Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout494 Forbes Appendices 2012APPENDIX 1.0 Comments and Responses to the EIR Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 2.1 FORMAT OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES This section presents responses to the comments that were received on the Draft EIR during the review period. Responses are provided for those comments that address the environmental effects of the proposed project. Responses are generally not provided (Comment acknowledged) to comments that state opinions about the overall merit of the project or comments about the project description, unless a specific environmental issue is raised within the context of the specific comment. Those comments are most appropriately addressed in the staff report forwarded to the decision makers for consideration at a public hearing. Four comment letters were received concerning the Draft EIR for the proposed project. The Planning Commission also provided comments during its review of the Draft EIR on May 17, 2007. The comments received on the Draft EIR have been grouped by agencies (A), the project applicant (PA), and Planning Commission comments (PC) as listed below. Agencies Al California State Clearinghouse, June 11, 2007 A2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 7, 2007 A3 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), June 19, 2007 Project Applicant PA1 Slough Estates USA, Inc., May 31, 2007 Planning Commission PC1 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission, May 17, 2007 Revisions to the Draft EIR that respond to comments on the Draft EIR are presented in Section 3, Revisions to the Draft EIR. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 OF Comment LetterA1 0`CEPLq�yN,N F pI OF ,. O� a m STATE OF CALIFORNIA r r GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH �'• z OF \�. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT CAUF�11 .A NOLDSCHWARZENEGGRR CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 11, 2007. JIJAI Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R&D Project SCH #: 2006092054 Dear Gerry Beaudin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 8, 2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These continents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State El I Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 2.0 -2 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006092054 Project Title 494 Forbes Boulevard Office /R &D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Type EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project involves the development of the project site with two new office /research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that full occupancy of the site would occur by 2011. The project would provide parking for a total of 1,036 automobiles, including a three -level parking garage, constructed at grade level. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the southern end of the site, behind Building A. The project would include both public and private landscaped areas throughout the site with plants and design features appropriate for the climate. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, and walkways, and in the private open spaces. A water - conserving automatic irrigation system would be installed on the site, in accordance with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Lead Agency Contact Name Gerry Beaudin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877 -8535 email Waterways Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Fax State CA Zip 94080 Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets Allerton Avenue Parcel No. 111- 001 -07 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 101, 1 -280, 1 -380 Airports SFO Railways UPRR, Caltrain Waterways San Francisco Bay Schools Martin ES, Alls Souls Schools, Siebecker School, Roger Williams Land Use Vacant Z: Planned Industrial (PI) Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic /Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Date Received 04/24/2007 Start of Review 04/24/2007 End of Review 06/08/2007 2.0 -3 Nnta- Rlanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead aaencv. 2.0 Response to Comments Al Terry Roberts California State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 997413 Sacramento, California 95899 -7413 Al -1 The agency's comment is acknowledged. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA — BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Comment Letter A2 m 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5505 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY (800) 735 -2929 Flex your power! JUN 1 1 2007 Be energy efficient! June 7, 2007 Mr. Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: SM101425 SM- 101 -21.4 — 23.20 S CH #2006092054 FORBES OFFICER &D — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following comments are based on the Draft Environmental i¢1 - 1pact Report (DEIR). Our previous comments still apply and are incorporated here by reference. Highway Operations 1. Table 2.0 -1, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4, page 2.0 -18: The column Significance After 1❑ Mitigation is blank. Indicate what the significance after mitigation would be. 2. Table 2.0 -1, Impact 4.8 -5, page 2.0 -19: Would both mitigation measures 4.8 -5A and 4.8- El 5B Significance After Mitigation be significant and unavoidable, or only mitigation measure 4.8 -5B? 3. Figure 4.8 -2: Southbound (SB) US -101, the Airport Boulevard on -ramp near Oyster Point 3❑ Boulevard is missing from the figure. Please include. 4. Table 4.8 -3, page 4.8 -15: The Thresholds for Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds) are transposed for Signalized and Unsignalized. Please correct. 5. US -101 Ramp Methodology, On- ramps, page 4.8 -20: The stated capacity for on -ramps is M too high. Capacity on on -ramp would only be 1800 -2000 vehicles per hour. 6. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -6, page 4.8 -60: Fair share fees should be contributed to ramp metering project to offset this significant impact. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" 2.0 -5 Mr. Gerry Beaudin June 7, 2007 Page 2 7. Synchro Analysis, Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp, 2015 With Project Mitigated (Second NB land added), PM Peak Hour: This intersection is still LOS F. Project trips are being added to the West Bound (WB) ramp movement and delay for this movement has increased compared to 2015 Without Project. This would not be adequate mitigation for this project. Traffic Forecasting 1. Traffic Impact Analysis with Mitigation Needed under 2025 Cumulative Conditions: The Department believes there will be significant cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Forbes Office and R/D project and several recently approved projects, including Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, and the Genetech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. The TIA under Cumulative Conditions and associated mitigation measures are required F8 components of the CEQA document. The Department considers 2015 Conditions, a 10 year time frame, as an intermediate term. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions 20 — 30 years after Existing Conditions year is accepted as a long term time frame for cumulative impact analysis. Year 2025 and 2030 would be accepted as long term frame for cumulative impact analysis for this project. Please include long term and cumulative conditions in the document and TIA. 2. Assumptions for growth rate 2015 Future Without Project Conditions: Page 4.8 -25. What is the reference "as documented in approved transportation studies" for using 0.5 o growth rate under 2015 Future Without Project Conditions between 2005 and 2015? What is the growth rate and its underlying assumptions between 2015 and 2025? 3. Traffic diagram at each intersection: Please provide the AM and PM peak hour traffic diagram for 2025 Cumulative Conditions. This diagram should demonstrate traffic per 10 turning movement per intersection during peak hour. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra [email protected] with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, TIMOTHY . SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse "Caltrans improves rnobili9ln_oss California" 2.0 Response to Comments A2 Timothy Sable California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, California 94623 -0660 A2 -1 The level of significance has been added to Table 2.0 -1 to indicate that Impact 4.8 -4 would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4. A2 -2 Impact 4.8 -5 would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of only Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A. A2 -3 Figure 4.8 -2 has been revised to include the southbound on -ramp from Airport Boulevard. The revised figure is presented in Section 3 Revisions to the Draft FIR of this document. A24 Table 4.8 -3 has been revised to correct the transposition of Signalized and Unsignalized under the table heading "Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds)." A2 -5 The first paragraph on page 4.8 -20 and Tables 4.8 -6 and 4.8 -10 have been revised to reflect reduced on -ramp capacities in accordance with Caltrans' direction. A2 -6 The City contacted C /CAG and confirmed that ramp metering is a Caltrans project scheduled for fiscal year 2009/2010, and is currently funded 100 percent by Caltrans. No additional fair share funding is required for this scheduled, fully funded future ramp project. A2 -7 Implementation of the proposed project would add traffic to Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp intersection. As mitigation, the Draft EIR lists two alternate improvements to address the impact at this location. The first improvement, which involves widening the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane, if implemented would improve the intersection operations to an acceptable level. The second listed improvement would bring the intersection back to, or just better than, the base case operation. The City has determined that the first option will be implemented in conjunction with the Genentech Master Plan Project. The project proponent would pay the project's fair share of the cost of the improvement that is implemented at the affected intersection and this fair share payment would adequately address the project's impact at this location. A2 -8 It is the City's intent to update the East of Highway 101 Traffic Study to provide 2025 and 2030 conditions within the next two years. The update has been programmed into the East of Highway 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program. A2 -9 The document referenced in the Draft EIR is the Genentech Master Environmental Impact Report. The background growth rate of 0.5 percent (5.1 percent in total between existing (2005) conditions and 2015) was applied to the existing traffic volumes to account for the increase in through traffic along the freeway. Second, the Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments vehicle trips associated with all the approved projects in the East of 101 area of South San Francisco were assigned to the freeway. These included the recently approved Home Depot, Lowe's, and Terrabay projects, plus anticipated future developments in office and biotechnology space in the area. Future with Project traffic volumes were developed by adding the Project vehicle trips to the Future without Project traffic volumes. A2 -10 Please refer to the response to comment A2 -8. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 .--,.. -.....,,... -. - ....-. ...,_ -.. -, -.- - -- - - - -, To: STATECLEARING - .- .. _- t( HDU .. At 9 1 6323301 8 STATE OFCAUFORNIA 1�115L NF_ 9S. TRAN. k1�( 1RTA77nNANT1TIf111gYNl7a /arrary .�ti.•...,.. .�.. r. DEPARTMENI OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVEN JE P. 0. SOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94 23 - 0660 PHONE (510) 286 505 PAX (510) 256 -555 TTY (800) 735 -292 P NAVff June 19, 20@7 JUN 1 9 zao STATE CLEANNG HOUSE Mr. Gerry I caudin �-- City of Sou h San Francisco Planning Di partment 315 Maple venue South San I 1rancisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Bdaudin: Comment Letter A3 I I qP FIE4 your Power! Be en rgy efclem! c Ro -r /!6r o SM101425 e SM- 1.01 -21.4 -23.20 SCH #206092054 FORBES OF>� ICE/R &D -- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR ADDITIO AL COMMENTS Thank you continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) I review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following add based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our previous commen incorporated here by reference. the comments apply and Traffic Mitigation between a and clarify. Fair Share: share contz how the C approved ii Please fee still Measure 4.8 -5A: There are two mitigations for the same off -ramp at U.S. 101 ❑ Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive intersection. Is there a diffeience ,cond off -ramp lane extension and a second off -ramp lane connection? Please ex lain .he DEIR mentioned that the project applicant shall be responsible for providing fair iution for the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5A. AdIress y of South San Francisco will mitigate the traffic impacts of this project and others :eeent years on the intersections surrounding the U.S. 101 ramps. free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -164 or [email protected] with any questions regarding this letter.. Si erely, JL TIMOTHY SABLE District Br ch Chief c: Ms. {Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse °C.'alrnans Improves nwbidity acroxx (:alifurnia" 2.0 -9 2.0 Response to Comments A3 Timothy Sable California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, California 94623 -0660 A3 -1 Please refer to the response to comment A2 -2. A3 -2 All projects located within the East of 101 Area shall pay their "fair share" of Traffic Impact Fees. "Fair share" is based on the amount of peak hour trips generated by the development. The Traffic Impact Fees are collected to fund the improvements and will be updated by the end of 2007. