General Plan, Shape SSF 2040, which plans for higher-density, transit-oriented uses at and around the project site: re-imagining the area as a new urban corridor accessible to pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders. Therefore, the project would be considered as part of the cumulative solution to meet the General Plan’s long-range transportation goals and would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact. Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks are provided on the east side of Dubuque Avenue from Oyster Point Boulevard to Grand Avenue, and along Grand Avenue from Gateway Boulevard to Airport Boulevard. The signalized intersections at Dubuque Avenue/Oyster Point Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue provide crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian-actuated pedestrian-crossing phases on all approaches. The project would reconstruct the sidewalk along its frontage on Dubuque Avenue by moving it away from the curb and configuring it in a winding path through planting and trees to provide enhanced comfort and safety for pedestrians (see Figure 1). Striped crosswalks would be provided across the north and the south driveways to provide connections to existing sidewalks to the north and south of the project site. 478 800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis 3 | Page As part of the South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project, a new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing was constructed under the Caltrain tracks that provides a direct connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west (Airport Boulevard) and east (Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue) of the Caltrain tracks. This undercrossing also provides a connection to the new Caltrain station platform. The South San Francisco Caltrain station is currently pedestrian-accessible from Dubuque Avenue via a staircase located at the northwest corner of the signalized intersection at Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue. However, no ADA access is provided to the Caltrain station from Dubuque Avenue. The 580 Dubuque Avenue project, which is located adjacent to the Caltrain station parking lot is currently under development and is conditioned to provide a pedestrian route, including ADA access, to the Caltrain station. The project is well situated to take advantage of the existing and planned pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity. The existing network of sidewalks and crosswalks, together with the planned addition of ADA access to the Caltrain station from Dubuque Avenue (via the 580 Dubuque Avenue project), provide good connectivity and safe routes to transit services and other points of interest in the downtown area. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with the Active South City, the City of South San Francisco’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on pedestrian facilities. Bicycle Facilities Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no bike lanes on Dubuque Avenue. As stated above, the new pedestrian/bicycle undercrossing provides bicycle access between East Grand Avenue/Poletti Way and Airport Boulevard, with direct access to the Caltrain station platform. Bicycle access between the project site and the South San Francisco Caltrain station would be provided via the existing Caltrain Station access driveway on Dubuque Avenue. Other existing bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site are Class II bike lanes on Airport Boulevard north of Miller Avenue. The project would provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking facilities on site to meet the requirements of South San Francisco municipal code. The project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. Thus, the project would have no significant impact on bicycle facilities. Transit Facilities Existing transit service to the study area is provided by Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Water Emergency Transit Agency (WETA), San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and commuter shuttles. The project site is located less than one-quarter mile from the Caltrain station. Caltrain provides commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station serves local and limited-stop trains with 40 to 60-minute headways during weekdays. The project is located one-quarter mile from the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The recently reconstructed South San Francisco Caltrain station provides passengers access to the downtown from the station’s center platform via ramps connecting to the newly constructed tunnel underneath the Caltrain tracks. The tunnel connects to a pedestrian plaza at Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard on the west side of the tracks and a transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way on the east side of the tracks. Buses and shuttles pick up and drop off Caltrain passengers from the new east-side plaza instead of the parking lot on the west side of the station, which results in time savings for passengers commuting to the City’s biotech job center on the east side of the tracks. Combined with the Caltrain Electrification project, the reconstructed station is expected to see increased service levels, which has been included in Caltrain planning. 479 800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis 4 | Page The two BART stations closest to the project area are the San Bruno Station and the South San Francisco Station. Both stations are located within 3 miles of the project site. The Genesis One Tower Place shuttle (OTP) operated by commute.org provides service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and the South San Francisco BART station. The OTP shuttle operates along Dubuque Avenue and currently has a stop on the southern end of the project site. With the proposed redevelopment, the shuttle stop would be facilitated on site along the drop-off zone that would be provided on the north side of the project site via the north driveway (see Figure 2). WETA provides weekday commuter ferry service between Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point. The South San Francisco Ferry terminal is located approximately 2.5 miles from the project site. Shuttle service is provided between the South San Francisco ferry terminal and the Caltrain station. SamTrans provides bus service primarily on the west side of US 101. The closest bus stops to the project site are approximately 0.5 miles to the west at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue and are served by Routes 292 and 397. Recently, SamTrans has extended service to the East of 101 Area via Route 130. The closest bus stop served by Route 130 is located at the Gateway Boulevard/Corporate Drive intersection, which is approximately 1 mile from the project site. Commuter shuttles provide weekday commute connections between the Caltrain station and BART, the WETA ferry terminal, and local employers in the East of 101 Area. All shuttles are wheelchair-accessible and equipped with a bicycle rack on the front of the vehicle. The new transit plaza at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Poletti Way, on the east side of the Caltrain tracks, provides a direct pedestrian connection between the Caltrain station and the following shuttle services: the Genesis One Tower Place (OTP) shuttle, the Oyster Point Caltrain (OPC) shuttle, the Utah-Grand Caltrain (UGC) shuttle, and the Oyster Point Ferry (OPF) shuttle. The project is expected to add a substantial number of new transit riders. However, with reduced transit ridership following COVID-19 pandemic, and the number of different services available (Caltrain, SamTrans busses, shuttles to the BART and ferry stations), it is anticipated that substantial new ridership could be accommodated. The project would not produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. The project would therefore have no significant impact on transit service. Safety (Sight Distance) The site driveways were evaluated to determine whether vehicles exiting the site would have adequate sight distance to see bicycles or motor vehicles traveling on Dubuque Avenue. The minimum acceptable sight distance is what the CA MUTCD has defined as stopping sight distance. Sight distance requirements vary depending on roadway speeds. For Dubuque Avenue, which has a posted speed limit of 30 mph, the stopping sight distance is 250 feet for motor vehicles (based on a design speed of 35 mph). Accordingly, a driver must be able to see 250 feet along Dubuque Avenue to be able to avoid a collision with other vehicles. Factors that can affect sight distance are geometric features such as horizontal and vertical curves in the road, or line-of-sight obstructions like on-street parking, landscaping, and signs. Providing the appropriate sight distance reduces the likelihood of a collision at a driveway or intersection and provides drivers with the ability to exit a driveway or locate sufficient gaps in traffic. Based on observations conducted in the field, it appears that there would be adequate sight distance for drivers exiting the project site looking right to the north on Dubuque Avenue at both driveways. The project will remove all existing sign boards near the proposed driveways. However, for drivers exiting the project site to travel south on Dubuque Avenue, it appears that there would be inadequate sight distance looking left to the south on Dubuque Avenue due to a slight horizontal curve and line-of-sight obstructions. The line-of-sight obstructions include utility poles, landscaping, sign boards and the metal fence on the south side of the project site (see Figure 3). The project proposes to underground approximately 462 linear feet of electrical line along the project’s frontage on Dubuque Avenue and clear all line-of sight obstructions along the project’s frontage on 480 800 Dubuque Avenue – Transportation Analysis 5 | Page Dubuque Avenue. The project shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include the following measures. • The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. • The applicant shall coordinate with the City to remove line-of-sight obstructions (vegetation and sign boards) within the City’s right of way to the south of the project. • The applicant shall coordinate with the adjacent property of 720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement to push back the existing metal fence on the southern border of the project site and remove vegetation to provide a clear zone on the corner of 720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement and the project’s southern driveway. With the provision adequate sight distance at both project driveways, the project’s impact on safety would be reduced to less than significant. Emergency and Truck Access Emergency access was evaluated to determine whether the project would provide adequate vehicular ingress and egress to the project site, and a viable route to and through the project site. A review of the preliminary fire access plan prepared by Perkins & Will shows that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles to the site. The project site would be served by two driveways, one that would be located along the northern perimeter and the other that would be located along the southern perimeter of the project site. The two driveways would loop around the project site (see Figure 2) to provide vehicular circulation along the entire perimeter of the project site. The plan shows that the perimeter road would be at least 26 feet wide which would be adequate to facilitate fire apparatus ingress/egress and would be located 15 to 30 feet from outer edge of the building. The site plan shows that the project would provide a drop-off zone on the north side of the project for passenger loading in front of the west building that would be accessible via the north driveway. A truck loading area is proposed for the west building on the south side that can be accessed via the southern driveway, and a combined truck loading area is proposed for the north and the south buildings on the east end of the project site that can be accessed via both driveways. The site plan shows trash enclosures for all three buildings adjacent to the truck loading areas. Hexagon reviewed the truck turning templates prepared by BKF engineers for a WB-40 truck and a front- loading garbage truck (ACX64) as these vehicles would enter and exit the site. The turning templates showed that these vehicles would be able to navigate through the site to and from the loading dock and the trash collection areas without obstruction. Since the trash enclosures would be located next to the loading areas, adequate clearance would be provided for garbage trucks to empty the bins over the truck. Since garbage collection would occur on-site, along the perimeter road, traffic operations would not be affected along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the City streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The proposed site access roadways would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in any emergency vehicle access impact that would be considered significant. 481 800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis Figure 1 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Access LEGENDLEGEND                       Ɣ   űǁ   Ɣ    A   B   C  D    E ű F   ɼ G A B C D E H H F G I I H 482 800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis Figure 2 Proposed Vehicular Access LEGENDLEGEND  ű         ADA DROP-OFFSH U T T L E DR O P - O F F ADA DROP-OFF SHUTTLEDROP-OFF CALTRAIN TRACKSDUBUQUE AVENUE       ɼ   ű E  Ɣ   űǁ   Ɣ    A A  ɼ     ɼ  C B C B  Ȃȃ & 02B D E D 483 800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis Figure 3 Field Visit - Sight Distance Sight Distance for a Driver Exiting the Southern Driveway looking Left onto Dubuque Avenue Sight Distance for a Driver Exiting the Northern Driveway looking Left onto Dubuque Avenue 484 800 Dubuque Avenue - CEQA Transportation Analysis Figure 4 Clear Sight Triangles Clear Sight Triangle Looking Left - North Dwy Clear Sight Triangle Looking Left - South Dwy 485 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: 800 Dubuque Avenue Project IS/MND – Review and Discussion of Comments DATE: June 1, 2023 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 800 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, 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. COMMENTS RECEIVED The comment period ran from March 29, 2023, through April 27, 2023. Comment letters were received from three agencies during the comment period, as listed below. 486 6/1/23 PAGE 2 of 3 LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A - #601 OAKLAND, CA 94619 • Pacific Gas and Electric Company Letters: Plan Review Team and Justin Newell, Land Management, dated March 29 and April 25, 2023 • San Francisco International Airport Letter: Nupur Sinha, Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, dated April 18, 2023 • California Geologic Survey: Dr. Erik Frost, Senior Engineering Geologist, email sent April 25, 2023 DISCUSSION OF COMMENT LETTERS Pacific Gas and Electric Company The March letter clarifies PG&E policies and procedures in the event PG&E owned properties and/or easements are on or adjacent to the project site, including information about the PG&E review process, safety procedures related to construction near gas transmission pipelines, and examples and restrictions for external uses within electric transmission fee strips and/or easements. The project would be required to follow applicable PG&E requirements and procedures when determined to be applicable. These comments do not reference or specifically relate to the adequacy of the analysis in the IS/MND and no revisions to the IS/MND are necessary to address this comment. These procedural reminders have been provided to City staff and the applicant. The April letter provides further information about procedures in the event of relocation or modification of existing gas and electric services. Neither letter is a comment on the environmental analysis and do 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). The letter agrees with conclusions in the IS/MND related to airport noise and hazards (discussed on IS/MND pages 57 and 67). Clarifications to the approval process and allowable heights have been added to the errata sheet. The letter also notes that departing planes would ascend over the project site, which may experience some aircraft departure noise disturbance, particularly overnight. Consistent with the conclusions of the IS/MND, the letter also indicates that the project site is located outside the 65 decibel contour, and noise levels would not be inconsistent with the proposed use. 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 Geologic Survey This letter clarifies that the project site is in a zone of required investigation for liquefaction (discussed on IS/MND page 45), and also notes that the required investigation was completed by the project’s Geotechnical Investigation as presented in the IS/MND. Clarifications to the project’s location in a mapped liquefaction hazard zone have been added to the errata sheet. 487 6/1/23 PAGE 3 of 3 LAMPHIER-GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A - #601 OAKLAND, CA 94619 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. 488 Plan Review Team Land Management PGEPlanReview@pge.com PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1 Public March 29, 2023 Kelsey Evans City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution Dear Kelsey Evans, Thank you for submitting the 800 Dubuque Ave plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area. If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities. Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1) and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights. Below is additional information for your review: 1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building- and-renovation/overview/overview.page. 2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services. 3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new installation of PG&E facilities. Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required. This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required. Sincerely, Plan Review Team Land Management 489 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2 Public Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf 1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe. Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few areas. Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments). No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded. 4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4. 5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 24 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch 490 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3 Public wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.) Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40° angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away. Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work. 6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations. For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 24 inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the locating equipment. 7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a minimum of 24 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement. If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities. 9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will be secured with PG&E corporation locks. 10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area. 491 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4 Public 11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes, service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering. 12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines. With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is complete. 13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities. 492 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5 Public Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some examples/restrictions are as follows: 1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.” 2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to- conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to base of tower or structure. 3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment. 4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that do not exceed 10 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines. 6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings are not allowed. 7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed. 493 PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6 Public 8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement. 9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction. 10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E. 11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. 12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations. Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95 (http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed. Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to construction. 13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities. 494 Plan Review Team Land Management PGEPlanReview@pge.com Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 0000 City, State, Zip Code PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1 Public April 25, 2023 Kelsey Evans City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Ave South San Francisco, CA 94080 Re: 800 Dubuque Avenue Project 800 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, CA Dear Kelsey: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the subject plans. The proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue Project is within the same vicinity of PG&E’s existing facilities that impact this property. The 800 Dubuque Avenue Project proposes to demolition of existing structures on the subject parcel. The applicant must contact the below resources to relocate or modify existing gas and electric service as needed. No structures are permitted to be built on any existing PG&E facilities to remain in place. Only plant lawns, flowers, low-profile grasses and low-growing herbaceous plants over any PG&E facilities within the subject parcels. Please contact the Building and Renovation Center (BRSC) for facility map requests by calling 1-877-743-7782 and PG&E’s Service Planning department at www.pge.com/cco for any modification or relocation requests, or for any additional services you may require. As a reminder, before any digging or excavation occurs, please contact Underground Service Alert (USA) by dialing 811 a minimum of 2 working days prior to commencing any work. This free and independent service will ensure that all existing underground utilities are identified and marked on-site. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact me at Justin.Newell@pge.com. Sincerely, Justin Newell Land Management 916-594-4068 495 April 18, 2023 Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, California 94080 TRANSMITTED VIA E-MAIL ONLY christopher.espiritu@ssf.net Subject: SFO Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: 800 Dubuque Avenue Project, South San Francisco, California San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) staff have reviewed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the 800 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. As described in the IS/MND, the Proposed Project is located at 800 Dubuque Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-030), bordered by Dubuque Avenue and U.S. Highway 101 on the west and by the Caltrain right-of-way on the east; it is currently developed with two one-story buildings and one two-story building containing office/research and development (life science) uses and associated surface parking. The Proposed Project consists of demolishing the three existing buildings and constructing three new office/research and development buildings containing a total of approximately 900,000 gross square feet and four levels of below-grade parking with a total of 1,335 parking spaces. The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet above grade; the west and south buildings would be approximately 179 and 130 feet above grade, respectively. Including the mechanical penthouse on the tallest building, the maximum height of the Proposed Project would be approximately 215 feet above grade. The Proposed Project would include an event center, food/beverage uses, a fitness center, and a bicycle storage room. The three buildings would be connected by a two-story terrace featuring a central plaza and courtyard. 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 not appear to be inconsistent with the Noise and Safety Compatibility policies adopted in the SFO ALUCP. However, many airport departure procedures currently are designed to ascend over the project area, and overnight uses in particular could experience some noise disturbances from aircraft departures. As described in Exhibit IV-17 of the ALUCP (see Attachment), the critical aeronautical surface at the Proposed Project location is at an elevation of approximately 860 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 19 feet AMSL (NAVD88), the heights of the buildings as currently defined (195, 179, and 130 feet above ground level) would be below the critical aeronautical surfaces and the Proposed Project would not appear to be incompatible 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. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 496 Christopher Espiritu, City of South San Francisco April 18, 2023 Page 2 of 2 The Project Description section on page 3 of the IS/MND includes the following language: “The north building would be the tallest at approximately 195 feet above grade, and the west and south buildings would be approximately 179 and 130 feet above grade, respectively (including the mechanical penthouses).” Based on the sections and elevations provided in Figures 5 through 7 of the IS/MND, the elevations of the north, west, and south buildings including the mechanical penthouses are approximately 215, 199, and 147 feet AMSL, respectively. 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 of 261 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 Federal Regulations Part 77 Section 19, of which penetrations are considered obstructions, but not necessarily hazards to air navigation. Higher structures could be permissible through consultation with the FAA as long as the structures do not conflict with the critical aeronautical surfaces of the SFO ALUCP. Thus, the Proposed Project does not appear to be inconsistent 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. * * * 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 Chris DiPrima, SFO DocuSign Envelope ID: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 497 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-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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 498 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-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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 499 280 380 280 280 101 101 101 101 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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 500 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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 501 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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 502 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: 3316EA2A-4486-4A10-8142-5ADF1D7D051E 503 From: Frost, Erik@DOC <Erik.Frost@conservation.ca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2023 12:23 PM To: Evans, Kelsey <kelsey.evans@ssf.net> Subject: RE: NOA/NOI - 800 Dubuque Avenue Project - South San Francisco, CA Hello Kelsey Evans, The California Geological Survey (CGS) has reviewed the Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed 800 Dubuque Avenue project. The IS/MND incorrectly states “the project site is not within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone.” The CGS has prepared a Seismic Hazard Zone Report and Earthquake Zone of Required Investigation Map for the San Francisco South quadrangle, and the project site is in fact located within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. However, the IS/MND goes on to state that liquefaction potential was assessed in a geotechnical investigation. For future reference, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation can be reviewed here: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Associated maps, report, and GIS data are available here: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatory maps Please let me know if you have any questions. Erik Dr. Erik Frost Senior Engineering Geologist | Seismic Hazards Program 504 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP PAGE 1 OF 10 800 Dubuque Avenue Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed Air Quality General Plan Mitigation Measure GP-MM-Air-1a: Basic Construction Management Practices. [The project applicant / owner / sponsor] shall incorporate the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD): i) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. iii) All visible mud or dirt trackout onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 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 Mitigation Measure Air-2: Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter During Construction. The project applicant / owner / sponsor shall implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by at least 50 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows: 1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use 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 505 PAGE 2 OF 10 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve at least a 50 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination). b. Use of electrical or non-diesel fueled equipment. 2. Dewatering pumps shall be powered by electricity. 3. Use of electric portable equipment following the site preparation and grading phases. 4. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 50 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures: • Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 or alternatively fueled equipment, • Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors, • Use of electrically-powered equipment, • Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage. Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction. 506 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP PAGE 3 OF 10 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 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. Fish and Wildlife Service or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW. The biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with monitoring by the biologist to and stoppage of work in that area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season. 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 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure Cul-1: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground- Prior to issuance of construction permits Applicant Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgment of requirements SSF Building Division 507 PAGE 4 OF 10 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of paleontological, archaeological, and/or tribal artifacts and resources that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils. -and- Prior to initiation of grading or excavation -and- Verify requirements are met during construction Mitigation Measure Cul-2: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant, and specific measures can be implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. 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 Measure Cul-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or, if the remains are Native American, in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. 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 508 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP PAGE 5 OF 10 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed 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, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code. Prior to issuance of building permits Applicant Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgement of geotechnical recommendations SSF Building Division Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure Haz-1: Implement Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans. The applicant’s construction contractor shall implement soil management and health and safety plans to facilitate compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the reported petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compound concentrations in the soil. These plans must be filed with the City before construction permits are granted and are anticipated to include the following components: 1. Soil Management Plan. Recent analytical results indicate that some site soils contain slightly elevated concentrations of SVOCs, VOCs, TPH, and certain metals. The soil management objectives for the site are to minimize exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and pedestrians, and future users of the site. A site- specific soil management plan will be developed based on recent comprehensive subsurface investigations covering the site soils to depths exceeding planned excavations and the underlying groundwater. The soil management plan is intended to facilitate compliance with relevant federal, state, and local Prior to issuance of grading permits -and- During construction Applicant Verify construction contractors provide acknowledgement of requirements -and- Verify requirements are met during construction SSF Building Division 509 PAGE 6 OF 10 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed laws and regulations, applicable to earthwork activities at the site as a result of the identified contamination profiles. Some of the excavated material in the upper 5 feet may need to be disposed off-site at a Class II non-hazardous regulated landfill and/or as unrestrictive waste based on disposal facility’s acceptance criteria. The contractor will establish appropriate off-site disposal locations and direct truck loading scheduling and tracking and recording of all shipments per applicable regulations and/or stockpile locations on the site to properly segregate, cover, moisture control, and profile the excavated material. Further testing may instead determine that no special soil handling is required. Unless from a documented clean source such as a quarry, soil imported onto the site will be tested in accordance with the “Clean Imported Fill Material” information advisory developed by the California DTSC in October 2001. 2. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on-site construction workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The contractor will be responsible for developing and implementing the HASP. The HASP plan will describe the health and safety training requirements, specific personal hygiene, and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure to constituents in the soil, which is anticipated to include the following: • the site will be fenced; • exposed soil at the construction site will be watered at least twice daily to prevent visible dust from migrating off -site; • stockpiles will be covered; • water will be misted or sprayed during loading of material onto trucks for off haul; • trucks transporting contaminated material will be covered with a tarpaulin or other cover; 510 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP PAGE 7 OF 10 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed • the wheels of the trucks exiting the site will be cleaned prior to entering public streets; • public streets will be swept daily if material is visible, excavation and loading activities will be suspended if winds exceed 15 miles per hour; and the fence will be posted with requirements of the safe drinking water and toxic enforcement act (Proposition 65). 3. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop (if necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and safety plan. 4. Dust Control. During all excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented to reduce potential exposure. These measures may include moisture conditioning the soil and covering exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted down plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil. Dust control measures at a minimum will include: • Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting. • Watering uncovered ground surface at the site; use of water will be limited to prevent runoff. • Misting or spraying of soil during excavation and loading. • Emplacement of gravel and/or rubble plates on site access roads as feasible. • Trucks hauling soil from the site will be covered. • Visible dust will be monitored during excavation and subsurface demolition. • The soil drop height from an excavator’s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks will be minimized. • Windbreaks will be deployed as necessary. • If necessary, the area of excavation may be limited to reduce dust generation. • Site vehicle speed limits. 511 PAGE 8 OF 10 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed • Street sweeping. • Termination of excavation if winds exceed 25 mph. • Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed. 5. Odor Control. If strong odors are noted during excavation activities, odor suppression measures will be implemented by the General Contractor to minimize odor during excavation activities. 6. Storm Water Pollution Controls. Storm water pollution controls will be implemented to minimize storm water runoff and sediment transport from the site. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will identify Best Management Practices for activities as specified by the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook (Stormwater Quality Task Force, 1993) and/or the Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures (ABAG, 1995). The SWPPP will include protocols (i.e., earth dikes and drainage swales) to control storm water contact with, or runoff from, potentially impacted soil during wet weather conditions. 7. Groundwater Management. Groundwater at the site has been encountered at depths of nine feet to fifteen feet below ground surface. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans. Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Based on the analytical results, the groundwater may need to be treated prior to discharge. Any proposed groundwater treatment prior to discharge will require analytical testing and approval from the appropriate regulatory agency prior to discharging. 8. Contingency Plans for Unknown/Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unknown historical subsurface features and/or unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage 512 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP PAGE 9 OF 10 Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed tanks (UST) and associated product lines, sumps, and/or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/or stains. • Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and cover with plastic sheets. • Notify the General Contractor’s site safety officer and site superintendent. • Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on -site to work with the affected materials, once directed by the General Contractor. 9. Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report. A Soil and Groundwater Management Completion Report (SGMCR) will be prepared that summarizes the soil and groundwater management activities and any subsequent investigative and removal activities that were completed during redevelopment. The SGMCR will present a chronology of the construction events, a summary of analytical data, a copy of all manifests from the site, and a description of all soil and groundwater management activities at the site. The report will also contain laboratory analytical results and figures, as appropriate, to provide detail regarding the amount and type of contamination encountered (if any) during various activities. The report will also summarize any residual contaminants that were left on the site after completion of redevelopment activities and document that soil handling procedures were implemented in accordance with this mitigation measure. Transportation Mitigation Measure Trans-1: Demonstrate Adequate Sight Distance at Project Driveways. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the sight distance is adequate at both project driveways, which could include but is not limited to the following measures: Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Applicant Confirm implementation or plan for implementation SSF Public Works Department 513 PAGE 10 OF 10 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT - MMRP Mitigation Measure Timing/ Schedule Implementation Responsibility Verification Monitoring Action Monitoring Responsibility Date Completed • Coordination with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph. • Coordination with the City to remove all line-of-sight obstructions (vegetation, utility poles and sign boards) to create clear sight lines within the City’s right-of-way to the south of the project site. • Coordination with the adjacent property to the south (720 Dubuque Avenue/PG&E easement) to push back the existing metal fence on the southern boundary of the project site and remove vegetation to provide a clear zone to the south of the project’s southern driveway. 514 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-539 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:2 Item #:9b. Resolution making findings and approving a Design Review Permit,Transportation Demand Management Plan,and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue WHEREAS,the applicant has proposed the construction of a new development at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres)referred to as “Project Site”in the City and is comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335 parking spaces (“Project”); and WHEREAS,the applicant seeks adoption of a Design Review Permit (DR22-0010),Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004), and Community Benefits Program (CB23-0001) for the Project; and WHEREAS,the applicant also seeks increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR)of approximately 3.3 beyond zoning standards in exchange for the provision of certain community benefits pursuant to the Community Benefits Program under Municipal Code Chapter 20.395,inclusive of funding contributions,publicly accessible plaza construction,improvements to public access and connectivity features surrounding the Project,and building electrification, as outlined in further detail in Attachment 1A to the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS,a valuation study has been prepared in accordance with Municipal Code Section 20.395.003,as shown in Attachment 1B of the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS,approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project”for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS,on June 15,2023,the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”)(ND22-0001)and the proposed entitlements,take public testimony,and make a recommendation on the Project; and, WHEREAS,based on the record before it,the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND (ND22-0001)and approve the Project,based on findings that the Project is consistent with the General Plan,meets Design Review Criteria,and consistent with Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements; and WHEREAS,on July 12,2023,the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™515 File #:23-539 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:2 Item #:9b. WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND (ND22- 0001),and by separate resolution,adopted the IS/MND (ND22-0001),as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental impacts,and found that the IS/MND satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is necessary. