The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttachment B - Air Quality Calculations AIR QUALITY CALCULATIONS ATTACHMENT B to the 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 2.00 tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 7.74 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 2,000.00 tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.65 1.60 tblLandUse LotAcreage 4.23 1.23 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 246,230.00 315,718.00 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 188,000.00 215,608.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 15.00 2.83 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 40,000.00 tblEnergyUse T24NG 17.67 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 68.00 2.83 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 21.00 tblEnergyUse T24E 1.08 6.26 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 68.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 447.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 10.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Interior 473577 369351 tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 12936 15488 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Parking 12,936.00 15,488.00 tblAreaCoating Area_Nonresidential_Exterior 157859 123117 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Exterior 157,859.00 123,117.00 tblArchitecturalCoating ConstArea_Nonresidential_Interior 473,577.00 369,351.00 Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Trips and VMT - Vehicle Emission Factors - Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value Construction Phase - Per preliminary construction schedule. Demolition - Grading - Site acreage consistent with plans and earth moving estimates. Vehicle Trips - Weekday trip rate consistant with transportation study and based on the ITE 11th Edition trip rate for use 760 R&D modified to reflect a 21% trip reduction from implementatio of a TDM Plan. Energy Use - Modified from defaults to reflect an all-electric building N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Gross square footage from plans and lot acreage split between the office/R&D building and parking. Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0 Precipitation Freq (Days)70 Climate Zone 5 Operational Year 2025 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s)2.2 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 5.38 tblEnergyUse NT24NG 6.9 0.00 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 470.00 Space 1.23 215,608.00 0 Research & Development 246.23 1000sqft 1.60 315,718.00 573 Forbes Blvd SSF San Mateo County, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 1 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Load Factor Mobilization and Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.83 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.83 Acres of Paving: 1.23 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 369,351; Non-Residential Outdoor: 123,117; Striped Parking Area: 15,488 OffRoad Equipment 510 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 11/3/2025 12/1/2025 5 21 5 Paving Paving 10/20/2025 10/31/2025 568 4 Building Construction Building Construction 2/1/2024 10/17/2025 5 447 3 Grading Grading 10/30/2023 1/31/2024 510 2 Demolition Demolition 10/16/2023 10/27/2023 5 10 1 Mobilization and Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/2/2023 10/13/2023 Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type 0.0313 0.39140.0126 1.3484 0.0318 1.3802 0.3601Total 2.1143 1.2665 5.9913 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Waste Stationary 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 7.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 7.1200e- 003 0.36730.0118 1.3484 7.6600e- 003 1.3561 0.3601Mobile 0.5688 0.5326 5.5663 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-0050.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005Area 1.3814 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Maximum 1.5474 2.3360 2.4249 7.3200e- 003 0.3366 0.0751 0.4117 0.1104 0.0717 0.1821 0.0517 0.11165.7600e- 003 0.2200 0.0541 0.2741 0.05992025 1.5474 1.7399 2.0374 2024 0.2656 2.3360 2.4249 7.3200e- 003 0.3366 0.0751 0.4117 0.1104 0.0717 0.1821 0.0199 0.10621.8400e- 003 0.1888 0.0215 0.2102 0.08632023 0.0486 0.7409 0.4073 Year tons/yr PM2.5 Total 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 2 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total 9.0000e-005 6.0000e-005 7.8000e-004 0.0000 3.1000e-004 0.0000 3.2000e-004 8.0000e-005 0.0000 9.0000e-005 0.0000 9.0000e-0050.0000 3.1000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e-004 8.0000e- 005 Worker 9.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 7.8000e- 004 Vendor 0.0000 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 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 6.5100e- 003 0.0714 0.0489 1.2000e- 004 1.5000e- 003 2.7100e- 003 4.2100e-003 1.6000e- 004 2.4900e- 003 2.6500e-003 Off-Road 6.5100e-003 0.0714 0.0489 1.2000e-004 2.7100e-003 2.7100e-003 2.4900e-003 2.4900e-003 Category tons/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5000e- 003 0.0000 1.5000e-003 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e-004 HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Mobilization and Site Preparation - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixArchitectural Coating 1 38.00 0.00 0.00 HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixBuilding Construction 8 192.00 87.00 0.00 HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 5,000.