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 UL r 7 �w Jonathan M. Bergschneider Senior Vice President — Development Slough Estates USA Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 Tel. +1 650 875.1002 Fax. +1 650 875.1003 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL May 31, 2007 Ms. Susy Kalkin Principal Planner CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Kalkin: www.sloughestates.com On behalf of the applicant, Slough Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office/R &D Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 Construction Emissions: With regards to suspension of excavation and grading activities when sustained winds exceed 25 mph, please clarify the term "sustained ". 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan The mitigation measure states that the erosion control plan shall include "sediment basin design calculations." The obligation is to conform to ABAG while leaving 2l incorporation of specific erosion control measures up to the engineer. We request the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure description. 4.4-4 TEC Monitoring Well: We will continue to provide TEC Accutite access to the project site to monitor groundwater, provided that the San Mateo County Health Services Agency has not �3 already determined the well may be abandoned. However, we will request that the Cabot property owner, Barthold Stelling Testementary Trust, move the location of the monitoring well as it impedes construction of our parking garage. 2.0 -11 Head Office: 444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3230, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Tel. +1 312 755.0700 Fax. +1 312 755.0717 Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 2 4.4-1 Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Please confirm that this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that our project environmental engineer /scientist will determine if any discovered materials 4 pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers so that the project can respond accordingly. 4.5-2 Oil/Water Separator: The description of this mitigation measure states that an oil /water separator should be installed on site "to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to 5 draining to the sanitary sewer." Reference to "sanitary sewer" appears to be a typo since our site drainage system does not discharge to the sanitary sewer. Please clarify. Was this measure intended for the parking garage? 4.5-3 Alternative Drainage Solutions: This mitigation measure indicates that alternative drainage solutions shall include ponds. We assume this should be interpreted to mean that "potential alternative drainage solutions may include... ponds." The site plan has been approved and El currently does not include a pond. Locating a pond on site would adversely affect the City's existing requirements of open usable green space and a balance between surface parking and the size of the parking structure. 4.5-4 ROOftOD Rainwater Retention We assume this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that trace rooftop and downspout retention should be accounted for in C3.0 calculations. However, if this mitigation contemplates implementing a dedicated rooftop retention facility, or creating mechanisms to hold back roof rainwater, such schemes are not feasible due El to structural and spatial limitations. Rooftop real estate is required for HVAC equipment for both laboratory and office uses. Please revise the mitigation to read "The project applicant may incorporate rooftop or downspout retention..." 4.5-6 Sump at Truck Docks: Please clarify how the required capacity of the sump is determined. 2.0 -12 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SI-1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 3 Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Please explain the considerable discrepancy between trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes (Table 4.8 -12) and those used to calculate impacts from the Genentech Campuses (Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, Table 4.7 -11). The trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes are double the rates used for AM inbound and PM outbound office use for Genentech. These discrepancies in trip generation rates translate into larger impacts attributed to 494 Forbes at each of the intersections and ramps analyzed compared to the same R &D area from Genentech. As a result, 494 Forbes would be unduly taxed with disproportionately higher fair share costs. Preliminary fair share cost percentages for 494 Forbes are inconsistent with the ratio between its building area and the total future developed area anticipated at year 2015 (Genentech EIR Table 5 -1), which should be a conservative comparison given the distribution of anticipated uses. For traffic mitigations requiring a fair share contribution, the applicant's fair share shall be calculated using the ratio of its incremental increase in trips to the intersection or ramp to the total increase in trips from 2007 to 2015. 4.8-2 Fair Share Contributions to Various Traffic Improvements: Although the applicant is only responsible for contributing its fair share towards the cost of these improvements, this mitigation requires that improvements be completed prior to occupancy of the applicant's buildings. The applicant has no control over when these improvements will actually be constructed and therefore tenancy of its buildings should not be tied to this condition. The applicant requests the mitigation require that the applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. a 10 Intersection #1 — Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave./US101 NB on -ramp Mitigation Measure: Widen WB Oyster Point Blvd. approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane; OR widen NB Dubuque Ave. approach to provide two 11 exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. 2.0 -13 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 4 The Genentech EIR suggests restriping and shifting the concrete median rather than widening Oyster Point Blvd. Why was this not a mitigation option for 494 Forbes? Please confirm that "widening" Oyster Point Blvd consists of restriping to create a second right turn lane, as opposed to widening the elevated deck? Per the trip distribution for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the Dubuque improvement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation. Intersection #5 — East Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way Mitigation Measure: Widen EB East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Per the trip distribution values for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the EB right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. Intersection #6 — Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. Mitigation Measure: Reconfigure the Produce Ave. intersection leg to provide third SB departure lane. Please confirm that this mitigation will receive the additional WB Airport left turn lane. Please explain "reconfigure ". Does this include relocation of traffic signals or widening? 11 4.8-3 Traffic Improvements at East Grand and Allerton Avenue: Similar to our comments for 4.8 -2, we request this mitigation require that the 12 applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: The first and third improvements described in this mitigation measure appear to be 13 the same. Please clarify. 2.0 -14 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 5 4.8-7 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage: We request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed 14 prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, the project's northerly driveway must maintain access for outbound traffic as it serves the truck dock to Building B. 4.8-8 Sidewalks: We request this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to 15 provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue, as this is included in the project. The project will add an internal walkway to the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. 4.9-1 Water Conservation: This mitigation measure is written to prescribe that the project shall implement a gray r 96 water irrigation system. We assume that this was intended to describe that a potential water conservation method could be the use of a gray water irrigation system. Please clarify. Please let me know if you need any clarification on these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, SLOUGH ESTATES USA INc. Jonathan M. Bergschneider CC: Tom Gilman, DES Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham David Bowden, HDCCo Jeff Marcowitz, Diane Smith, PMA 2.0 -15 Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England 2.0 Response to Comments PA1 Jonathon M. Bergschneider Slough Estates USA, Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 PA1 -1 The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has not provided a definition of the term "sustained" in its CEQA Guidelines. This mitigation measure shall be interpreted to mean that if winds exceed 25 miles per hour and there is a visible dust cloud or plume at the edge of the project site, at that point grading and other earth moving or disturbing activities shall be suspended. PA1 -2 The Erosion Control Plan shall comply with accepted Best Management Practices and shall be designed by a registered civil engineer approved by the City to design erosion control plans. PA1 -3 The monitoring well may be relocated, subject to approval of the San Mateo County Health Services Agency, insofar as the relocated well allows the same level of monitoring as the existing location. Text has been added to Mitigation Measure 4.4 -5 to allow for the relocation of the monitoring well. PA1 -4 The comment correctly interprets Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1s intent and implementation. PA1 -5 Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2 has been revised to state that the water from the separator will drain into the City's storm water drainage system. The mitigation measure is intended for all parking areas (outdoor parking and parking garage) that will drain to the storm water drainage system. PA1 -6 The language of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3 states that alternative drainage solutions shall be installed "where feasible." The language of the measure is permissive and does not mandate the construction and maintenance of a pond if not feasible. PA1 -7 The intent of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -4 is to require the applicant to design a storm water detention /retention system to retain excess storm water runoff beyond predevelopment levels. Excess runoff conveyed from building rooftops via down - sprouts may be infiltrated on site or retained in underground storm water vaults in case rooftop retention is not possible. The text of Mitigation Measure 4.5 -4 has been revised to allow for the project to meet this requirement without necessarily providing rooftop retention. PA1 -8 To calculate potential spills within truck dock sumps, the applicant's design engineer is to use the maximum allowable truck capacity to be allowed on site to determine the largest possible spill. Multiple trucks at a dock should be included in the maximum capacity calculations. With regard to rainfall drainage issues, the capacity Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments of the sump is to be determined by utilizing a 10 -year storm event with a 5- minute time concentration to be pumped out. PA1 -9 Trip rates for new Genentech activities utilized in the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR were based upon trip generation surveys of existing activities on the Genentech campus. Because specific uses for the 494 Forbes project are unknown at