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the South San Francisco Municipal Code;the Project applications;the Project Plans,as prepared by Perkins and Will Architects,dated October 31,2022;the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration,as prepared by Lamphier-Gregory,Inc.,dated March 2023;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15,2023 meeting;all site plans,and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed July 12,2023 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The Exhibits attached to this Resolution,including the Development Standard Conformance Checklist for ETC (Exhibit A),Project Plans for Entitlement (Exhibit B),Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C),and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit D)are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. Design Review 1.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as an office and research &development project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements incorporated. 2.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office/R&D development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the East of 101 Transit Core land use designation by encouraging the City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™516 File #:23-539 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:2 Item #:9b. Francisco General Plan for the East of 101 Transit Core land use designation by encouraging the development of new employment projects with some commercial uses within close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. 3.The Project,including Design Review,is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 4.The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”)because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on May 17,2022,and August 16,2022,and found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. Transportation Demand Management Plan 1.Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.005,the proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project,considering the proposed use and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation; 2.Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.005,the proposed TDM program meets the points requirements indicated for the tier and land use of the project; and 3.Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.005,the TDM program is adequate to achieve the required performance measures. Community Benefits Proposal Chapter 20.395 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code provides a Community Benefits Program by which the City may increase the value of private property by granting additional development capacity (i.e.,a floor area ratio (FAR)bonus)in exchange for community benefits.The Program is a way for the City to derive greater benefit for the broader community from the granting of planning entitlements than would be otherwise possible through base zoning district standards.Community benefits include enhanced open spaces,enhanced connectivity,green buildings,social service uses,expanded transportation demand management,on-site and off -site affordable housing,or sea level rise adaptation measures.Among the various FAR incentives provided,an increase of FAR in excess of 2.5 requires City Council approval of a Community Benefits Agreement,which may include payment of Community Benefits fees to satisfy part or all of the benefit.A valuation study is required for applicants seeking an FAR in excess of 2.5 through the Community Benefits Program.Further,the Community Benefits Program identifies the City’s benefits priorities consisting of the following:(1)public spaces;(2)enhanced connectivity;(3)Public and Social Services;(4)Support for Local Businesses;(5)On- Site or Off-Site Affordable Housing; (6) District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures. The Project proposes an FAR of approximately 3.3 beyond the zoning standards,and proposes to provide various benefits,including:funding contribution of $4,742,500;inclusion of publicly accessible plaza space; improvements of public access and connectivity around the Project site including installation of new landscaping and sidewalk;and building electrification.The Project applicant further agrees to support City’s formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD)serving land within the East of 101 area,and will provide additional improvements as a part of its commitments to further benefit the community (see Attachment 1A to the accompanying staff report).A valuation study has been provided (see Attachment 1B to the accompanying staff report)as required by the Municipal Code.Based on the valuation study,the specific community benefits City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™517 File #:23-539 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:2 Item #:9b. staff report)as required by the Municipal Code.Based on the valuation study,the specific community benefits package identified above is valued at $12.6 million to the City of South San Francisco.In accordance with the information presented to it as a part of the public hearing proceedings,the City Council finds that these identified community benefits align with the City’s priorities under Municipal Code section 20.395.004,and serve the goals of the Community Benefits Program to enhance open space,connectivity,green buildings,and transportation. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution,and approves a Design Review Permit,Transportation Demand Management Plan,and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue as described in this resolution,subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibits D1 and D2 and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to prepare and execute a Community Benefits Agreement that contains the terms outlined in the Community Benefits Proposal as approved by this resolution and reflected in Attachment 1A of the accompanying staff report,and to make minor,non-substantive changes that do not increase the City’s obligations or materially alter the approved Community Benefits Proposal, all subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. ******* City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™518 1 800 Dubuque Development Conformance Checklist – East of 101 Transit Core District October 31, 2022 Standard1 ETC Proposed Compliance Status Additional Notes / Comments Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 256,752 square feet Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 440’-7” Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Minimum Lot Depth -- 581’-2” N/A See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.0; 8.0 with community benefits2 3.3 with community benefits Complies Subject to approval of a Community Benefits Agreement Maximum Lot Coverage 85% 54% Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 1 Per Table 20.090.003 2 Additional FAR. See Chapter 20.395 (“Community Benefits Program”) for additional FAR based on the Community Benefits Program. 519 2 Standard1 ETC Proposed Compliance Status Additional Notes / Comments Maximum Building Height – Main Building Maximum height limits are the lower of the heights permissible under (1) FAA regulations and (2) the SFO ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces requirements [Exhibit IV-14]3 Highest built element above mean sea level (AMSL): 216.7’ (North Building mechanical stack) Highest built element above average grade plane: 196.96’ (North Building mechanical stack) Complies (subject to issuance of Determination of No Hazard from FAA) See diagram 2 on sheet G01.05 The critical aeronautical surfaces at the site are at an elevation of approximately 200-250’ AMSL on the Critical Aeronautical Surfaces map. Given that the ground elevation (average grade plane) at the site is at 19.74’ AMSL and maximum height of the building is 196.96’ above average grade plane, the top elevation of the highest built element at 216.7’ AMSL would be below critical aeronautical surfaces. Minimum Ground Floor Height for Nonresidential Uses 15 feet; 12 feet minimum clearance4 North and West buildings: 22’ South building: 22’-6” Minimum clear interior ceiling height: 12’ or greater Exterior soffits: 16’ Complies See diagrams 1 and 2 on sheet G01.05 and diagrams 1 and 2 on G01.06 3 Table 20.090.003, Note D(4), Maximum Height in ETC District. See Chapter 20.300.003 (“Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Consistency”) for airspace protection evaluation requirements based on the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. 4 Ground Floor Height. The minimum ground floor height for buildings with nonresidential uses at the ground level is 15 feet, with a minimum 12-foot clearance from floor to ceiling. For residential buildings, a ground floor garage may be exempt from this requirement, subject to evaluation by the decisionmaking authority in the review process. 520 3 Standard1 ETC Proposed Compliance Status Additional Notes / Comments Street Frontage At property line or 10 feet from curb (whichever is greater) Buildings shall be constructed at the required setback for at least 65 percent of linear street frontage. West building: 25’-6" minimum from property line; greater than 10’ from curb Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Minimum Interior Side Setback 0 feet 46’ Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Minimum Rear Setback 0 feet 44’ Complies See diagram 3 on sheet G01.05 Minimum Landscaping -- LEVEL 01: 36,377 sf (14.2%) LEVEL 02: 6,207 sf (2.42%) LEVEL 03: 2,441 sf (0.95%) TOTAL: 45,025 sf (17.54%) N/A See sheets L03-11 through L03-32 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 1 800 Dubuque DRAFT Transportation Demand Management Plan Prepared for: City of South San Francisco DRAFT March 6, 2023 594 2 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Project Setting ............................................................................................................................... 6 Transit Connections ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6 BART .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Caltrain ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 WETA (San Francisco Bay Ferry) ..................................................................................................................................... 6 SamTrans ................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 First/Last Mile Shuttle Connections .............................................................................................................................. 8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections ..................................................................................................................................... 9 San Mateo County TDM Resources ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Proposed Transportation Demand Management Program .................................................... 11 Proposed TDM Program .........................................................................................................................................................11 Enhanced Shuttle Commitment ...................................................................................................................................11 Fully Subsidized Transit Passes ....................................................................................................................................12 Transit Capital Improvements & Active Transportation Gap Closure ...........................................................12 Onsite Pedestrian ...............................................................................................................................................................12 Bicycle Repair Station .......................................................................................................................................................12 TDM Checklist ..............................................................................................................................................................................12 Proposed Trip Cap .....................................................................................................................................................................13 Monitoring and Enforcement ................................................................................................... 15 Monitoring Methods ................................................................................................................................................................15 Survey Approach ................................................................................................................................................................15 Trip Cap Monitoring .........................................................................................................................................................17 Triennial Midday Parking Occupancy Survey .........................................................................................................18 Relationship to Parking Management Plan .....................................................................................................................18 Enforcement & Fines ................................................................................................................................................................18 595 3 Introduction This report presents a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, per City of South San Francisco Zoning Code Chapter 20.400, for the proposed office/research & development building at 800 Dubuque Avenue, herein referred to as the “Project.” A description of the proposed project is included on the following pages. The City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance strives to accomplish the following goals: • Reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development. • Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. • Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. • Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the desired alternative mode use percentages are achieved. The City requires the Project to enact a TDM program to achieve a maximum drive alone commute mode share of 50 percent pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 20.400. Additionally, the Project must implement annual monitoring of a site-specific trip cap. These requirements are consistent with a Tier 4 classification (large office/R&D project) under the TDM Ordinance and also meet the TDM requirements established by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). This TDM Plan identifies a set of strategies, measures, and incentives to encourage future tenant employees at the project to walk, bicycle, ride transit, or carpool when commuting to and from work. In order to accomplish this goal, this plan presents a range of proven strategies and measures used across the Bay Area. Project Description The Project includes 857,000 square feet of office/R&D space, an event center with capacity for up to 450 attendees, tenant-oriented dining and fitness amenities, and 1,335 parking spaces. The Project is located on Dubuque Avenue between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. Site access would be provided via two driveway connections on Dubuque Avenue and sidewalk connections to Dubuque Avenue. A shuttle and passenger loading area is provided at the northern driveway entrance. Figure 1 illustrates the Project location, while Figure 2 depicts site circulation. 596 San BrunoMtn. State andCounty Park 3101 W e s t O rangeAvenueAirportBoulevardHu n ti n g t onAvenueWestboroughBoulevardJu nip ero S erra B o ule v ard Harbor WyAirportBoulevardSouth Linden AvenueSanMateoAvenueSisterCitiesBoulevard Oyster Point Boulevard Grand A v e n u e EastGrandAvenue South A i rpo r t Bou leva rdOrange AvenueChestnutAvenueHillside Boulevard Linden AvenueGullRoadC o u n tryC lubDriveUtah Av e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l DubuqueAvenueHillsid e B oulevard D N A W y E l Ca mi noRealLawndale Boulevard G atewayBoulevardSouthSpruceAvenueA v alonDriveFor b e s B o u levard∙82 %&280 South San Francisco Caltrain South San Francisco BART South San Francisco Ferry W:\San Francisco N Drive\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1200_Dubuque Corridor Planning\Graphics\GIS\MXD\800_Dubuque_Alt.aprxProject Location Regional Rail BART Caltrain Project Site Cities Water Area Parks Figure 1 597 Legend:Vehicular CirculationPedestrian CirculationShuttle Loading ZoneFigure 2: Site and Circulation Plan598 6 Project Setting Transit Connections The following transit services operate within South San Francisco near the Project site. Existing transit services are shown in Figure 3. Descriptions provided in this section reflect transit operations in Fall 2022. BART BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County, with connections to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae Intermodal Station to the south, San Francisco to the north, and Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburgh/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton and Fremont in the East Bay. Two BART lines serve South San Francisco Station: the Yellow Line connecting Antioch with San Francisco International Airport, and the Red Line connecting Richmond and Millbrae. Each BART line operates every 15-minutes throughout the day. The South San Francisco BART Station is located approximately three miles to the west of the Project site. Caltrain Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José, and limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during weekday commute periods. The South San Francisco Caltrain Station is located less than one half mile from the Project site. The station is served by local and limited trains from around 5:30 A.M. to 12:00 A.M., with approximately 30-minute headways during peak periods and 60-minute headways during off-peak periods. In early 2022, Caltrain relocated the South San Francisco Caltrain station several hundred feet to the south near the East Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard intersection to provide more direct pedestrian and shuttle access to the East of 101 area via a tunnel with access at East Grand Avenue and Poletti Way. By 2024, Caltrain plans to complete its electrification project to support the operation of faster and more frequent rail service on the Peninsula, and expects to modify its schedules accordingly. WETA (San Francisco Bay Ferry) The Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) provides weekday commuter ferry service between the Oakland/Alameda ferry terminals and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal at Oyster Point (known as the San Francisco Bay Ferry). There are three morning departures from Oakland/Alameda to South San Francisco, and three evening departures from South San Francisco to Oakland/Alameda. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal is located approximately 1.5 miles to the east of the Project site. 599 San BrunoMtn. State andCounty Park 3101 W e s t O rangeAvenueAirportBoulevardHu n ti n g t onAvenueWestboroughBoulevardJu nip ero S erra B o ule v ard Harbor WyAirportBoulevardSouth Linden AvenueSanMateoAvenueSisterCitiesBoulevard Oyster Point Boulevard Grand A v e n u e EastGrandAvenue South A i rpo r t Bou leva rdOrange AvenueChestnutAvenueHillside Boulevard Linden AvenueGullRoadC o u n tryC lubDriveUtah Av e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l DubuqueAvenueHillsid e B oulevard D N A W y E l Ca mi noRealLawndale Boulevard G atewayBoulevardSouthSpruceAvenueA v alonDriveFor b e s B o u levard∙82 %&280 OTP 122ECR 397130B1 2 2 ECR141292130ASouth San Francisco Caltrain South San Francisco BART South San Francisco Ferry W:\San Francisco N Drive\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1200_Dubuque Corridor Planning\Graphics\GIS\MXD\800_Dubuque.aprxTransit Connections BART Caltrain SamTrans One Tower Place (OTP) Shuttle Cities Water Area Parks Project Site Figure 3 Transit and Regional Rail Note: Shuttle services that do not directly serve the Project site are not shown, including the Oyster Point BART, Oyster Point Caltrain, Oyster Point Ferry, Utah Grand BART, Utah Grand Caltrain, Utah Grand Ferry, and South City shuttles. 600 8 SamTrans SamTrans provides bus service in San Mateo County. Two SamTrans routes operate near the Project site: Route 292, which connects San Francisco and San Mateo via local stop service on Airport Boulevard, and Route 130, which connects the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with Downtown South San Francisco and Daly City via local stop service on Gateway Boulevard. The nearest stops for each route are about a ½ mile walk via the Oyster Point Boulevard or Grand Avenue overpasses due to barriers posed by the US- 101 freeway and Caltrain railroad tracks. First/Last Mile Shuttle Connections The Project site is directly served by the One Tower Place shuttle operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org). The One Tower Place shuttle serves both the South San Francisco BART Station and the South San Francisco Caltrain Station with four morning and four afternoon trips at hourly intervals via a single 20 passenger vehicle. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, the shuttle served approximately 90 passengers per day; however, ridership declined due to the COVID-19 pandemic and has not yet recovered due to the increase in remote work. The shuttle is funded by a combination of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s Shuttle Call for Projects Grants and matching private sector contributions from participating office/R&D sites. No direct shuttle connections are provided to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal due to insufficient demand. However, the Oyster Point Ferry shuttle includes a stop at the eastern entrance of the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, which is less than a ten-minute walk to the Project site. The One Tower Place Shuttle. Source: SamTrans 601 9 Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections The Project site is located between U.S. 101 to the west and Caltrain tracks to the east, which heavily constrains bicycle and pedestrian connectivity with downtown South San Francisco or other locations in the East of 101 area. Dubuque Avenue has a continuous sidewalk along the east side of the street that connects to both overpasses and the South San Francisco Caltrain station. People walking or biking elsewhere may travel via three routes: the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass to the north, the East Grand Avenue overpass to the south, or walking through the Caltrain platform to the station underpass. While the City continues to expand its bicycle and pedestrian network, the East of 101 Area has historically experienced low volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists due to commute lengths, lack of continuous low stress facilities, lack of network connectivity to residences and transit stations, and topography. To address the gap in the bicycle and pedestrian network near the Project site, The City has proposed a bicycle and pedestrian bridge in the vicinity of the Project site connecting Airport Boulevard and Poletti Way/Gateway Boulevard in its Active South City Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Figure 5 illustrates existing and planned bikeway facilities as well as sidewalk infrastructure gaps in South San Francisco. San Mateo County TDM Resources The project would have access to trip reduction services offered by Commute.org. Commute.org is a public agency whose mission is to reduce the number of drive-alone vehicles traveling to, from or through San Mateo County. The agency’s goal is to help residents and commuters find alternatives to driving alone that are less stressful, less costly, and better the environment. The agency provides information and commute planning assistance to employees, employer programs, and city transportation demand management partnerships. Figure 4 illustrates some current promotions and services offered by Commute.org that are open to all employees in San Mateo County. Figure 4: Commute.org TDM Promotional Programs 602 San BrunoMtn. State andCounty Park 3101 W e s t O rangeAvenueAirportBoulevardHu n ti n g t onAvenueWestboroughBoulevardJu nip ero S erra B o ule v ard Harbor WyAirportBoulevardSouth Linden AvenueSanMateoAvenueSisterCitiesBoulevard Oyster Point Boulevard Grand A v e n u e EastGrandAvenue South A i rpo r t Bou leva rdOrange AvenueChestnutAvenueHillside Boulevard Linden AvenueGullRoadC o u n tryC lubDriveUtah Av e n u e El C a m i n o R e a l DubuqueAvenueHillsid e B oulevard D N A W y E l Ca mi noRealLawndale Boulevard G atewayBoulevardSouthSpruceAvenueA v alonDriveFor b e s B o u levard∙82 %&280 South San Francisco Caltrain South San Francisco BART South San Francisco Ferry W:\San Francisco N Drive\Projects\2021_Projects\SF21-1200_Dubuque Corridor Planning\Graphics\GIS\MXD\800_Dubuque_Alt.aprxBicycle Connections Existing Bikeways Class I Shared Path Class II Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class IV Separated Bikeway Planned Bikeways Class I Shared Path Class II/IIB Bicycle Lane Class III Bicycle Route Class III Neighborhood Bikeway Class IV Separated Bikeway Project Site Figure 5 603 11 Proposed Transportation Demand Management Program This section summarizes the Project’s proposed TDM program as presently envisioned in the planning process. When applying for a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a compliance form and appropriate attachments finalizing the TDM program and documenting how the program will be implemented before the site reaches 50% occupancy. Proposed TDM Program The City’s TDM Ordinance has two components: a points-based planning checklist and annual performance monitoring thresholds. As a Tier 4 project, the Project is required to submit a completed TDM checklist that achieves a minimum threshold of 50 points, consistent with achieving a 50 percent drive alone mode share target (via survey) and compliance with an onsite trip cap (via counts). As illustrated in Table 1, the project would implement all required measures per the City’s TDM Ordinance, including the following: ▪ 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits ▪ Participation in Commute.org Programs ▪ Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking ▪ Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers ▪ Designated TDM Coordinator ▪ Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access ▪ Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules The following optional measures would also be implemented. Enhanced Shuttle Commitment The Project would contribute additional funding sufficient to achieve 30-minute frequencies on the One Tower Place shuttle. Increasing shuttle frequency would enable more convenient connections to BART and Caltrain, supporting a more user-friendly service conducive to higher transit ridership and mode share. Achieving 30-minute frequencies would require a second vehicle serving the route provided via Commute.org. If a second vehicle is not available via Commute.org, then the property manager would directly contract a second vehicle to interline the service with Commute.org. The shuttle would continue to be open to the public per City Ordinance requirements, and would be eligible for grant funding via the San Mateo County Transportation Authority’s Shuttle Call for Projects program. 604 12 Eventually, Commute.org may also consider an extension of the Oyster Point Ferry Shuttle to serve the Project site; however, this extension should be weighed against potential effects on trip time, frequency, and reliability since the Project site would require a substantial diversion from the existing route. There is insufficient demand to warrant a dedicated ferry shuttle at this time, although such a route may be considered by the TDM Coordinator in collaboration with Commute.org and adjacent properties in the future as ferry service levels and development activity increases along the Dubuque corridor. Fully Subsidized Transit Passes To encourage transit use, employees at the Project site would be provided with fully subsidized transit passes. A subsidy of 100 percent of transit commute travel would be provided via employers (up to the maximum IRS benefit if applicable). Transit Capital Improvements & Active Transportation Gap Closure The Project would contribute toward capital improvements at the northern entrance to the South San Francisco Caltrain station. As illustrated in Figure 6, the scope of work would include a sidewalk connection between the station and Dubuque Avenue, a shuttle stop and waiting area adjacent to the station platforms, a rehabilitated parking lot, and landscaping areas. Funding for these improvements would be in addition to improvements provided by the 580 Dubuque project. Onsite Pedestrian-Oriented Amenities The Project would incorporate onsite amenities for tenants including food and beverage service, a fitness center, and an event center. Onsite amenity spaces support internalizing trips and reduce the need for short auto trips. Bicycle Repair Station The Project would provide an onsite bicycle repair station for routine maintenance of bicycles. TDM Checklist Based on the required and optional measures described above, the Project would meet the required 50- point threshold for Tier 4 projects as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1: Tier 4 TDM Certification Checklist Type TDM Measure Eligible Points Proposed Project Points Required Measures (20 Points) 50% Transit Pass Subsidies and Pre-Tax Transit Benefits 7 7 Participation in Commute.org Programs 5 5 Carpool/Vanpool Programs and Parking 3 3 Bicycle Storage, Showers, and Lockers 2 2 Designated TDM Coordinator 1 1 605 13 Type TDM Measure Eligible Points Proposed Project Points Bicycle and Pedestrian-Oriented Site Access 1 1 Encourage Telecommuting & Flexible Work Schedules 1 1 Optional Measures Paid Parking or Parking Cash-Out 10 Enhanced Shuttle Commitment 10 10 Fully Subsidized Transit Passes 8 8 Affordable Housing 6 Active Transportation Gap Closure Up to 6 2 Transit Capital Improvements Up to 6 6 On-Site Pedestrian-Oriented Amenities 3 3 Bikeshare Program Participation 3 Shared Parking Approach 2 Cash Incentives 2 On-Site Carshare 2 Active Transportation Subsidies 1 Bicycle Repair Station 1 1 Requirements Tier 4 Projects 50 50 Proposed Trip Cap Tier 4 projects are subject to site-specific trip caps that limit the number of peak-direction vehicle trips that a site generates during peak periods. Trip caps should reinforce mode share and parking requirements for the site while allowing some flexibility to accommodate fluctuations in employee density, daily variations in travel patterns, and anticipated levels of guest/visitor travel activity. The proposed trip cap is 1,680 peak period, peak direction vehicle trips, based on the calculations below (values rounded to the nearest 10): • 857,000 square feet / 300 square feet per employee = 2,860 employees • Target 50% drive-alone rate for employees: 50% x 2,860 employees = 1,430 vehicle trips • Target 12% carpool rate: 12% x 2,860 employees / 3 people per vehicle = 110 vehicle trips • 10% allowance for non-employee trips: 10% x 1,430 vehicle trips = 140 vehicle trips • Peak period trip cap: 1,430 + 110 + 140 = 1,680 vehicle trips 606 k:\2017\170475_dubuque_av_ssf\ENG\p_parking\C2.0-SITE_PLAN.dwgSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGCONTRACTOR162013580 DUBUQUE© 2021 Perkins and Will150 California Street, Suite 600, San FranciscoCA 941111301 Fifth Ave, Suite 3200, Seattle WA 981011501 East Madison St, Suite 300, Seattle WA98122Pier 33 North, The Embarcadero, Suite 200,San Francisco CA 941111501 East Madison St, Suite 300, Seattle WA98122LIGHTINGSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA1301 Fifth AvenueSuite 2300Seattle, WA 98101t 206.381.6000f 206.441.4981www.perkinswill.comMARK ISSUE DATE674 VIA DE LA VALLE, SUITE 206SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075JULY 26, 202250%SCHEMATICDESIGNSITE PLANC2.0Figure 6: South San Francisco Caltrain Station Parking Lot Improvement Site Plan607 15 Monitoring and Enforcement The TDM program will be monitored based on the requirements in the South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. The Project would comply with any future changes to the City’s monitoring and enforcement practices as described in its TDM Ordinance. Monitoring Methods Survey monitoring for Tier 3 and Tier 4 projects would apply to commute trips only. Participants are expected to provide a good faith effort in reducing non-commute trips, but these trips would only be monitored via vehicle trip counts. Survey Approach Participants have two options in administering a survey: 1. Administer a statistically valid survey sufficient to achieve a margin of error of +/- 3 percent at a 90 percent confidence interval, with documentation of the survey methods and calculations by an independent consultant to support the validity of the survey. 2. Administer an online survey with a minimum response rate of 75 percent of the employee population. The following survey language would be included in all mode share surveys based on guidance provided by the City of South San Francisco. The site’s TDM coordinator may expand upon this survey language to seek additional information as needed. 1. Which of the following best represents your employment at [location]? (check one) o Full-time Employee o Part-time Employee o Contract Employee 2. In what ZIP code is your home located? (enter 5-digit ZIP code; for example, 94901) ___[Fill in the blank]_______ o Prefer Not to Answer o If prefer not to answer: Approximately how many miles is it from your home to your office in South San Francisco? 3. In the past week, what time did you usually arrive to work (check one)? ____[Drop down in increments of 30 minutes, from 6 AM – 10AM, before 6AM, or after 10AM]_____ 608 16 4. In the past week, what time did you usually leave work (check one)? ____[Drop down in increments of 30 minutes, from 3 PM – 7PM, before 3PM, or after 7PM]_______ 5. In the past week, on which days did you use each of the following transportation modes to travel to work? If you used more than one mode, (e.g. you take Caltrain and then bicycle), identify the mode that was the longest part of your trip. Transportation Mode Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Drove a car or motorcycle alone Rode as a carpool passenger Drove a carpool with one or more other adults Vanpooled or Carpooled with 6 or more people Rode a bus, train, ferry, or other public transit Rode a Bicycle or Scooter Walked all the way Dropped off by a friend/family member Dropped off by Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. Worked from home / telecommuted / worked offsite Did not work this day Other (please specify) 6. [Only ask if respondent answered transit] Which of the following services did you use last week? (Check all that apply) □ Caltrain □ BART □ SamTrans □ Ferry □ Shuttle (shorter distance service to/from regional transit such as BART, Caltrain, or ferry) □ Express bus (longer distance service to/from my home or a park & ride) 609 17 7. [Only ask if respondent answered carpool] If you travel by carpool, how many total people traveled with you to work (not including yourself)? o 1 other person o 2 other people o 3 other people o 4+ other people 8. [Only ask if respondent answered drive alone] What is the primary reason you choose to drive alone? ___[Fill in the blank]_______ Trip Cap Monitoring Trip cap compliance would be monitored via annual vehicle counts at the Project’s two driveways. Counts would be conducted by an independent vendor over a period of one week during which school is in session. Reporting As a Tier 4 project, the Project will be required to prepare and submit to the City an annual compliance form documenting the continued implementation of TDM measures, for the lifespan of the Project. In addition to the compliance form, survey results would be provided to the City in a standardized format as specified by staff. Formatted reports would be optional but not required. In order to calculate drive alone mode share, the TDM coordinator and City staff would sum the total number of trips completed via the following modes: • Drove a car or motorcycle alone • Dropped off by a friend/family member • Dropped off by Uber, Lyft, taxi, etc. • Non-responses if greater than 25 percent of the site’s employee population Trip counts would be included with the annual survey results and summarize total trips, AM peak period trips into the site (6:00 AM to 10:00 AM), and PM peak period trips out of the site (3:00 PM to 7:00 PM).In all instances, participants in the program must provide raw data to the City as part of their compliance package, including: 1. Respondent-level survey response data (deletion of columns containing emails or non-required fields is acceptable) 2. Count data as delivered by the contractor providing the counts for each location, with data separated into 15-minute increments or smaller. 3. Current employee population 610 18 Triennial Midday Parking Occupancy Survey In addition to annual surveys and trip counts, the Project shall prepare a midday parking occupancy count every three years per City Ordinance requirements. The parking occupancy survey shall be for informational purposes and is not associated with a performance target. Relationship to Parking Management Plan The Project has prepared a Parking Management Plan for its event center use. The Project would provide 50 parking spaces for the event center to accommodate about 11 percent of attendees as single- occupancy vehicles or up to 80 percent of attendees as four person carpools. The Parking Management Plan identifies several recommendations related to event planning and scheduling, trip planning assistance, valet parking, shuttle charters, and monitoring. The site’s TDM Coordinator would work with event sponsors to reduce drive alone trips consistent with the goals of the TDM Ordinance, particularly if events occur during peak periods when onsite parking supply and offsite roadway capacity is limited. Enforcement & Fines If the Project does not meet the required performance targets, the following penalties shall apply per the TDM Ordinance: ▪ First Violation: The City will direct the Project to modify its TDM program to achieve compliance. Modifications are likely to include adding or modifying TDM measures to increase mode shift. ▪ Second Violation: The City will direct the participant to coordinate with Commute.org or retain an independent consultant to identify additional program modifications to achieve compliance. Modifications are likely to include adding or modifying TDM measures to increase mode shift. ▪ Third Violation (and any subsequent violations): The City may assess a penalty per the City’s fee schedule. Penalties shall be assessed for each additional violation in subsequent years. The Project may appeal the decision to administer a penalty if special circumstances prevented meeting the required performance targets. 611 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL P21-0117: DR22-0010, TDM22-0004, ND22-0001 and CB23-0001 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff to Planning Commission on June 15, 2023, and to City Council on July 12, 2023) PLANNING DIVISION REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: GENERAL 1. The project shall be constructed and operated substantially as indicated on the plan set prepared by Perkins & Will Architects, dated October 31, 2022, and approved by the Planning Commission in association with P21-0117 as amended by the conditions of approval. The final plans shall be subject to the review and approval of the City’s Chief Planner. 2. The construction drawings shall comply with the Planning Commission approved plans, as amended by the conditions of approval, including the plans prepared by Perkins & Will Architects, dated October 31, 2022. 3. Applicant shall submit a checklist showing compliance with Conditions of Approval with building permit plans. 4. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for the construction of public improvements, the final design for all public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Chief Planner, or designee. 5. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for grading improvements, the applicant shall submit final grading plans for review and approval by the City Engineer and Chief Planner. 6. The project shall incorporate requirements and criteria related to the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), per SSFMC Section 20.300.003. 7. Any modification to the approved plans shall be subject to SSFMC Section 20.450.012 (“Modification”), whereby the Chief Planner may approve minor changes. All exterior design modifications, including any and all utilities, shall be presented to the Chief Planner for a determination. 8. Unless the use has commenced or related building permits have been issued within two (2) years of the date this permit is granted, this permit will automatically expire on that date, subject to any extensions provided under the Subdivision Map Act or other applicable law. A one-year 612 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 permit extension may be granted in accordance with provisions of the SSFMC Chapter 20.450 (Common Procedures) 9. The permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the property owner or a duly authorized representative files a signed acceptance form, prior to the issuance of a building permit, stating that the property owner is aware of, and accepts, all of the conditions of the permit. 10. The permit shall be subject to revocation if the project is not operated in compliance with the conditions of approval. 11. Neither the granting of this permit nor any conditions attached thereto shall authorize, require or permit anything contrary to, or in conflict with any ordinances specifically named therein. 12. Prior to construction, all required building permits shall be obtained from the City’s Building Division. 13. Demolition of any existing structures on site will require demolition permits. 14. All conditions of the permit shall be completely fulfilled to the satisfaction of the affected City Departments and Planning and Building Divisions prior to occupancy of any building. 15. When submitting an application for building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with all Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures (if applicable). CONSTRUCTION 16. The applicant is responsible for maintaining site security prior to, and throughout the construction process. This includes installation of appropriate fencing, lighting, remote monitors, or on-site security personnel as needed. 17. The applicant is responsible for providing site signage during construction, which contains contact information for questions regarding the construction. 18. Prior to proceeding with exterior construction, the applicant shall provide a full-scale mockup of a section of exterior wall that shows the cladding materials and finishes, windows, trim, and any other architectural features of the building to fully illustrate building fenestration, subject to site inspection and approval by Planning Division staff. 