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixDemolition 5 13.00 0.00 151.00 Hauling Vehicle Class Mobilization and Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.48 Mobilization and Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Mobilization and Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 367 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 3 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 1.0000e- 005 4.8000e-0041.0000e- 005 1.7700e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.7800e-003 4.7000e- 004 Worker 4.8000e- 004 3.2000e- 004 4.3600e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6300e- 003 9.2600e-0031.0600e- 003 0.0278 1.7000e- 003 0.0295 7.6300e- 003 Hauling 3.8600e- 003 0.2601 0.0850 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 0.0125 0.08754.6000e- 004 0.1393 0.0136 0.1529 0.0750Total 0.0300 0.3255 0.1958 Off-Road 0.0300 0.3255 0.1958 4.6000e- 004 0.0136 0.0136 0.0125 0.0125 0.0000 0.07500.1393 0.0000 0.1393 0.0750Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.4 Grading - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 3.2000e- 004 0.0120 5.1400e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.7800e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.8500e-003 4.9000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 5.6000e-004 0.0000 1.4000e-0040.0000 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.1000e-004 1.4000e- 004 Worker 1.4000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.2600e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 4.2000e-0045.0000e- 005 1.2700e- 003 8.0000e- 005 1.3400e-003 3.5000e- 004 Hauling 1.8000e- 004 0.0119 3.8800e- 003 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 3.1600e- 003 5.6400e-0031.2000e- 004 0.0164 3.3800e- 003 0.0197 2.4800e- 003 Total 7.3600e- 003 0.0716 0.0673 Off-Road 7.3600e- 003 0.0716 0.0673 1.2000e- 004 3.3800e- 003 3.3800e-003 3.1600e- 003 3.1600e-003 0.0000 2.4800e-0030.0164 0.0000 0.0164 2.4800e- 003 Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.3 Demolition - 2023 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 4 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 7.6000e- 004 0.04881.4200e- 003 0.1806 8.3000e- 004 0.1815 0.0481Worker 0.0469 0.0290 0.4182 Vendor 0.0107 0.4847 0.1749 2.1300e- 003 0.0679 2.5300e- 003 0.0704 0.0196 2.4200e- 003 0.0221 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.1909 1.5324 1.6850 2.9900e-003 0.0643 0.0643 0.0616 0.0616 0.0616 0.06162.9900e- 003 0.0643 0.0643Off-Road 0.1909 1.5324 1.6850 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.5 Building Construction - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 2.1800e- 003 0.1311 0.0468 5.4000e- 004 0.0151 8.7000e- 004 0.0160 4.1400e- 003 8.4000e- 004 4.9800e-003 0.0000 2.4000e-0041.0000e- 005 9.1000e- 004 0.0000 9.1000e-004 2.4000e- 004 Worker 2.3000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 2.1000e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.4000e- 004 4.7400e-0035.3000e- 004 0.0142 8.7000e- 004 0.0151 3.9000e- 003 Hauling 1.9500e- 003 0.1309 0.0447 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 6.0500e- 003 0.04462.4000e- 004 0.0730 6.5800e- 003 0.0796 0.0386Total 0.0150 0.1589 0.1001 Off-Road 0.0150 0.1589 0.1001 2.4000e- 004 6.5800e- 003 6.5800e-003 6.0500e- 003 6.0500e-003 0.0000 0.03860.0730 0.0000 0.0730 0.0386Fugitive Dust Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.4 Grading - 2024 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.3400e- 003 0.2604 0.0894 1.0700e- 003 0.0295 1.7100e- 003 0.0312 8.1000e- 003 1.6400e- 003 9.7400e-003 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 5 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 0.0000 1.6000e-0040.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 Worker 1.5000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 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 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 1.6200e-003 1.6200e-0039.0000e-005 1.7500e-003 1.7500e-003Total 3.9300e-003 0.0372 0.0584 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6200e- 003 1.6200e-0039.0000e- 005 1.7500e- 003 1.7500e-003Off-Road 3.9300e- 003 0.0372 0.0584 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.6 Paving - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0480 0.4398 0.4952 3.0100e- 003 0.2163 2.8900e- 003 0.2192 0.0589 2.7400e- 003 0.0617 6.3000e- 004 0.04251.1900e- 003 0.1572 6.9000e- 004 0.1579 0.0418Worker 0.0389 0.0228 0.3430 Vendor 9.0500e- 003 0.4169 0.1522 1.8200e- 003 0.0591 2.2000e- 003 0.0613 0.0171 2.1100e- 003 0.0192 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.1549 1.2504 1.4568 2.6000e- 003 0.0489 0.0489 0.0468 0.0468 0.0468 0.04682.6000e- 003 0.0489 0.0489Off-Road 0.1549 1.2504 1.4568 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.5 Building Construction - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 0.0576 0.5136 0.5931 3.5500e- 003 0.2485 3.3600e- 003 0.2519 0.0677 3.1800e- 003 0.0709 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 6 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 4.4 Fleet Mix 48.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 H-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-W 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % 3,677,114 Total 1,905.82 467.84 273.32 3,677,114 3,677,114 Research & Development 1,905.82 467.84 273.32 3,677,114 Annual VMT Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated 0.5688 0.5326 5.5663 0.0118 1.3484 7.6600e- 003 1.3561 0.3601 7.1200e- 003 0.3673 Category tons/yr Mitigated 0.5688 0.5326 5.5663 0.0118 1.3484 7.6600e- 003 1.3561 0.3601 7.1200e- 003 0.3673 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Total 7.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 6.8500e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.1500e-003 8.4000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e-004 1.0000e- 005 8.5000e-0042.0000e- 005 3.1400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 3.1500e-003 8.4000e- 004 Worker 7.8000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 6.8500e- 003 Vendor 0.0000 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 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO Unmitigated Construction Off-Site 5.4000e- 004 5.4000e-0043.