this time, the most conservative trip rates for potential activities (i.e., for offices) were utilized to provide a conservative analysis. PA1 -10 The applicant will be required to pay the project's fair share towards the cost of constructing various traffic improvements at the time the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings is issued. PA1 -11 The recommendation to widen the westbound Oyster Point intersection approach to provide a second right turn lane rather than restriping and shifting the concrete median was made because there is not enough median width or overall width of Oyster Point Boulevard in order to complete this mitigation without widening. The measure suggested in the Genentech EIR to restripe and narrow the median has been rejected by City Public Works staff. Widening the Dubuque Avenue leg of the intersection was suggested as an alternative mitigation to providing a second westbound right turn lane on Oyster Point Boulevard because it also reduces the project impact to a less than significant level. Measures are not always recommended because they will be implemented on an intersection leg accommodating project traffic, but rather because they achieve the overall goal of reducing the project's impact to a less than significant level, possibly for a lower cost than a mitigation on an intersection leg used by project traffic. PA1 -12 The applicant will be required to pay the project's fair share towards the cost of constructing various traffic improvements at the time the Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings is issued. PA1 -13 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A has been revised to delete the second citation for U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection. PA1 -14 The improvements outlined in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -7 shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Use and Occupancy for the buildings. Please note that outbound movements from the project's northerly driveway have limited sight lines to the north to see southbound Allerton Avenue traffic. Therefore, the City will allow outbound movements from this driveway as right turns only PA1 -15 The improvements identified in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8 shall be completed as outlined in the Draft EIR. PA1 -16 The project will be required to comply with all current and future recycled water requirements. Currently, there is no delivery system for recycled water in place. The applicant may install a recycled water infrastructure now to reduce future costs associated with connections to any future systems. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final EIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments Planning Commission Comments, May 17, 2007 The Planning Commission conducted a study session for the proposed project on May 17, 2007. During the course of the Commission's session, a number of questions concerning the proposed project were raised: PC1 -1 How long will it take to drive from the site to Highway 101? PC1 -2 How much traffic from East of U.S. 101 will make it into South San Francisco west of U.S. 101? PC1 -3 Follow -up on /note the staggered work hours (per Mr. Monfreddini s comments). PC1 -4 Follow -up on /note ancillary services (per Mr. Monfreddini s comments). Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments PC1 City of South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting of May 17, 2007 PC1 -1 Results are presented below of six travel time runs during the PM commute peak hour between the project site and the Oyster Point interchange. Also presented are projections of the increased travel times drivers would expect by 2015 for the same trip with no new intersection mitigations and then with proposed mitigations. Increased travel times were projected using the increases in average delay expected at all intersections along the route (as presented in the EIR) along with some additional travel time expected between intersections. The routing was Forbes Boulevard /Eccles Avenue /Oyster Point Boulevard. From a distance standpoint, this is a longer route than Forbes /Gull /Oyster Point. However, by observation, there is so much Genentech traffic using Gull Road to Reach Oyster Point Boulevard during the PM commute (which occasionally backs up much of the distance from Oyster Point to Forbes), that the travel time by this route should be slower than the lightly used (but longer) Eccles Avenue route. Travel Time Surveys, Wednesday, May 30, 2007 Start Point: Forbes /Atherton Intersection End Point: Turning to U.S. 101 northbound on -ramp at Oyster Point /Dubuque intersection Route: Forbes /Eccles /Oyster Point Run No. Travel Time (in seconds) Start Time 1 255 4:27 PM 2 245 4:39 PM 3 260 4:50 PM 4 255 5:03 PM 5 350 5:13 PM 6 310 5:29 PM Average travel time = 280 seconds (4 min 40 sec) Maximum travel time = 350 seconds (5 min 50 sec) Travel time by 2015 with projected east of 101 development and no mitigations: Average travel time = 11 min 40 sec Travel time by 2015 with projected East of 101 development and proposed maximum intersection mitigations: Average travel time = 9 min 30 sec PC1 -2 Based upon previous surveys of East of 101 employee traffic routings, about 3 percent of project traffic would be expected to travel to downtown South San Francisco, with another 8 percent passing through the central area to /from Daly City and western South San Francisco via Sister Cities Boulevard or East Grand Avenue. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 2.0 Response to Comments PC1 -3 The City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) regulations are a requirement of the proposed project. The TDM plan addresses staggered work hours as well as other methods to reduce AM and PM peak period traffic. PC1 -4 Ancillary services, such as food service, are being provided within larger campus type developments in the East of 101 area. These ancillary services are one of several methods being used to reduce vehicle trips. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. Office /R&D Project Final FIR 0868.001 March 2012 Comments on the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVL'NUF P. 0, BOX 23 OAKLAND, CA 94623- 0660 PHON.F (510) 622 -5491 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY 711 October 25, 2010 �cow z ` F1ex your puuerl 8e energy �icienEl Zf SM101425 SM- 101 - 21.4 — 23:20 SCH#2006092054 Mr. Gerry Beaudiin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: FORBES OFFICER &D — PARTIAL RECIRCULATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 114aI.PACT REPORT Thank you for continuing t .b. inalude.the California Department of Transp©rtation (Department) in the environi review procc8s for the Forbes Offzce/R, & D project. The following comments are based on the partial Re- circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDB1R). Highway Operadnns 1. Response to C:ornment'A2 -7: -Please, clarify the relationship between, second alternative improvement listed as mitigation for the oyster Point/northbound (NB) 101 on ramp and the Genentech Master Plan. 2. Tables UA and 4.8 -14: -Please renumber the study intersections to correspond to the numbers in Figures 4.8 -4/5, 4.8 =6/7; and 4.8 -519. 3. For the purpose of clarity, we suggest providing the lane configurations, .geometries, and turning, movements for the existing study intersections, and proposed lane improvements for the Future Year 2015 as you provided in Figure 4.8-.10. 4. Future 2015 conditions: Please explain; and verify why the peak hour delays shown in Table 4.8 -8 when compared to the.! xi%ing conditions shown in Table 4.8A show improvement since the discussion on pages 4:8.24 and 4.8 -25 do not noto any improvements .for these study intersections or facilities. For example, the Existing, AM/PM delays for the Airport Boulevard/U.S. -101 soutlzhound hook ramps are 25.5/27.0 yet the Future AM/PM delays are noted as 20. 1123.2. Please feel free to call. or.email Sandra. Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or Lauds p'V with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, LISA CARBONI District Brwich Chief 1,ocal Development laaftovenunontal Review c: State Clearinghouse "Cdlraw I mpraves nobility across Caflffornia" STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623 -0660 PHONE (510) 286 -5505 FAX (510) 286 -5559 TTY (800) 735 -2929 June 7, 2007 FRO U61 mil E Mr. Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco Planning Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Beaudin: Flex your power! Be energy efficient! SM101425 SM- 101 -21.4 — 23.20 SCH #2006092054 FORBES OFFICER &D — DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Thank you for continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) in the environmental review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following comments are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Our previous comments still apply and are incorporated here by reference. Highway Operations 1. Table 2.0 -1, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4, page 2.0 -18: The column Significance After Mitigation is blank. Indicate what the significance after mitigation would be. 2. Table 2.0 -1, Impact 4.8 -5, page 2.0 -19: Would both mitigation measures 4.8 -5A and 4.8- 5B Significance After Mitigation be significant and unavoidable, or only mitigation measure 4.8 -5B? 3. Figure 4.8 -2: Southbound (SB) US -101, the Airport Boulevard on -ramp near Oyster Point Boulevard is missing from the figure. Please include. 4. Table 4.8 -3, page 4.8 -15: The Thresholds for Average Total Delay per Vehicle (seconds) are transposed for Signalized and Unsignalized. Please correct. 5. US -101 Ramp Methodology, On- ramps, page 4.8 -20: The stated capacity for on -ramps is too high. Capacity on on -ramp would only be 1800 -2000 vehicles per hour. 6. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -6, page 4.8 -60: Fair share fees should be contributed to ramp metering project to .offset this significant impact. "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Mr. Gerry Beaudin June 7, 2007 Page 2 7. Synchro Analysis, Oyster Point and Northbound (NB) 101 on -ramp, 2015 With Project Mitigated (Second NB land added), PM Peak Hour: This intersection is still LOS F. Project trips are being added to the West Bound (WB) ramp movement and delay for this movement has increased compared to 2015 Without Project. This would not be adequate mitigation for this project. Traffic Forecasting 1. Traffic Impact Analysis with Mitigation Needed under 2025 Cumulative Conditions: The Department believes there will be significant cumulative traffic impacts caused by the Forbes Office and R/D project and several recently approved projects, including Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, and the Genetech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. The TIA under Cumulative Conditions and associated mitigation measures are required components of the CEQA document. The Department considers 2015 Conditions, a 10 year time frame, as an intermediate term. Analysis of Cumulative Conditions 20 — 30 years after Existing Conditions year is accepted as a long term time frame for cumulative impact analysis. Year 2025 and 2030 would be accepted as long term frame for cumulative impact analysis for this project. Please include long term and cumulative conditions in the document and TIA. 2. Assumptions for growth rate 2015 Future Without Project Conditions: Page 4.8 -25. What is the reference "as documented in approved transportation studies" for using 0.5% growth rate under 2015 Future Without Project Conditions between 2005 and 2015? What is the growth rate and its underlying assumptions between 2015 and 2025? 3. Traffic diagram at each intersection: Please provide the AM and PM peak hour traffic diagram for 2025 Cumulative Conditions. This diagram should demonstrate traffic per turning movement per intersection during peak hour. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -1644 or sandra fineaan @dot.ca. ,gov with any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, o ,.QAL TIMOTHY . SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Ms. Terry Roberts, State Clearinghouse Caltrans improves mobility across California To: STATECLEARINGHOU At: 919163233018 STATE OFCA=RNIn IRINVN1A9S TRAN41[1RTA77n7J A%MUATWfUn Ar7crory .r .......................... DEPARTMENI OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVEN JE P. 0. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94 23 -0660 PHONE (510) 286-. FAX (510)286-555) TTY (800) 735 -292 V June 19, 20 7 JUN '1 9 2007 STATE CLEARING MOUSE Mr. Gerry audin City of Sou h San Francisco Planning Di partment 315 Maple venue South San 11rancisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Bdaudin: FIE J your power. Be en rgy efclem! C- R.a .r (-n/VD - 7 k- +C SM101425 SM- 1.01 -21.4 -23.20 SCH #2006092054 FORBES I. OFFICE/R&D -- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ADDITIOIJAL COMMENTS Thank you r continuing to include the California Department of Transportation (Department) i the environmen al review process for the Forbes Office/R & D project. The following addit.onal comments based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (.DEIR). Our previous commenti. still apply and incorporated here by reference. Traffic Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5A: There are two mitigations for the same off -ramp at U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive intersection. Is there a diffejence between a s -.cond off -ramp lane extension and a second off -ramp lane connection? Please ex lain and clarify. Fair Share: Fhe DEIR mentioned that the project applicant shall be responsible for providing fair share contribution for the improvements listed in Mitigation Measures 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5A. Ad Iress how the Ci y of South San Francisco will mitigate the traffic impacts of this project and others approved in recent years on the intersections surrounding the U.S. 101 ramps. Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan of my staff at (510) 622 -16 or sandra [email protected] with any questions regarding this letter.. Si erely, , C QJL TIMOTHY SABLE District Br ch Chief c: Ms. frerry Roberts, State Clearinghouse " Calrnans Improves nwbiliry urrarx C"14furNla" o � `c E oF QY 4 S e A`. ^o +, rye STATE OF CALIFORNIA r GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH z �ALIpOpN* • � rA �OF GAL1Fd� STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT A- Nnr,n SMr R?ENRGGER CYNTHIA BRYANT GOVERNOR DIRECTOR June 11, 2007 JUN -eb Gerry Beaudin City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Subject: 494 Forbes Boulevard Office/R &D Project SCH #: 2006092054 Dear Gerry Beaudin: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on June 8, 2007, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive;:comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those continents shall be supported by specific documentation." These continents are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, Terry Roberts Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 (916) 445 -0613 FAX (916) 323 -3018 www.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006092054 Project Title 494 Forbes Boulevard Office /R &D Project Lead Agency South San Francisco, City of Tvne EIR Draft EIR Description The proposed project involves the development of the project site with two new office /research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that full occupancy of the site would occur by 2011 The project would provide parking for a total of 1,036 automobiles, including a three -level parking garage, constructed at grade level. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the southern end of the site, behind Building A. The project would include both public and private landscaped areas throughout the site with plants and design features appropriate for the climate. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, and walkways, and in the private open spaces. A water - conserving automatic irrigation system would be installed on the site, in accordance with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Lead Agency Contact Name Gerry Beaudin Agency City of South San Francisco Phone (650) 877 -8535 email Waterways Address 315 Maple Avenue City South San Francisco Fax State CA Zip 94080 Project Location County San Mateo City South San Francisco Region Cross Streets Allerton Avenue Parcel No. 111 - 001 -07 Township Range Section Base Proximity to: Highways 101, 1 -280, 1 -380 Airports SFO Railways UPRR, Caltrain Waterways San Francisco Bay Schools Martin ES, Ails Souls Schools, Siebecker School, Roger Williams Land Use Vacant Z: Planned Industrial (PI) Project Issues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Cumulative Effects; Drainage /Absorption; Geologic /Seismic; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Noise; Public Services; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion /Compaction /Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic /Hazardous; Traffic /Circulation; Water Quality; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 4; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Date Received 04/24/2007 Start of Review 04/24/2007 End of Review 06/08/2007 NntP, Rlanks in data fields result from insufficient information Drovided by lead aaencv. i L -- September 30, 2010 Linda Ajello Associate Planner City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department Planning Division P. O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Subject: Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for 494 Forbes Boulevard — City of South San Francisco - Dear Ms. Ajello: '. i"Usaft Thank you for notifying San Francisco International Airport (SFO or the Airport) of the hialgffiRW2 availability of the Partial Recirculated DEIR for 494 Forbes Boulevard. We appreciate this _ opportunity to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco (the City) in considering and evaluating potential land use compatibility issues that this and similar projects may pose. The project site is located under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Conical Surface, M"WW which establishes standards and notification requirements for objects affecting navigable airspace. Airport staff understands that within the project area, the City's General Plan establishes building height limitations, which are based on Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. As stated in the DEIR, an FAA Form 7460 -1, (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) will need to be filed. The Airport appreciates your consideration. If I can be of assistance as the City considers airport land use compatibility as they relate to this project or future projects, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 821 -7867 or at john.ber ener _,flysfo.com Sincerely, John Bergener Airport Planning Manager San Francisco International Airport Bureau of Planning and Environmental Affairs cc: Nixon Lam, SFO, Manager of Environmental Affairs Genentech A Meinberof the Roche Group 10/21/2010 Linda Ajello Associate Planner City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: 494 Forbes Boulevard - Comments on Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2006092054) Dear Ms. Kalkin: Genentech respectfully submits the following comments on the City of South San Francisco's ( "City ") Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "Recirculated Draft ") for the proposed project at 494 Forbes Boulevard (SCH No. 2006092054, the "Project "). The City released the Recirculated Draft around September 10, 2010 and is accepting public comments through October 25, 2010. Genentech appreciates the opportunity to comment on this Project and looks forward to the City's response. Generally, Genentech supports the Project and believes the Project will be a valuable addition to the community and to the City. As the City is aware, Genentech runs a child -care center across the street from the Project. Approximately 500 children (of Genentech employees) attend daily and the center is open from 6 am — 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday. The children range in age from six weeks old to eleven years old. Given the close proximity of the center to the Project, Genentech is particularly concerned with the Project's potential impacts to the children. Genentech believes the Recirculated Draft fails to identify or properly consider a number of impacts, applies incorrect significance thresholds, and does not incorporate all of the appropriate mitigation measures required to ensure the children are adequately protected. We request that the City address these deficiencies, identified below, before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors considers whether to certify the EIR. As noted above, Genentech supports this Project and would like to see it move forward. Our comments set forth herein are primarily intended to secure a greater level of mitigation of certain Project impacts to ensure the protection of children attending Genentech's child -care center. The comments below are provided on the Recirculated Draft and the 2007 Draft and Final EIR (collectively, the "EIR ") and begin with the Recirculated Draft. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SANS FRANCISCO, CA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 Lv"I.gene.c ®m Genentech A Member of the Roche Grouly RECIRCULATED DRAFT Air Quality: Section 4.2 The Air Quality section of the Recirculated Draft (Section 4.2 -1) provides an analysis of air quality impacts from the construction and operation of the Project. It applies, however, the 1999 version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines, which were superseded by a recently revised version of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines adopted in June, 2010 ( "2010 Guidelines "). Given that the Recirculated Draft was published in August, 2010, the impacts analysis in the Recirculated Draft incorrectly relied on the 1999 Guidelines and should have been based on the 2010 Guidelines. The 2010 Guidelines have more stringent significance thresholds than the 1999 Guidelines and recommend new mitigation measures that are not incorporated into the Recirculated Draft.' Having relied on outdated standards, the Recirculated Draft thus fails to adequately analyze and mitigate potential impacts from the Project. The 2010 Guidelines establish new air quality thresholds and methods to analyze and mitigate potential impacts that should be incorporated into the EIR. The 2010 Guidelines' thresholds for ROG and NOx are lower than the thresholds established in the 1999 Guidelines and used in the Recirculated Draft, and the 2010 Guidelines establish thresholds for PM2.5 which should be evaluated and incorporated into the EIR. The City should review and revise the air impacts analysis using the 2010 Guidelines. If this analysis changes any of the operational significance findings, then appropriate mitigation measures should be incorporated into the EIR accordingly. Additionally, the Recirculated Draft's analysis of construction emissions fails to conform to the analytical method suggested by the 2010 Guidelines and is therefore inadequate. Instead of quantifying construction related air emissions and comparing those emissions to thresholds set forth in the 2010 Guidelines, the Recirculated Draft performs no analysis of construction related emissions impacts at all. Instead of making any attempt to quantify emissions, the Recirculated Draft simply assumes that impacts will be less than significant by relying upon a number of outdated control measures from the 1999 Guidelines. This is not a sufficient analysis of the project's construction related emissions impacts under CEQA and does not ensure that potential air quality impacts from construction will be mitigated appropriately. Construction related air emissions are of particular concern to Genentech given 1 While not an area of concern directly to Genentech, we note that Section 4. 10, Global Climate Change, similarly relied on the 1999 Guidelines despite more the more recent standards established in the 2010 Guidelines. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 www.g.— ne.coin Genentech A Alennber of [lie Roche Group the Project's proximity to the child -care center and the particular sensitivity of children to the emissions and dust typically associated with construction activities. Under the 2010 Guidelines (and BAAQMD's Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2010), BAAQMD suggests that if sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to a Project that may have construction - generated emissions of diesel PM for extended periods of time, the lead agency should consult with BAAQMD, the analysis shall disclose specified information regarding construction - related activities, and more stringent mitigation measures should be included. (See 2010 Guidelines at pp. 8 -4 through 8- 8). The child -care center is within 200 feet or less of the Project site. Yet the analysis contains no mention of consulting BAAQMD, no analysis of diesel exhaust impacts from construction equipment and vehicles, and no mitigation for potential diesel (PM) related impacts. Without a proper analysis of construction related emissions, the City should assume the Project will have significant air impacts and require more stringent mitigation measures as suggested in Table 8 -3 of the 2010 Guidelines. Moreover, it should also incorporate all of the mitigation measures from Table 8 -2 of the 2010 Guidelines, which apply to projects regardless of their impacts. Additional mitigation measures are warranted for this Project given the unusually close proximity to such a large number of particularly sensitive receptors. Children at Genentech's child -care center are outdoors at all times throughout the day in rotational shifts, and the outdoor play spaces are within approximately 100 feet from the Project site boundary along Allerton. The failure to incorporate more stringent mitigation measures is of significant concern to Genentech. Genentech would be pleased to work directly with the City and Project applicant, as well as with BAAQMD, to determine the most appropriate mitigation measures for the Project to implement for purposes of protecting the children at the child -care center. Aside from applying the wrong significance thresholds and failing to properly analyze construction related impacts, the Recirculated Draft fails to consider a number of potentially significant air quality impacts. The Project site is located in an area where naturally occurring asbestos ( "NOA ") may be found, yet the EIR does not analyze potential impacts from the disturbance of NOA during grading and construction activities or possible mitigation. This is a significant shortcoming of the air quality analysis. Genentech submits that the Project site is likely subject to the "Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations" set 2 Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of the 2007 EIR states that bedrock in the vicinity of the Project site has been identified as the Franciscan complex (p. 4.3 -7), which typically contains serpentinite (p. 4.3 -1) — a rock known as frequently containing naturally occurring asbestos ( "A General Location Guide for Ultrainafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain. Naturally Occurring Asbestos " — August, 2000, California Department of Conservation) . 