19. After the building permits are approved, but before beginning construction, the owner/applicant shall hold a preconstruction conference with City Planning, Building, Fire and Engineering staff and other interested parties. The developer shall arrange for the attendance of the construction manager, contractor, and all relevant subcontractors. DESIGN REVIEW / SITE PLANNING 613 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 20. All equipment (either roof, building, or ground-mounted) shall be screened from view through the use of integral architectural elements, such as enclosures or roof screens, and landscape screening or shall be incorporated inside the exterior building wall. Equipment enclosures and/or roof screens shall be painted to match the building. Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit plans showing utility locations, stand-pipes, equipment enclosures, landscape screens, and/or roof screens for review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee. 21. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits for landscaping improvements, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City’s Chief Planner. The plans shall include documentation of compliance with SSFMC Section 20.300.007, Landscaping. 22. Plant materials shall be replaced when necessary with the same species originally specified unless otherwise approved by the Chief Planner. 23. All landscape areas shall be watered via an automatic irrigation system which shall be maintained in fully operable condition at all times, and which complies with SSFMC Chapter 20.300 (Lot and Development Standards). 24. All planting areas shall be maintained by a qualified professional; the landscape shall be kept on a regular fertilization and maintenance program and shall be maintained weed free. 25. Plant materials shall be selectively pruned by a qualified arborist; no topping or excessive cutting-back shall be permitted. Tree pruning shall allow the natural branching structure to develop. 26. All landscaping installed within the public right-of-way by the property owner shall be maintained by the property owner. 27. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit final landscaping and irrigation plans demonstrating compliance with the State’s Model Water Efficiency Landscaping Ordinance (MWELO), if applicable. a) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 501 – 2,499 sq. ft. may comply with the prescriptive measures contained in Appendix D of the MWELO. b) Projects with a new aggregate landscape of 2,500 sq. ft. or greater must comply with the performance measures required by the MWELO. c) For all projects subject to the provisions of the MWELO, the applicant shall submit a Certificate of Completion to the City, upon completion of the installation of the landscaping and irrigation system. 614 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 28. Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, if the project is phased, the applicant shall submit interim and final phasing plans and minor modifications to interim and final phasing plans for review and approval by the Chief Planner, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official. 29. The applicant shall contact the South San Francisco Scavenger Company to properly size any required trash enclosures and work with staff to locate and design the trash enclosure in accordance with the SSFMC Section 20.300.014, Trash and Refuse Collection Areas. Applicant shall submit an approval letter from South San Francisco Scavenger to the Chief Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 30. No actionable comments or recommendations were issued by the Design Review Board from their meeting of August 16, 2021. No further actions are required by the project to satisfy DRB Review Comments and Requirements. 31. Landscaped areas in the project area may contain trees defined as protected by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Any removal or pruning of protected trees shall comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance, and applicant shall obtain a permit for any tree removals or alterations of protected trees, and avoid tree roots during trenching for utilities. 32. The applicant shall install a three-inch diameter, PVC conduit along the project frontage, in the right-of-way, if any trenching is to take place, for the purpose of future fiber installation. Conduit shall have a pull rope or tape. A #8 stranded trace wire will be installed in the conduit or other trace wire system approved by the City. 33. Prior to receiving certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install any street furniture, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks as shown on the plan set along the project sidewalk frontages. The Planning Division shall review and approve all street furniture, trash receptacles and bicycle rack options during the Building Permit process. 34. Permanent project signage is not included in project entitlements. Prior to installation of any project signage, the applicant shall submit an appropriate sign application per Chapter 20.360 of the Zoning Ordinance for review and approval. TRANSPORTATION / PARKING 35. A Parking and Traffic Control Plan for the construction of the project shall be submitted with the application for Building Permit, for review and approval by the Chief Planner and City Engineer. 615 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 36. The applicant has prepared and submitted a Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. In accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, prior to issuance of a building permit for any tenant improvements the applicant shall submit a Final TDM Plan for review and approval by the Chief Planner. a) The Final TDM Plan shall include all mandatory elements included in the Ordinance and shall substantially reflect the Draft TDM Plan prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated March 6, 2023. b) The Final TDM Plan shall outline the required process for on-going monitoring, including annual surveys. The initial annual survey will be submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy. The initial annual survey shall either: (1) state that the applicable property has achieved the targeted performance requirement (50 points for Tier 4 projects), providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the applicable property has not achieved the targeted performance requirement (50 points for Tier 4 projects), providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached, and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in the coming year to attain the TDM targeted performance requirement. c) The applicant shall be required to reimburse the City for program costs associated with monitoring and enforcing the TDM Program on an annual basis. The annual monitoring fee is $1,848.00 and is updated by the City Council on an annual basis. d) The Final TDM plan shall be subject to review and approval by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments. 37. The Applicant shall participate in Commute.org’s Certified Development Program as part of the Project’s TDM Plan. 38. Annual monitoring of a site-specific trip cap would be conducted by the Applicant/Developer via annual vehicle counts at the Project’s two driveways. Counts would be conducted by an independent vendor over a period of one week during which school is in session. a. Proposed Trip Cap Information (per Draft TDM Plan March 6, 2023): The proposed trip cap is 1,680 peak period, peak direction vehicle trips, based on the calculations below (values rounded to the nearest 10): • 857,000 square feet / 300 square feet per employee = 2,860 employees • Target 50% drive-alone rate for employees: 50% x 2,860 employees = 1,430 vehicle trips 616 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 • Target 12% carpool rate: 12% x 2,860 employees / 3 people per vehicle = 110 vehicle trips • 10% allowance for non-employee trips: 10% x 1,430 vehicle trips = 140 vehicle trips • Peak period trip cap: 1,430 + 110 + 140 = 1,680 vehicle trips 39. Prior to occupancy, provide clear signage on site for commercial and visitor parking areas to help direct vehicle traffic. 40. Once construction of an associated parking structure is complete, construction-related parking should be prioritized within the structure. IMPACT / DEVELOPMENT FEES **Fees are subject to annual adjustment, and will be calculated based on the fee in effect at the time that the payment of the fee is due and taking into account any applicable fee credits. The fees included in the Conditions of Approval are estimates, based on the fees in place at the time of project approval.** 1. CHILDCARE IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay any applicable childcare fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.310. This fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the childcare impact fee estimate for the project is: Non-Residential Uses: - Office / R&D: $1.51/SF x 865,036 SF = $1,306,204.36 2. PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the Parkland Acquisition Fee and Parkland Construction Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.67. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the park fee estimate for the project is: Non-Residential Uses: - Office / R&D: $3.54/SF x 865,036 SF = $3,062,227.44 - Administration Fee: $700 3. CITYWIDE TRANSPORTATION FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay applicable transportation impact fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.73. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the citywide transportation fee estimate for the project is: Non-Residential Uses: - Office / R&D: $34.85/SF x 865,036 SF = $30,146,504.60 617 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 4. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the applicant shall pay the applicable commercial linkage fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69, based on the current fee for each applicable land use category. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council dated July 12, 2023, the commercial linkage fee estimate for the project is: Commercial Uses: - Office / R&D: $17.38/SF x 865,036 SF = $15,034,325.70 5. PUBLIC SAFEY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the development, the applicant shall pay applicable Public Safety Impact Fees in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.75. The fee shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the Public Safety Impact Fee for the project is: Non-Residential Uses: - Office / R&D: $1.31/SF x 865,036 SF = $1,133,197.16 6. LIBRARY IMPACT FEE: Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the development, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall pay applicable Library Impact Fee in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.74. The fee is subject to annual adjustment. Based on the plans approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the Library Impact Fee for the project is: Non-Residential Uses: - Office / R&D: $0.14/SF x 865,036 SF = $121,105.04 7. SCHOOL DISTRICT FEE: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for commercial/industrial projects, the City shall require proof of payment of this fee to SSFUSD. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the City Council on July 12, 2023, the school district fee estimate for the project is: - Commercial / Industrial Uses: $0.61/SF x 865,036 SF = $527,671.96 8. PUBLIC ART: All non-residential development is subject to the Public Art Requirement, per South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.76 (Ordinance 1613-2020). The public art requirement for this project will be satisfied through: 618 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 - Every non-residential development project shall provide qualifying public art with a value equal to not less than 1% of construction costs for acquisition and installation of public art on the development site. - A non-residential development project may elect to make a public art contribution payment in an amount not less than 0.5% of construction costs into the public art fund, in lieu of acquisition and installation of public art on the development project site. 9. Community Benefits Program Fee. Per SSFMC Section 20.395, the Community Benefits Fee is assessed on the proposed FAR from 1.0 to the maximum proposed at 3.3. The established fee is $20 / SF. Based on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on June 15, 2023, the Community Benefits Fee estimate for this project is: - Office / R&D: $20/SF x (1.0 – 3.3 FAR or 613,419 GSF) = $12,268,380 FAR Gross Square Footage CB Fee ($20 per GSF) 0 – 1.0 FAR 251,617 sq ft - 1.0 – 2.5 FAR 629,042 sq ft (Δ 377,425 sq ft) $7,548,500 2.5 – 3.3 FAR 865,036 sq ft (Δ 235,994 sq ft) $4,719,880 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES / CEQA 1. The applicant shall implement and comply with all applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND22-0001). COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM In accordance with SSFMC Section 20.395 (Community Benefits Program), the Applicant has proposed a number of community benefits, subject to review by the City Council. In order to capture the proposed community benefits, the proposal is memorialized in these Conditions of Approval. The timing of any proposed payments/actions are listed, as applicable. I. Proposed Direct Community Benefits A. Funding Contributions. The Applicant proposes to make a monetary contribution to the City, in accordance with the City’s recently adopted Community Benefits Fee, in the amount of $4,742,500. This contribution will be provided prior to issuance of building permits for vertical construction. B. Publicly Accessible Plazas. The Project includes approximately 35,315 square feet of plaza space that will be publicly accessible during business hours with well- appointed landscaping beyond City code requirements, outdoor furniture, special paving and lighting to enhance the comfort and usability of these spaces. Publicly accessible spaces will be visible from the public right of way and/or signage will be provided to indicate the spaces are available for public use. 619 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 The City has indicated that it will consider 40% of the cost of these plazas as a public benefit, at a value of approximately $2,620,000. C. Enhanced Connectivity and Access. The Applicant proposes to improve public access and connectivity around the Project site by installing new landscaping and sidewalk improvements, as well as facilitating vehicular and pedestrian connections to the Caltrain Station, with ample lighting for safety. We understand that the City will consider 35% of this estimated cost— approximately $3,727,500— as a community benefit, in accordance with the priorities set forth in Zoning Ordinance Section 20.395.004(B). a. If these improvements are not possible due to external factors that are not within the Applicant’s control, the Applicant will instead submit a proposal for equivalent alternative pedestrian improvements or appropriate replacement, subject to the Chief Planner’s review and approval. Submittal requirements will include an in-kind valuation, site plan, and specifications for any proposed improvements. A financial contribution may be permitted if equivalent on-site improvements are not possible. D. Building Electrification. The Applicant has committed to 100% electric buildings, furthering the City’s Climate Action Plan goals by avoiding use of natural gas; we understand that the City will consider 30% of the added upfront cost— approximately $1,530,000—as a community benefit toward mitigating the impacts of sea level rise. E. Community Benefits Summary. Funding Contribution $4,742,500 Publicly Accessible Plazas $2,620,000 Enhanced Connectivity & Access $3,727,500 Green Building/Electrification $1,530,000 TOTAL $12,620,000 II. Community Facilities District The Applicant agrees to support City’s formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) serving land within the East of 101 area, and generally as established within the parameters described in the City Manager’s presentation of October 2, 2019 on this topic (“2019 Presentation”), provided that (i) the Project’s maximum CFD assessment rate does not exceed one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of assessable real property, and (ii) the Project’s maximum CFD assessment rate does not exceed the rate assessed against other office/R&D properties in the East of 101 area. Subject to this commitment, Applicant shall not be prohibited from participating in public hearings, negotiations, or other communications regarding the formation of the CFD or the facilities and/or services proposed to be funded by CFD proceeds. III. Summary of Additional Benefits and Commitments The Project incorporates additional features and the Applicant has made certain commitments to further benefit the community. Some of these commitments overlap with the community benefits 620 018135.0004 4864-3192-6885.4 outlined in Part I and are included here for completeness. Others do not qualify as community benefits but are sizable and therefore worth identifying for the record. Most notably, we have committed to utilizing union labor, including local hire, for mechanical, plumbing, electrical, shoring/dewatering, and electrical skin. We estimate the total cost is $46,400,000, and that the difference in costs between using labor vs non-union labor is roughly 12–14%. As outlined above, the Project will be fully electrified to further the City’s Climate Action Plan goals at a total cost of $5,100,000. Additional green building design elements associated with achieving LEED Gold Certification and Fitwel cost a total of $11,100,000. Additional physical improvements of note include: • On-site public art installation to satisfy the City’s public art requirement that is valued at approximately $6,500,000. • Streetscape improvements, consisting of improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, curbs and gutters, undergrounding existing utility lines, stormwater features, street trees and landscaping along the Project’s Dubuque Avenue frontage, at a cost of $7,100,000. • Four-level subterranean parking structure, which significantly improves the Project’s aesthetics relative to above-ground parking, at a cost of approximately $190,000,000. For questions regarding Planning Division COAs, please contact: Christopher Espiritu (650) 877-8535 or Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net 621 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED) P21-0117: DR22-0010, TDM22-0004, ND22-0001, and CB23-0001 800 DUBUQUE AVENUE (As recommended by City Staff to Planning Commission on June 15, 2023, and to City Council on July 12, 2023) ENGINEERING DIVISION The Conditions of Approval are general conditions that apply to the proposed project and are based on the set of plans submitted by Perkins and Will dated October 31, 2022 for the above referenced City Permit number: including supplemental documents. Below are the conditions that apply to the subject permit, which may overlap with any standard development conditions – these conditions are subject to change. Permits 1. At the time of each permit submittal, the Applicant shall submit a deposit for each of the following permit reviews and processing: a. Building Permit plan check and civil review. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of on-site improvements for deposit amount calculation. b. Hauling/Grading plan check and permit processing. Provide Cubic Yards for deposit amount calculation. c. Encroachment for Public Improvements plan check and permit processing. Provide an engineer’s estimate or opinion of probable cost of ROW improvements for fees and deposits amount calculation. 2. A Grading Permit is required for grading over 50 cubic yards and if 50 cubic yards or more of soil is exported and/or imported. The Applicant shall pay all permit and inspection fees, as well as any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. The Grading Permit requires several documents to be submitted for the City’s review and approval. The Grading Permit Application, Checklist and Requirements may be found on the City website at http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 3. A Hauling Permit shall be required for excavations and off-haul or on-haul, per Engineering requirements; should hauling of earth occur prior to grading. Otherwise, hauling conditions would be included with the grading permit. Hauling Permit may be found on the City website at: http://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/engineering-division. 4. The Applicant shall submit a copy of their General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), where required by State or Federal regulations, to the Engineering Division for our information. These documents shall be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit for the subject project. 5. The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. To help meet this goal, a city ordinance requires completion of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects 622 identifying how at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. The Contractor shall submit a WMP application and fee payment prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 6. An Encroachment Permit is required for any work proposed within the public right-of-way. The Applicant shall pay all permit, plan check, and inspection fees, as well as, any deposits and/or bonds required to obtain said permits. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit written evidence from the County or State Regulators in charge, indicating that the site is cleared of hazardous materials and hazardous groundwater to a level that poses no impacts to human health. The Applicant shall also confirm that any existing groundwater monitoring wells on the project site have been properly closed and/or relocated as necessary as approved by the County or State Regulators in charge. Plan Submittal 8. The Applicant shall submit detailed plans printed to PDF and combined into a single electronic file, with each being stamped and digitally signed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of California. Incorporated within the construction plans shall be applicable franchise utility installation plans, stamped and signed and prepared by the proper authority. Plans shall include the following sheets; Cover, Separate Note Sheet, Existing Conditions, Demolition Plan, Grading Plan, Horizontal Plan, Striping and Signage Plan, Utility Plan(s), Detail Sheet(s), Erosion Control Plan, and Landscape Plans, (grading, storm drain, erosion control, and landscape plans are for reference only and shall not be reviewed during this submittal). 9. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain a grading permit with the Engineering Division and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the grading permit. The Applicant shall submit a grading plan that clearly states the amount of cut and fill required to grade the project. The Grading Plans shall include the following plans: Cover, Notes, Existing Conditions, Grading Plans, Storm Drain Plans, Stormwater Control Plan, and Erosion Control Plan. 10. Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit for all proposed work within the City ROW and shall submit an application, all documentation, fees, deposits, bonds and all necessary paperwork needed for the Encroachment Permit. Applicant shall prepare and submit a separate Public Improvement Plan set that shall include only the scope of work within the City ROW (with reference to the on-site plans) consisting of the following plans: Civil Plans, Landscape Plans, and Joint Trench Plans. An engineer’s cost estimate for the scope of work shown on the approved Public Improvement Plans is required to determine the performance and payment bond amount. The submittal of the bonds is required prior to the execution of the Improvement Agreement. 11. All improvements shall be designed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the Engineering Division. 623 12. The Engineering Division reserves the right to include additional conditions during review of the building permit, grading permit, or encroachment permit. Easements and Agreements 13. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City an Emergency Vehicle Access Easement along the perimeter of the project site to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshall. 14. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City, an irrevocable offer for a Public Street and Utility Easement along the entire project frontage on Dubuque Avenue to accommodate the widening of the street for the purpose of installing a south bound left turn pocket and public sidewalk. 15. The Applicant shall dedicate to the City, an irrevocable offer for a traffic signal easement as needed to accommodate traffic signal poles and equipment for the future installation of a traffic signal on Dubuque Avenue and the southern project driveway. 16. All required irrevocable offers of public easement dedications to the City on the project site shall be accepted by the City and recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 17. Applicant shall submit all documents required for review of easement dedications as a separate application from the improvement plans. Prior to the approval of any Permits, the Applicant shall enter into an Improvement Agreement and Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the City. These agreements shall be approved by City Council prior to execution. a. The Improvement Agreement shall require the Applicant to ensure the faithful performance of the design, construction, installation and inspection of all public improvements as reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division at no cost to the City and shall be secured by good and sufficient payment, performance, and one (1) year warranty bonds or cash deposit adequate to cover all of the costs, inspections and administrative expenses of completing such improvements in the event of a default. The value of the bonds or cash deposit shall include 110% of the cost of construction based on prevailing wage rates. The value of the warranty bond or cash deposit shall be equivalent to 10% of the value of the performance security. b. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall require the Applicant to maintain any street furniture that serves the property and all landscape within the project frontage at no cost to the City. The Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Recorder and may be transferred to the property owner. c. The Applicant shall enter into an Agreement with the City that obligates the property owner to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the southern project driveway, in the future when the intersection meets Traffic Signal Warrants, per the requirements of Condition of Approval 24 below. 18. Applicant shall pay for all Engineering Division deposits and fees required for any engineering application prior to review. 624 Right-of-Way 19. Prior to building permit issuance and prior to any work within the City Right-of-Way, the Applicant shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Division. All new public improvements required to accommodate the development shall be installed at no cost to the City and shall be approved by the City Engineer and constructed to City Standards. All new public improvements shall be completed prior to Final Occupancy of the project or prior any Temporary Occupancy as approved by the City Engineer. 20. Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Applicant shall submit a video survey of Dubuque Avenue to determine the pre-construction condition of the streets at no cost to the City. The Applicant will be responsible to ensure that the condition of the streets and striping is in at least existing condition or better after construction is completed. 21. The Applicant shall install a stop sign for vehicles exiting the northern project driveway onto Dubuque Avenue. 22. The Applicant shall widen Dubuque Avenue along the entire project frontage to create a left turn pocket for southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic heading into the southern project driveway. The Applicant shall use commercially reasonable efforts to acquire right-of-way from the adjacent property owner to the south of the 800 Dubuque site, to accommodate a northbound merge lane on Dubuque Avenue for the transition from two lanes to three. The limits of the required right-of-way acquisition shall be determined by the Applicant as part of the off-site improvement design and shall include all land title research necessary to prepare a property appraisal. The Applicant shall prepare all mapping documents and prepare a property appraisal of the land needed for the right-of-way acquisition. The Applicant shall also construct the northbound merge lane on Dubuque Avenue within the limits of the acquired right-of-way. If the Applicant is not successful in acquiring the property without City involvement, then the City, at its option, may move forward with the property acquisition at the Applicant’s expense (including all administrative and legal expenses to the City for moving forward with the acquisition). 23. The Applicant shall prepare the design for a traffic signal on Dubuque Avenue at the intersection of the southern project driveway, to be constructed if and when the intersection meets Traffic Signal Warrants in the future. The design shall incorporate all planned sidewalk and utility installations to be constructed with the development and identify any public traffic signal easements that may be needed to accommodate the signal installation. 24. The Applicant shall paint a “Keep Clear” stencil on northbound Dubuque Avenue in front of the Costco parking lot driveway entrance. 25. The Applicant shall use commercially reasonable efforts to coordinate with the adjacent property owner to the south to remove any line-of-site obstructions (vegetation, utility poles, and signs) within the clear line of sight triangle for the project driveway. 26. The Applicant shall reconstruct the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the Dubuque Avenue frontage of the project site. 27. The Applicant shall perform base repairs and provide a 2-inch grind and overlay (edge of pavement to edge of pavement) of the asphalt concrete pavement on the property’s frontages on Dubuque Avenue. 625 28. The Applicant shall install ADA curb ramps and detectable warnings at frontage driveways per the City Standards. 29. The Applicant shall install street lighting along the project frontage on Dubuque Avenue. The light poles and fixtures shall be ornamental streetlights to match City Standards. 30. Upon completion of construction and landscape work at the site, the Applicant shall clean, repair or reconstruct, at their expense, as required to conform to City Standards, all public improvements including driveways, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and street pavements along the street frontages of the property to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Damage to adjacent property caused by the Applicant, or their contractors or subcontractors, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the affected property owner and the City Engineer, at no cost to the City or to the property owner. 31. The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining all street trees and landscaped irrigation systems installed within the Public right-of-way. 32. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall provide an engineer’s estimate for all work performed with in the public right-of-way and submit a bond equal to 110% of the estimate. 33. Prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit, the Applicant shall submit Traffic and Pedestrian Control Plans for proposed work on any area of work that will obstruct the existing pedestrian walkways. 34. No private foundation or private retaining wall support shall extend into the City Right-of-Way without express approval from the Engineering Department. Applicant shall design any bioretention area or flow-through planters adjacent to the property line such that the facility and all foundations do not encroach within the City Right-of-Way or into an adjacent parcel. 35. Applicant shall ensure that any pavement markings impacted during construction are restored and upgraded to meet City standards current to the time of Encroachment Permit approval. 36. All permanent or temporary structural supports (retaining walls and tiebacks, etc.) that are proposed within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Any tiebacks, if approved by the City Engineer, shall conform to the City’s Tieback Policy including the issuance of a Tieback License Agreement approved by the City Council and recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder’s office. 37. Any work within the public sidewalk and/or obstructing pedestrian routes shall require pedestrian routing plans along with traffic control plans. Temporary lane or sidewalk closures shall be approved by the City Engineer and by the Construction Coordination Committee (if within the CCC influence area). For any work affecting the sidewalks or pedestrian routes greater than 2 days in duration, the adjacent parking lane or adjacent travel lane shall be closed and temporary vehicle barriers placed to provide a protected pedestrian corridor. Temporary ramps shall be constructed to connect the pedestrian route from the sidewalk to the street if no ramp or driveway is available to serve that purpose. 38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall coordinate with Scavenger and submit all garbage related plans. Stormwater 626 39. The Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer a storm drainage and hydraulic study for the fully improved development analyzing existing conditions and post-development conditions. The study shall confirm that the proposed development will meet the goal of reducing peak runoff by 15% based on a 25-year, 5-minute design storm for each drainage basin. Methods for reducing stormwater flow shall include stormwater storage on-site if necessary. The study shall also evaluate the capacity of each new storm drain installed as part of the development. Precipitation shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the site. The study shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 40. On-site storm drainage conveyance systems shall be designed to accommodate the 10-year design storm. Precipitation used for the hydraulic analysis shall be based on NOAA Atlas 14 data for the project site. Storm duration shall be equal to the time of concentration with an initial minimum of 10 minutes. 41. Hydraulic Grade lines shall not be less than 1 foot from the ground surface. 42. Runoff Coefficients used for hydraulic calculations shall be as follows: a. Pervious areas—0.35 b. Impervious areas—0.95 43. Drainage runoff shall not be allowed to flow across lot lines or across property boundaries onto adjacent private property without an appropriate recorded easement being provided for this purpose. 44. All off-site drainage facilities required by the City Engineer to accommodate the runoff from the development shall be provided by the Applicant at no cost to the City. 45. All building downspouts shall be connected to rigid pipe roof leaders which shall discharge into an approved drainage device or facility that meets the C3 stormwater treatment requirements of Municipal Regional Permit. 46. All storm drainage runoff shall be discharged into a pipe system or concrete gutter. Runoff shall not be surface drained into surrounding private property or public streets. 47. Existing on-site drains that are not adequately sized to accommodate run-off from the fully developed property and upstream drainage basin shall be improved as required by the Applicant’s civil engineering consultant’s plans and specifications as approved by the City Engineer. These on- site improvements shall be installed at no cost to the City. 48. The on-site storm drainage system shall not be dedicated to the City for ownership or maintenance. The storm drainage system and any storm water pollutions control devices within the property shall be owned, repaired, and maintained by the property owner. Sanitary Sewer 49. Applicant shall perform a CCTV video inspection of the existing sanitary sewer on the east side of the site. Video must be submitted to City Engineering for review as part of the improvement plans submittal and shall confirm the condition of the existing sewer pipe and the number of existing sewer laterals serving the project site that must be abandoned. 627 50. The Applicant shall abandon all existing private sewer laterals from the project site connected to the sanitary sewer system. The number of sewer laterals to be abandoned shall be shown on the plans and shall be confirmed by the review of a video inspection of the private sanitary sewer main. 51. The Applicant shall submit a sewer capacity study to determine how the project impacts the existing public sewer main along the eastern side of the project site to the existing sewer main on the east side of the railroad right-of-way on Poletti Way. The study shall account for flows from all parcels connected to the existing sewer mains and any potential future flows based on known proposals for development. Sanitary sewer mains shall comply with the Design Criteria defined in the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (July 2022). The sewer capacity study shall be submitted for review and approval to the Engineering Division. 52. The Applicant shall be responsible to upsize or rehabilitate all deficient public sanitary sewer mains as recommended in the approved Sewer Capacity Study. Said deficient sewer mains are anticipated to include the existing 8-inch sewer main along the eastern side of the project site (upsized to 10- inch pipe) and the rehabilitation of the existing 12-inch sewer main crossing the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way to Poletti Way.. 53. The Applicant shall install the new sewer laterals to City Standards. 54. Sanitary Sewer plan shall show all existing and proposed utilities. Be sure to provide minimum horizontal and vertical clearances for all existing and proposed utilities. Also include all existing and proposed manhole, catch basin and pipe invert elevations. 55. All utility crossings shall be potholed, verified and shown on the plans prior to the building permit submittal. 56. The on-site sanitary sewer system/plumbing shall be designed and installed in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code, as amended and adopted by the City, and in accordance with the requirements of the South San Francisco Building Division. 57. Each on-site sanitary sewer manhole and cleanout shall be accessible to maintenance personnel and equipment via pathway or driveways as appropriate. Each maintenance structure shall be surrounded by a level pad of sufficient size to provide a safe work area. 58. The on-site sanitary sewer system up to the public sanitary sewer manhole connection shall not be dedicated to the City for maintenance. The sanitary sewer facilities within the property shall be repaired and maintained by the property owner. Dry Utilities 59. The Applicant shall underground the overhead utilities on the Dubuque Avenue frontage of the project site. The southern limits of said undergrounding shall be the south side of the existing northerly driveway for 700 Dubuque Avenue, if commercially feasible, in order to improve site distance for vehicles that exit the southern driveway for the 800 Dubuque Avenue project site and to provide for a future merge lane on Dubuque Avenue to accommodate the lane transition for Northbound Dubuque Avenue from two lanes to three lanes in front of the 800 Dubuque Site. 60. All electrical and communication lines serving the property, shall be placed underground within the property being developed and to the nearest overhead facility or underground utility vault. Pull 628 boxes, junction structures, vaults, valves, and similar devices shall not be installed within pedestrian walkway areas. 61. The Applicant shall install a 3-inch diameter spare conduit with pull boxes and pull rope for future fiber optic cable installation in the joint trench on Dubuque Avenue Domestic Water 62. The Applicant shall coordinate with the California Water Service (Calwater) for all water-related issues. All water mains and services shall be installed to the standards of the Calwater. 63. The Applicant shall install fire hydrants at the locations specified by the Fire Marshal. Installation shall be in accordance with City Standards as administered by the Fire Marshal. On-site Improvements 64. Internal driveways shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide for one-way travel and 20-feet wide of for areas subject to two-way travel. One-way travel lanes within the site shall be clearly posted and marked appropriately. Where two-way travel ways are between 20-feet and 25-feet wide, the applicant shall provide vehicle turning diagrams or other evidence to show that there is sufficient maneuvering space for fire vehicles. 65. Staging or storing of trash bins shall not be permitted on Public right-of-way or on-site within the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement. 66. The Applicant shall submit a construction access plan that clearly identifies all areas of proposed access during the proposed development. 67. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy form the Building Division, the Applicant shall require its Civil Engineer to inspect the finished grading surrounding the building and to provide the City a memo that confirms the site conforms to the approved site plan and that there is positive drainage away from the exterior of the building. The Applicant shall make any modifications to the grading, drainage, or other improvements required by the project engineer to conform to intent of his plans. 68. The Applicant shall submit a proposed workplan and intended methodologies to ensure any existing structures on or along the development’s property line are protected during proposed activities. 69. All common areas are to be landscaped and irrigated and shall meet the requirements of the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Submit landscape, drainage and grading plans for review and approval by the Engineering Division. 70. Any monument signs to be installed for the project shall be located completely on private property and shall not encroach into the City’s right-of-way. The Developer shall ensure that placement of the monument signs do not obstruct clear lines of sight for vehicles entering or exiting the site. Grading 629 71. The recommendations contained within the geotechnical report shall be included in the Site Grading and Drainage Plan. The Site Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared by the developer’s civil engineer and approved by the project geotechnical engineer. 72. During grading operations, the entire project site shall be adequately treated with water to prevent dust or sprayed with an effect dust palliative to prevent dust from being blown into the air and carried onto adjacent private and public property. Dust control shall be for seven days a week and 24 hours a day. Should any problems arise from dust, the developer shall hire an environmental inspector at his/her expense to ensure compliance with the grading permit. 73. Haul roads within the City of South San Francisco that are used by vehicles entering and exiting the site shall be cleaned daily, or more often, as required by the City Engineer, of all dirt and debris spilled or tracked onto City streets or private driveways. 