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 5.4000e-004Total 1.3396 0.0120 0.0190 Off-Road 1.7900e- 003 0.0120 0.0190 3.0000e- 005 5.4000e- 004 5.4000e-004 5.4000e- 004 5.4000e-004 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.3378 Category tons/yr PM2.5 Total 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2025 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 1.5000e- 004 9.0000e- 005 1.2900e- 003 0.0000 5.9000e- 004 0.0000 5.9000e-004 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e-004 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 7 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Total Research & Development 4.61895e+ 006 Land Use kWh/yr t o n MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1.17291e+ 006 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 0.0000 0.0000 Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 NaturalGas Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000NaturalGas Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Electricity Mitigated Category tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 0.000432 0.002657 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 0.000572 0.028871 0.000432 0.002657 Research & Development 0.465403 0.073585 0.235906 0.146720 0.025583 0.006412 0.010355 0.002060 0.001446 0.000572 0.028871 0.025583 0.006412 0.010355 0.002060 0.001446Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.465403 0.073585 0.235906 0.146720 OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHDLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 8 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste Category/Year Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total Research & Development 121.07 / 0 Land Use Mgal t o n MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 / 0 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated Category t o n MT/yr Mitigated 7.0 Water Detail 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Total 1.3814 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-0050.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005Landscaping 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 Consumer Products 1.2470 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating 0.1338 SubCategory tons/yr Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 TotalSO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 ROG NOx CO 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated Unmitigated 1.3814 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 Category tons/yr Mitigated 1.3814 6.0000e- 005 6.5600e- 003 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e-005 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 9 of 10 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 1 Date: 7/22/2023 10:10 AM 573 Forbes Blvd SSF - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 11.0 Vegetation Total 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 7.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.0241 0.02417.9000e- 004 0.0241 0.0241Emergency Generator - Diesel (750 - 9999 HP) 0.1641 0.7339 0.4184 Equipment Type tons/yr PM2.5 Total 10.1 Stationary Sources Unmitigated/Mitigated ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Load Factor Fuel Type Emergency Generator 2 0 50 2000 0.73 Diesel Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Total Research & Development 18.71 Land Use tons t o n MT/yr Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated t o n MT/yr Mitigated 573 Forbes Blvd SSF CalEEMod Results Page 10 of 10 CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION RESPONSE ATTACHMENT C to the 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Environmental Checklist May 19, 2023 NWIC File No.: 22-1766 Jenna Sunderlin Lamphier-Gregory, Inc. 4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A-#601 Oakland, CA 94619 Re: Record search results for the proposed 573 Forbes Boulevard Project Dear Jenna Sunderlin: Per your request received by our office on May 12,2023, a records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures. The proposed project will demolish the existing improvements and construct a new 8-story building and associated parking garage, intended for use as research and development, office, or technology use. The project would involve a full basement level below the building, with excavation extending to depths of approximately 25 feet below ground surface in an approximately 0.77 acre footprint. Review of the information at our office indicates that there has been no cultural resource study that covers the 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. This 573 Forbes Boulevard 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 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978: 485). There are Native American resources in or adjacent to the proposed 573 Forbes Boulevard project area referenced in the ethnographic literature (Levy 1976, Nelson 1909). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Urebure tribe, whose territory was located "in the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain on the San Francisco Peninsula. (Milliken 1995: 258-9). Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to the San Francisco Bay shore and inland in valleys, near intermittent and perennial 2 22‐1766 watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The 573 Forbes Boulevard project area is located on the lower terraces of an eastern facing hillside adjacent to a drainage canyon approximate 0.25 miles from the current San Francisco Bayshore between Oyster Point Park and San Bruno Point Park, formerly within and adjacent to the historic bayshore margin. Aerial maps indicate a parcel with a large building and parking lot as well as a portion of dirt area with several trees. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the South San Francisco Land and Improvements Co., Abattoire (Bromfield 1894). In addition, the 1915 San Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle indicated a portion of railroad within and adjacent to the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. The 1956 photo revised 1980 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle fails to depict any buildings or structures within the 101 Gull Drive project area; therefore, there is a low possibility for any buildings or structures 45 years or older to be within the 573 Forbes Boulevard project area. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a moderate to high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a moderate to high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. The 573 Forbes Boulevard project would involve a full basement level below the building, with excavation extending to depths of approximately 25 feet below ground surface in an approximately 0.77 acre footprint. As the proposed project area, has been highly developed and is presently mostly covered with asphalt, buildings, or fill that obscures the visibility of original surface soils, which negates the feasibility of an adequate surface inspection, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify cultural resources, including a good faith effort to identify archaeological deposits that may show no indications on the surface. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 3 22‐1766 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 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. 4 22‐1766 Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455. Sincerely, Jillian Guldenbrein Researcher 5 22‐1766 LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller 1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Bromfield, Davenport 1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California General Land Office 1858, 1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Buri Buri, Township 3 South/Range 5 West. Heizer, Robert F., editor 1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976) Levy, Richard 1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Milliken, Randall 1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA. Nelson, N.C. 1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964) 6 22‐1766 Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright 1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board 1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning and Development Department of Environmental Management. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation ** 2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. **Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION Page 1 of 2 July 20, 2023 Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory Via Email to: [email protected] Re: Native American Tribal Consultation, Pursuant to the Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52), Amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 (m), 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3, 21083.09, 21084.2 and 21084.3, 573 Forbes Blvd Project, San Mateo County To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (c), attached is a consultation list of tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the above-listed project. Please note that the intent of the AB 52 amendments to CEQA is to avoid and/or mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources, (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)) (“Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource.”) Public Resources Code sections 21080.3.1 and 21084.3(c) require CEQA lead agencies to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested notice from such agencies of proposed projects in the geographic area that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribes on projects for which a Notice of Preparation or Notice of Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration has been filed on or after July 1, 2015. Specifically, Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1 (d) provides: Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this section. The AB 52 amendments to CEQA law does not preclude initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally affiliated within your jurisdiction prior to receiving requests for notification of projects in the tribe’s areas of traditional and cultural affiliation. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recommends, but does not require, early consultation as a best practice to ensure that lead agencies receive sufficient information about cultural resources in a project area to avoid damaging effects to tribal cultural resources. The NAHC also recommends, but does not require that agencies should also include with their notification letters, information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on the area of potential effect (APE), such as: 1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to: ACTING CHAIRPERSON Reginald Pagaling Chumash SECRETARY Sara Dutschke Miwok COMMISSIONER Isaac Bojorquez Ohlone-Costanoan COMMISSIONER Buffy McQuillen Yokayo Pomo, Yuki, Nomlaki COMMISSIONER Wayne Nelson Luiseño COMMISSIONER Stanley Rodriguez Kumeyaay COMMISSIONER Vacant COMMISSIONER Vacant COMMISSIONER Vacant EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Raymond C. Hitchcock Miwok, Nisenan NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 [email protected] NAHC.ca.gov Page 2 of 2 • A listing of any and all known cultural resources that have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE, such as known archaeological sites; • Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the Information Center as part of the records search response; • Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate, or high probability that unrecorded cultural resources are located in the APE; and • If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. 2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including: • Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measures. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for public disclosure in accordance with Government Code section 6254.10. 3. The result of any Sacred Lands File (SLF) check conducted through the Native American Heritage Commission was negative. 4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the APE; and 5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the APE. Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS are not exhaustive and a negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a tribal cultural resource. A tribe may be the only source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource. This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the event that they do, having the information beforehand will help to facilitate the consultation process. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our consultation list remains current. If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: [email protected]. Sincerely, Cody Campagne Cultural Resources Analyst Attachment