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAID FRANCISCO, CA 94080-4990 650.225.1000 www.gene.com Genentech A ll%lernber of the Roche Group forth at Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Section 93105 ( "ATCM "), unless an exemption is determined to apply. Thus, Genentech requests that the City require a mitigation measure that the Project submit an Asbestos Dust Management Plan in accordance with the ATCM. In addition, based on the proximity to the child -care center and unique vulnerability of this population, Genentech requests that an Asbestos Air Monitoring Plan be required as additional mitigation of this potential impact. Finally, Genentech requests that all mitigation measures listed in 17 CCR 93105(e)(4) be required of the Project to ensure protection of the children from exposure to airborne asbestos. Of course, if the City determines on the basis of testing performed at the site that no naturally occurring asbestos is present at the site, and the site is exempt from the ATCM, then Genentech would not object to the omission or deletion of these mitigation measures pertaining specifically to naturally occurring asbestos. Additionally, it appears that the site has been tested for soils contamination, but those data are not disclosed in the Recirculated Draft. Genentech requests that the City disclose soils testing data and include a more careful analysis of the potential impacts to the children at the adjacent child -care center of potentially contaminated dust and PM emissions. To safeguard the children from this type of impact, the child -care center playground should be cleaned at least twice a week (or more if dust is visible) to prevent children's contact with, ingestion, and /or inhalation of dust containing naturally occurring asbestos or other contaminants. In addition, soils should be tested before construction begins to determine whether they are contaminated (this impact is also discussed below with regard to Section 4.4, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), and removed accordingly if contamination is found. Genentech requests the following mitigation measures be incorporated into the EIR's mitigation measures, which are modified based on the 2010 Guidelines (Table 8 -3) and are of particular importance for protecting the children from air emission impacts: • Use of a dust - screen /wind -fence along the Allerton side of the Project boundary. Trees across Allerton, as proposed by the Project, may be an appropriate mitigation measure for the operational phase of the Project, but would be insufficient for the construction phase. An artificial barrier should be erected for the construction phase to minimize the impacts of dust and other air emissions on the children at the child -care center. If the City does not require a dust - screen /wind- fence, Genentech requests that the City provide a more complete analysis of air impacts, based on the 2010 Guidelines, and supported by a prevailing winds study to demonstrate why a dust - screen /wind -fence would not be an appropriate additional mitigation for the protection of the children. s The BAAQMD Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan application form indicates that an asbestos air monitoring plan may be required if the project lies within a quarter mile of a daycare center. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225,1000 wwwgenexom Genentech A .Meinber of the Roche Group • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content should be verified by a moisture probe or lab samples. • Minimize idling time of diesel powered construction equipment and trucks to two minutes during construction. • Use low VOC architectural coatings beyond local requirements (i.e., lower VOC content than specified in BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3). Application of architectural coatings should occur only on weekends, to avoid impacts to children present at the child -care center on weekdays. • All excavation, grading, and /or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph as specified by mitigation measure 2 in Table 8 -3 of the 2010 Guidelines. Currently the Recirculated Draft inappropriately states that these activities will be suspended only_when "sustained" winds exceed 25 mph. • Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. • Any truck turn - around shall be located away from the child -care center, and access to the Project site should be limited to Forbes Avenue during the construction phase to the maximum extent possible. • Pouring of asphalt shall only be conducted on weekends. Asphalt fumes are known to contain air toxics that cause serious health problems, and children are more sensitive to these chemical exposures than adults. Genentech is opposed to any asphalt paving or pouring operations occurring while children are present at the child -care center. • "Limits" on excavation provided in Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 must be defined so as to prevent potentially significant emissions. • The Project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off -road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction phase would achieve a project wide fleet average of 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after - treatment 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CIA 94050 -4990 650.225.1000 mmv gene.corn Genentech A plc niber of the Roche Group products, add -on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such become available. • All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. All contractors shall use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off -road heavy duty diesel engines. Lastly, chemicals used for research and development purposes may emit toxic air contaminants (TACs). The Recirculated Draft does not address the potential for TAC emissions associated with the operational phase of the Project. Genentech requests that the City revisit the air analysis to address the possibility of TAC emissions from the research and development activities that will be taking place at the Project site during operation, and mitigate any such impacts appropriately. Genentech also requests that the Project be designed such that exhaust from R &D fume -hoods would be located as far away from the child -care center as possible. Noise: Section 4.7 The Recirculated Draft analyzes noise impacts in section 4.7. The Recirculated Draft explains that "this analysis has used a 3 dB(A) CNEL increase as the basis for determining a significant noise impact." (Recirculated Draft, at p. 4.7 -13). Instead of applying this threshold, however, the City compares the noise increase for consistency with the general plan and City ordinance and requires a number of mitigation measures during construction. The Recirculated Draft fails to apply the 3 dB(A) threshold or quantify and analyze noise increases that will be experienced by the child -care center. This fundamental error calls into question whether noise impacts from construction are in fact mitigated sufficiently under mitigation measures 4.7- 3(a -d). Noise should be properly analyzed by quantifying impacts to the child- care center and adopting appropriate mitigation measures if increases are above the 3 dB(A) threshold. In addition, Genentech requests a mitigation measure requiring that pneumatically powered tools be used on weekends only and for the Project to avoid the loudest construction activities during the 12pm -3pm time frame, as this is when many of the children attending the child -care center are napping. We also request that all construction equipment be "quiet 4 The U.S. General Services Administration report titled "Child Care Center Design Guide" establishes acceptable levels of outdoor noise at child -care centers. (U.S General Services Administration, Child Core Center Design Guide, PBS -140 (July 2003), at page 10 -6). Those established levels should be incorporated into the EIR as thresholds for determining whether the Project's construction will have a significant impact. If these thresholds would be exceeded, mitigation measures that would reduce the noise to levels below these thresholds should be incorporated into the Project's EIR. I DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN F=RANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 www.gene.com Genentech A Member of the Roche Group equipment" unless unavailable. Genentech has significant concerns about the impacts to the children if their naps are disrupted by noise generated by construction activities during the construction phase of the Project. Similar to the noise analysis, the analysis of vibration impacts from Project construction is flawed. The Recirculated Draft states that the child -care center is approximately 300 feet from where pile- driving would occur (Recirculated Draft, at p. 4.7 -8), and thus vibration levels would be just below a significant threshold of 72 VdB (vibration levels at 300 feet distance would be very close to this threshold, at 71.8 VdB). Genentech requests that an explanation of this be provided, and that specific information be provided as to exactly where pile - driving will occur. The vast majority of the Project site appears to be much closer to the child -care center than 300 feet, which could mean that the significance threshold of 72 VdB would be exceeded. Moreover, Genentech has vibration - sensitive research and development operations that are also adjacent to the Project and constitute Category I facilities, requiring that the lower significance threshold of 65 VdB be applied. The Final EIR should carefully analyze vibration impacts applying the significance threshold for Category I facilities, as well as the location and impacts from pile- driving activities, and add additional mitigation measures to ensure that vibration impacts to the children, as well as to Genentech's research and development activities, are reduced to a less than significant level. Given the unsubstantiated vibration analysis and conclusion, the Recirculated Draft should at a minimum prohibit the use of construction equipment that creates vibration above 65 VdB at the boundary of Genentech's neighboring buildings, and should prohibit pile- driving activities during the 12pm -3pm time frame (naptimes) on weekdays. Genentech would prefer if all pile- driving activities could be scheduled for weekends and avoid weekdays altogether. Transportation and Circulation, Section 4.8 The Transportation and Circulation section of the Recirculated Draft sets a threshold and then fails to apply it. Impact 4.8 -1 sets a threshold of 100 trips, notes that the Project will result in over 200 trips per day, and then concludes that the impacts may be significant rather than concluding that it will be significant. This analysis thus fails to properly apply the established threshold. In addition, the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan set out in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 of the Recirculated Draft drops the vehicle reduction requirement from 35 percent (in the 2007 EIR) to 20 percent without explanation. Traffic impacts (and corresponding air impacts) would be better mitigated, by reducing the number of car trips resulting from the Project by either adhering to the 35 percent vehicle reduction requirement as 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 - 4990 650.225.1000 wvm�gene.com Genentech A Member of the Roche Grote originally planned, or by choosing the reduced parking alternative that meets the Project objectives and reduces impacts.' Notably, the Transportation and Circulation section does not consider construction related traffic impacts along Allerton. Genentech requests that these potential impacts be mitigated by requiring that construction vehicles access the Project site via the entrance on Forbes. 