74. The Applicant shall submit a winterization plan for all undeveloped areas within the site to control silt and stormwater runoff from entering adjacent public or private property. This plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to September 1 of each year. The approved plan shall be implemented prior to November 1 of each year. 75. Prior to placing any foundation concrete, the Applicant shall hire a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer authorized to practice land surveying to certify that the new foundation forms conform with all setbacks from confirmed property lines as shown on the Plans. A letter certifying the foundation forms shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for approval. 76. The applicant is required by ordinance to provide for public safety and the protection of public and private property in the vicinity of the land to be graded from the impacts of the proposed grading work. 77. All hauling and grading operations are restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for residential areas and 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for industrial/commercial areas, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 78. Grading in excess of 200 cubic yards to be accomplished between November 1 and May 1 of each year shall require City Engineer approval of an Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP. Engineering Impact Fees 79. The Applicant shall pay the following Fees prior to receiving a Building Permit for the subject project: a) The Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 71-84. b) The Citywide Transportation Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 84- 2007 c) The East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee per the formula established by Resolution 97-2002 Complete the Impact Fee Calculator and submit for verification and approval by the City: https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument?id=21781 also available on the City’s website or by requesting from staff. For any questions concerning Engineering COAs, please contact the Engineering Division at 650-829-6652 630 POLICE DEPARMENT All construction must conform to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48.070 Minimum security standards for non-residential buildings, (Ord. 1477 § 1C, 2013; Ord. 1166 § 1, 1995) 15.48.085 Additional Security Measures May Be Required Per South San Francisco Municipal Code 15.48.085 -Additional Security Measures, the following conditions will also be required: 1) The applicant shall install and maintain a system allowing first responders to enter the building(s) by means of a code to be entered into a keypad or similar input device. A permanent code shall be issued to the Police Department. Physical keys or electronic access cards will not satisfy this requirement. Please note this is separate from the Fire Department’s “Knoxbox” requirement. This access must be provided at two entry points, each on a different side of the building to allow first responders a tactical advantage when entering. Should the Applicant propose any commercially reasonable alternative, review and approval shall be conducted by the Police Chief, or designee, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2) The hardware design of any double doorways shall prevent any doors from being secured in a closed position to either another door or a fixed object within four feet of any door by means of a rope, cable, chain, or similar item. This is to prevent malicious prevention of egress and/or ingress by building occupants or first responders. Pay particular attention to all glass doorways. See possible samples below. Acceptable: Unacceptable: 3) All exterior doorways shall be illuminated during darkness by a white light source that has full cut- off and is of pedestrian scale. 631 4) All interior common and service areas, such as the garage, bicycle storage area, fire escapes, etc., shall be always illuminated with a white light source that is controlled by a tamperproof switch, or a switch located in an inaccessible location to passers-by. 5) The landing at the lowest level of service staircases, such as those in the garage area or fire escapes, shall have some mechanism, such as fencing and/or a gate, to prevent access to those areas where a person could conceal themselves and/or loiter in said area. The fencing and/or gate shall be at least six feet tall and constructed in a manner that makes it difficult to climb. The fencing and/or gate shall be roughly flush with the lowest step to provide maximum access restriction to the area to the side or of underneath the stairs. Please see below examples. 6) Any exterior bicycle racks installed shall be of an inverted “U” design, or other design that allows two different locking points on each bicycle. 7) Any publicly accessible benches shall be of a design that prevents persons from lying on them, such as a center railing. 8) Any publicly accessible power outlets shall be of a design that prevents their access or use during those hours the business is normally closed. If physical locking covers are used, they must be made of metal, not plastic, and locks must be installed prior to inspection. 9) Any publicly accessible raised edge surfaces, such as retaining walls, concrete benches, handrails, or railings, shall be of a design that prevents or discourages skateboard use on those surfaces. 10) The mature height of all shrubbery shall be no higher than three feet, if so, it shall be maintained at a maximum height of three feet, and tree canopies shall be no lower than six feet above grade. 11) The applicant shall install and maintain a camera surveillance system that conforms to the minimum technical specifications of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.66.050 Minimum technological standards, (Ord. 1515, 2016). The video surveillance cameras will be used as a crime deterrent and assist with the identification and apprehension of criminals if a crime is committed on the property. Enough cameras shall be installed to provide adequate coverage for the intended space. Cameras shall be placed minimally in the following locations: • All exterior entrances/exits 632 • Garage area (providing coverage to entire parking area) • Bicycle storage area • Main lobby of building • Loading docks The Police Department requires acknowledgement of these comments to include specific locations in the plans where the applicable change requests have been made. The Police Department reserves the right to review and comment upon the submission of revised and updated plans. For questions concerning Police Department COAs, please contact Mike Toscano at mike.toscano@ssf.net or (650) 877-8927. WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION The following items must be included in the plans or are requirements of the Water Quality Control Stormwater and/or Pretreatment Programs and must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit: 1. Storm drains must be protected during construction. Discharge of any demolition/construction debris or water to the storm drain system is prohibited. 2. Do not use gravel bags for erosion control in the street or drive aisles. Drains in street must have inlet and throat protection of a material that is not susceptible to breakage from vehicular traffic. 3. No floatable bark shall be used in landscaping. Only fibrous mulch or pea gravel is allowed. 4. After 7/1/19, Demolition Projects must complete a PCBs Screening Assessment Form (attached and available in Building Division). If screening determines the building(s) is an applicable structure, the Protocol for Evaluating PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition shall be followed. 5. As site falls in a Moderate Trash Generation area per South San Francisco’s ATTACHED Trash Generation Map (http://www.flowstobay.org/content/municipal-trash-generation- maps), determined by the Water Quality Control Division: -Regional Water Quality Control Board-approved full trash capture devices must be installed to treat the stormwater drainage from the site. -At a minimum, a device must be installed before the onsite drainage enters the City’s public stormwater system (i.e. trash capture must take place no farther downstream than the last private stormwater drainage structure on the site). -An Operation & Maintenance Agreement will be required to be recorded with San Mateo County, ensuring the device(s) will be properly maintained. -A full trash capture system is any single device or series of devices that traps all particles retained by a 5 mm mesh screen and has a design treatment capacity of not less than the 633 peak flow rate resulting from a one-year, one-hour storm in the sub-drainage area or designed to carry at least the same flow as the storm drain connected to the inlet. 6. Roof leaders/gutters must NOT be plumbed directly to storm drains; they shall discharge to stormwater treatment devices or landscaping first. 7. Fire sprinkler test drainage must be plumbed to sanitary sewer and be clearly shown on plans. 8. Trash enclosure shall be covered (roof, canopy) and contained (wall/fence). If food prep to be involved, the floor shall slope to a central drain that discharges to a grease trap/interceptor and is connected to the sanitary sewer. Details of trash enclosure shall be clearly provided on plans. 9. Install a condensate drain line connected to the sanitary sewer for rooftop equipment and clearly show on plans. 10. If laboratories will be installed, a segregated non-pressurized lab waste line must collect all laboratory waste. Install a sample port on the lab waste line outside the building, which will be accessible at all times. 11. Submit specs on the sample port. 12. If a food service kitchen/ prep area is to be installed, it shall connect to a gravity grease interceptor at least 1000 gallons (liquid capacity) in size. Sizing of the grease removal device must be in accordance with the uniform plumbing code. 13. Grease interceptor shall be connected to all non-domestic wastewater sources in the kitchen (wash sinks, mop sinks, floor drains) and shown on plans. 14. A cut sheet of the Grease Interceptor/Trap must be shown on plans. 15. Garbage Disposals in Industrial/Commercial facilities are prohibited by City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Do not install or include Garbage Disposal(s) in plans. 16. Applicant will be required to pay a Sewer Capacity Fee (connection fee) based on SSF City Council-approved EDU calculation (involving anticipated flow, BOD and TSS calculations and including credits for previous site use). Building Plans shall provide proposed square footage of the new buildings to complete this calculation, payable with the Building Permit. 17. Elevator sump drainage (if applicable) shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to connection to the sanitary sewer. 18. Drains in parking garage (if applicable) must be plumbed through an oil/water separator and then into the sanitary sewer system and clearly shown on plans. 634 19. Wherever feasible, install landscaping that minimizes irrigation runoff, promotes surface infiltration, minimizes use of pesticides and fertilizers and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping programs (such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 20. Site is subject to C.3 requirements of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (please see SMCWPPP C.3 Regulated Projects Guide at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment for guidance). The following items will be required (C3 compliance to be reviewed/determined by City’s consultant, WC-3); 21. Applicant shall provide 100% Low-Impact Development for C.3 stormwater treatment for all of the project’s impervious areas. In-lieu of on-site treatment, applicants seeking Special Project Status exemption to Low Impact Development for C.3 treatment may install LID treatment within the Right-of-Way. If Applicant chooses to treat any of their Project’s impervious areas within the ROW, Applicant shall size the treatment measures to treat both the Project’s impervious areas and the ROW. The ROW area to be treated shall be from the property line to the street centerline or crown whichever is a greater distance along the entire project frontage. Sizing and design shall conform to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program design templates and technical guidance and be approved by the Water Quality Control Plant and the Engineering Division. Applicant shall maintain all treatment measures required by the project and enter into a Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement with the City. 22. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development (C3-C6 Project Checklist). Forms must be on 8.5in X 11in paper and signed and wet stamped by a professional engineer. Calculations must be submitted with this package. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Forms can also be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment A completed copy must also be emailed to andrew.wemmer @ssf.net 23. Sign and have engineer wet stamp forms for Low Impact Development. 24. Submit flow calculations and related math for LID. 25. Complete attached Operation and Maintenance (O&M) agreements. Use attached forms for completing documents, as old forms are no longer sufficient Do not sign agreement, as the city will need to review prior to signature. Prepare packet and submit including a preferred return address for owner signature. Packet should also be mailed or emailed to: Andrew Wemmer City of SSF WQCP 195 Belle Air Road South San Francisco, CA 94080 Andrew.wemmer@ssf.net Exhibit Templates can also be found within Chapter 6 the C.3 Technical Guidance at http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. 635 26. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 27. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest-resistant and disease-resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use “insectary” plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 28. A SWPPP must be submitted (if > 1 acre). Drawings must note that erosion control shall be in effect all year long. 29. A copy of the state approved NOI must be submitted (if > 1 acre). For questions concerning Water Quality Control Division COAs, please contact Andrew Wemmer with any questions at Andrew.Wemmer@ssf.net or (650) 829-3840. 636 BUILDING DIVISION COMMENTS The following comments remain outstanding from plan review dated 5/16/2022. The original comments are included in italics for your reference. Applicants shall submit Plans updated 10/31/2022, which addresses all or most comments below, and shall be reviewed by the Building Division as part of CD/Building Permit review. 1. Sheet G01.00: Under type of occupancy, please specify the commercial kitchen as either F-1 or F-2 occupancy. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, building code summary of G01.00 still shows group F occupancy, instead of F-1 or F-2.: 2. Sheet G01.00: Please provide a schedule to outline the fire resistance rating requirements of building elements of the specified type of construction in accordance with CBC Table 601. Provide and cross reference typical details of fire resistive building elements with basis of approval onto the schedule for all buildings, including the basement parking garage. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Typical details of fire resistive building elements of type I-A construction with basis of approval (including the basement parking garage) to be included in the CD/Permit submission. 3. Sheet G01.00: Under building code summary, please list all fire protection and life safety systems provided in the proposed buildings (i.e., fire sprinkler system, fire alarm, emergency voice/alarm communication system, and smoke control system). 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 4. Sheet A01.01: Please dimension the fire separation distances measured from the exterior walls and projections of the building to the property lines or centerline of adjoining public ways. Exterior walls and opening protection shall be in accordance with CBC Table 602 and 705.8. Exterior structural members located within the exterior walls or outside of a building shall be provided with fire-resistance rating per CBC 704.10. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 5. Sheet A01.01: Please identify and show accessible means of egress to be continuous from all exterior exit doors to a public way and shall consist of one or more of the components listed under CBC 1009.2. Please also show the path of exit discharge from each exterior exit door to have direct and unobstructed access to a public way per CBC 1028.5. 2nd Review Comment: Please show and connect (by dash lines representing accessible routes) the accessible means of egress to all exterior exit doors. Not all exterior exit doors currently identified on the site plan are connected. 6. Sheet A01.01: Accessible routes shall be provided and extended to all outdoor amenities (i.e., bike racks, outdoor tables and seating). Accessible routes shall have a maximum running slope of 1:20 and a maximum cross-slope of 1:48. Walks and sidewalks shall be at least 48-inches wide per CBC 11B-403. 2nd Review Comment: Please show accessible routes (by dash lines) to extend to all outdoor amenities (i.e., bike racks, outdoor tables and seating). Note on site plan that the accessible routes shall have a maximum running slope of 1:20 and a maximum cross- 637 slope of 1:48. Walks and sidewalks shall be at least 48-inches wide per CBC 11B-403. 7. High-rise buildings shall be demonstrated and detailed to comply with provisions of CBC 403. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 8. Every exit enclosure in the high-rise buildings shall be a smokeproof enclosure complying with CBC 909.20 and 1023.11. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 9. Buildings with group L occupancy shall be provided with secondary power systems per CBC 453.4.6. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission to demonstrate compliance. 10. Sheet A10.P4 to A10.P2: Please dimension the common path of egress travel measured from the most remote point near grid line 21, in between line P and Q. Measurement of egress paths shall not pass through parking spaces where the egress paths may be obstructed by parked vehicles. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, code compliance sheets G02-P1 to G02-P4 are not included in the submittal. 11. Sheet A10.P4 to A10.P1: Where required by Section 403.6.1, every floor shall be served by fire service access elevators comply with CBC 3007.1 through 3007.9. Please identify the fire service access elevators on the levels of parking garage. 2nd Review Comment: Elevators in the south tower are not identified as FSAE, contrary to the response letter. Please clarify. Not fewer than two fire service access elevators, or all elevators, whichever is less, shall be provided in accordance with Section 3007. 12. Sheet A10.P1: Please dimension the common path of egress travel measured from the most remote point of the parking space near the parking garage exhaust shaft at grid line 21. Measurement of egress paths shall not pass through parking spaces where the egress paths may be obstructed by parked vehicles. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, code compliance sheets G02-P1 to G02-P4 are not included in the submittal. 13. Please provide plumbing fixture calculations per CPC Table 422.1. The total occupant load shall be determined in accordance with occupant load factors of CPC Table 4-1 (CPC 422.1, July 1, 2021, Supplement). CPC Table A is now only applicable to DSA projects. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, Sheet G02-00 is not included in the submittal. 14. Please provide exit analysis plans. Calculate the occupant load of each room and space per CBC Table 1004.5. Show egress paths and indicate the cumulative occupant load along the paths. Specify the required and provided egress width at doors and stairways. 2nd Review Comment: a. Response acknowledged. However, G01 series sheets for occupant loads and egress paths are not included in the submittal. b. Calculate the occupant load of the future even center W -0146. Depending on the calculated occupant load, the assembly area shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. 15. Sheet A10.01: Please calculate the occupant load of the interior courtyard (CBC 1004.7). 638 Depending on the calculated occupant load, the assembly area shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. Identify the exits or exit access doorways serving the interior courtyard. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 16. Sheet A10.01: Please calculate the required and provided egress width through egress court per CBC 1028.4. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 17. Sheet A10.01: Please provide an approved barrier gate at the level of exit discharge to prevent persons from unintentionally continuing into level below (CBC 1023.8). Directional exit signs shall be provided as specified in CBC 1013. The barrier gate shall have maneuvering clearances and strike edge clearances on both sides in accordance with CBC 11B-404.2.4. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, A40 series sheets are not included in the submittal. Provide an approved barrier gate at the level of exit discharge to prevent persons from unintentionally continuing into level below (CBC 1023.8). The barrier gate shall have maneuvering clearances and strike edge clearances on both sides in accordance with CBC 11B- 404.2.4. This may affect the dimensions and configuration of exit enclosures. 18. Sheet A10.01: Please verify the corridors to not to have dead-ends exceeding length permitted by CBC 1020.4. Show dimension of dead-end length on the exit analysis plans. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 19. Sheet A10.01: Please dimension the length of dead-end corridor measured from the area outside of the exit enclosure of stair N-ST01 to the area outside of the men's and women's restrooms. Please also dimension the common path of egress travel measured from the most remote points of men's and women's restrooms to a point where the occupants have separate and distinct access to two exits or exit access doorways. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 20. Sheet A10.01: Please calculate the occupant load of future food service. Depending on the calculated occupant load, the assembly area shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. However, G01 series sheets for occupant loads and egress paths are not included in the submittal. Depending on the calculated occupant load, the assembly area shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. 21. Sheet A10.01: Stair enclosure S-ST 04 shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building per CBC 1028.1. The south building has more than 50% of the interior exit stairways egress through areas on the level of discharge. 2nd Review Comment: Please verify the exterior exit door at lobby S-0124 is readily visible and identifiable from the point of termination of the revised stair enclosure S-ST 01 per CBC 1028.1, exception 1.1. 22. Sheet A10.02 and A10.03: The outdoor terraces on Level 02 and 03 shall comply with the requirements for egress balconies of CBC 1021. 2nd Review Comment: Please clarify and describe how the outdoor terraces on level 02 and 03 comply with all provisions for egress balconies of CBC 1021. Coordinate with comment #26. 23. Sheet A10.02: Please calculate the occupant load of the fitness area. Depending on the 639 calculated occupant load, the assembly areas shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 24. Sheet A10.02: Please clarify and provide code path to permit fire retardant treated wood cladding on steel columns of type I-A construction. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 25. Sheet A10.02: The exterior balcony of west building located in between grid line 6 and 8 shall be provided with two exit access doorways. 2nd Review Comment: Please specify the square footage and calculate the occupant load of the exterior balcony of west building located in between grid line 6 and 8. Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel, where serving a room or area containing an occupant load of 50 or more (CBC 1010.1.2.1). 26. Sheet A10.03: Please calculate the occupant loads of the two outdoor terraces at Level 03. Depending on the calculated occupant load, the assembly areas shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. Only areas with permanent planters/fixtures can be removed from the occupant load calculations. 2nd Review Comment: a. Calculate the occupant loads of the outdoor terraces on level 02 and 03. Identify the required exits. Dimension the longest overall diagonal and the separation distance between exits. b. Depending on the calculated occupant load, the outdoor terraces (assembly areas) shall comply with CBC 1029.2 and 1029.3, or 1029.3.1. c. Doors shall swing in the direction of egress travel, where serving a room or area (outdoor terraces) containing an occupant load of 50 or more (CBC 1010.1.2.1). d. Dimension the common path of egress travel from the most remote corners of the outdoor terraces (CBC Table 1006.2.1). Common path of egress travel is that portion of the exit access travel distance measured from the most remote point of each room, area, or space to that point where the occupants have separate and distinct access to two exits or exit access doorways (CBC 202). Path to doors swinging in the wrong direction cannot be considered as a separate and distinct access and cannot be considered as end of measurement for common path of egress travel. 27. The aggregate floor area of penthouses and other enclosed rooftop structures shall not exceed one-third the area of the supporting roof deck per CBC Section 1510.1.1. Please clarify and show area calculations on the roof plans. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending CD/Permit submission. 28. Please resolve seismic risk category discussion comments issued by CSG and City on April 2022. 2nd Review Comment: Response acknowledged. Pending submission of structural analysis including design parameters require for risk category III. For questions concerning Building Division Comments, please contact CSG, Kevin Chan P.E., at 650-522-2552 or Erik Rietdorf at erik.rietdorf@ssf.net or (650) 829-6669. “SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SCAVANGER” COMMENTS (WASTE MANAGEMENT): Contact Susan Kennedy at the South San Francisco Scavenger Co. at susan@ssfscavenger.com or (650) 589-4020 to submit trash enclosure plans, and to obtain any additional requirements or service information. 640 City of South San Francisco Page 1 of 4 Printed on 7/10/2023 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Details (With Text) P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #: 23-539 Name: Type: Resolution Status: Public Hearing File created: 6/21/2023 In control: City Council On agenda: 7/12/2023 Final action: Title: Resolution making findings and approving a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: 1. Exhibit A_800 Dubuque Dev Conformance Checklist, 2. Exhibit B_800 Dubuque_Project Plan Set, 3. Exhibit C_800 Dubuque TDM Plan, 4. Exhibit D1_800 Dubuque Avenue_Planning COAs_07.12.2023, 5. Exhibit D2_800 Dubuque Avenue_Other COAs Resolution making findings and approving a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed the construction of a new development at 800 Dubuque Avenue (APN 015-021-030 and 5.89 acres) referred to as “Project Site” in the City and is comprised of three new office and R&D buildings on the site at approximately 857,000 square feet with 1,335 parking spaces (“Project”); and WHEREAS, the applicant seeks adoption of a Design Review Permit (DR22-0010), Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM22-0004), and Community Benefits Program (CB23-0001) for the Project; and WHEREAS, the applicant also seeks increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 3.3 beyond zoning standards in exchange for the provision of certain community benefits pursuant to the Community Benefits Program under Municipal Code Chapter 20.395, inclusive of funding contributions, publicly accessible plaza construction, improvements to public access and connectivity features surrounding the Project, and building electrification, as outlined in further detail in Attachment 1A to the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS, a valuation study has been prepared in accordance with Municipal Code Section 20.395.003, as shown in Attachment 1B of the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS, approval of the applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and WHEREAS, on June 15, 2023, the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) (ND22-0001) and the proposed entitlements, take public testimony, and make a recommendation on the Project; and, Date Ver. Action By Action Result Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Item Agenda: 07/12/2023 REG CC - Item #9b 641 File #: 23-539, Version: 1 City of South San Francisco Page 2 of 4 Printed on 7/10/2023 powered by Legistar™ WHEREAS, based on the record before it, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the IS/MND (ND22-0001) and approve the Project, based on findings that the Project is consistent with the General Plan, meets Design Review Criteria, and consistent with Transportation Demand Management Plan requirements; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2023, the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the proposed entitlements and environmental effects of the Project and take public testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the IS/MND (ND22- 0001), and by separate resolution, adopted the IS/MND (ND22-0001), as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City in relation to the Project’s environmental impacts, and found that the IS/MND satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental review is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Project Plans, as prepared by Perkins and Will Architects, dated October 31, 2022; the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, as prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, Inc., dated March 2023; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed June 15, 2023 meeting; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed July 12, 2023 meeting and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS General 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the Development Standard Conformance Checklist for ETC (Exhibit A), Project Plans for Entitlement (Exhibit B), Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan (Exhibit C), and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Chief Planner. Design Review 642 File #: 23-539, Version: 1 City of South San Francisco Page 3 of 4 Printed on 7/10/2023 powered by Legistar™ 1. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code because the Project has been designed as an office and research & development project which will provide a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented environment with sustainability elements incorporated. 2. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed office/R&D development is consistent with the policies and design direction provided in the South San Francisco General Plan for the East of 101 Transit Core land use designation by encouraging the development of new employment projects with some commercial uses within close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. 3. The Project, including Design Review, is consistent with the applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council in that the proposed Project is consistent with the Design Guidelines for the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. 4. The Project is consistent with the applicable design review criteria in South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006 (“Design Review Criteria”) because the project has been evaluated by the Design Review Board on May 17, 2022, and August 16, 2022, and found to be consistent with each of the eight design review criteria included in the Design Review Criteria” section of the Ordinance. Transportation Demand Management Plan 1. Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.006005, the proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project, considering the proposed use and the project’s location, size, and hours of operation; and 2. Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.006005, the proposed performance guarantees will ensure that the target alternative mode use established for the project by this chapter will be achieved and maintained. TDM program meets the points requirements indicated for the tier and land use of the project; and 3. Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.400.005, the TDM program is adequate to achieve the required performance measures. Community Benefits Proposal Chapter 20.395 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code provides a Community Benefits Program by which the City may increase the value of private property by granting additional development capacity (i.e., a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus) in exchange for community benefits. The Program is a way for the City to derive greater benefit for the broader community from the granting of planning entitlements than would be otherwise possible through base zoning district standards. Community benefits include enhanced open spaces, enhanced connectivity, green buildings, social service uses, expanded transportation demand management, on-site and off -site affordable housing, or sea level rise adaptation measures. Among the various FAR incentives provided, an increase of FAR in excess of 2.5 requires City Council approval of a Community Benefits Agreement, which may include payment of Community Benefits fees to satisfy part or all of the benefit. A valuation study is 643 File #: 23-539, Version: 1 City of South San Francisco Page 4 of 4 Printed on 7/10/2023 powered by Legistar™ required for applicants seeking an FAR in excess of 2.5 through the Community Benefits Program. Further, the Community Benefits Program identifies the City’s benefits priorities consisting of the following: (1) public spaces; (2) enhanced connectivity; (3) Public and Social Services; (4) Support for Local Businesses; (5) On- Site or Off-Site Affordable Housing; (6) District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures. The Project proposes an FAR of approximately 3.3 beyond the zoning standards, and proposes to provide various benefits, including: funding contribution of $4,742,500; inclusion of publicly accessible plaza space; improvements of public access and connectivity around the Project site including installation of new landscaping and sidewalk; and building electrification. The Project applicant further agrees to support City’s formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) serving land within the East of 101 area, and will provide additional improvements as a part of its commitments to further benefit the community (see Attachment 1A to the accompanying staff report). A valuation study has been provided (see Attachment 1B to the accompanying staff report) as required by the Municipal Code. Based on the valuation study, the specific community benefits package identified above is valued at $12.6 million to the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the information presented to it as a part of the public hearing proceedings, the City Council finds that these identified community benefits align with the City’s priorities under Municipal Code section 20.395.004, and serve the goals of the Community Benefits Program to enhance open space, connectivity, green buildings, and transportation. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and approves a Design Review Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Community Benefits Proposal to allow a new Office/R&D Development on 800 Dubuque Avenue as described in this resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibits D1 and D2 and incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager or designee is authorized to prepare and execute a Community Benefits Agreement that contains the terms outlined in the Community Benefits Proposal as approved by this resolution and reflected in Attachment 1A of the accompanying staff report, and to make minor, non-substantive changes that do not increase the City’s obligations or materially alter the approved Community Benefits Proposal, all subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * 644 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-122 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding adoption of a resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and authorizing the mayor to send a letter in opposition. (Christina Fernandez, Deputy City Manager and Niccolo De Luca, Townsend Public Affairs) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and authorize the mayor to send a letter in opposition. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On Feb.1,2023,the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,”qualified for the November 2024 ballot.This anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations.The measure is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT)and endorsed by the California NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association),the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and other business affiliates of CBRT. CalCities,along with a broad coalition of local governments,labor,public safety,education,and infrastructure advocates, strongly oppose this initiative. The initiative limits voters’authority to adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees and may make it more difficult to hold violators of state and local laws accountable. Effective date All new or increased taxes or fees adopted by the Legislature,a city council,or the local voters after Jan.1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules. State taxes ·All new or increased state taxes will require majority voter approval. Local taxes ·New requirements for voter approval: o when an existing tax is applied to a newly annexed territory. o when an existing tax is applied to a new service or product,for example when a utility user tax is applied to a new service. ·All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset date. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™645 File #:23-122 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:10. Fees and charges ·Requires that charges for access,use and rental of government property be “reasonable”such as fees charged for use of government facilities and public works infrastructure to oil companies,utilities,gas companies, cable companies, and other corporations. ·Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost”of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged.“Actual cost”is the “minimum amount necessary.”Examples include planning services,excavation and encroachment permits,preparation of candidate statement,and permit parking. ·State and cities have burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence”that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and that it does not exceed the “actual cost.” ·No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed on new development. Fines and penalties [administrative enforcement of state law and municipal codes] ·May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new,undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples include nuisance abatement,organic waste reduction requirements,and failure to maintain a vacant property. Voters ·Local advisory measures are prohibited.No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would express the voters' preference for how the tax revenue should be used. ·Overturns Upland decision so taxes proposed by initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council. ·Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee. Fiscal ·Puts approximately $2 billion from fees and charges at risk each year, subject to legal peril. ·Puts approximately $2 billion of annual tax revenue at risk.Many tax measures approved between 2022 -2024 will need to be resubmitted to voters to comply and be reapproved. FISCAL IMPACT If passed,this ballot initiative will have fiscal impacts as it will implement new voter approval requirements for new and existing taxes.It also mandates new requirements for fees and charges for services.While this may not have immediate impact to the General Fund, it will limit the City’s future ability to raise new taxes and fees. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Opposing this ballot initiative meets the City’s strategic goals of financial stability,providing strong city revenues. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™646 File #:23-122 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:10. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act and authorize the mayor to send a letter in opposition. Attachments: 1-Draft letter of opposition City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™647 July 12, 2023 Attachment 1 The Honorable Phil Ting California State Assembly 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Josh Becker California State Senate 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Diane Papan California State Assembly 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Scott Wiener California State Senate 1020 O Street Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (Initiative #1935) City of South San Francisco – Notice of Opposition Dear Senators Wiener and Becker and Assembly Members Ting and Papan: On behalf of the City of South San Francisco, I write to express our opposition to Initiative #1935, entitled by its proponents as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative,” which would amend the California Constitution to restrict the ability of the state, local governments, and the electorate to approve or collect taxes, fees, and other revenues. The measure would require voter approval of all state taxes, would further restrict local fee authority by limiting it to the “minimum amount necessary” to provide government services, and would require voter approval for local measures such as franchise fees. Its provisions would make it easier to challenge local revenue measures by increasing the burden of proof on local agencies while disallowing an agency’s characterization of a measure from being considered in court. Specifically, this proposed initiative has three main components. First, it would expand the definition of a tax to include charges that the state and local governments refer to as fees, such as certain charges that are imposed for a benefit granted to a payer but not granted to those not charged. This would significantly alter the functional definition of taxes and would subject much needed revenue generation tools to greater vote requirements. Current law already imposes regulations on how local governments can levy fees, by requiring charges associated with fees to not exceed the reasonable costs of providing the associated product or service. The revenue that is generated from our taxes and fees goes to funding essential services, such as fire, police, public works, and parks and recreation. Second, the initiative would establish new stringent approval requirements for increasing state and local taxes, whether sought by the governing body or the electorate. For local governments, any and all tax increases under the expanded definition of taxes mentioned above would first need to be approved by two‐thirds of the legislative body before it is presented to the electorate for consideration. Further, all proposed increases must be placed before voters on a regularly scheduled general election as opposed to a special election, except in cases of emergency, which can only be declared under unanimous agreement of the legislative body. Adding these new requirements to raise or impose taxes severely undercuts the ability for local governments to respond to the needs of its residents and remain nimble under varying conditions. In the event that there are immediate community needs that cannot conjure unanimous support from the legislative body to address, our communities will suffer. 