2007 DRAFT AND FINAL EIR Genentech acknowledges that the City requested that current comments be limited to those portions of the EIR that were recirculated. Due to the fact that Genentech now has a child -care center across the street from the Project site, however, we believe it is important to submit certain comments relating to several sections of the 2007 EIR that were not recirculated. Further, under CEQA, community participants are permitted to submit comments on any portion of the EIR any time before the Board of Supervisors certifies the EIR. See Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Mgmt. Dist. (1997) 60 CA.4th 1109, 1119. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Section 4.4 The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the 2007 Draft EIR relies on a Phase I site assessment performed in 2002 on the Project site and a summary of environmental issues prepared by Geomatrix in June 2006. That summary refers to a Phase II site assessment, but that Phase II is not included as an appendix to the EIR, nor are its results described. Additionally, the mitigation measures intended to protect against impacts from exposure to contaminated soils or hazardous substances provided in the Draft EIR are inadequate under CEQA. For example, Impact 4.4 -1 admits that construction could expose contaminated soils. (See 2007 Draft EIR 4.4 -10). Yet the Mitigation Measure (4.4 -1) fails to provide any monitoring of the soils or any analysis prior to beginning excavation or grading. Moreover, the mitigation measure provides no standards for any cleanup or remediation needed, which amounts to deferred mitigation — a practice that is not permitted by CEQA. As described in our comments on the air section above, Genentech is very concerned about the potential impact to children at our child -care center of airborne contaminants generated by construction activities at the 5 It is unclear from the EIR why the reduced parking alternative is not the preferred alternative for this Project. That alternative meets the Project objectives and reduces the environmental impacts. If the reduced parking alternative is not the preferred alternative, the Recirculated Draft EIR should explain why. 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN F ANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 vilpvw.gene.com Genentech A Member ofthe Roche Group Project site. This includes any dust or particulate matter containing contaminated soil particles. Genentech requests that the City disclose historical soils testing data, and perform additional soils testing as needed to ensure that shallow soil contamination levels do not exceed a level that could present a risk to the children at the child -care center. Genentech is primarily concerned that contaminated soil, if present, would travel in the form of dust to the child -care site and be inhaled or ingested by the children, who spend a significant amount of time outdoors each day and come into frequent contact with exposed play structures and playground surfaces where dust may be deposited. Genentech suggests that it would be appropriate to apply the Environmental Screening Levels ( "ESLs ") adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region for residential uses to shallow soils at the Project site, given the sensitivity and proximity of the children at the child- care center. If soils at the Project site exceed residential ESLs, Genentech requests that the City require removal and disposal of shallow soils to an extent that any remaining shallow soils at the site fall below the ESLs for residential use, or otherwise perform a site - specific risk assessment to specifically evaluate the risks presented to the children on the basis of contaminant levels present in soils at the Project site. Likewise, under Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3, the tenants occupying the project are required to develop a Hazardous Materials Business Plan ( "HMBP "). The existence of an HMBP, however, does not provide sufficient assurance that potential impacts related to hazardous materials usage at the Project site are mitigated to protect children at Genentech's child -care center. Genentech requests that hazardous materials and hazardous waste storage areas on the Project site be located at the farthest possible distance from the child -care center. In addition, Genentech requests that the Project applicant be required to develop contingency plans that specifically take into consideration emergencies that could have greater significance due to the proximity of children to the site. Again, Genentech would be pleased to work with the City and the Project applicant on emergency response plans appropriate taking into account the adjacent child -care center. Finally, Section 4.4 does not specifically mention the types of hazardous substances that may be used during operation of the Project. Genentech requests that appropriate containment and enclosures be required for all hazardous materials, including enclosure and monitoring systems for any dangerous refrigerants, such as ammonia. Finally, this section is flawed because it fails to adequately address CEQA requirements applicable to projects located within one - quarter mile of a school and which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous air emissions or handle extremely hazardous substances. For such projects, as in the case of 494 Forbes due to its proximity to Genentech's child -care center, the lead agency is required to consult with the child -care center regarding the potential impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, §15186). The 2007 Draft EIR fails to discuss impacts to that facility or require appropriate measures under CEQA Guidelines Section 15186 because "[n]o 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAID FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4000 650.225.1000 wwwgene.coln Genentech A Meinber of the Roche Group schools are located within 0.25 miles of the project site." (See 2007 Draft EIR at 4.4 -9). The child -care center, however, is equivalent to a school, and that section of the CEQA Guidelines applies to proposed schools as well as existing schools. Thus, the 2007 Draft EIR should have evaluated these potential impacts and required consultation with Genentech's child -care center. (See also, Pub. Res. Code Section 21151.4 (requiring same)). Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Genentech suggests that the City re- analyze project impacts in light of relevant thresholds and this comment letter and require additional mitigation measures to ensure that the Project impacts are mitigated appropriately. This is particularly warranted in light of the presence of over 500 young children on a daily basis — often outdoors — at the child -care center adjacent to the Project site and the potential exposure to airborne emissions of dust, naturally occurring asbestos, and other pollutants that could result from the construction activities. As indicated above, Genentech generally supports the Project and would be pleased to work with the City and the Project applicant to discuss appropriate mitigation of Project impacts. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR. Sincerely, Shar Zamanpour Director, Workplace Planning 1 DNA WAY, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 -4990 650.225.1000 mnv l.genexom life science estates V 2 w r z E 0 a L 3 3 3 0 O r, w 0 N O O 0 ul O 00 Q V 0 0 0 LA v Q) 0 co CL v 0 O O VL4 HAND DELIVERY October 25, 2010 Ms. Linda Aj ello CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW RECIRCULATED EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Ajello: On behalf of the HCP Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the recirculated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office /R &D Project. Mitigation Measure: 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan: Our original comment from 2007 had requested that the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure because the statement is specifying a specific erosion control measure that may or may not ultimately be required after a proper design is made to meet code. The engineer of record is responsible for identifying the appropriate erosion control measures for the development. We respectfully request that the mitigation measure not direct the specific erosion control measure of sediment basins, which may not be required by the ultimate design. Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Fair share contribution and East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee: The following comments pertain to the recirculated EIR's mitigation measures as they are written, which generally state that the project's impacts will be sufficiently mitigated through fair share contribution towards the implementation of additional intersection/lane improvements. It is understood that some of the improvements may be integrated into a revised East of 101 Traffic Improvement Plan (TIP) and that the Project will mitigate its impacts by paying its requisite East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, which may or may not increase in rate. For those intersections which are not integrated into the TIP, we respectfully request that the following comments be addressed: i L all HCP life science estates Ms. Aj ello October 25, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Inconsistent biotech R &D trip generation: We reiterate our original comment from 2007 which challenges the appropriateness of the assumed PM outbound trip generation rate for the 494 Forbes development (0.85 trips /lk sf), compared to the rate used in the Genentech Master Plan EIR (0.6 trips /lk sf). The proposed and intended use for 494 Forbes is known, and it is for biotech research and development (R &D) activities. This use is identical to the biotech R &D activities on the Genentech campus. Therefore, the same trip generation rates should apply to the 494 Forbes project. The difference in trip generation rate would amount to a disproportionate share of financial contribution from 494 Forbes in the order of 30 %. Revised TDM: Additionally, HCP has recently submitted a final Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Program report which commits the project to reducing its trips by 35 %. The assumed reduction used as part of the traffic analysis was 20 %. We request that for mitigations which will be fair share contributions that the fair share percentage for 494 Forbes reflect the 35% trip reduction. For mitigations which will be met through payment of the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, that if any rate increase occurs that the contribution from 494 Forbes is also reduced to account for its increased trip reduction relative to the code minimum. Fair Share: For all of the mitigation measures that are noted as fair share contribution to City - implemented traffic improvements, HCP would like to confirm that the fair share percentage per intersection will be HCP's anticipated additional incremental trip volume (for the time of day triggering the significant impact) for the particular lane movement(s) being improved, divided by the total anticipated additional incremental trips (for the same time of day) for the year analyzed. Some of the mitigation measures refer to the calculation as "determined by the City Engineer." HCP respectfully requests that the City confirm that the City Engineer will comply with the CEQA statute S15041 (a) referring to the application of "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards, as interpreted to mean the calculation described previously in this paragraph. Also, fair share contribution should be provided prior to occupancy of the second building, given that full build - out of the project is the trigger for the required mitigations. 