648 Third, this initiative would place any new tax or fee increase under extreme legal scrutiny and would invite anyone to take costly and lengthy legal action against a governing body. Specifically, the initiative would require that all new taxes or tax increases include highly technical information regarding its specified use, longevity, and estimated cost to the electorate. The inclusion of this explanatory criterion for the passage of new taxes would significantly increase liability for public officials that could result in significant damages. For instance, the initiative states that state and local governments bear the burden of providing clear and convincing evidence that the levy of a “fee” not subject to the onerous vote threshold requirements is not a tax under the new definition. In the event a private citizen or entity determines that the passage of a new fee or tax was unclear or that the amount is unreasonable, a local government could be subject to long and costly litigation. Ultimately, tax and fee public policy has always dominated the states’ initiative process for decades. It’s important to understand that California has been largely divided on the topic because it relies on individual circumstances. As written, this measure will empower the state’s tax reform extremists to decimate the state and local governing processes by fixating on the hyper‐specifics of tax policies, whose revenues are directed to serve the people. The imposition of taxes and fees to fund public services is an essential tool of government. The COVID pandemic laid bare the necessity of allowing governing bodies at all levels of government to act immediately in order to provide to their communities during times of emergency. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative would impose onerous and undemocratic restrictions on local governments and local voters that would reduce local revenues by billions every year and would harm the function of virtually all local services. For these reasons, the City of South San Francisco opposes Initiative #1935. Sincerely, Flor Nicolas Mayor City of South San Francisco Cc: City of South San Francisco City Council Sharon Ranals, City Manager, City of South San Francisco 649 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-123 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution opposing ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” and authorizing the mayor to send a letter in opposition. WHEREAS,on Feb.1,2023,the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,”qualified for the November 2024 ballot; and WHEREAS,this anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations; and WHEREAS,the measure is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT)and endorsed by the California NAIOP (Commercial Real Estate Development Association),the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and other business affiliates of CBRT; and WHEREAS,the initiative limits voters’authority to adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees and may make it more difficult to hold violators of state and local laws accountable; and WHEREAS,all new or increased taxes or fees adopted by the Legislature,a city council,or the local voters after January 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules; and WHEREAS,this initiative would expand the definition of a tax to include charges that the state and local governments refer to as fees,such as certain charges that are imposed for a benefit granted to a payer but not granted to those not charged.This would significantly alter the functional definition of taxes and would subject much needed revenue generation tools to greater vote requirements; and WHEREAS,the initiative would establish new stringent approval requirements for increasing state and local taxes,whether sought by the governing body or the electorate.For local governments,all tax increases under the expanded definition of taxes mentioned above would first need to be approved by two‐thirds of the legislative body before it is presented to the electorate for consideration; and WHEREAS,this initiative would place any new tax or fee increase under extreme legal scrutiny and would invite anyone to take costly and lengthy legal action against a governing body.Specifically,the initiative would require that all new taxes or tax increases include highly technical information regarding its specified use, longevity, and estimated cost to the electorate; and WHEREAS,the imposition of taxes and fees to fund public services is an essential tool of government.The COVID pandemic laid bare the necessity of allowing governing bodies at all levels of government to act immediately to provide to their communities during times of emergency; and WHEREAS,the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative would impose onerous andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™650 File #:23-123 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:10a. WHEREAS,the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Initiative would impose onerous and undemocratic restrictions on local governments and local voters that would reduce local revenues by billions every year and would harm the function of virtually all local services. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of South San Francisco,that the City hereby opposes ballot initiative 1935 known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,by the City Council of South San Francisco,that the City hereby authorizes the mayor to send a letter in opposition to ballot initiative number 1935 also known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™651 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-558 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005.(Angela Duldulao,Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council approve a resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The new Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP),funded by the California Department of Education,provides funding for after school and summer school enrichment programs for students in transitional kindergarten through sixth grade.The legislation prioritizes local educational agencies (LEAs) with the highest concentration of disadvantaged students (English learners and students categorically eligible for free or reduced-price meals).Local educational agencies must operate the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program pursuant to the requirements in California Education Code Section 46120,including the development of a program plan, or administer State ELOP funds and distribute monies to other providers to offer this service. Expanded learning opportunities under the code are defined as before school,after school,summer,or intersession learning programs that focus on developing the academic,social,emotional,and physical needs and interests of pupils through hands-on and engaging learning experiences.It is the intent of the Legislature that expanded learning programs are pupil-centered,results driven,include community partners,and complement,but do not replicate,learning activities in the regular school day and school year.In order to qualify,according to the legislation,students or their families must either be eligible for the free or reduced lunch program, be unhoused, or placed in foster care. During the 180 days of instructional learning during the school year,nine hours of learning programs will consist of a combination of instructional school day hours and in-person Expanded Learning Opportunities (before and/or after school program)hours.The Program must also operate a minimum of nine hours per day for an additional 30 non-school days (i.e., winter break, spring break, school holidays, or summer break). The City has a long history of partnering with the South San Francisco Unified School District (District)to offer extended day programs for its STEAM and BLISS Summer School Programs,as well as expanding its after school programs.District staff recently requested that the City’s Parks and Recreation Department partner with the District to create an extended day program through ELOP for the 2023-2024 school year at the six campuses where the City currently operates programs.These campuses include Buri Buri Elementary School, Los Cerritos Elementary School,Martin Elementary School,Monte Verde Elementary School,Ponderosa City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™652 File #:23-558 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:11. Los Cerritos Elementary School,Martin Elementary School,Monte Verde Elementary School,Ponderosa Elementary School,and Spruce Elementary School.In addition to the prescribed number of days and hours required,through ELOP,the Department would expand before and after school services to include transitional kindergarten (TK). Currently, the Department only offers care to students in kindergarten through fifth grade. Given that the proposed program would involve an expansion of services,this program proposal includes a budget request of approximately $510,014,with startup costs estimated at $13,200.The itemized budget proposal is available in Attachment 1.The program would be offered at no cost to families who meet the criteria mentioned above.If spaces are available after all eligible families have been served,other families can join ELOP on a sliding scale rate. Other than the in-kind cost of administration and coordination services provided by Parks and Recreation Department staff,the City would be reimbursed by the District for all direct costs via State of California ELOP funding. In addition to the City’s proposed expanded services,the District will also be expanding services through its own District Extended Day Activities Program (DEDAP),and has also asked its other partners who already provide after school services to expand their services through ELOP.Other partners in this effort include Boys and Girls Club and CAM EDU.The District has also signed a service agreement with a new provider,Right at School,to provide services in instances where existing partners will not have capacity to serve all students. Like the City’s proposed ELOP program, other partners would also be reimbursed for their services. During the school year,the afternoon extended day program,managed and staffed by the Parks and Recreation Department,would operate from bell time until 6:00 p.m.During non-school days,the Department would operate from 7:30 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.For classroom space,the District has committed to allowing the Department to continue using the rooms currently occupied for the Department’s existing before and after school programs.A plan to identify additional classroom space for all ELOP providers,including the additional 20 children per school site the Department proposes to serve for ELOP, is in progress. FISCAL IMPACT The District will reimburse the City for all direct expenses so this program can be offered at no cost to families. In-kind services,including administration will be provided by the City within the existing operating budget. The estimated cost to operate ELOP that will be reimbursable by the District is $635,380.This covers $587,180 in staffing, $35,000 for supplies, and $13,200 for one-time startup costs. This request anticipates the addition of part-time hourly staff to the Department’s budget.No new full-time positions are anticipated at this time.However,the cost charged to the District will include 0.81 full time equivalent (FTE)regular Recreation and Community Services Coordinator.Currently,each of the Department’s after school programs at each of the school sites are supervised by one or two full-time,regular Recreation and Community Services Coordinators depending on enrollment capacity.The Department anticipates charging a portion of each Coordinator’s time to ELOP as the additional ELOP classroom at each school would be supervised by the same Coordinator(s). Given that the 1.0 FTE Recreation and Community Services Coordinators will be made up of already budgeted staff hours,the total amount being requested under budget amendment #24.005 is $510,014.This breaks down into $461,814 for part-time hourly staffing, $35,000 for supplies, and $13,200 for one-time startup costs. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™653 File #:23-558 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:11. The itemized budget proposal is available in Attachment 1. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this funding will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2 by helping to build active recreation, learning, and child care programs. CONCLUSION Timely consideration of this request is critical given that the 2023-2024 school year begins on Wednesday, August 9,2023.As the provider of preschools,before and after school programs,and seasonal camp programs, the Parks and Recreation Department fully appreciates,supports,and advocates for affordable,high-quality programs for children in South San Francisco.City staff will continue to work with District personnel and other partners to develop ELOP as the District moves through the program’s first year of implementation. The Parks and Recreation Department looks forward to partnering with the District.Staff’s goal is to provide high-quality learning,socialization,and recreation programs,in addition to much needed child care options for working parents who require child care services year-round.It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution to approve the proposed program and amend the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™654 180 DAYS AFTER SCHOOL 30 DAYS FULL DAY PROGRAM STAFFING (FTE calculations presume hours charged to six staff members per position; salary and benefits included) Position FTE Cost FTE Cost Notes FTE Cost Notes RCS Coordinator*0.81 125,366$ 0.69 108,902$ 180 days x 8 hours/day x Step 5 0.12 16,464$ 30 days x 8 hours/day x Step 5 Recreation Leader IV 4.33 252,212$ 3.38 196,726$ 180 days x 6.5 hours/day x Step 3 0.95 55,487$ 30 days x 11 hours/day x Step 3 Recreation Leader II 4.33 209,602$ 3.38 163,490$ 180 days x 6.5 hours/day x Step 3 0.95 46,112$ 30 days x 11 hours/day x Step 3 TOTAL STAFF 9.47 587,180$ 7.45 469,117$ 2.02 118,063$ SUPPLIES Item Cost Cost Cost Snack 21,000$ 18,000$ 3,000$ Program Supplies 14,000$ 12,000$ 2,000$ TOTAL SUPPLIES 35,000$ 30,000$ 5,000$ TOTAL STAFF + SUPPLIES 622,180$ 499,117$ 123,063$ Est. Cost Per Child 5,185$ 4,159$ 1,026$ (120 children minimum, excluding start up expenses) ONE TIME START UP Item Cost Storage Cabinets 8,500$ Carpets 3,500$ Supply Carts 1,200$ TOTAL ONE TIME START UP 13,200$ GRAND TOTAL - ANNUAL COST Reimbursable by District 635,380$ Budget Amendment #24.005*510,014$ TOTAL ANNUAL PROGRAM COST South San Francisco Unified School District Request for City Services Proposed Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) 2023-2024 Budget Proposal ATTACHMENT 1 ABOUT THIS REPORT: Based on discussions with South San Francisco Unified School District (District) staff and requirements for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)(California Education Code Section 46120), the cost outlined in this report presumes staffing and supplies to cover 6 classrooms of up to 20 students in grades transitional kindergarten to fifth grade. The schools to be served by this program are Buri Buri Elementary School, Los Cerritos Elementary School, Martin Elementary School, Monte Verde Elementary School, Ponderosa Elementary School, and Spruce Elementary School. Costs are divided between program type as required by ELOP. That is, 180 days of instructional learning in which the City’s ELOP would operate only after school, and 30 days of full-day service (minimum 9 hours/day) during non-school days such as winter break, spring break, school holidays, and/or summer. This budget proposal represents the City’s estimated cost to operate ELOP that will be reimbursable by the District. *Budget Amendment #24.005 excludes cost of the RCS Coordinator. Duties will be absorbed by existing RCS Coordinators. 655 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-559 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)and amending the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (City)has a long history of partnering with the South San Francisco Unified School District (District); and WHEREAS,the City’s Parks and Recreation Department has received a request from District staff to partner with the District to create an extended day program through the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)for the 2023-2024 school year,and the City is one of several providers who have been engaged to support the District’s ELOP; and WHEREAS,ELOP is a state-mandated program from the California Department of Education that provides funding for after school and summer school enrichment programs for transitional kindergarten through sixth grade,with a focus on local educational agencies (LEAs)with the highest concentration of targeted disadvantaged students (English learners and students categorically eligible for free or reduced-price meals); and WHEREAS,LEAs must operate the ELOP pursuant to the requirements in California Education Code Section 46120, including the development of a program plan; and WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department proposes to operate an ELOP on the six campuses the City currently operates programs on:Buri Buri Elementary School,Los Cerritos Elementary School,Martin Elementary School,Monte Verde Elementary School,Ponderosa Elementary School,and Spruce Elementary School; and WHEREAS,the City’s ELOP would serve up to 20 children per school site in grades Transitional Kindergarten to 5th grade; WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department is seeking a budget amendment pursuant to budget amendment #24.005 in the amount of $510,014, detailed in Exhibit A. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™656 File #:23-559 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:11a. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes the Parks and Recreation Department to operate an extended learning program for students enrolled in the South San Francisco Unified School District’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)at Buri Buri Elementary School,Los Cerritos Elementary School,Martin Elementary School, Monte Verde Elementary School, Ponderosa Elementary School, and Spruce Elementary School. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council amends the Parks and Recreation Department’s Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.005. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the documents necessary to partner with the District for services proposed in Exhibit A,and take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution on behalf of the City Council,subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™657 180 DAYS AFTER SCHOOL 30 DAYS FULL DAY PROGRAM STAFFING (FTE calculations presume hours charged to six staff members per position; salary and benefits included) Position FTE Cost FTE Cost Notes FTE Cost Notes RCS Coordinator*0.81 125,366$ 0.69 108,902$ 180 days x 8 hours/day x Step 5 0.12 16,464$ 30 days x 8 hours/day x Step 5 Recreation Leader IV 4.33 252,212$ 3.38 196,726$ 180 days x 6.5 hours/day x Step 3 0.95 55,487$ 30 days x 11 hours/day x Step 3 Recreation Leader II 4.33 209,602$ 3.38 163,490$ 180 days x 6.5 hours/day x Step 3 0.95 46,112$ 30 days x 11 hours/day x Step 3 TOTAL STAFF 9.47 587,180$ 7.45 469,117$ 2.02 118,063$ SUPPLIES Item Cost Cost Cost Snack 21,000$ 18,000$ 3,000$ Program Supplies 14,000$ 12,000$ 2,000$ TOTAL SUPPLIES 35,000$ 30,000$ 5,000$ TOTAL STAFF + SUPPLIES 622,180$ 499,117$ 123,063$ Est. Cost Per Child 5,185$ 4,159$ 1,026$ (120 children minimum, excluding start up expenses) ONE TIME START UP Item Cost Storage Cabinets 8,500$ Carpets 3,500$ Supply Carts 1,200$ TOTAL ONE TIME START UP 13,200$ GRAND TOTAL - ANNUAL COST Reimbursable by District 635,380$ Budget Amendment #24.005*510,014$ TOTAL ANNUAL PROGRAM COST South San Francisco Unified School District Request for City Services Proposed Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) 2023-2024 Budget Proposal EXHIBIT A ABOUT THIS REPORT: Based on discussions with South San Francisco Unified School District (District) staff and requirements for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP)(California Education Code Section 46120), the cost outlined in this report presumes staffing and supplies to cover 6 classrooms of up to 20 students in grades transitional kindergarten to fifth grade. The schools to be served by this program are Buri Buri Elementary School, Los Cerritos Elementary School, Martin Elementary School, Monte Verde Elementary School, Ponderosa Elementary School, and Spruce Elementary School. Costs are divided between program type as required by ELOP. That is, 180 days of instructional learning in which the City’s ELOP would operate only after school, and 30 days of full-day service (minimum 9 hours/day) during non-school days such as winter break, spring break, school holidays, and/or summer. This budget proposal represents the City’s estimated cost to operate ELOP that will be reimbursable by the District. *Budget Amendment #24.005 excludes cost of the RCS Coordinator. Duties will be absorbed by existing RCS Coordinators. 658 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-409 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:12. Report regarding a resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004.(Angela Duldulao, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION For more than 75 years,Kaiser Permanente has been committed to improving the health of their members, patients,and the communities they serve.They recognize that good health extends beyond the doctor’s office and the hospital.Having a safe place to live,enough money to pay the bills,healthy food to eat,and easy access to quality health care are essential for good health.The Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant strategies address these critical health needs with the goal of improving conditions for health and equity in the communities they serve. The Parks and Recreation Department has been awarded a Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 for its Congregate Nutrition Program.The award was made under the community health need category “Income and Employment,”supporting an organization that distributes food to communities disproportionately experiencing inequities. In February 2023,the City of South San Francisco was able to start a Congregate Nutrition Program to address food insecurity among older adults (ages 60+)thanks to a $30,000 grant from San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services Division (AAS)funded by the Older Americans Act (OAA).The program has experienced immediate success and high demand upon opening with nearly 100 seniors signed up to participate in the first month of service.Additional funding from the Kaiser Permanente Community Health Grant will provide the necessary resources to extend this program. The City of South San Francisco Congregate Nutrition Program serves up to 90 meals every Tuesday and Thursday from 12:00 p.m.to 2:00 p.m.to adults ages 60 and older.This is a non-fee-based program,but voluntary contributions of $6 per meal are accepted.Meals are served from the Roberta Cerri Teglia Center (601 Grand Avenue,South San Francisco),which is the City's primary hub for senior services and programs, and features numerous programs and activities geared towards older adults as well as an Adult Day Care.The Congregate Nutrition Program began operating as a sit-down lunch service but had to pivot to a grab-and-go lunch service after a flooding incident closed the facility to the public for several months while the facility undergoes repairs.Despite this setback,the program continues to be a popular offering to older adults,and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™659 File #:23-409 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:12. staff expects to see continued success when sit-down lunch service resumes. Based on the current schedule and demand for meals,the AAS grant funds 4,000 meals,a goal the project expects to meet by June 30,2023,after only five months of opening.This $25,000 Kaiser Community Health Grant will supplement the cost of meals for another six months,allowing the program to carry on with its current schedule and capacity for the entire fiscal year 2023-2024.Without a source of additional funding,the Department would have to consider reducing the number of meals served per week if the program were to take place over the course of the year. FISCAL IMPACT Given that Congregate Nutrition is a new component to the Senior Services Program and that its beginnings were interrupted by facility issues that forced the program to pivot to a grab-and-go lunch service model,the general fund impact is still to be determined.As part of the fiscal year 2022-2023 mid-year budget adjustments, City Council approved part-time,hourly staff support for the Congregate Nutrition Program on a one-time basis.Given the temporary closure of the Robert Cerri Teglia Center since February 2023 for maintenance and repairs,existing staffing levels were able to sustain the Congregate Nutrition Program.In fiscal year 2023- 2024,the Department expects to reopen the Teglia Center early in the fiscal year and resume sit-down lunch services.The Department may return to City Council once again mid-year for a budget adjustment to cover part -time staffing expenses, which are not covered by the Kaiser or AAS grant. No funding beyond the grant amount is being requested at this time.AAS has indicated that supplemental funding may be available later in the year.Staff will consider other external funding opportunities as the Congregate Nutrition Program develops during its first full year of service. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this funding will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2:Quality of Life by supporting programs that promote the health and wellness of older adults and their families in South San Francisco. CONCLUSION Acceptance of this grant is important to addressing food insecurity for older adults with the Congregate Nutrition Program.Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™660 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-410 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:12a. Resolution approving the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 and amending the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department has been awarded a Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000 for its Congregate Nutrition Program; and WHEREAS,in February 2023,the City of South San Francisco was able to start a Congregate Nutrition Program to address food insecurity among older adults (ages 60+)thanks to a $30,000 grant from San Mateo County Aging and Adult Services Division (AAS) funded by the Older Americans Act (OAA); and WHEREAS,the AAS grant funds 4,000 meals,a goal the project expects to meet by June 30,2023,after only five months of opening; and WHEREAS,the Kaiser Community Health Grant will supplement the cost of meals for another six months, allowing the program to carry on with its current schedule and capacity for the entire fiscal year 2023-2024. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby approves the acceptance of grant funds from the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Community Health Grant in the amount of $25,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council amends the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget pursuant to budget amendment #24.004. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™661 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-555 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13. Report regarding a resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat;and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats,LLC,dba North River Boats,for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33.(Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat;and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats,LLC,dba North River Boats,for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33. (Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD)provides fire suppression,emergency medical care, hazardous materials response,and rescue response through an all-risk hazards response model from its five fire stations.Included in this all-risk model is a responsibility to provide water rescue response for the 21 square miles of bay waters falling within the jurisdiction of South San Francisco.To provide this level of service, SSFFD has maintained a rescue boat capable of performing bay water rescues since 2007.This boat served continuously for 15 years before removal from service as it is no longer seaworthy due to excessive wear on its hull.Prior to its service in South San Francisco,the boat was used by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and served for six years at a USCG station in Hawaii. In 2007,SSFFD took possession of the prior rescue boat and placed it into service at Oyster Point Marina.This location provides operational efficiency and allows for quick access to the water surrounding South San Francisco.During its years of service,the boat was relied on for approximately 24 water rescue related calls annually. These call types included: ·Vessel Collisions ·Marine Search and Rescue Cases ·Disabled Vessel Assists - Mariner in Distress ·Marine Fires ·Hazardous Material Spills - Containment through Boom Deployment The prior rescue boat was made available to the department free of charge through the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office (DRMO),a program that provides used Department of Defense equipment to local government public safety agencies.The boat was maintained using limited city funds as most operational costs were offset with Federal grant awards.Awarded funds included new motors,radio equipment,navigation City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™662 File #:23-555 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13. costs were offset with Federal grant awards.Awarded funds included new motors,radio equipment,navigation equipment,sponson/collar replacement,search equipment,and a docking platform for storage of the boat above water.SSFFD has current grant dollars available that have been allocated to supplement the new boat through the purchase of motors. There currently is no industry-wide accepted standard for a rescue boat replacement cycle.These assets are used until maintenance costs become prohibitive or the vessel is no longer safe to operate.SSFFD personnel, along with Public Works Mechanics,have maintained the prior boat for 15 years in good working order,using grant funds whenever possible for large/costly repairs.This is no longer possible as the wear on the boat’s hull is cost prohibitive as the estimated amount to repair it is nearing 1/3 the cost of a new vessel.Performing this work would not address the age and condition of the remainder of the vessel. Since our prior boat was placed out of service,fire department personnel have received numerous calls for service in South San Francisco Bay waters.Without a fire department boat at Oyster Point,responses have been extremely delayed.These incidents received responses by different boats from Redwood City Fire Department,Menlo Park Fire Protection District,USCG from Alameda Coast Guard Island,the San Mateo County Sheriffs boat pilot with San Mateo Consolidated firefighters onboard,private good Samaritans who happen across the incident,and when the Oyster Point Harbormaster pilot is available SSFFD firefighters will bring equipment and travel onboard their boat.These options create delays from 30 minutes to an hour or more depending on resource location and availability.Understanding that this current gap in service will continue until a new boat is purchased and placed into service,an interim boat was identified and purchased.This boat is 24 feet in length,has limited response capabilities,and is available now with little work to be placed into service.It served as an utility boat for a local marina and has a much smaller deck,carries limited equipment and personnel,provides no patient protection from the elements,and has far less power than the prior boat. Understanding these characteristics do limit its operational capabilities,the intention of this purchase is to provide an asset in South San Francisco to identify extended response times from assisting agencies while the appropriate platform is manufactured.Once the new boat is placed into service,the interim boat will serve as a backup/reserve vessel. With the identified need to replace the department’s prior rescue boat,SSFFD Staff evaluated a variety of items to inform the specification process. Items evaluated included: 1.Prior call types over the past 15 years 2.Historical sea state conditions of the South Bay 3.Other regional marine assets, including capability and proximity to South San Francisco 4.Current and planned vessel traffic (type and frequency) at Oyster Point Marina Once the above items were evaluated,an ad hoc committee consisting of SSFFD personnel responsible for water rescue program development and management was assembled to create minimum rescue boat specifications needed for solicitation of bids from manufacturers.The committee established the following City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™663 File #:23-555 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13. criteria to identify the most appropriate replacement rescue boat platform for the City: 1.Operational capability; 2.Limited need for in-service training; 3.Size/Draft - accessible to shallow water and ability to moor in the City’s current slip; 4.Crew safety; 5.Maximum number of passengers (crew + additional persons); 6.Warranty service and proximity to warranty service center; 7.Estimated build and delivery schedule and; 8.Storage capacity and customizability. Three rescue boat manufacturers submitted quotes for similar size boats with similar capabilities.All three made presentations to the department’s ad hoc committee on their specific product.The manufactures included North River Boats,Metal Shark Boats,and Life Proof Boats.All three manufactures were thoroughly evaluated using the above criteria.Each offered comparable vessel design with similar lengths.Differences included cockpit design,storage configuration,deck size,and cabin customization.As vessel length varied minimally,combining the above differences,led each boat to operate differently due to unique characteristics. These characteristics are proprietary to each manufacturer and affect how the boat is piloted. To further inform the selection process,SSFFD staff performed site visits to surrounding law enforcement agencies and fire departments that operate rescue boats built by the three quoting manufacturers.This allowed staff to perform in person evaluations of each boat looking at deck space,storage options,and cabin configuration.The site visits also allowed underway evaluations of how each boat performed in South Bay waters and provided the opportunity to speak with the agencies firsthand to obtain feedback on their experiences with these vessels. After extensive evaluation,staff identified the North River product as the preferred boat utilizing the above factors.North River outperformed the other manufacturers in almost all the evaluation criteria and has an 18- month delivery schedule,one year less than the other two manufacturers.The boat performed exceptionally well in various sea states surrounding South San Francisco,provides adequate configurable storage,and is easily outfitted with fire suppression capabilities in a manner that allows for ease of service and maintenance. The surrounding agencies utilizing North River Boats provided performance reports similar to our department’s findings.As fire and rescue boats do not have an identified service life,SSFFD expects to operate the new boat for a minimum of 20 years,supported by a regular maintenance program and continuing to identify grant funds for future enhancements. SSFFD plans to utilize the General Services Administration (GSA)purchasing program,a Federal government program that provides approved equipment pricing through vetting and competitive bidding of multiple vendors.GSA meets or exceeds the bid and purchasing guidelines which align with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code §4.04.080,Open market procedures for purchases and sales exclusive of public projects and has established approved pricing through public competitive procurement processes compliant City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™664 File #:23-555 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13. with state statutes. The South San Francisco Municipal Code §4.04.040,Agreements with other governmental agencies,authorizes any other governmental agency to purchase or contract for specified supplies,services,or equipment if their procedures are in conformance with state law.The City of South San Francisco participates in the GSA purchasing program and has utilized it in the past for other purchases of large equipment.North River Boats participates in the same program and provides pricing approved by GSA. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the new boat was approved during the Fiscal Year 2022 -2023 mid-year budget process,where monies from the fire department developer contribution account was authorized for expenditure.The total cost for the boat is $389,949.33 and is fully funded from the developer contributions and will not impact the City’s general fund.The boat purchase payments are scheduled in phases associated with construction progress and includes final payment at delivery and acceptance of the product. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This request is in alignment with Priority 4.2.11, Public Safety, Support reliability of fire fleet through scheduled apparatus replacement. CONCLUSION Fire staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat;and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats, LLC, dba North River Boats, for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™665 CUSTOMER PO NUMBER North River Invoice # Invoice Date: 4/26/2023 Sales Person:Jordan Allen BUYER:SHIP TO: Phone: Main POC: Mobile: Email: QTY.PART #UNIT PRICE EXTENDED PRICE 1 354,902.69$ -$ -$ 1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ State and Local taxes not included in this quote unless otherwise noted. 354,902.69$ 354,902.69$ 35,046.64$ Please Remit To:389,949.33$ 389,949.33$ All prices are in U.S. Dollars “This contractor and subcontractor shall abide by the requirements of 41 CFR §§ 60-1.4(a), 60-300.5(a) and 60-741.5(a). These regulations prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals based on their status as protected veterans or individuals with disabilities, and prohibit discrimination against all individuals based on their race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin. Moreover, these regulations require that covered prime contractors and subcontractors take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, protected veteran status or disability.” Payment Terms:(Select from below options) Payment due on receipt of invoice Net 10 Net 30 www.northriverboats.com Capt. Jason Bezemer Sub Total Discount Total Customer Signature X FOB Roseburg, OR All returned checks are subject to $35.00 NSF fee or 1% of the total sale, whichever is greater South San Francisco, CA 94080 1750 Green Siding Rd. Roseburg, Oregon 97471 NW Bend Boats, LLC - dba North River Boats North River Signature X 1750 Green Siding Rd. Sales Tax Invoice Total Deposit (USD) Balance Due Terms: See Payment Terms section below. If no payment terms noted, invoices due on receipt. Full payment required prior to shipping release. p/n: NRB32XXX North River "Valor" SAR / Patrol Vessel with Cuddy & Recessed bow DESCRIPTION South San Francisco Fire 480 North Canal Street Payment at time of purchase (max. allowable credit card - $5000.00) North River Boats Accounts Receivable NO TRAILER FOR THIS CONTRACT - SHIPPING CRADLE ONLY PROVIDED p/n: TBD Roseburg, OR 97471 Freight 666 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-556 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13a. Resolution approving the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat;and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats,LLC,dba North River Boats,for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33. (Jess Magallanes, Fire Chief) WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD)provides fire suppression,emergency medical care,hazardous materials response,and rescue response through an all-risk hazards response model from its five fire stations; and WHEREAS,included in this all-risk model is a responsibility to provide water rescue response for the 21 square miles of bay waters falling within the jurisdiction of South San Francisco; and WHEREAS,there currently is no industry-wide accepted standard for a rescue boat replacement cycle and the assets are utilized until maintenance costs become prohibitive or the vessel is no longer safe to operate; and WHEREAS,SSFFD personnel,along with Public Works Mechanics,have maintained the prior boat for 15 years in good working order,using grant funds whenever possible for large/costly repairs,however this is no longer possible as the wear on the boat’s hull is cost prohibitive as the estimated amount to repair it is nearing 1/3 the cost of a new vessel nor address the age and condition of the remainder of the vessel; and WHEREAS,in identifying the need to replace the department’s prior rescue boat,SSFFD Staff evaluated a variety of items to inform the specification process; and WHEREAS,once the items were evaluated an ad hoc committee consisting of SSFFD personnel responsible for water rescue program development and management was assembled to create minimum rescue boat specifications needed for solicitation of bids from manufacturers; and WHEREAS,three rescue boat manufacturers,North River Boats,Metal Shark Boats,and Life Proof Boats submitted quotes for similar size boats with similar capabilities,making presentations to the department’s ad hoc committee to thoroughly evaluate each rescue boats specifications; and WHEREAS,to further inform the selection process,staff performed site visits to surrounding law enforcement agencies and fire departments that operate rescue boats built by the three quoting manufactures; and WHEREAS, after extensive evaluation, staff identified the North River product as the preferred boat; and WHEREAS,SSFFD plans to utilize the General Services Administration (GSA)purchasing program,a Federal government program that provides approved equipment pricing through vetting and competitive bidding of multiple vendors,which meets or exceeds the bid and purchasing guidelines aligning with the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code §4.04.080,Open market procedures for purchases and sales exclusive of public projects with established approved pricing through public competitive procurement processes compliant with City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™667 File #:23-556 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:13a. projects with established approved pricing through public competitive procurement processes compliant with state statutes; and WHEREAS,funding for the new boat was approved during the Fiscal Year 2022 -2023 mid-year budget process where monies from the fire department developer contribution account was authorized for expenditure with a total cost for the boat of $389,949.33;fully funded from developer contributions and will not impact the City’s general fund. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby take the following actions: 1.Approves the purchase of a 32-foot North River rescue/fire boat. 2.Authorizes the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with NW Bend Boats,LLC,dba North River Boats,for the construction and purchase in the amount of $389,949.33,attached hereto as Exhibit A, and pursuant to City Attorney approval as to form. 3.Authorizes the City Manager to take any other action consistent with carrying out the intent of this resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™668 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-552 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14. Report regarding the adoption of a resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. (Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Manager) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt a resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. BACKGROUND In 2001,the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMC Tourism BID)was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law).The San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau,which has been rebranded as San Francisco Peninsula (SFP),and lodging businesses within San Mateo County,seek to modernize the SMC Tourism BID by forming a new District,the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SF Peninsula TMD)pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law).If established,the new SF Peninsula TMD will replace the existing SMC Tourism BID. The SF Peninsula TMD is a benefit assessment district proposed to create a revenue source to help fund marketing and sales promotion efforts for San Francisco Peninsula area lodging businesses.This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the state to improve tourism and drive additional room nights to assessed lodging businesses.The proposed SF Peninsula TMD includes all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont,Brisbane,Burlingame,East Palo Alto,Foster City,Half Moon Bay,Menlo Park,Millbrae,Pacifica,Redwood City,San Bruno,San Carlos,San Mateo,South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. SFP and lodging business owners decided to pursue formation of the SF Peninsula TMD to create a revenue source devoted to marketing the San Francisco Peninsula area as a tourist,meeting,and event destination.If established,the SF Peninsula TMD would generate approximately $10,895,479 on an annual basis for promotion of travel and tourism specific to the San Francisco Peninsula area. Outreach with lodging business owners began in July 2022 and concluded in May 2023.SFP and its consultant, Civitas,worked with the lodging industry to obtain sufficient petition support as well as develop a Marketing District Plan,which took into account how the lodging industry in San Mateo County would focus on marketing efforts. DISCUSSION Tourism Marketing Districts Tourism Marketing Districts (TMDs)utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism.These special assessment districts allow lodging business owners to organize their efforts to increase tourism.Lodging business owners within the TMD fund the TMD,and those funds are used to City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™669 File #:23-552 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14. provide services that are desired by and benefit the lodging businesses within the TMD. TMD benefits: ·Funds cannot be diverted for other government programs; ·They are customized to fit the needs of each destination; ·They allow for a wide range of services;including destination marketing,tourism promotion, and sales lead generation; ·They are designed, created, and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and ·They provide a stable funding source for tourism promotion. In California,TMDs are primarily formed pursuant to the 94 Law,which allows for the creation of a special benefit assessment districts to raise funds within a specific geographic area.The key difference between TMDs and other special benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the TMD. Management District Plan The Management District Plan includes the proposed boundary of the SF Peninsula TMD,a service plan and budget and a proposed means of governance.The SF Peninsula TMD will include all lodging businesses located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont,Brisbane,Burlingame,East Palo Alto,Foster City,Half Moon Bay,Menlo Park,Millbrae,Pacifica,Redwood City,San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. The annual assessment rate is one-and one-half percent (1.5%)of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space,and 0.75%for all other lodging businesses within the SF Peninsula TMD’s boundaries.Based on the benefit received,assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days;stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline,which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’performance of their jobs for the airline,including layovers between flights;employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable;and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. The proposed SF Peninsula TMD will have a five-year life,beginning October 1,2023,or as soon as possible thereafter,and ending five years from its start date.The assessment will be implemented beginning October 1,2023,or as soon as possible thereafter.Once per year beginning on the anniversary of SF Peninsula TMD formation there is a 30-day period in which business owners paying 50% or more of the assessment may protest and begin proceedings to terminate the SF Peninsula TMD. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessments on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies,penalties and interest)from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SF Peninsula TMD.The City of Burlingame shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business.The City of Burlingame shall be paid a fee equal to one percent (1%)of the amount of assessment collected or a flat fee of $60,000,whichever is greater each year to cover its costs of collection and administration. SF Peninsula TMD Formation Process Below is a description of the formation process and timeline: May 2023 ·Resolution of Intention Hearing and Resolution Requesting Consent.Upon submission of a written petition,signed by a majority of the total assessment proposed to be levied (65 lodging businesses signed on representing 58.12%of the total assessment),the Burlingame City Council initiated proceedings on May 15,2023 by adopting a resolution expressing its intention to establish a district. Along with the Resolution of Intention,the City of Burlingame also requested consent from all jurisdictions proposed to be included in the SF Peninsula TMD.Consent must be received from the jurisdictions prior to the final public hearing (described below)to be included in the established SF City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™670 File #:23-552 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14. jurisdictions prior to the final public hearing (described below)to be included in the established SF Peninsula TMD. ·Mailed Notices.By May 21,2023,the City of Burlingame was required to mail written notices to the owners of all lodging businesses proposed to be within the SF Peninsula TMD.Mailing the notice started the mandatory 45-day period in which owners may protest formation of the SF Peninsula TMD. This action was completed. June 2023 ·Public Meeting. On June 20, 2023, the Burlingame City Council held a public meeting to allow public testimony on the formation of the SF Peninsula TMD and levy of assessments. No Burlingame City Council action was required at that meeting. July-August 2023 ·Final Public Hearing.The final public hearing is scheduled for July or August 2023.If written protests are received from the owners of lodging businesses in the proposed SF Peninsula TMD who will pay more than 50%of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50%by the final public hearing,no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such lodging businesses shall be taken for a period of one year.If written protests are not received in the amount described above,the Burlingame City Council must hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing,they may consider a resolution to form the SF Peninsula TMD formation. If approved, the SF Peninsula TMD will be formally formed. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact to the City General Fund by adopting the resolution.It is assumed that a newly formed SF Peninsula TMD would assist in increasing Transient Occupancy Tax revenue received within South San Francisco as marketing efforts increase per the Management District Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN This report meets the City’s strategic planning goal #5, Economic Vitality. CONCLUSION The recommended action,adoption of the proposed resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to form the SF Peninsula TMD and include the City of South San Francisco within the district,will enable the City of Burlingame and SFP to move forward with the district formation process.Upon successful formation, the SF Peninsula TMD will be governed by SFP and by the Management District Plan and will be facilitated by the Burlingame City Council. Attachment: 1.PowerPoint presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™671 File #:23-552 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™672 Positioning Our Destination for Future SuccessJuly 12, 2023 673 City Room Nights Gross Bkg ($USD) Economic Impact Belmont 1,425 $259,613 $908,647 Brisbane 346 $76,887 $269,103 Burlingame 4,213 $752,663 $2,634,319 Half Moon Bay 581 $214,360 $750,259 Millbrae 2,439 $432,816 $1,514,857 Pacifica 302 $66,384 $232,344 Redwood City 1,514 $250,054 $875,187 San Bruno 1,951 $290,689 $1,017,411 San Carlos 607 $109,339 $382,685 San Mateo 1,716 $317,708 $1,111,979 South San Francisco 6,195 $1,013,962 $3,548,868 Unincorporated/Other 305 $132,840 $464,940 21,594 $3,917,314 $13,710,600 2022 Expedia Campaigns By City •ROA (Return on Assessment collected) for SSF hotels is 4.3; Entire SMC is 4.2 •SSF BEST performer of ANY city in 2022 Expedia campaigns! •165 Group leads sent to SSF Hotels. •Key partnerships with SSF Conference Center, Dominic’s SF Wine School, Moonstar, JobTrain, Chamber of Commerce •Board Members from: A/C Hotel, Fairfield Inn, Embassy Suites 674 March 2023 Pharma Forum Trade Show NYC Joint effort with SSF Conference Center – Stacey San Pedro 675 International Travel Tradeshow (IPW) Key Takeaways •Media has shown majority interest in the following topics: family-friendly travel, solo women travel, sustainability, luxury, “soft adventure” and “hidden gem” weekend getaways. •8 and counting follow ups - interested in coming next year (tagging from IPW in LA). Media Marketplace Communications Manager Jacqueline met with 25+ international travel journalists at IPW’s Media Marketplace to showcase our region. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 IPW Media Marketplace Appointments Number of Media AppointmentsRepresented Countries (Media’s targeted reader audience) May 2023 – Joined by Dean Lehr, Hotel Focus 676 2023 Initiatives •31 Trade Shows/Meeting Industry Events •Spring Domestic Expedia Campaign (May- June) •International Expedia Campaign in partnership with Visit Sonoma and SF Travel (April – December) •Now a preferred partner with San Francisco Travel. Others include Helms Briscoe, Global Cynergies, Prestige Global Meetings. 677 November 2022 FAM Tour Closing Dinner at SSF Conference Center Closing night dinner for 8 Helms Briscoe Meeting Planner (Florida) held at South San Francisco Conference Center 678 November 2022 Taste of South San Francisco Featuring As Fresh as it Gets SMC Farm to Table Program 679 Peninsula Restaurant Week Success! 680 Social Media Features – South San Francisco 681 Content Mentions: Jan. 2022 – June 2023 Owned Blog Posts: •April 28, 2023: Restaurants with Great Views in The Bay Area Features AC Waterfront Lounge •March 30, 2023: Easter 2023 Events on The San Francisco Peninsula Features See’s Candy headquartered in South San Francisco, as well as Parks & Rec’s 92nd Annual Easter Bunny Experience •November 10, 2022: Restaurants Serving Thanksgiving Dinner on The San Francisco Peninsula Features Dominic’s on the Go in South San Francisco •October 13, 2022: Halloween Events On The San Francisco Peninsula Features Blind Testing White Wines event at San Francisco Wine School •January 2, 2022: Great Hotels Near The San Francisco Bay Trail Features Sonesta ES Suites and links to other South San Francisco hotels 682 Content Mentions: Jan. 2022 – June 2023 Promoted Events (43 events): •Concert in the Park: Culture & Community Festival in South San Francisco •"Bohème Out of the Box" in South San Francisco •Cinco de Mayo Specials at the AC Waterfront Lounge •Easter Bunny Photo Hop & Egg Hunt 2022 in South San Francisco •The Evolution of South Australian Grenache at San Francisco Wine School •BATTLE OF THE GRAPES III: Northern Italy vs Southern Italy benefitting Museo Italo Americano at San Francisco Wine School •2022 Anniversary Celebration & Scholarship Auction at San Francisco Wine School •Intro to Blind Wine Tasting at San Francisco Wine School •Intro to Blind Wine Tasting at San Francisco Wine School •Wines of Willamette Valley Oregon at San Francisco Wine School •Intro to Food Pairing at San Francisco Wine School •Intro to Food Pairing at San Francisco Wine School •Wines of Washington State at San Francisco Wine School •Rosé Wines of the World at San Francisco Wine School •Intro to Italian Wines at San Francisco Wine School •Napa Valley Wines at San Francisco Wine School •Crus Classés de Graves at San Francisco Wine School 683 Content Mentions: Jan. 2022 – June 2023 (Continued) •Introducing Cult Oenologist Roberto Cipresso and his Inaugural California Pinot Noir Portfolio Release at San Francisco Wine School •Blind Tasting Thick-Skinned Red Wines at San Francisco Wine School •Blind Tasting Thin-Skinned Red Wines at San Francisco Wine School •Sweet and Fortified Wines of the World at San Francisco Wine School •Celebrate Black History Month at San Francisco Wine School •Wines of Italy at SF Wine School •Chardonnays of the World at the San Francisco Wine School •34th Annual Taste of South San Francisco 2022 •San Francisco Antiquarian Book, Print & Paper Fair 2022 •Easter Brunch at the AC Waterfront Lounge •Mother's Day Brunch at the AC Waterfront Lounge •Valentine's Day Menu at the AC Waterfront Lounge •Valentine's Day Dinner at the AC Waterfront Lounge •South San Francisco Downtown Walking Tour •Redwood City Downtown Walking Tour •San Carlos Downtown Walking Tour •Pescadero Walking Tour •"The Nutcracker" in South San Francisco •"Abundance: A 2-dimensional Art Show" in South San Francisco •Santa Comes to Town 2022 in South San Francisco •Roderick Chambers - Live at Hula Hoops •Jackie Chavez - Live at Hula Hoops •Roderick Chambers - Live at Hula Hoops •Easter Bunny Photo Hop & Egg Hunt 2023 in South San Francisco 684 Content Mentions: Jan. 2022 – June 2023 Owned Social Media Posts: •April 29, 2023: Promoted Restaurants with Great Views blog post featuring AC Lounge •January 12, 2023: Promoted reel featuring “Karl the Fog” cocktail at AC Lounge •November 20, 2022: Promoted Thanksgiving Dinners blog post featuring Dominic’s on the Go •November 16, 2022: Promoted Thanksgiving Dinners blog post featuring Dominic’s on the Go •November 14, 2022: Promoted Thanksgiving Dinners blog post featuring Dominic’s on the Go •October 22, 2022: Promoted Halloween blog featuring San Francisco Wine School •October 15, 2022: Promoted Halloween blog featuring San Francisco Wine School •July 22, 2022: Promoted Restaurants with Great Views blog post featuring AC Lounge •February 22, 2022: Featured a photo of Sign Hill Media Mentions Due to Our Efforts: June 2023: San Francisco Wine School featured in, “San Mateo County: With endless discoveries, the San Francisco Peninsula invites visitors to get lost while discovering the region,” by Christine Moore, Modern Luxury 685 What Is the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau? How Is It Related to the San Francisco Peninsula? The San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) is a destination marketing organization (DMO) created in 1971 as a 501 (c) (6) by SMC hotel owners and managers responsible for attracting convention, business, international, and leisure visitors. In 2001, a TBID funding model was adopted (4th district in U.S. to do so). ‘The San Francisco Peninsula’ branding strategy was launched in 2022. In 2023, it began the process of converting its District from the ‘89 to ‘94 Act. Assessment Fees (.$15 - $1.00) paid by Hotel Guests have not increased since 2001. 686 Destinations that RECENTLY Converted from ‘89 Act to ‘94 Destination Year Converted Stockton 2010 Sacramento 2012 Fairfield 2013 West Hollywood 2013 Huntington Beach 2014 Lodi 2015 Richmond 2015 Carmel-by-the-Sea 2016 Palm Springs 2016 Vacaville 2016 Paso Robles 2017 Yolo County 2017 Monterey County 2018 Pasadena 2018 San Jose 2018 Dana Point 2019 Laguna Beach 2020 Morro Bay 2021 Santa Clara 2021 687 $648 MPAR Destination Revenue – 2019 990 and MPAR** Napa Valley $7,721,717 MPAR $1,575 Sacramento $12,458,000 MPAR $1,246 Oakland $5,180,000 MPAR $1,170 San Francisco $38,112,000 MPAR $1,128 Sonoma County $8,714,471 MPAR $792 Santa Cruz County 4,400 rooms $2,728,000 MPAR $620 Monterey County $7,234,686 MPAR $603 The San Francisco Peninsula 15,720 rooms $3,097,000 MPAR $197 Current Funding Significantly Below Comparable Destinations **MPAR (marketing $ per available room) is the division of the budget by the number of rooms. $197 dollars is the lowest MPAR we have come across in a destination. Civitas Advisors 688 Moscone Center Bookings Down Significantly Through 2030 * Prior to VMware cancellation (40,000+ room nights) Variance from 8/22: -415K Definite Room Nights +31K Tentative Room Nights 689 •ALL hotels will automatically become members of the California Hotel Lodging Association with complimentary access to all CHLA training programs and industry advocacy program. Hotels that currently pay CHLA dues directly will realize a savings. •Dedicated Staff Liaison for non-convention hotels to provide support on issues unique to smaller properties. •Increased funding will enable us to attract large scale Room Night Generating Events which could include music festivals, marathons, athletic events etc. This is a whole new frontier! Enhanced Benefits for ALL Hotels… 690 Marketing: All Markets Estimated Revenue Projected Room Nights Investment 1. Invest further in attracting Social Media Influencers.$1,800,000 9,000 $150,000 2. Invest in advertising campaigns across all mediums: digital, TV, radio, print to effectively compete with smaller neighboring DMOs (Santa Cruz, Monterey, Tri-Valley etc.). $4,000,000 20,000 $200,000 3. Retain Marketing P/R Agency to identify opportunities where we are currently lacking presence and develop campaigns to support above initiatives. $1,800,000 9,000 $180,000 4. Deploy geo-tracking tool to better understand our current visitor and measure effectiveness of above initiatives. N/A N/A $75,000 5. Additional staff to support above initiatives.N/A N/A $637,200 San Francisco Peninsula TMD – Proposed Initiatives 691 Convention Sales Estimated Revenue Projected Room Nights Investment 1. Add Convention Sales Representatives to East Coast, Midwest, Sacramento, and Southern California, and International Markets. $6,100,000 25,000 $675,000 2. Add sales representative for hotels in luxury segment. Show participation could include: Financial Insurance Conference Professionals (FICP), Luxury Meeting Summit, Global Meetings and Incentive Travel Exchange (GITME), Corporate Event Marketing Association (CEMA), Pharma Forum targeting feeder markets of New York, Boston, Chicago, etc.) $1,750,000 5,000 $200,000 3. Join competing destinations offering booking incentives.$2,200,000 10,000 $200,000 4. Participate in destination partnership programs with Third Party Meeting Planning Companies such as American Express, Conference Direct, Helms Briscoe etc. $1,400,000 6,364 $175,000 5. Add sales missions and client reception in feeder markets of Midwest, TX, AZ, Southern CA, Washington D.C., and New York. $840,000 4,000 $172,000 6. Increase Familiarization site tours with key planners.$880,000 3,911 $200,000 San Francisco Peninsula TMD – Proposed Initiatives 692 Leisure Sales Estimated Revenue Projected Room Nights Investment 1. Further develop OTA campaigns during strategic need periods.$8,850,000 41,182 $325,000 Convention Marketing Estimated Revenue Projected Room Nights Investment 1. Partner with key meeting publication companies such as Northstar, Smart Meetings, Connect, Meetings Today for advertising, show sponsorship, FAMS etc. $880,000 3,000 $175,000 San Francisco Peninsula TMD – Proposed Initiatives 693 A: Rate of 1.5% of room revenue for hotels with 5K+ sq. ft. of dedicated meeting space (Group A) / 0.75% (Group B) for all others compares very favorably: •San Francisco: 2.5% (hotels near Moscone Center); 1.3125% for all other hotels (Assessment + Convention Center Tax) •Oakland: $1.50/room night + 3% (Assessment + Measure C) •San Jose: $1.00-$3.00 +4% (Assessment + Convention Facility Fee) •Sacramento: 2%-4% •Current San Mateo County TBID: $0.15 - $1.00/room night. The amount charged to guests has not increased since 2001, thus the annual CVB budget has remained flat growing only when hotel rooms are added to the market. Q: What Is the Proposed New Tourism Fee and How Does It Compare? 694 San Francisco Peninsula Destination Comparison April 2023 Destination TOT TMD Assessment Total Charge Atlanta, GA 21.0%N/A 21.0% New Orleans, LA 16.0%1.75%17.75% Louisville, KY 16.07%1.50%17.57% Chicago, IL 17.38%N/A 17.38% Dallas, TX 15.26%2.0%17.26% Anaheim, CA 15.0%2.0%17.0% Indianapolis, IN 17.0%N/A 17.0% Austin, TX 17.0%N/A 17.0% Long Beach, CA 13.0%3.0%16.0% Los Angeles, CA 14.0%2.0%16.0% Half Moon Bay, CA 15.0%0.75%-1.5% +$1.00/night 15.75-16.5% + $1.00/night West Hollywood, CA 12.5%3.0%15.5% Nashville, TN 15.25%$2.50/night 15.25% + $2.50/night Houston, TX 15.0%N/A 15.0% Brisbane / South San Francisco, CA 14.0%0.75%-1.5% +$2.50/night 14.75-15.5% + $2.50/night Santa Monica, CA 14.0%$1.90 – $6.25 per night 14.00% + $1.50 – $6.25 per night Las Vegas, NV 13.38%N/A 13.38% Greater Palm Springs, CA 10.0% - 12.7%3.0%13.0% - 15.7% Miami, FL 13.0%N/A 13.0% San Diego, CA 10.5%2.0%12.5% Orlando, FL 12.5%N/A 12.5% San Francisco Peninsula, CA 9.5% - 15.0%0.75%-1.5%10.25% - 16.5% Average Lodging Charge for To p 100 Cities – 14.92% Average Lodging Charge for Cities w/ 350k+ Residents – 15.91% 695 Overhead 24% Sales 58% Marketing + PR 18% Overhead 10% Sales 65% Marketing + PR 25% TBID Expenses TMD Expenses 90% of New TMD Budget Dedicated to Marketing, Sales, and PublicRelations Initiatives 696 City Council – Public Meeting 1. Public Meeting – No action required if not adopting ordinance 2.Optional: Introduce the Ordinance of Formation and have 1st reading. Public Meeting must be held at least 10 days after Notice of Public Meeting/Hearing is mailed and at least 7 days before Public Hearing is held. June 20, 2023 City City Council – Final Hearing 1. Adopt Resolution of Formation 2.Optional: 2nd reading of Ordinance and Adopt Ordinance of Formation Must be held at least 45 days after Notice is mailed. July 5, 2023 (next meeting is August 21, 2023) City •’94 District passes 30-day challenge period (Resolution) •Ordinance Active (30 days after 2nd Reading)August 4, 2023 SFPTMD District passes 2nd 30-day challenge period (Ordinance)September 3,2023 SFPTMD City Council - Disestablish ‘89 District September 2023 City District begins collecting assessment October 1, 2023 SFPTMD *The Burlingame City Council generally meets on the first and third Monday of each month. San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Business Improvement District Conversion Timeline (Continued) 697 View the video here. 698 Re -branding the destination has created a powerful tailwind 699 Thank You! 700 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-553 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14a. Resolution granting consent to the City of Burlingame to participate in the formation of the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District and include the City of South San Francisco within the district. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Burlingame (the Burlingame Council)desires to begin proceedings to form the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SF Peninsula TMD); and WHEREAS,certain lodging business owners have requested that the Burlingame Council form the SF Peninsula TMD; and WHEREAS,a portion of the territory proposed to be included in the SF Peninsula TMD lies within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont,Brisbane,Burlingame,East Palo Alto,Foster City,Half Moon Bay,Menlo Park,Millbrae,Pacifica,Redwood City,San Bruno,San Carlos,San Mateo,South San Francisco,and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County (the Cities and County),as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by such attachment; and WHEREAS,the area of the Cities and County which lies within the boundaries of the proposed SF Peninsula TMD will,in the opinion of the Burlingame Council,be benefited by the improvements and activities,and the purpose sought to be accomplished by the work can best be accomplished by a single comprehensive scheme of work; and WHEREAS,the proposed SF Peninsula TMD shall end five years from its start date,and shall consist of an annual assessment rate of one-and one-half percent (1.5%)of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space,and 0.75%for all other lodging businesses within the SF Peninsula TMD’s boundaries; and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessments on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies,penalties and interest)from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SF Peninsula TMD and shall be paid a fee equal to one percent (1%)of the amount of assessment collected or a flat fee of $60,000, whichever is greater each year to cover its costs of collection and administration; and WHEREAS,a newly formed SF Peninsula TMD would assist in increasing Transient Occupancy Tax revenue received within South San Francisco as marketing efforts increase per the Management District Plan; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™701 File #:23-553 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:14a. WHEREAS,adoption of this resolution will have no direct fiscal impact to the City of South San Francisco’s General Fund; and WHEREAS,the SF Peninsula TMD will be governed by the Management District Plan,attached hereto as Exhibit B. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby consents on behalf of the City of South San Francisco to grant to the City Council of the City of Burlingame jurisdiction for all purposes in connection with the creation,operation and future renewals of the proposed San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Burlingame City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the clerks of the Granting Cities and County. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™702 Exhibit A Boundary Map 703 SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLAN Prepared pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994, Streets and Highways Code section 36600 et seq. January 23, 2023 2023-2028 704 Table of Contents I. OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................................................. 3 II. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................... 5 III. BOUNDARY ............................................................................................................................................. 6 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES ............................................................................................ 7 A. ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN ................................................................................................................................... 7 B. ANNUAL BUDGET ............................................................................................................................................ 9 C. CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................. 9 D. ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................................................. 11 E. PENALTIES AND INTEREST ............................................................................................................................. 12 F. TIME AND MANNER FOR COLLECTING ASSESSMENTS .................................................................................... 13 V. GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 14 A. OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION ................................................................................................................................. 14 B. BROWN ACT AND CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 14 C. ANNUAL REPORT ........................................................................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX 1 – LAW ........................................................................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES ..................................................................................................... 26 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY ............................................................................. 31 APPENDIX 4 – SMG CONSULTING ANALYSIS .......................................................................................... 33 Prepared by Civitas (800)999-7781 www.civitasadvisors.com 705 SFPTMD Management District Plan 3 January 23, 2023 I. OVERVIEW Developed by the San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) and San Mateo County lodging businesses, the San Francisco Peninsula Tourism Marketing District (SFPTMD) is an assessment district proposed to provide specific benefits to payors, by funding marketing and sales promotion efforts for assessed businesses. This approach has been used successfully in other destination areas throughout the country to provide the benefit of additional room night sales directly to payors. In 2001, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District (SMCTBID) was formed pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (89 Law). This effort seeks to modernize the SMCTBID by disestablishing the 89 Law District and forming a new District, the SFPTMD, pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (94 Law). Location: The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, as shown on the map in Section III. Services: The SFPTMD is designed to provide specific benefits directly to payors by increasing awareness and demand for room night sales, meetings, and conventions. Sales and marketing programs will increase demand for overnight tourism and market payors as tourist, meeting and event destinations, thereby increasing demand for room night sales, meetings, and conventions. Budget: The total SFPTMD annual assessment budget for the initial year of its five (5) year operation is anticipated to be approximately $10,895,479. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do. Cost: The annual assessment rate is one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. Collection: The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessments on a monthly basis (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SFPTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. 706 SFPTMD Management District Plan 4 January 23, 2023 Duration: The SFPTMD will have a five (5) year life, beginning October 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. After five (5) years, the SFPTMD may be renewed pursuant to the 94 Law if business owners support continuing the SFPTMD programs. Once per year, beginning on the anniversary of SFPTMD formation, there is a thirty (30) day period in which owners paying fifty percent (50%) or more of the assessment may protest and initiate a hearing on SFPTMD termination. Management: The San Mateo County/Silicon Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau dba The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) shall serve as the SFPTMD’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with this Plan, and must provide annual reports to the Burlingame City Council. The SFP shall create a SFPTMD Committee tasked with determining how SFPTMD funds are spent, within the designated programs in this Plan, subject to final approval by the SFP Board. The SFPTMD Committee shall include lodging business owners or representatives paying the SFPTMD assessment. 707 SFPTMD Management District Plan 5 January 23, 2023 II. BACKGROUND TMDs are an evolution of the traditional Business Improvement District. The first TMD was formed in West Hollywood, California in 1989. Since then, over 100 California destinations have followed suit. In recent years, other states have begun adopting the California model – Massachusetts, Montana, South Dakota, Washington, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana have adopted TMD laws. Several other states are in the process of adopting their own legislation. The cities of Wichita, Kansas and Newark, New Jersey used an existing business improvement district law to form a TMD. And, some cities, like Portland, Oregon and Memphis, Tennessee have utilized their home rule powers to create TMDs without a state law. California’s TMDs collectively raise over $300 million annually for local destination marketing. With competitors raising their budgets, and increasing rivalry for visitor dollars, it is important that San Francisco Peninsula tourism businesses invest in stable, commerce-specific marketing programs. TMDs utilize the efficiencies of private sector operation in the market-based promotion of tourism districts. TMDs allow tourism business owners to organize their efforts to increase commerce. Tourism business owners within the TMD pay an assessment and those funds are used to provide services that increase commerce. In California, most TMDs are formed pursuant to the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994. This law allows for the creation of a benefit assessment district to raise funds within a specific geographic area. The key difference between TMDs and other benefit assessment districts is that funds raised are returned to the private non-profit corporation governing the district. There are many benefits to TMDs: • Funds must be spent on services and improvements that provide a specific benefit only to those who pay; • Funds cannot be diverted to general government programs; • They are customized to fit the needs of payors in each destination; • They allow for a wide range of services; • They are designed, created and governed by those who will pay the assessment; and • They provide a stable, long-term funding source for tourism promotion. 708 SFPTMD Management District Plan 6 January 23, 2023 III. BOUNDARY The SFPTMD includes all lodging businesses, existing and in the future, located within the boundaries of the cities of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, South San Francisco, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County, illustrated by the map below. “Lodging business” means: any hotel, motel, inn, bed and breakfast, or other similar structure or portion thereof that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis. Tourist home or house, studio hotel, bachelor hotel, lodginghouse, roominghouse, apartment house, dormitory, public or private club, mobile home or house trailer at a fixed location, are not included in the definition of “lodging business.” The boundary is shown on the map below. A list of lodging businesses proposed to be assessed in the SFPTMD can be found in Appendix 2. 709 SFPTMD Management District Plan 7 January 23, 2023 IV. ASSESSMENT BUDGET AND SERVICES A. Annual Service Plan Assessment funds will be spent to provide specific benefits conferred or privileges granted directly to the payors that are not provided to those not charged, and which do not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of conferring the benefits or granting the privileges. The privileges and services provided with the SFPTMD funds are sales and marketing programs available only to assessed businesses. A service plan assessment budget has been developed to deliver services that benefit the assessed businesses. A detailed annual assessment budget will be developed and approved by the SFP. The table below illustrates the initial annual assessment budget allocations. These activities and allocations will also apply in subsequent years. The total initial assessment budget is $10,895,479. Although actual revenues will fluctuate due to market conditions, the proportional allocations of the budget shall remain the same. However, the City and the SFP board shall have the authority to adjust budget allocations between the categories by no more than twenty (20%) of the total budget per year. A description of the proposed improvements and activities for the initial year of operation is below. The same activities are proposed for subsequent years. In the event of a legal challenge against the SFPTMD, any and all assessment funds may be used for the costs of defending the SFPTMD. In the first year of operation, the costs of creating the SFPTMD may be repaid by deducting repayment funds proportionally from budget categories. Each budget category includes all costs related to providing that service. For example, the sales and marketing budget includes the cost of staff time dedicated to overseeing and implementing the sales and marketing program. Staff time dedicated purely to administrative tasks is allocated to the administrative portion of the budget. The costs of an individual staff member may be allocated to multiple budget categories. The staffing levels necessary to provide the services below will be determined by the SFP Board on an as- needed basis. Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy, $9,805,931 , 90% Administration & Operations, $871,638 , 8% Contingency/Reserve, $108,955 , 1% City Collection Fee, $108,955 , 1% Initial Annual Assessment Budget: $10,895,479 710 SFPTMD Management District Plan 8 January 23, 2023 Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy A sales and marketing program will promote assessed businesses as tourist, meeting, and event destinations. The sales and marketing program will have a central theme of promoting San Francisco Peninsula as a desirable place for overnight visits. The program will have the goal of increasing overnight visitation and room night sales at assessed businesses, and may include the following activities: • Funds to support group business to offset costs within the destination, thereby generating room nights for assessed businesses; • Payment of bid fees, incentives or other costs associated with bringing large scale events to the destination that generate room nights for assessed businesses; • Funds to support events and/or local partnerships that increase the public notoriety of the destination as a tourist, meetings, or event destination – thereby increasing consumer demand for assessed businesses; • Support of public relation strategies that increase the profile of the destination as a tourist, meetings, or event destination – thereby increasing consumer demand for assessed businesses; • Strategic partnerships, sponsorships, or other alliances that reinforce the destination within the travel marketplace and position the San Francisco Peninsula as a destination of choice for meetings, events, and leisure travel to assessed businesses; • Internet marketing efforts to increase awareness and optimize internet presence to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Print ads in magazines and newspapers, television ads, and radio ads targeted at potential visitors to drive overnight visitation and room sales to assessed businesses; • Attendance of trade shows to promote assessed businesses; • Familiarization tours of the destination and assessed businesses; • Preparation and production of collateral promotional materials such as brochures, flyers and maps featuring assessed businesses; • Attendance of professional industry conferences and affiliation events to promote assessed businesses; • Lead generation activities designed to attract tourists and group events to assessed businesses; • Director of Sales and General Manager meetings to plan and coordinate tourism promotion efforts for assessed businesses; • Education of hospitality staff on service and safety (related to alcohol and food) designed to create a visitor experience that will bring repeat visits to assessed businesses; • Education of lodging business management and the Owners’ Association on advocacy and marketing strategies best suited to meet assessed businesses’ needs; and • Other activities that increase the profile and notoriety of The San Francisco Peninsula as an overnight travel destination and promote greater room night sales for assessed businesses. Administration & Operations The administration and operations portion of the budget shall be utilized for administrative staffing costs, office costs, and other general administrative costs such as insurance, legal, and accounting fees. Contingency/Reserve The budget includes a contingency line item to account for uncollected assessments, if any. If there are contingency funds collected, they may be held in a reserve fund or utilized for other program, administration or renewal costs at the discretion of the SFP Board. Policies relating to contributions to the reserve fund, the target amount of the reserve fund, and expenditure of monies from the reserve 711 SFPTMD Management District Plan 9 January 23, 2023 fund shall be set by the SFP Board. Contingency/reserve funds may be spent on SFPTMD programs or administrative and renewal costs in such proportions as determined by the SFP Board. The reserve fund may be used for the costs of renewing the SFPTMD. City Collection Fee As lead agency, the City of Burlingame shall retain a fee equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of assessment collected or a flat fee of $60,000, whichever is greater each year, to cover their costs of collection and administration. B. Annual Budget The total five (5) year improvement and service plan budget is projected at approximately $10,895,479 annually, or $64,132,237 through 2028. A similar budget is expected to apply to subsequent years, but this budget is expected to fluctuate as room sales do. The following chart has been prepared based on a five-year projection developed by SMG Consulting. The full report can be found in Appendix 4. Fiscal Year Sales, Marketing, & Advocacy Administration & Operations Contingency / Reserve City Collection Fee Total 2023-24 $9,805,931 $871,638 $108,955 $108,955 $10,895,479 2024-25 $10,612,716 $943,353 $117,919 $117,919 $11,791,907 2025-26 $11,437,986 $1,016,710 $127,089 $127,089 $12,708,873 2026-27 $12,422,508 $1,104,223 $138,028 $138,028 $13,802,787 2027-28 $13,439,872 $1,194,655 $149,332 $149,332 $14,933,191 Total $57,719,013 $5,130,579 $641,322 $641,322 $64,132,237 C. California Constitutional Compliance The SFPTMD assessment is not a property-based assessment subject to the requirements of Proposition 218. Courts have found Proposition 218 limited the term ‘assessments’ to levies on real property.1 Rather, the SFPTMD assessment is a business-based assessment, and is subject to Proposition 26. Pursuant to Proposition 26 all levies are a tax unless they fit one of seven exceptions. Two of these exceptions apply to the SFPTMD, a “specific benefit” and a “specific government service.” Both require that the costs of benefits or services do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City of conferring the benefits or providing the services. 