4.8 -2 Intersection #6 — Oyster Pt Blvd/Gateway Blvd/U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off/Ramp: This mitigation measure requires the applicant provide a fair share contribution towards the implementation of improvements including "add[ing] a third eastbound departure lane ". Please explain this should be interpreted as lane restriping to add a third eastbound through lane or road widening? z L ID HL C P life science estates Ms. Ajello October 25, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Intersection #7 — Oyster Point Blvd /Eccles Avenue This mitigation measure requires the applicant provide a fair share contribution towards the implementation of improvements including an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Please confirm if this mitigation measure should be interpreted as lane restriping or road widening. In addition, the number of project trips assigned to this movement is equal to 78% of the total number of trips increased in 2015. By inspection it would appear that other projects would have triggered the need for intersection improvements, as HCP's fair share percentage seems disproportionately high. Please provide additional information on how the number of total background trips was derived. Intersection #19 — Forbes Blvd/Allerton Ave: This mitigation measure requires that the applicant install an all way stop control. Such improvement is currently in place. The intersection study appears to acknowledge only one stop sign control on Allerton Ave. We request the project impact and mitigation measure to this intersection be reviewed under the existing condition. Intersection #21— South Airport Blvd /Gateway Blvd /Mitchell Ave: This intersection is shown as Intersection #22 on Figure 4.8 -1, 4.8 -11 and 4.8 -17. It is also shown as Intersection #22 under the list of study intersections on Page 4.8 -2. Please clarify to which intersection this mitigation measures applies. 4.8-3,7,8 Intersection #19 - Forbes Blvd / Allerton Avenue: Per our comment above for MM 4.8 -2, an all way stop is currently in place. We request the project impact and mitigation measure to this intersection be reviewed under the existing condition. 4.8-4 Intersection #15 — East Grand Ave. /Forbes Blvd. /Harbor Way: This mitigation measure requires the applicant to provide a fair share contribution towards widening East Bound East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Consistent with our comment from 2007, per the trip distribution values for the project (Figs. 4.8 -11 and 12), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the East Bound right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. The City's response to our comment from 2007 was the following: "Measures are not always recommended because they will be implemented on an intersection leg accommodating project traffic, but rather because they achieve the overall goal of reducing the project's impact to a less than significant level, possibly for a lower cost than mitigation on an intersection leg used by project traffic." We acknowledge that in certain situations this would be true, but given this intersections' geometry, improvements to the through and right turn movements would not necessarily mitigate impacts to the left turn movement. These improvements seem inconsistent with CEQA statute S 15041(a) requiring that mitigation measures be created from and adequately shown to have nexus with the r ' Ms. Ajello 3 1 October 25, 2010 Page 4of5 life science estates project's impacts. 494 Forbes is shown not to be impacting the right turn movements for the East Bound approach of East Grand Ave. 4.8-4 Intersection #4 — Oyster Pt Blvd/Dubuque Ave: This mitigation requires a contribution towards creating a second right turn lane on the West Bound Oyster Point Blvd. approach. Please confirm if this mitigation measure should be interpreted as lane restriping or road widening to allow for the additional right turn lane. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: Please confirm if the improvements consisting of adding a lane to the US 101 North Bound On -ramp from Oyster Point Blvd. /Dubuque Ave., US 101 North Bound Off - ramp to South Airport/Wondercolor, and US 101 North Bound Off -ramp to East Grand /Executive will include restriping only or widening a portion of the ramp and /or freeway to accommodate the transition of the additional lane? 4.8-7 Intersection #15 East Grand /Forbes /Harbor Same comment from 4.8 -4. Additionally, please clarify whether this is a mitigation measure that requires a fair share contribution to intersection improvements needed due to the addition of project traffic to 2035 volumes? Also, does the 2035 traffic analysis assume the 2015 mitigation measures are in place? 4.8-9 General: Please clarify if the 2035 traffic analysis assumes the 2015 mitigation measures are in place. Intersection #10 — Airport Blvd /Grand Ave: This mitigation measure requires contribution towards widening the Grand Avenue East Bound approach to provide a third lane. Stripe as one left turn, one through lane and one right turn lane. Mitigation measure 4.8 -4 requires a fair share contribution to change signal timing at this intersection to mitigate the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Please confirm that the improvements required under 4.8 -4 were accounted for in the analysis and in the determination for a need to improve at 2035. Intersection #6 — Ovster Pt Blvd/Gatewav Blvd/U.S. 101 Southbound Flvover Off /Ramp: Mitigation measure 4.8 -4 requires a fair share contribution to adjust signal timing, and towards restriping the South Bound flyover off -ramp approach right turn lane to a shared thru/right turn lane and providing three East Bound departure lanes to mitigate the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Please confirm that the improvements required under 4.8 -4 were ~` Ms. Ajello L-J HCP October 25, 2010 Page 5 of 5 life science estates accounted for in the analysis and in the determination for a need to improve at 2035. 4.8-12 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage We respectfully request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, we request that the City reconsider the restriction of inbound traffic only at the project's driveway as outbound traffic must be maintained in order for the truck dock to serve Building B. 4.8-14 Sidewalks: Our 2007 comment requested this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue. To clarify our comments, there is an existing sidewalk along the westerly side of Allerton and the project will add walkway connections between the site and Allerton Avenue. The project will also provide a new sidewalk along Forbes Blvd. We request this mitigation measure be modified to acknowledge the existing sidewalk along Allerton Avenue. The project does not plan on demolishing and replacing this existing sidewalk. Thank in advance for your review. Please let me know if you need any clarification on any of these comments. Sincerely, HCP FgRBES, LLC C-1 A' Mike Swofford CC: Jon Bergschneider, HCP Diane Smith, Project Management Advisors Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham Jonathan M. Bergschneider Senior Vice President — Development Slough Estates USA Inc. 400 Oyster Point Boulevard, Suite 409 South San Francisco, California 94080 Tel. +1 650 875.1002 Fax. +1 650 875.1003 VIA EMAIL AND US MAIL May 31, 2007 Ms. Susy Kalkin Principal Planner CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING DIVISION 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, 94080 RE: FORMAL COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT EIR 494 FORBES AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA Ms. Kalkin: www.sloughestates.com On behalf of the applicant, Slough Forbes, LLC, please find below formal comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 494 Forbes Office/R &D Project. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 Construction Emissions: With regards to suspension of excavation and grading activities when sustained winds exceed 25 mph, please clarify the term "sustained ". 4.3-3 Erosion Control Plan The mitigation measure states that the erosion control plan shall include "sediment basin design calculations." The obligation is to conform to ABAG while leaving E incorporation of specific erosion control measures up to the engineer. We request the phrase "with sediment basin design calculations" be removed from the mitigation measure description. 4.4-4 TEC Monitoring Well: We will continue to provide TEC Accutite access to the project site to monitor groundwater, provided that the San Mateo County Health Services Agency has not 3❑ already determined the well may be abandoned. However, we will request that the Cabot property owner, Barthold Stelling Testementary Trust, move the location of the monitoring well as it impedes construction of our parking garage. Head Office: 444 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3230, Chicago, Illinois 60611 Tel. +1 312 755.0700 Fax. +1 312 755.0717 A ad Sir �''�¢� I. i. �. Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 2 4.4-1 Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Please confirm that this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that our project environmental engineer /scientist will determine if any discovered materials F 9 pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers so that the project can respond accordingly. 4.5-2 Oil/Water Separator: The description of this mitigation measure states that an oil /water separator should be installed on site "to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to El draining to the sanitary sewer." Reference to "sanitary sewer" appears to be a typo since our site drainage system does not discharge to the sanitary sewer. Please clarify. Was this measure intended for the parking garage? 4.5-3 Alternative Drainage Solutions: This mitigation measure indicates that alternative drainage solutions shall include ponds. We assume this should be interpreted to mean that "potential alternative drainage solutions may include... ponds." The site plan has been approved and El currently does not include a pond. Locating a pond on site would adversely affect the City's existing requirements of open usable green space and a balance between surface parking and the size of the parking structure. 4.5-4 ROOftOn Rainwater Retention We assume this mitigation measure should be interpreted to mean that trace rooftop and downspout retention should be accounted for in C3.0 calculations. However, if this mitigation contemplates implementing a dedicated rooftop retention facility, or creating mechanisms to hold back roof rainwater, such schemes are not feasible due to structural and spatial limitations. Rooftop real estate is required for HVAC equipment for both laboratory and office uses. Please revise the mitigation to read "The project applicant may incorporate rooftop or downspout retention..." 4.5-6 Sump at Truck Docks: Please clarify how the required capacity of the sump is determined. ❑$ Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SI_1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 3 Transportation and Circulation: General Comments Please explain the considerable discrepancy between trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes (Table 4.8 -12) and those used to calculate impacts from the Genentech Campuses (Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, Table 4.7 -11). The trip generation rates used for 494 Forbes are double the rates used for AM inbound and PM outbound office use for Genentech. These discrepancies in trip generation rates translate into larger impacts attributed to 494 Forbes at each of the intersections and ramps analyzed compared to the same R &D area from Genentech. As a result, 494 Forbes would be unduly taxed with disproportionately higher fair share costs. Preliminary fair share cost percentages for 494 Forbes are inconsistent with the ratio between its building area and the total future developed area anticipated at year 2015 (Genentech EIR Table 5 -1), which should be a conservative comparison given the distribution of anticipated uses. For traffic mitigations requiring a fair share contribution, the applicant's fair share shall be calculated using the ratio of its incremental increase in trips to the intersection or ramp to the total increase in trips from 2007 to 2015. 4.8-2 Fair Share Contributions to Various Traffic Improvements: Although the applicant is only responsible for contributing its fair share towards the cost of these improvements, this mitigation requires that improvements be completed prior to occupancy of the applicant's buildings. The applicant has no control over when these improvements will actually be constructed and therefore tenancy of its buildings should not be tied to this condition. The applicant requests the mitigation require that the applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. lu 10 Intersection #1 — Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave./US 101 NB on -ramp Mitigation Measure: Widen WB Oyster Point Blvd. approach to provide a second exclusive right turn lane; OR widen NB Dubuque Ave. approach to provide two 11 exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 4 The Genentech EIR suggests restriping and shifting the concrete median rather than widening Oyster Point Blvd. Why was this not a mitigation option for 494 Forbes? Please confirm that "widening" Oyster Point Blvd consists of restriping to create a second right turn lane, as opposed to widening the elevated deck? Per the trip distribution for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the Dubuque improvement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation. Intersection #5 — East Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way Mitigation Measure: Widen EB East Grand Ave. approach to provide an exclusive right turn lane. Per the trip distribution values for the project (Fig. 4.8 -9), there are no trips from 494 Forbes assigned to the EB right turn movement. Please explain how the project is responsible for this mitigation measure. Intersection #6 — Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave. Mitigation Measure: Reconfigure the Produce Ave. intersection leg to provide third SB departure lane. Please confirm that this mitigation will receive the additional WB Airport left turn lane. Please explain "reconfigure ". Does this include relocation of traffic signals or widening? 