1. Specific Benefit Proposition 26 requires that assessment funds be expended on, “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the 1 Jarvis v. the City of San Diego 72 Cal App. 4th 230 712 SFPTMD Management District Plan 10 January 23, 2023 privilege.”2 The services in this Plan are designed to provide targeted benefits directly to assessed businesses, and are intended only to provide benefits and services directly to those businesses paying the assessment. These services are tailored not to serve the general public, businesses in general, or parcels of land, but rather to serve the specific businesses within the SFPTMD. The activities described in this Plan are specifically targeted to increase demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses within the boundaries of the SFPTMD, and are narrowly tailored. SFPTMD funds will be used exclusively to provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales directly to the assessees. Assessment funds shall not be used to feature non-assessed lodging businesses in SFPTMD programs, or to directly generate sales for non-assessed businesses. The activities paid for from assessment revenues are business services constituting and providing specific benefits to the assessed businesses. Nothing in this Plan limits the ability of the SFP Corporation to enter into private contracts with non-assessed lodging businesses for the provision of services to those businesses. The assessment imposed by this SFPTMD is for a specific benefit conferred directly to the payors that is not provided to those not charged. The specific benefit conferred directly to the payors is an increase in demand for room night sales. The specific benefit of an increase in demand for room night sales for assessed lodging businesses will be provided only to lodging businesses paying the district assessment, with marketing and sales programs promoting lodging businesses paying the SFPTMD assessment. The marketing and sales programs will be designed to increase room night sales at each assessed lodging businesses. Because they are necessary to provide the marketing and sales programs that specifically benefit the assessed lodging businesses, the administration and contingency services also provide the specific benefit of increased demand for room night sales to the assessed lodging businesses. Although the SFPTMD, in providing specific benefits to payors, may produce incidental benefits to non-paying businesses, the incidental benefit does not preclude the services from being considered a specific benefit. The legislature has found that, “A specific benefit is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific benefit’ merely because an indirect benefit to a non-payor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific benefit to the payor.”3 2. Specific Government Service The assessment may also be utilized to provide, “a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product.”4 The legislature has recognized that marketing and promotions services like those to be provided by the SFPTMD are government services within the meaning of Proposition 265. Further, the legislature has determined that “a specific government service is not excluded from classification as a ‘specific government service’ merely because an indirect benefit to a nonpayor occurs incidentally and without cost to the payor as a consequence of providing the specific government service to the payor.”6 3. Reasonable Cost SFPTMD services will be implemented carefully to ensure they do not exceed the reasonable cost of such services. The full amount assessed will be used to provide the services described herein. Funds will be managed by the SFP, and reports submitted on an annual basis to the City. Only assessed 2 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(1) 3 Government Code § 53758(a) 4 Cal. Const. art XIII C § 1(e)(2) 5 Government Code § 53758(b) 6 Government Code § 53758(b) 713 SFPTMD Management District Plan 11 January 23, 2023 lodging businesses will be featured in marketing materials, receive sales leads generated from SFPTMD-funded activities, be featured in advertising campaigns, and benefit from other SFPTMD- funded services. Non-assessed lodging businesses will not receive these, nor any other, SFPTMD- funded services and benefits. The SFPTMD-funded programs are all targeted directly at and feature only assessed businesses. It is, however, possible that there will be a spill-over benefit to non-assessed businesses. If non-assessed lodging businesses receive incremental room nights, that portion of the promotion or program generating those room nights shall be paid with non-SFPTMD funds. SFPTMD funds shall only be spent to benefit the assessed businesses, and shall not be spent on that portion of any program which directly generates incidental room nights for non-assessed businesses. D. Assessment The annual assessment rate is one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. The services provided in the SFPTMD are all targeted to benefit payors, however, not all programs benefit payors equally. The determination of the assessment rates of one- and one-half percent (1.5%) of gross short-term sleeping room rental revenue for lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space, and 0.75% for all other lodging businesses within the SFPTMD’s boundaries, was calculated based on benefit received by payors. SMG Consulting was engaged to conduct a Hotel Revenue Proportionality Estimate analysis to quantify the estimated benefit the lodging business types will receive from SFPTMD services. By analyzing the projected number of rooms sold and the total amount of revenue estimated to be generated from sales and marketing programs, SMG Consulting found that properties with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space will receive approximately double the amount of benefit to all other lodging businesses. The SFPTMD Sales, Marketing, and Advocacy program included in the budget has services that are intended to drive convention and meetings to the SFPTMD. Since lodging businesses with 5,000 square feet or more of dedicated meeting space are uniquely suited to accommodate large conventions and will benefit from overnight stays as a result of SFPTMD services intended to bring such business activity to the SFPTMD, they are assessed at a higher rate than other lodging businesses in the SFPTMD. The term “dedicated meeting space” as used herein means: a permanent room or space whose primary use is dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. The space has been designed for and is marketed and sold as group or event function space. The term “gross sleeping room rental revenue” as used herein means: the consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a lodging business valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property and services of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom whatsoever. Gross sleeping room rental revenue shall not include any federal, state, or local taxes collected, including but not 714 SFPTMD Management District Plan 12 January 23, 2023 limited to transient occupancy taxes. Based on the benefit received, assessments will not be collected on stays of more than thirty (30) consecutive days; stays provided to airline cockpit and/or cabin crews pursuant to an agreement between a hotel and an airline, which is in furtherance of or to facilitate such crews’ performance of their jobs for the airline, including layovers between flights; employees of the state or federal government if room charges are paid directly by their employing agency and copies of official travel orders are submitted as applicable; and any properly credentialed officer or employee of a foreign government who is exempt by reason of express provision of federal law or international treaty. The assessment is levied upon and a direct obligation of the assessed lodging business. However, the assessed lodging business may, at its discretion, pass the assessment on to transients. The amount of assessment, if passed on to each transient, shall be disclosed in advance and separately stated from the amount of rent charged and any other applicable taxes, and each transient shall receive a receipt for payment from the business. If the SFPTMD assessment is identified separately it shall be disclosed as the “SFPTMD Assessment.” As an alternative, the disclosure may include the amount of the SFPTMD assessment and the amount of the assessment imposed pursuant to the California Tourism Marketing Act, Government Code §13995 et seq. and shall be disclosed as the “Tourism Assessment.” The assessment is imposed solely upon, and is the sole obligation of the assessed lodging business even if it is passed on to transients. The assessment shall not be considered revenue for any purpose, including calculation of transient occupancy taxes. Bonds shall not be issued. E. Penalties and Interest The SFPTMD shall reimburse the City of Burlingame for any costs associated with collecting unpaid assessments. If sums in excess of the delinquent SFPTMD assessment are sought to be recovered in the same collection action by the City, the SFPTMD shall bear its pro rata share of such collection costs. Assessed businesses which are delinquent in paying the assessment shall be responsible for paying: 1. Original Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed within the time required shall pay a penalty of five percent (5%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment. 2. Continued Delinquency: Any lodging business that fails to remit any delinquent remittance on or before a period of fifteen (15) days following the date on which the remittance first became delinquent shall pay a second delinquency penalty of five percent (5%) of the amount of the assessment in addition to the amount of the assessment and the five percent (5%) penalty first imposed. An additional penalty of five percent (5%) shall be paid for each fifteen (15) days thereafter which the remittance is delinquent. 3. Fraud: If the City determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of the assessment shall be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subsections (1) and (2) of this section. 4. Interest: In addition to the penalties imposed, any lodging business that fails to remit any assessment imposed shall pay interest at the rate of one percent (1%) per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the assessment, exclusive of penalties, from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid. 715 SFPTMD Management District Plan 13 January 23, 2023 F. Time and Manner for Collecting Assessments The SFPTMD assessment will be implemented beginning October 1, 2023, or as soon as possible thereafter, and ending five (5) years from its start date. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for collecting the assessment on a monthly basis, (including any delinquencies, penalties and interest) from each lodging business located in the boundaries of the SFPTMD. The City shall take all reasonable efforts to collect the assessments from each lodging business. The City shall forward the assessments collected to the Owners’ Association. 716 SFPTMD Management District Plan 14 January 23, 2023 V. GOVERNANCE A. Owners’ Association The Burlingame City Council, through adoption of this Management District Plan, has the right, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36651, to identify the body that shall implement the proposed program, which shall be the Owners’ Association of the SFPTMD as defined in Streets and Highways Code §36612. The San Francisco Peninsula (SFP) will serve as the SFPTMD’s Owners’ Association. The Owners’ Association is charged with managing funds and implementing programs in accordance with the Management District Plan, and must provide annual reports to Burlingame City Council. The SFP shall create a SFPTMD Committee tasked with determining how SFPTMD funds are spent, within the designated programs in this Plan, subject to final approval by the SFP Board. The SFPTMD Committee shall include lodging business owners or representatives paying the SFPTMD assessment. B. Brown Act and California Public Records Act Compliance An Owners’ Association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. The Owners’ Association is, however, subject to government regulations relating to transparency, namely the Ralph M. Brown Act and the California Public Records Act. These regulations are designed to promote public accountability. The Owners’ Association acts as a legislative body under the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §54950 et seq.). Thus, meetings of the SFP board and certain committees must be held in compliance with the public notice and other requirements of the Brown Act. The Owners’ Association is also subject to the record keeping and disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. Accordingly, the Owners’ Association shall publicly report any action taken and the vote or abstention on that action of each member present for the action. C. Annual Report The SFP shall present an annual report at the end of each year of operation to the City Council pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §36650 (see Appendix 1). The annual report shall include: • Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of businesses within the district. • The improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. • An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements and the activities for that fiscal year. • The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each business owner to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her business for that fiscal year. • The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. • The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. 717 SFPTMD Management District Plan 15 January 23, 2023 APPENDIX 1 – LAW *** THIS DOCUMENT IS CURRENT THROUGH THE 2022 SUPPLEMENT *** (ALL 2021 LEGISLATION) STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE DIVISION 18. PARKING PART 7. PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994 CHAPTER 1. General Provisions ARTICLE 1. Declarations 36600. Citation of part This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994.” 36601. Legislative findings and declarations; Legislative guidance The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) Businesses located and operating within business districts in some of this state’s communities are economically disadvantaged, are underutilized, and are unable to attract customers due to inadequate facilities, services, and activities in the business districts. (b) It is in the public interest to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of business districts in order to create jobs, attract new businesses, and prevent the erosion of the business districts. (c) It is of particular local benefit to allow business districts to fund business related improvements, maintenance, and activities through the levy of assessments upon the businesses or real property that receive benefits from those improvements. (d) Assessments levied for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon the real property or a specific benefit upon the businesses in a business district are not taxes for the general benefit of a city, even if property, businesses, or persons not assessed receive incidental or collateral effects that benefit them. (e) Property and business improvement districts formed throughout this state have conferred special benefits upon properties and businesses within their districts and have made those properties and businesses more useful by providing the following benefits: (1) Crime reduction. A study by the Rand Corporation has confirmed a 12-percent reduction in the incidence of robbery and an 8-percent reduction in the total incidence of violent crimes within the 30 districts studied. (2) Job creation. (3) Business attraction. (4) Business retention. (5) Economic growth. (6) New investments. (f) With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies throughout the state, property and business improvement districts have become even more important tools with which communities can combat blight, promote economic opportunities, and create a clean and safe environment. (g) Since the enactment of this act, the people of California have adopted Proposition 218, which added Article XIII D to the Constitution in order to place certain requirements and restrictions on the formation of, and activities, expenditures, and assessments by property-based districts. Article XIII D of the Constitution provides that property-based districts may only levy assessments for special benefits. (h) The act amending this section is intended to provide the Legislature’s guidance with regard to this act, its interaction with the provisions of Article XIII D of the Constitution, and the determination of special benefits in property-based districts. (1) The lack of legislative guidance has resulted in uncertainty and inconsistent application of this act, which discourages the use of assessments to fund needed improvements, maintenance, and activities in property-based districts, contributing to blight and other underutilization of property. (2) Activities undertaken for the purpose of conferring special benefits upon property to be assessed inherently produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed. Therefore, for special benefits to exist as a separate and distinct category from general benefits, the incidental or collateral effects of those special benefits are inherently part of those special benefits. The 718 SFPTMD Management District Plan 16 January 23, 2023 mere fact that special benefits produce incidental or collateral effects that benefit property or persons not assessed does not convert any portion of those special benefits or their incidental or collateral effects into general benefits. (3) It is of the utmost importance that property-based districts created under this act have clarity regarding restrictions on assessments they may levy and the proper determination of special benefits. Legislative clarity with regard to this act will provide districts with clear instructions and courts with legislative intent regarding restrictions on property-based assessments, and the manner in which special benefits should be determined. 36602. Purpose of part The purpose of this part is to supplement previously enacted provisions of law that authorize cities to levy assessments within property and business improvement districts, to ensure that those assessments conform to all constitutional requirements and are determined and assessed in accordance with the guidance set forth in this act. This part does not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. 36603. Preemption of authority or charter city to adopt ordinances levying assessments Nothing in this part is intended to preempt the authority of a charter city to adopt ordinances providing for a different method of levying assessments for similar or additional purposes from those set forth in this part. A property and business improvement district created pursuant to this part is expressly exempt from the provisions of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931 (Division 4 (commencing with Section 2800)). 36603.5. Part prevails over conflicting provisions Any provision of this part that conflicts with any other provision of law shall prevail over the other provision of law, as to districts created under this part. 36604. Severability This part is intended to be construed liberally and, if any provision is held invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Assessments levied under this part are not special taxes. ARTICLE 2. Definitions 36606. “Activities” “Activities” means, but is not limited to, all of the following that benefit businesses or real property in the district: (a) Promotion of public events. (b) Furnishing of music in any public place. (c) Promotion of tourism within the district. (d) Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and recruitment. (e) Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk cleaning, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally provided by the municipality. (f) Other services provided for the purpose of conferring special benefit upon assessed real property or specific benefits upon assessed businesses located in the district. 36606.5. “Assessment” “Assessment” means a levy for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, installing, or maintaining improvements and providing activities that will provide certain benefits to properties or businesses located within a property and business improvement district. 36607. “Business” “Business” means all types of businesses and includes financial institutions and professions. 36608. “City” 719 SFPTMD Management District Plan 17 January 23, 2023 “City” means a city, county, city and county, or an agency or entity created pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, the public member agencies of which includes only cities, counties, or a city and county, or the State of California. 36609. “City council” “City council” means the city council of a city or the board of supervisors of a county, or the agency, commission, or board created pursuant to a joint powers agreement and which is a city within the meaning of this part. 36609.4. “Clerk” “Clerk” means the clerk of the legislative body. 36609.5. “General benefit” “General benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, any benefit that is not a “special benefit” as defined in Section 36615.5. 36610. “Improvement” “Improvement” means the acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or more including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Parking facilities. (b) Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, pedestrian shelters and signs. (c) Trash receptacles and public restrooms. (d) Lighting and heating facilities. (e) Decorations. (f) Parks. (g) Fountains. (h) Planting areas. (i) Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets. (j) Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property within the district. (k) Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls. (l) Rehabilitation or removal of existing structures. 36611. “Management district plan”; “Plan” “Management district plan” or “plan” means a proposal as defined in Section 36622. 36612. “Owners’ association” “Owners’ association” means a private nonprofit entity that is under contract with a city to administer or implement improvements, maintenance, and activities specified in the management district plan. An owners’ association may be an existing nonprofit entity or a newly formed nonprofit entity. An owners’ association is a private entity and may not be considered a public entity for any purpose, nor may its board members or staff be considered to be public officials for any purpose. Notwithstanding this section, an owners’ association shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), at all times when matters within the subject matter of the district are heard, discussed, or deliberated, and with the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code), for all records relating to activities of the district. 36614. “Property” “Property” means real property situated within a district. 36614.5. “Property and business improvement district”; “District” “Property and business improvement district,” or “district,” means a property and business improvement district established pursuant to this part. 720 SFPTMD Management District Plan 18 January 23, 2023 36614.6. “Property-based assessment” “Property-based assessment” means any assessment made pursuant to this part upon real property. 36614.7. “Property-based district” “Property-based district” means any district in which a city levies a property-based assessment. 36615. “Property owner”; “Business owner”; “Owner” “Property owner” means any person shown as the owner of land on the last equalized assessment roll or otherwise known to be the owner of land by the city council. “Business owner” means any person recognized by the city as the owner of the business. “Owner” means either a business owner or a property owner. The city council has no obligation to obtain other information as to the ownership of land or businesses, and its determination of ownership shall be final and conclusive for the purposes of this part. Wherever this part requires the signature of the property owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the property owner shall be sufficient. Wherever this part requires the signature of the business owner, the signature of the authorized agent of the business owner shall be sufficient. 36615.5. “Special benefit” “Special benefit” means, for purposes of a property-based district, a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in a district or to the public at large. Special benefit includes incidental or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of property-based districts even if those incidental or collateral effects benefit property or persons not assessed. Special benefit excludes general enhancement of property value. 36616. “Tenant” “Tenant” means an occupant pursuant to a lease of commercial space or a dwelling unit, other than an owner. ARTICLE 3. Prior Law 36617. Alternate method of financing certain improvements and activities; Effect on other provisions This part provides an alternative method of financing certain improvements and activities. The provisions of this part shall not affect or limit any other provisions of law authorizing or providing for the furnishing of improvements or activities or the raising of revenue for these purposes. Every improvement area established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500) of this division) is valid and effective and is unaffected by this part. CHAPTER 2. Establishment 36620. Establishment of property and business improvement district A property and business improvement district may be established as provided in this chapter. 36620.5. Requirement of consent of city council A county may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of a city without the consent of the city council of that city. A city may not form a district within the unincorporated territory of a county without the consent of the board of supervisors of that county. A city may not form a district within the territorial jurisdiction of another city without the consent of the city council of the other city. 36621. Initiation of proceedings; Petition of property or business owners in proposed district (a) Upon the submission of a written petition, signed by the property or business owners in the proposed district who will pay more than 50 percent of the assessments proposed to be levied, the city council may initiate proceedings to form a district by the adoption of a resolution expressing its intention to form a district. The amount of assessment attributable to property or a business owned by the same property or business owner that is in excess of 40 percent of the amount of all assessments proposed to be levied, shall not be included in 721 SFPTMD Management District Plan 19 January 23, 2023 determining whether the petition is signed by property or business owners who will pay more than 50 percent of the total amount of assessments proposed to be levied. (b) The petition of property or business owners required under subdivision (a) shall include a summary of the management district plan. That summary shall include all of the following: (1) A map showing the boundaries of the district. (2) Information specifying where the complete management district plan can be obtained. (3) Information specifying that the complete management district plan shall be furnished upon request. (c) The resolution of intention described in subdivision (a) shall contain all of the following: (1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property or businesses within the district, a statement as to whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements do not need to be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities, and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) A time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the property and business improvement district and the levy of assessments, which shall be consistent with the requirements of Section 36623. 36622. Contents of management district plan The management district plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (a) If the assessment will be levied on property, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and, if businesses are to be assessed, each business within the district. If the assessment will be levied on businesses, a map that identifies the district boundaries in sufficient detail to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. If the assessment will be levied on property and businesses, a map of the district in sufficient detail to locate each parcel of property and to allow a business owner to reasonably determine whether a business is located within the district boundaries. (b) The name of the proposed district. (c) A description of the boundaries of the district, including the boundaries of benefit zones, proposed for establishment or extension in a manner sufficient to identify the affected property and businesses included, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The boundaries of a proposed property assessment district shall not overlap with the boundaries of another existing property assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a district created pursuant to this part to overlap with other assessment districts established pursuant to other provisions of law, including, but not limited to, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 36500)). This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with another business assessment district created pursuant to this part. This part does not prohibit the boundaries of a business assessment district created pursuant to this part to overlap with a property assessment district created pursuant to this part. (d) The improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation of the district and the maximum cost thereof. If the improvements, maintenance, and activities proposed for each year of operation are the same, a description of the first year’s proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities and a statement that the same improvements, maintenance, and activities are proposed for subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision. (e) The total annual amount proposed to be expended for improvements, maintenance, or activities, and debt service in each year of operation of the district. If the assessment is levied on businesses, this amount may be estimated based upon the assessment rate. If the total annual amount proposed to be expended in each year of operation of the district is not significantly different, the amount proposed to be expended in the initial year and a statement that a similar amount applies to subsequent years shall satisfy the requirements of this subdivision. (f) The proposed source or sources of financing, including the proposed method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each property or business owner to calculate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business. The plan also shall state whether bonds will be issued to finance improvements. (g) The time and manner of collecting the assessments. (h) The specific number of years in which assessments will be levied. In a new district, the maximum number of years shall be five. Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years. Notwithstanding these limitations, a district created pursuant to this part to finance capital improvements with bonds may levy assessments until the maximum maturity of the bonds. The management district plan may set forth specific increases in assessments for each year of operation of the district. 722 SFPTMD Management District Plan 20 January 23, 2023 (i) The proposed time for implementation and completion of the management district plan. (j) Any proposed rules and regulations to be applicable to the district. (k) (1) A list of the properties or businesses to be assessed, including the assessor’s parcel numbers for properties to be assessed, and a statement of the method or methods by which the expenses of a district will be imposed upon benefited real property or businesses, in proportion to the benefit received by the property or business, to defray the cost thereof. (2) In a property-based district, the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be determined exclusively in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a public improvement, the maintenance and operation expenses of a public improvement, or the cost of the activities. An assessment shall not be imposed on any parcel that exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are assessable, and a property-based district shall separate the general benefits, if any, from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a property-based district that are owned or used by any city, public agency, the State of California, or the United States shall not be exempt from assessment unless the governmental entity can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that those publicly owned parcels in fact receive no special benefit. The value of any incidental, secondary, or collateral effects that arise from the improvements, maintenance, or activities of a property-based district and that benefit property or persons not assessed shall not be deducted from the entirety of the cost of any special benefit or affect the proportionate special benefit derived by each identified parcel. (l) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred upon the properties located within the property-based district. (m) In a property-based district, the total amount of general benefits, if any. (n) In a property-based district, a detailed engineer’s report prepared by a registered professional engineer certified by the State of California supporting all assessments contemplated by the management district plan. (o) Any other item or matter required to be incorporated therein by the city council. 36623. Procedure to levy assessment (a) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased property assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 53753 of the Government Code. (b) If a city council proposes to levy a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure shall comply with Section 54954.6 of the Government Code, except that notice shall be mailed to the owners of the businesses proposed to be assessed. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person. Every written protest shall be filed with the clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The city council may waive any irregularity in the form or content of any written protest. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the city as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business or the authorized representative. A written protest that does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest. If written protests are received from the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the proposed district that will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment against such businesses, as contained in the resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the city council. (c) If a city council proposes to conduct a single proceeding to levy both a new or increased property assessment and a new or increased business assessment, the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the property assessment shall comply with subdivision (a), and the notice and protest and hearing procedure for the business assessment shall comply with subdivision (b). If a majority protest is received from either the property or business owners, that respective portion of the assessment shall not be levied. The remaining portion of the assessment may be levied unless the improvement or other special benefit was proposed to be funded by assessing both property and business owners. 36624. Changes to proposed assessments At the conclusion of the public hearing to establish the district, the city council may adopt, revise, change, reduce, or modify the proposed assessment or the type or types of improvements, maintenance, and activities to be funded with the 723 SFPTMD Management District Plan 21 January 23, 2023 revenues from the assessments. Proposed assessments may only be revised by reducing any or all of them. At the public hearing, the city council may only make changes in, to, or from the boundaries of the proposed property and business improvement district that will exclude territory that will not benefit from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities. Any modifications, revisions, reductions, or changes to the proposed assessment district shall be reflected in the notice and map recorded pursuant to Section 36627. 36625. Resolution of formation (a) If the city council, following the public hearing, decides to establish a proposed property and business improvement district, the city council shall adopt a resolution of formation that shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) A brief description of the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, the amount of the proposed assessment, a statement as to whether the assessment will be levied on property, businesses, or both within the district, a statement on whether bonds will be issued, and a description of the exterior boundaries of the proposed district, which may be made by reference to any plan or map that is on file with the clerk. The descriptions and statements need not be detailed and shall be sufficient if they enable an owner to generally identify the nature and extent of the improvements, maintenance, and activities and the location and extent of the proposed district. (2) The number, date of adoption, and title of the resolution of intention. (3) The time and place where the public hearing was held concerning the establishment of the district. (4) A determination regarding any protests received. The city shall not establish the district or levy assessments if a majority protest was received. (5) A statement that the properties, businesses, or properties and businesses in the district established by the resolution shall be subject to any amendments to this part. (6) A statement that the improvements, maintenance, and activities to be conferred on businesses and properties in the district will be funded by the levy of the assessments. The revenue from the levy of assessments within a district shall not be used to provide improvements, maintenance, or activities outside the district or for any purpose other than the purposes specified in the resolution of intention, as modified by the city council at the hearing concerning establishment of the district. Notwithstanding the foregoing, improvements and activities that must be provided outside the district boundaries to create a special or specific benefit to the assessed parcels or businesses may be provided, but shall be limited to marketing or signage pointing to the district. (7) A finding that the property or businesses within the area of the property and business improvement district will be benefited by the improvements, maintenance, and activities funded by the proposed assessments, and, for a property-based district, that property within the district will receive a special benefit. (8) In a property-based district, the total amount of all special benefits to be conferred on the properties within the property-based district. (b) The adoption of the resolution of formation and, if required, recordation of the notice and map pursuant to Section 36627 shall constitute the levy of an assessment in each of the fiscal years referred to in the management district plan. 36627. Notice and assessment diagram Following adoption of the resolution establishing district assessments on properties pursuant to Section 36625, the clerk shall record a notice and an assessment diagram pursuant to Section 3114. No other provision of Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100) applies to an assessment district created pursuant to this part. 36628. Establishment of separate benefit zones within district; Categories of businesses The city council may establish one or more separate benefit zones within the district based upon the degree of benefit derived from the improvements or activities to be provided within the benefit zone and may impose a different assessment within each benefit zone. If the assessment is to be levied on businesses, the city council may also define categories of businesses based upon the degree of benefit that each will derive from the improvements or activities to be provided within the district and may impose a different assessment or rate of assessment on each category of business, or on each category of business within each zone. 36628.5. Assessments on businesses or property owners 724 SFPTMD Management District Plan 22 January 23, 2023 The city council may levy assessments on businesses or on property owners, or a combination of the two, pursuant to this part. The city council shall structure the assessments in whatever manner it determines corresponds with the distribution of benefits from the proposed improvements, maintenance, and activities, provided that any property-based assessment conforms with the requirements set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) of Section 36622. 36629. Provisions and procedures applicable to benefit zones and business categories All provisions of this part applicable to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of a property and business improvement district apply to the establishment, modification, or disestablishment of benefit zones or categories of business. The city council shall, to establish, modify, or disestablish a benefit zone or category of business, follow the procedure to establish, modify, or disestablish a property and business improvement district. 36630. Expiration of district; Creation of new district If a property and business improvement district expires due to the time limit set pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 36622, a new management district plan may be created and the district may be renewed pursuant to this part. CHAPTER 3. Assessments 36631. Time and manner of collection of assessments; Delinquent payments The collection of the assessments levied pursuant to this part shall be made at the time and in the manner set forth by the city council in the resolution levying the assessment. Assessments levied on real property may be collected at the same time and in the same manner as for the ad valorem property tax, and may provide for the same lien priority and penalties for delinquent payment. All delinquent payments for assessments levied pursuant to this part may be charged interest and penalties. 36632. Assessments to be based on estimated benefit; Classification of real property and businesses; Exclusion of residential and agricultural property (a) The assessments levied on real property pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the real property within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify properties for purposes of determining the benefit to property of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part. (b) Assessments levied on businesses pursuant to this part shall be levied on the basis of the estimated benefit to the businesses within the property and business improvement district. The city council may classify businesses for purposes of determining the benefit to the businesses of the improvements and activities provided pursuant to this part. (c) Properties zoned solely for residential use, or that are zoned for agricultural use, are conclusively presumed not to benefit from the improvements and service funded through these assessments, and shall not be subject to any assessment pursuant to this part. 36633. Time for contesting validity of assessment The validity of an assessment levied under this part shall not be contested in an action or proceeding unless the action or proceeding is commenced within 30 days after the resolution levying the assessment is adopted pursuant to Section 36625. An appeal from a final judgment in an action or proceeding shall be perfected within 30 days after the entry of judgment. 36634. Service contracts authorized to establish levels of city services The city council may execute baseline service contracts that would establish levels of city services that would continue after a property and business improvement district has been formed. 36635. Request to modify management district plan The owners’ association may, at any time, request that the city council modify the management district plan. Any modification of the management district plan shall be made pursuant to this chapter. 36636. Modification of plan by resolution after public hearing; Adoption of resolution of intention 725 SFPTMD Management District Plan 23 January 23, 2023 (a) Upon the written request of the owners’ association, the city council may modify the management district plan after conducting one public hearing on the proposed modifications. The city council may modify the improvements and activities to be funded with the revenue derived from the levy of the assessments by adopting a resolution determining to make the modifications after holding a public hearing on the proposed modifications. If the modification includes the levy of a new or increased assessment, the city council shall comply with Section 36623. Notice of all other public hearings pursuant to this section shall comply with both of the following: (1) The resolution of intention shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city once at least seven days before the public hearing. (2) A complete copy of the resolution of intention shall be mailed by first class mail, at least 10 days before the public hearing, to each business owner or property owner affected by the proposed modification. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention which states the proposed modification prior to the public hearing required by this section. The public hearing shall be held not more than 90 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36637. Reflection of modification in notices recorded and maps Any subsequent modification of the resolution shall be reflected in subsequent notices and maps recorded pursuant to Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 3100), in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 36627. CHAPTER 3.5. Financing 36640. Bonds authorized; Procedure; Restriction on reduction or termination of assessments (a)The city council may, by resolution, determine and declare that bonds shall be issued to finance the estimated cost of some or all of the proposed improvements described in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, if the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to that section provides for the issuance of bonds, under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500)) or in conjunction with Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985 (Article 4 (commencing with Section 6584) of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). Either act, as the case may be, shall govern the proceedings relating to the issuance of bonds, although proceedings under the Bond Act of 1915 may be modified by the city council as necessary to accommodate assessments levied upon business pursuant to this part. (b) The resolution adopted pursuant to subdivision (a) shall generally describe the proposed improvements specified in the resolution of formation adopted pursuant to Section 36625, set forth the estimated cost of those improvements, specify the number of annual installments and the fiscal years during which they are to be collected. The amount of debt service to retire the bonds shall not exceed the amount of revenue estimated to be raised from assessments over 30 years. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, assessments levied to pay the principal and interest on any bond issued pursuant to this section shall not be reduced or terminated if doing so would interfere with the timely retirement of the debt. CHAPTER 4. Governance 36650. Report by owners’ association; Approval or modification by city council (a) The owners’ association shall cause to be prepared a report for each fiscal year, except the first year, for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the report. The owners’ association’s first report shall be due after the first year of operation of the district. The report may propose changes, including, but not limited to, the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or any benefit zones within the district, the basis and method of levying the assessments, and any changes in the classification of property, including any categories of business, if a classification is used. (b) The report shall be filed with the clerk and shall refer to the property and business improvement district by name, specify the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that fiscal year, shall contain all of the following information: (1) Any proposed changes in the boundaries of the property and business improvement district or in any benefit zones or classification of property or businesses within the district. (2) The improvements, maintenance, and activities to be provided for that fiscal year. 726 SFPTMD Management District Plan 24 January 23, 2023 (3) An estimate of the cost of providing the improvements, maintenance, and activities for that fiscal year. (4) The method and basis of levying the assessment in sufficient detail to allow each real property or business owner, as appropriate, to estimate the amount of the assessment to be levied against his or her property or business for that fiscal year. (5) The estimated amount of any surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from a previous fiscal year. (6) The estimated amount of any contributions to be made from sources other than assessments levied pursuant to this part. (c) The city council may approve the report as filed by the owners’ association or may modify any particular contained in the report and approve it as modified. Any modification shall be made pursuant to Sections 36635 and 36636. The city council shall not approve a change in the basis and method of levying assessments that would impair an authorized or executed contract to be paid from the revenues derived from the levy of assessments, including any commitment to pay principal and interest on any bonds issued on behalf of the district. 36651. Designation of owners’ association to provide improvements, maintenance, and activities The management district plan may, but is not required to, state that an owners’ association will provide the improvements, maintenance, and activities described in the management district plan. If the management district plan designates an owners’ association, the city shall contract with the designated nonprofit corporation to provide services. CHAPTER 5. Renewal 36660. Renewal of district; Transfer or refund of remaining revenues; District term limit (a) Any district previously established whose term has expired, or will expire, may be renewed by following the procedures for establishment as provided in this chapter. (b) Upon renewal, any remaining revenues derived from the levy of assessments, or any revenues derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be transferred to the renewed district. If the renewed district includes additional parcels or businesses not included in the prior district, the remaining revenues shall be spent to benefit only the parcels or businesses in the prior district. If the renewed district does not include parcels or businesses included in the prior district, the remaining revenues attributable to these parcels shall be refunded to the owners of these parcels or businesses. (c) Upon renewal, a district shall have a term not to exceed 10 years, or, if the district is authorized to issue bonds, until the maximum maturity of those bonds. There is no requirement that the boundaries, assessments, improvements, or activities of a renewed district be the same as the original or prior district. CHAPTER 6. Disestablishment 36670. Circumstances permitting disestablishment of district; Procedure (a) Any district established or extended pursuant to the provisions of this part, where there is no indebtedness, outstanding and unpaid, incurred to accomplish any of the purposes of the district, may be disestablished by resolution by the city council in either of the following circumstances: (1) If the city council finds there has been misappropriation of funds, malfeasance, or a violation of law in connection with the management of the district, it shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (2) During the operation of the district, there shall be a 30-day period each year in which assessees may request disestablishment of the district. The first such period shall begin one year after the date of establishment of the district and shall continue for 30 days. The next such 30-day period shall begin two years after the date of the establishment of the district. Each successive year of operation of the district shall have such a 30-day period. Upon the written petition of the owners or authorized representatives of real property or the owners or authorized representatives of businesses in the district who pay 50 percent or more of the assessments levied, the city council shall pass a resolution of intention to disestablish the district. The city council shall notice a hearing on disestablishment. (b) The city council shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the district prior to the public hearing required by this section. The resolution shall state the reason for the disestablishment, shall state the time and place of the public hearing, and shall contain a proposal to dispose of any assets acquired with the revenues of the assessments levied within the property and business improvement district. The notice of the hearing on disestablishment required by this section shall be given by mail to the property owner of each parcel or to the 727 SFPTMD Management District Plan 25 January 23, 2023 owner of each business subject to assessment in the district, as appropriate. The city shall conduct the public hearing not less than 30 days after mailing the notice to the property or business owners. The public hearing shall be held not more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. 36671. Refund of remaining revenues upon disestablishment or expiration without renewal of district; Calculation of refund; Use of outstanding revenue collected after disestablishment of district (a) Upon the disestablishment or expiration without renewal of a district, any remaining revenues, after all outstanding debts are paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, or from bond reserve or construction funds, shall be refunded to the owners of the property or businesses then located and operating within the district in which assessments were levied by applying the same method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the fiscal year in which the district is disestablished or expires. All outstanding assessment revenue collected after disestablishment shall be spent on improvements and activities specified in the management district plan. (b) If the disestablishment occurs before an assessment is levied for the fiscal year, the method and basis that was used to calculate the assessments levied in the immediate prior fiscal year shall be used to calculate the amount of any refund. 728 SFPTMD Management District Plan 26 January 23, 2023 APPENDIX 2 – ASSESSED BUSINESSES HOTEL NAME SITE ADDRESS CITY ST ZIP AC HOTEL SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1333 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 AIRPORT INN 751 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 ALL SEASONS LODGE 800 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 ALOFT SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 401 E. Millbrae Ave Millbrae CA 94030 AMERICANA INN MOTEL 760 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN - PACIFICA 2160 Francisco Blvd Pacifica CA 94044 ANCHOR INN PACIFICA 500 San Pedro Ave Pacifica CA 94044 ARISTOCRAT HOTEL, BW SIGNATURE COLLECTION 1410 Cabrillo Hwy S Half Moon Bay CA 94019 ATHERTON INN 1201 W Selby Lane Redwood City CA 94061 ATHERTON PARK INN & SUITES 2834 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 BAY LANDING HOTEL 1550 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 BAYHILL INN 950 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 BEACH HOUSE HOTEL 4100 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019 BELMONT PALMS 700 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 BEST WESTERN COYOTE POINT 480 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 BEST WESTERN INN 316 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94062 BEST WESTERN PLUS EXECUTIVE SUITES 25 5th Ave Redwood City CA 94063 BEST WESTERN PLUS GROSVENOR HOTEL 380 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 BUDGET INN 2526 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 CANYON RANCH WELLNESS RETREAT 16350 Skyline Blvd Woodside CA 94062 CAPRI MOTEL 2380 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 THE CATRINA HOTEL 2110 S El Camino Real San Mateo CA 94403 COMFORT INN & SUITES - SAN BRUNO 611 San Bruno Ave E San Bruno CA 94066 COMFORT INN & SUITES SFO NORTH 121 E. Grand Ave So. San Francisco CA 94080 COSTANOA LODGE+CAMP+RESORT 2001 Rossi Rd Pescadero CA 94060 COUNTRY INN & SUITES BY RADISSON 251 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 COURTYARD REDWOOD CITY 600 Bair Island Rd Redwood City CA 94063 COURTYARD SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 1050 Bayhill Dr San Bruno CA 94066 COURTYARD SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY 550 Shell Blvd Foster City CA 94404 CROWNE PLAZA FOSTER CITY-SAN MATEO 1221 Chess Dr Foster City CA 94404 CROWNE PLAZA S.F. AIRPORT 1177 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 CYPRESS INN ON MIRAMAR BEACH 407 Mirada Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 DAYS INN - REDWOOD CITY 2650 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94061 DAYS INN S.F. AIRPORT-OYSTER POINT - SSF 1113 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 DELUXE INN - REDWOOD CITY 1402 Stafford St Redwood City CA 94062 729 SFPTMD Management District Plan 27 January 23, 2023 DELUXE INN - SSF 920 El Camino Real So. San Francisco CA 94080 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON S.F. AIRPORT 835 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON S.F. AIRPORT NORTH 5000 Sierra Point Parkway Brisbane CA 94005 DOUBLETREE BY HILTON SF / SOUTH AIRPORT BLVD 275 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 THE DYLAN HOTEL AT SFO 110 S El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 EMBASSY SUITES S.F. AIRPORT SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 250 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 EMBASSY SUITES S.F. AIRPORT - WATERFRONT 150 Anza Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - BELMONT 120 Sem Lane Belmont CA 94002 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - SAN CARLOS 3 Circle Star Way San Carlos CA 94070 EXTENDED STAY AMERICA - SAN MATEO 1830 Gateway Dr San Mateo CA 94404 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SAN FRANCISCO PACIFICA 500 Old County Rd Pacifica CA 94044 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SAN FRANCISCO SAN CARLOS 555 Skyway Rd San Carlos CA 94070 FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SFO OYSTER POINT AREA 127 W. Harris Avenue So. San Francisco CA 94080 FOUR POINTS BY SHERATON HOTEL & SUITES 264 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 FOUR SEASONS HOTEL SILICON VALLEY 2050 University Ave East Palo Alto CA 94303 GARDEN MOTEL 1690 Broadway Redwood City CA 94063 GATEWAY INN & SUITES 516 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 GOOD LIVING INN 1562 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 GOOD NITE INN 485 Veterans Blvd Redwood City CA 94063 GRAND BAY SAN FRANCISCO 223 Twin Dolphin Dr Redwood City CA 94065 GRAND HYATT AT SFO 55 S. McDonnell Road San Francisco CA 94128 HALF MOON BAY INN 401 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 HALF MOON BAY LODGE 2400 Cabrillo Hwy S Half Moon Bay CA 94019 HAMPTON INN & SUITES SFO SOUTH - BURLINGAME 1755 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 HAMPTON INN & SUITES - SAN MATEO 2940 S. Norfolk St. San Mateo CA 94403 HAMPTON INN SFO NORTH - SSF 300 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HARBOR VIEW INN 51 Ave Alhambra El Granada CA 94018 HILTON GARDEN INN SAN MATEO 2000 Bridgepoint Circle San Mateo CA 94404 HILTON GARDEN INN SFO - BURLINGAME 765 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 HILTON GARDEN INN - SFO NORTH - SSF 670 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HILTON S.F. AIRPORT BAYFRONT 600 Airport Blvd Burlingame CA 94010 HOLIDAY INN & SUITES SAN MATEO-SF SFO 330 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS & SUITES BELMONT 1650 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS REDWOOD CITY CENTRAL 1836 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS SFO NORTH - SSF 373 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 730 SFPTMD Management District Plan 28 January 23, 2023 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS SFO SOUTH - BURLINGAME 1250 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON SFO NORTH 550 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON BELMONT 1201 Shoreway Road Belmont CA 94002 HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON SFO AIRPORT NORTH 2000 Shoreline Court Brisbane CA 94005 HOTEL 1550 1550 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL ALUXOR 500 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL AURA SFO 190 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 HOTEL BELMONT 560 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 HOTEL FOCUS SFO 111 Mitchell Ave So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOTEL NOVA SFO BY FAIRBRIDGE 410 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HOTEL V 222 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 HYATT HOUSE BELMONT/REDWOOD SHORES 400 Concourse Dr Belmont CA 94002 HYATT PLACE SAN CARLOS 26 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 HYATT REGENCY SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT 1333 Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 INN @ BAYSHORE 140 N Bayshore Blvd San Mateo CA 94401 INN AT MAVERICKS 346 Princeton Ave El Granada CA 94018 INN AT ROCKAWAY 200 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 INN BY THE SFO 701 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LA QUINTA INN & SUITES S.F. AIRPORT WEST 1390 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 LA QUINTA INN S.F. AIRPORT NORTH 20 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LARKSPUR LANDING HOTEL SSF 690 Gateway Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 LIA HOTEL 950 El Camino Real San Carlos CA 94070 LIGHTHOUSE HOTEL 105 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 MARRIOTT FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES SFO 250 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 MILL ROSE INN 615 Mill St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 MILLWOOD INN & SUITES 1375 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 THE MIRAMAR INN & SUITES 3020 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019 MOTEL 6 - BELMONT 1101 Shoreway Rd Belmont CA 94002 NANTUCKET WHALE INN 779 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 NICHE HOTEL 868 Main St Redwood City CA 94063 OCEAN VIEW INN 8425 Cabrillo Hwy Montara CA 94037 THE OCEANFRONT HOTEL 211 Mirada Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 OCEANO HOTEL & SPA 280 Capistrano Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 PACIFICA BEACH HOTEL 525 Crespi Dr Pacifica CA 94044 PARK POINTE HOTEL 245 S. Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 PESCADERO CREEK INN 393 Stage Rd Pescadero CA 94060 731 SFPTMD Management District Plan 29 January 23, 2023 QUALITY INN HALF MOON BAY 2930 Cabrillo Hwy N Half Moon Bay CA 94019 RAMADA LIMITED SUITES 721 Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 REDWOOD CREEK INN 1090 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 REDWOOD MOTOR COURT 3706 Rolison Rd Redwood City CA 94063 REGENCY INN SFO 411 San Bruno Ave E San Bruno CA 94066 RESIDENCE INN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/MILLBRAE 161 N. Rollins Road Millbrae CA 94030 RESIDENCE INN REDWOOD CITY SAN CARLOS 800 E. San Carlos Ave San Carlos CA 94070 RESIDENCE INN SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT/SAN MATEO 2000 Winward Way San Mateo CA 94404 THE RITZ-CARLTON, HALF MOON BAY One Miramontes Point Rd Half Moon Bay CA 94019 RITZ INN 151 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 ROYAL INN 120 Hickey Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SAN BENITO HOUSE 356 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 SAN CARLOS INN 1140 Morse Blvd San Carlos CA 94070 SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT MARRIOTT WATERFRONT 1800 Old Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 SAN MATEO MARRIOTT 1770 So. Amphlett Blvd San Mateo CA 94402 SEA BREEZE MOTEL 100 Rockaway Beach Ave Pacifica CA 94044 SEAL COVE INN 221 Cypress Ave Moss Beach CA 94038 SEQUOIA INN 526 El Camino Real Redwood City CA 94063 SFO AIRPORT HOTEL, EL RANCHO INN 1100 El Camino Real Millbrae CA 94030 SILICON VALLEY INN 630 El Camino Real Belmont CA 94002 SONESTA ES SUITES SFO SAN BRUNO 1350 Huntington San Bruno CA 94066 SONESTA ES SUITES SFO OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1350 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SONESTA SELECT SFO OYSTER POINT WATERFRONT 1300 Veterans Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 SPRINGHILL SUITES BELMONT REDWOOD SHORES 1401 Shoreway Rd Belmont CA 94002 SUPER 8 S.F. AIRPORT - SAN BRUNO 421 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 TOWNEPLACE SUITES SAN MATEO FOSTER CITY 1299 Chess Drive Foster City CA 94404 TRAVELERS INN 100 Hickey Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 TRAVELODGE SFO NORTH 326 S Airport Blvd So. San Francisco CA 94080 VAGABOND INN EXECUTIVE S.F. AIRPORT BAYFRONT 1640 Old Bayshore Hwy Burlingame CA 94010 VILLA MONTES HOTEL, ASCEND HOTEL COLLECTION 620 El Camino Real San Bruno CA 94066 THE WESTIN S.F. AIRPORT 1 Old Bayshore Hwy Millbrae CA 94030 ZABALLA HOUSE BED & BREAKFAST 324 Main St Half Moon Bay CA 94019 Hotel Nia 200 Independence Drive Menlo Park CA 94025 Park James 1400 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 Rosewood Sand Hill 2825 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park CA 94025 732 SFPTMD Management District Plan 30 January 23, 2023 Stanford Park Hotel 100 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 Residence Inn 555 Glenwood Avenue Menlo Park CA 94025 Best Western Plus Riviera 15 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 Hotel Lucent 727 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 Menlo Park Inn 1315 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 Red Cottage Inn 1704 El Camino Real Menlo Park CA 94025 733 SFPTMD Management District Plan 31 January 23, 2023 APPENDIX 3 – BENEFITS BY BUSINESS CATEGORY Program Service Tier 1 (1.5%) Tier 2 (0.75%) General Listing on www.thesanfranciscopeninsula.com with link to hotel booking page X X General Inclusion in Sales, Marketing and Promotional Opportunities X X General Inclusion in SFP's Consumer Brochures X X General Access to SFP's research reports and insights X X General Represented by SFP at industry conferences and events X X General Access to California Hotel Lodging Association's industry advocacy efforts and training materials X X Consumer Opportunity to participate in Consumer Marketing Campaigns X X Consumer Public Relations participation opportunities X X Consumer Familiarization Tour (Press and Influencer) Opportunities X X Consumer Inclusion Opportunity in Social Media Efforts X X Consumer Inclusion Opportunity in Destination Video and Photo Shoots X X Consumer New project and special event opportunities X X Travel Trade Trade Show Opportunities X X Travel Trade Sales Mission Opportunities X X Travel Trade Lead Opportunities X X Travel Trade Familiarization Tour Leads (Press and Travel Trade) Opportunities X X Meetings Lead Distribution X Meetings Site Inspections X Meetings Convention Services Support X Meetings Opportunity to participate in Sales Missions X Meetings Opportunity to participate in Client Events X Meetings Industry tradeshow participation X Meetings Participation in local industry chapter meetings and events X Meetings Familiarization Tours X Meetings Marketing Campaigns X Meetings Inclusion in Meetings Market Brochures X Meetings Opportunity for Sponsorship of Group Events X Meetings Custom Event Landing Page for Groups: Things To Do Nearby With Your Selected Venue (Itinerary) X 734 SFPTMD Management District Plan 32 January 23, 2023 Meetings Distribution of hot rates and dates to planners X Meetings Co-op advertising opportunities in key meeting publications X Meetings Social media mentions/posts promoting groups space X Meetings Inclusion on Meeting Planner section of website X Meetings Opportunity to be highlighted in meeting planner newsletter X Meetings Access to SF Travel group leads via our alliance with SFT X 735 SFPTMD Management District Plan 33 January 23, 2023 APPENDIX 4 – SMG CONSULTING ANALYSIS 736 SFPTMD Management District Plan 34 January 23, 2023 SF Peninsula Tourism Business Improvement District Pro Forma Review 737 SFPTMD Management District Plan 35 January 23, 2023 Overview In 2001, the Organization established a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (’89 Law) and now wishes to convert to a Tourism Marketing District (TMD) under the Property and Business Improvement District Law of 1994 (’94 Law). The organization is moving forward with a Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) transition that will increase its funding above $6 million annually to be available for tourism promotion efforts. The TBID contribution is a significant budget increase for the organization. In developing the proposal for the TBID renewal and the subsequent approval of the lodging industry, the organization staff has prepared a TMD Benefits Proforma to estimate the potential return on investment from the new TBID funds. This staff assessment includes the proposed allocation and use of new funds for different tourism promotion efforts (sales, advertising, public relations, social media, etc.) and the projected return on investment for those funds. Proforma Review The TMD Benefits Proforma review includes a review of the staff proforma to check the assumptions and estimates and make suggestions and recommendations. Scope of Work The following is a review of the proforma developed for the TBID renewal. The analysis was done using the information supplied by The San Francisco Peninsula CVB. Project elements include the following: I. DEVELOP SMITH TRAVEL RESEARCH TRENDLINE AND ANNUAL GROWTH RATE FOR LODGING REVENUE. DEVELOP MULTI-YEAR FORECAST. Ø DETERMINE THE PROJECTABLE RATE OF GROWTH. • REVIEW STAFF DRAFT PROFORMA, INCLUDING ASSUMPTIONS AND FINAL ESTIMATES. I. COMPARE PROFORMA ESTIMATES WITH TRENDLINE AND ASSESS WITH POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS (HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW ESTIMATES). Limiting Conditions The following analysis and estimates are based on the best information and time available. The results and opinions provided are a guide for consideration, and we do not claim as to the accuracy of the final results. 738 SFPTMD Management District Plan 36 January 23, 2023 Model Development We developed an SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model to develop lodging revenue and room night projections with the addition of new properties and the potential of Menlo Park Inclusion. The model was developed utilizing the past ten years of monthly lodging data from Smith Travel Research. The model measures a variety of economic activities, including the following: II. LODGING REVENUE PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2027 III. ROOM NIGHT PROJECTION THROUGH 2027 IV. TBID REVENUE WITHOUT MENLO PARK V. TBID REVENUE WITH MENLO PARK VI. TBIB REVENUE WITH NEW PROPERTIES VII. TBID REVENUE WITHOUT NEW PROPERTIES. The SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model can be adjusted to test or consider different scenarios. Model Methodology The future growth of ADR and room nights is using a Bayesian Structural Times Series (BSTS) model, a technique for fitting historical data and forecasting future trends (Scott and Varian, Predicting the Present with Bayesian Structural Time Series 2013). BSTS was chosen for its ability to forecast future trends, including seasonal variation, using robust time series data. In this case, data is available in monthly intervals from July 2012. This model was fit by specifying a semi-local linear trend. Confidence intervals bound a mean forecast to quantify the degree of uncertainty in the future (Scott, Fitting Bayesian structural time series with the bsts R package 2017). Rather than having the pandemic disruption influence the forecasts, only data from July 2012 through December 2019 was taken as input. Revenue is simply forecast as the product of ADR and room nights. Given the fact that the STR reports track all cities in San Mateo County, the revenue forecast is reduced in proportion to the number of room nights in the TMD (15,699/17,190) or 91.3 percent. TMD fee revenue is also forecast in proportion to available rooms, with 42 percent A-level property rooms paying 1.5 percent of gross room revenue. The balance is paid by B-level property rooms at 0.75 percent. Construction of three new B-level properties is underway and will bring 451 rooms online. These rooms are assumed to be available from January 2023. There are 533 A-level property rooms and 338 B-level property rooms in Menlo Park. Potential gross room and TMD fee revenue is forecast on the basis of room count proportionality. Model Assumptions The model forecasts mean values of ADR and room nights along with 2.5 percent confidence intervals. This report is based on mean values. By constructing the model in this manner, we are 739 SFPTMD Management District Plan 37 January 23, 2023 assuming that the conditions supporting ADR and room night growth prior to the pandemic will continue from 2023 forward. Sources of variation include the impact of macroeconomic conditions, actual timing of new construction (planned and unplanned), promotions and policies such as airline crew waivers. Model Limitations The baseline SF Peninsula Tourism Economic Model provides a static look based on a given set of assumptions. Forecasts of future events are inherently uncertain as the recent pandemic reminded us. As noted above, the model can be adjusted to estimate specific scenarios in detail in which case the relative differences generally provide the most value. Findings Table 1 below summarizes Room Nights, Revenue, and Average Daily Rate (ADR) projections. Table 1: Room Night, Revenue, and Average Daily Rate Projections 2021-2027 A. THE MODEL INCLUDES GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE CATEGORIES. NOTE THE SIGNIFICANT REVENUE GROWTH PROJECTION IN 2022 AND 2023, AFTER WHICH THE GROWTH SLOWS DOWN INTO A MORE CONSISTENT PATTERN AFTER 2023. (SEE TABLE 1 ABOVE) B. THE TMD BENEFITS PROFORMA DEVELOPED BY STAFF HAS LODGING RATES BETWEEN $200 AND $293, WHICH IS WITHIN ESTIMATES OR THE PROJECTED AVERAGE DAILY RATE OF THE SF PENINSULA TOURISM ECONOMIC MODEL. (SEE TABLE 2) A. REGARDING TBID REVENUE PROJECTION, THE TMD BENEFITS PROFORMA ANTICIPATES TBID REVENUE OF APPROXIMATELY $6M. BASED ON THE SF PENINSULA TOURISM ECONOMIC MODEL'S ASSUMPTIONS, TBID COLLECTIONS COULD BE HIGHER STARTING IN 2022 (APPROXIMATELY $8M). (SEE TABLE 2) B. THE MODEL CONSIDERS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF HOTELS (451 UNITS) WHICH INCREASES THE POTENTIAL TBID REVENUE GENERATION BY APPROXIMATELY $207,000. (SEE TABLE 2) C. ADDITIONALLY, THE MODEL CONSIDERS THE POTENTIAL ADDITION OF MENLO PARK HOTELS BEING A PART OF THE TBID. THE ADDITION OF MENLO PARK HOTELS WOULD INCREASE TBID CONTRIBUTIONS BY APPROXIMATELY $638,000 STARTING IN 2023. (SEE TABLE 2) 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Room nights 3,201,672 3,273,894 3,356,784 3,470,192 3,592,148 3,720,575 3,824,263 RN annual growth 2.3%2.5%3.4%3.5%3.6%2.8% Revenue (thousands)$430,563 $784,357 $1,053,955 $1,140,669 $1,229,371 $1,335,188 $1,444,536 Rev annual growth 82.2%34.4%8.2%7.8%8.6%8.2% ADR $134 $240 $314 $329 $342 $359 $378 ADR annual growth 78.2%31.1%4.7%4.1%4.9%5.3% 740 SFPTMD Management District Plan 38 January 23, 2023 Table 2: TMD Room Revenue and Fee Projections Inventory Notes: Changes in Hotel Inventory 318 rooms lost to Project Home Key (housing the un-housed) during 2020/2021 Possibly December 15, 2022 or early 2023 Red Roof Inn, Burlingame 213 Rooms Possibly in 2023 El Rancho Inn, Millbrae 219 Rooms 2023 (Buyer is getting financing together, no set month for demolishing.) Holiday Inn Express, Burlingame 148 Rooms Possibly 2023 (Entitlements approved Sept 2022. No word when developer will start work.) Comfort Inn & Suites, South San Francisco 166 Rooms 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 A rooms 6607 Base Year Total available 15699 TBID Projection B rooms 9092 A Revenue $101,204,557 $330,100,605 $405,089,050 $438,417,832 $472,510,240 $513,181,465 $555,203,395 1.50%$2,718,068 $4,951,509 $6,076,336 $6,576,267 $7,087,654 $7,697,722 $8,328,141 B Revenue $249,358,533 $454,256,803 $557,449,620 $603,313,899 $650,229,026 $706,197,349 $764,032,666 0.75% Total TBID/TMD $4,588,257 $8,358,435 $10,257,208 $11,101,122 $11,964,371 $12,994,202 $14,058,366 New Construction New rooms 2023 (B)451 Total w/new hotels $10,464,596 $11,325,573 $12,206,276 $13,256,929 $14,342,629 % increase in B 5.0% Menlo Park New rooms 2023 (A)533 % increase in A 8.1% New rooms 2023 (B)338 % increase in B 3.5% Total w/Menlo $10,895,479 $11,791,907 $12,708,873 $13,802,787 $14,933,191 741 SFPTMD Management District Plan 39 January 23, 2023 Appendix 742 SFPTMD Management District Plan 40 January 23, 2023 Appendix 1: San Mateo County Room Revenue Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team. $0 $200,000,000 $400,000,000 $600,000,000 $800,000,000 $1,000,000,000 $1,200,000,000 $1,400,000,000 $1,600,000,000 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Annual San Mateo County Room Revenue Historic STR Report Values through October 2022 and Forecast to 2027 743 SFPTMD Management District Plan 41 January 23, 2023 Appendix 2: San Mateo County ADR Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team. $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Jul-12Apr-13Jan-14Oct-14Jul-15Apr-16Jan-17Oct-17Jul-18Apr-19Jan-20Oct-20Jul-21Apr-22Jan-23Oct-23Jul-24Apr-25Jan-26Oct-26Jul-27Apr-28Jan-29Oct-29Jul-30Apr-31Jan-32Oct-32Jul-33Apr-34Monthly San Mateo County ADR Forecast to 2034 Historical 97.5% quantile Forecast mean 2.5% quantile 744 SFPTMD Management District Plan 42 January 23, 2023 Appendix 3: San Mateo County Room Nights Source: STR Reports and Consulting Team. 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 Jul-12Apr-13Jan-14Oct-14Jul-15Apr-16Jan-17Oct-17Jul-18Apr-19Jan-20Oct-20Jul-21Apr-22Jan-23Oct-23Jul-24Apr-25Jan-26Oct-26Jul-27Apr-28Jan-29Oct-29Jul-30Apr-31Jan-32Oct-32Jul-33Apr-34Monthly San Mateo County Room Night Forecast to 2034 Historical 97.5% quantile Forecast mean 2.5% quantile 745 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-564 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:15. Motion to approve designation of voting delegates and alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023.(Flor Nicolas, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/14/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™746 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: Wednesday, June 21, 2023 TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Sept. 20-22, 2023, Sacramento SAFE Credit Union Convention Center Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. Taking place on Sept. 22, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions. To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official. Please complete the attached voting delegate form and email it to Cal Cities office no later than Monday, August 28. New this year, we will host a pre-conference information session for voting delegates to explain their role. Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre- conference communications with voting delegates. Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. Council Action Advised by August 28, 2023 747 Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website. For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly. Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate. The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center in Sacramento, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Sept. 20, 8:00 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Sept. 21, 7:30 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. On Friday, Sept. 22, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Monday, Aug. 28. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at zseals@calcities.org. Attachments: • General Assembly Voting Guidelines • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form • Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly 748 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate. 6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly. 749 CITY: ________________________________________ 2023 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Monday, August 28, 2023. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. To vote at the General Assembly, voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the General Assembly. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the voting delegate desk. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Title: Email: _______________________________ Email: ______________________________ 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Title: Email: _____________________________ ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s). Name: ____________________________________ Email: _________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk: ________________________ Date: __________ Phone: ________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and email this form to votingdelegates@calcities.org by Monday, August 28, 2023. 750 Sixty days before the Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit policy proposals on issues of importance to cities. The resolution must have the concurrence of at least five additional member cities or individual members. How it works: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly General Assembly General Resolutions Policy Committees Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure that we are representing California cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policy that erodes local control. The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how Resolutions and the General Assembly works. The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. The petition must be signed by voting delegates from 10% of member cities, and submitted to the Cal Cities President at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Petitioned Resolutions The Cal Cities President assigns general resolutions to policy committees where members review, debate, and recommend positions for each policy proposal. Recommendations are forwarded to the Resolutions Committee. Who’s who The Resolutions Committee includes representatives from each Cal Cities diversity caucus, regional division, municipal department, policy committee, as well as individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. Voting delegates are appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. The General Assembly is a meeting of the collective body of all voting delegates — one from every member city. Seven Policy Committees meet throughout the year to review and recommend positions to take on bills and regulatory proposals. Policy committees include members from each Cal Cities diversity caucus, regional division, municipal department, as well as individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. During the General Assembly, voting delegates debate and consider general and petitioned resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws amendments are also considered at this meeting. Cal Cities policy development is a member-informed process, grounded in the voices and experiences of city officials throughout the state. For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo Resolutions Committee The Resolutions Committee considers all resolutions. General Resolutions approved1 by either a policy committee or the Resolutions Committee are next considered by the General Assembly. General resolutions not approved, or referred for further study by both a policy committee and the Resolutions Committee do not go the General Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions are considered by the General Assembly, unless disqualified.2 • Voting delegates will receive increased communications to prepare them for their role during the General Assembly. • The General Assembly will take place earlier to allow more time for debate and discussion. • Improvements to the General Assembly process will make it easier for voting delegates to discuss and debate resolutions. What’s new in 2023? During the Annual Conference and Expo 1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f). 751 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-571 Agenda Date:7/12/2023 Version:1 Item #:16. Conference with Real Property Negotiators Properties:Vacant Remnant Parcels on Westborough Blvd. from Oakmont Dr. to Olympic Dr., Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) 091022010, 091022030, 091025010, 091034080 Vacant Property on Sylvester Rd. north of Associated Rd., APN 015031090 117 Duval Dr,, APN 010122380 321 Aspen Ave., APN 012142140 373 Alta Vista Dr., APN 013233020 360 Swift Ave., Suite 10, APN 100880220 Agency negotiators: Nell Selander, ECD Director, Danielle Thoe, Housing Manager Negotiating parties: Unknown at this time. All properties are potentially subject to tax sale by San Mateo County. City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/7/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™752