11 4.8-3 Traffic Improvements at East Grand and Allerton Avenue: Similar to our comments for 4.8 -2, we request this mitigation require that the 12 applicant's fair share contribution be paid prior to the project's full occupancy. 4.8-5 Ramp Improvements: The first and third improvements described in this mitigation measure appear to be F 39 the same. Please clarify. Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England 1 j. Ms. Susy Kalkin May 18, 2007 Page 5 4.8-7 Traffic Improvements at Project Frontage: We request this mitigation require that the described improvements be completed 14 prior to the project's full occupancy. Secondly, the project's northerly driveway must maintain access for outbound traffic as it serves the truck dock to Building B. 4.8-8 Sidewalks: We request this mitigation measure be modified to eliminate the requirement to 15 provide a sidewalk along Allerton Avenue, as this is included in the project. The project will add an internal walkway to the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. 4.9-1 Water Conservation: This mitigation measure is written to prescribe that the project shall implement a gray r 96 water irrigation system. We assume that this was intended to describe that a potential water conservation method could be the use of a gray water irrigation system. Please clarify. Please let me know if you need any clarification on these comments. Thank you. Sincerely, SLOUGH ESTATES USA INc. " r I onat an CC: Tom Gilman, DES Jeff Peterson, Wilsey Ham David Bowden, HDCCo Jeff Marcowitz, Diane Smith, PMA Registered Office 234 Bath Road Slough SL1 4EE Registered Number 167591 England APPENDIX 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) y SQ2 ROG N x �Q Time Slice 1 /1/2013 - 1/28/2013 52a 29.89 32.98 Active Days: 20 4.44 2 z 2.24 Asphalt 01/01/2013 - 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 Active Days: 241 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.42 4.44 2 z 2.24 4.42 2.44 2 4.742.40 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 37.55 14.48 2117 Q,Q2 9,Q7 QLu Q,9_7 Q,u 2,$2 Q,L4 3.184.82 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 34.53 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 34.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 nstruction Related Mitigation Measur The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/ 2013 - 1/28/2013 r 29.89 32.98 Q,Q2 Q,Q$ 2- z 2-U 4.742.40 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 01 /01/2013- 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Active Days: 241 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 41.38 14.48 21 17 Q,Q2 9,Q7 Q,u g„Z g,u 2,$2 2,L4 3.184.82 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 38.36 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Architectural Coating 38.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:37:53 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 41.38 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 37.55 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 122 1.07 2.0 LLZ 0.99 2.L Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 8.22 1.07 9.30 1.72 0.99 2.71 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 1.72 0.00 1.72 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 35.29 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 32.10 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 32.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Phase Assumptions Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 4 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 0.99 Z&Z Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 6.68 0.99 7.67 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Q�L 2,349.35 2,349.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 6.68 0.00 6.68 0.00 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 LiA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 4.331.44 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 1,571.59 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 1,272.04 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 95.48 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.07 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 38.86 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU 2.802.85 Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 35.66 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Architectural Coating 35.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:11 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 38.86 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 35.29 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Construction Related Mitigation Measures Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:35:45 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 2 Exhaust 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 3.05 18.65 29.63 0.02 0.12 1.25 1.37 0.04 1.14 1.18 4,424.97 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:26:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.19 2.19 3.38 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,610.97 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.17 1.99 3.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,365.80 Percent Reduction 0.91 9.13 5.33 NaN 0.00 0.00 9.39 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:26:32 PM L�L2 119.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.87 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 13.73 12.95 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 13.71 12.75 Percent Reduction 0.15 1.54 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 119.15 0.14 25.53 4.87 17,125.78 118.97 0.14 25.53 4.87 16,880.61 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.07 2.17 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,608.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.05 1.97 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,362.99 Percent Reduction 0.97 9.22 9.84 NaN NaN NaN 9.40 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2.5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM L�L2 123.43 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.86 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 12.86 18.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 12.84 17.96 Percent Reduction 0.16 1.10 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 123.43 0.12 25.52 4.86 15,142.43 123.25 0.12 25.52 4.86 14,897.26 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project and Baseline Years: 2015 N/A Unmitigated Project- Mitigated Project - Baseline CO2e (metric Baseline CO2e (metric Results tons /year) tons /year) Transportation: 2,192.82 2,192.82 Area Source: 0.23 0.23 Electricity: 1,817.64 1,817.64 Natural Gas: 403.06 403.06 Water & Wastewater: 43.67 43.67 Solid Waste: 1,072.80 1,072.80 Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: N/A 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: N/A 0.00 Total: 5,530.22 1 5,530.22 Baseline is currently: OFF Baseline Project Name: Go to Settings Tab to Turn On Baseline Transportation: Area Source: 0.23 0.23 Electricity: Natural Gas: 403.06 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIM 403.06 Water & Wastewater: 43.67 43.67 Solid Waste: Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 Refrigerants: 0.00 0.00 Sequestration: 0.00 0.00 Purchase of Offsets: 0.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 Project - Baseline CO2e (metric tons /year( 1,817.64 1,817.64 1,072.80 1,072.80 2,192.82 2,192.82 IN Unmitigated Mitigated 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 Detailed Results Unmitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation *: 2,192.82 39.65% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00% Electricity: 1,814.74 0.02 0.01 1,817.64 32.87% Natural Gas: 402.03 0.04 0.00 403.06 7.29% Water & Wastewater: 43.60 0.00 0.00 43.67 0.79% Solid Waste: 16.49 50.30 N/A 1,072.80 19.40% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total: 5,530.22 100.00% * Several adjustments were made to transportation emissions after they have been imported from URBEMIS. After importing from URBEMIS, CO2 emissions are converted to metric tons and then adjusted to account for the "Pavley" regulation. Then, CO2 is converted to CO2e by multiplying by 100/95 to account for the contribution of other GHGs (CH4, N2O, and HFCs [from leaking air condi Finally, CO2e is adjusted to account for th low carbon fuels rule. Mitigated CO2 (metric tpy) CH4 (metric tpy) N2O (metric tpy) CO2e (metric tpy) % of Total Transportation *: 2,192.82 39.65% Area Source: 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00% Electricity: 1,814.74 0.02 0.01 1,817.64 32.87% Natural Gas: 402.03 0.04 0.00 403.06 7.29% Water & Wastewater: 43.60 0.00 0.00 43.67 0.79% Solid Waste: 16.49 50.30 N/A 1,072.80 19.40% Agriculture: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Off -Road Equipment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% Refrigerants: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Sequestration: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Purchase of Offsets: N/A N/A N/A 0.00 0.00% Total: 5,530.22 100.00% Mitigation Measures Selected: Transportation: Go to the following tab: TranSO. Detail fVlit for a list of the transportation mitigation measures selected (in URBE EleCtriCity: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce electricity emissions. Natural Gas: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce natural gas emissions. Water and Wastewater: The following mitigation measure(s) have been selected to reduce water and wastewater emissions. Solid Waste: The following mitigation measure has been selected to reduce solid waste related GHG emissions. Ag: No existing mitigation measures available. Off -Road Equipment: No existing mitigation measures available. Refrigerants: The following mitigation measure has ben selected to reduce refrigerant emissions: Carbon Sequestration: Project does not include carbon sequestration through tree planting. Emission Offsets /Credits: Project does not include purchase of emission offsets /credits. APPENDIX 4.2 URBEMIS Operational Emissions Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) y SQ2 ROG N x �Q Time Slice 1 /1/2013 - 1/28/2013 52a 29.89 32.98 Active Days: 20 4.44 2 z 2.24 Asphalt 01/01/2013 - 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 Active Days: 241 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total 4.42 4.44 2 z 2.24 4.42 2.44 2 4.742.40 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 37.55 14.48 2117 Q,Q2 9,Q7 QLu Q,9_7 Q,u 2,$2 Q,L4 3.184.82 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 34.53 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 34.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 nstruction Related Mitigation Measur The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:40:52 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/ 2013 - 1/28/2013 r 29.89 32.98 Q,Q2 Q,Q$ 2- z 2-U 4.742.40 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 01 /01/2013- 01/28/2013 2.57 14.33 10.95 0.00 0.01 1.17 1.19 0.01 1.08 1.08 1,603.93 Paving Off -Gas 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.19 13.60 8.91 0.00 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 1.05 1.05 1,272.04 Paving On Road Diesel 0.04 0.63 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 127.71 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.10 1.82 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.19 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Time Slice 1/29/2013- 12/31/2013 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Active Days: 241 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.30 15.56 22.03 0.01 0.07 1.00 1.07 0.03 0.92 0.94 3,138.47 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.09 1.07 0.99 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 300.65 Building Worker Trips 0.34 0.59 10.84 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,216.62 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM Time Slice 1/1/2014 - 2/7/2014 Active 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Days: 28 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Time Slice 2/10/2014- 7/2/2014 41.38 14.48 21 17 Q,Q2 9,Q7 Q,u g„Z g,u 2,$2 2,L4 3.184.82 Active Days: 103 Building 01/01/2013- 07/02/2014 3.02 14.46 20.80 0.01 0.07 0.89 0.96 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,139.10 Building Off Road Diesel 2.63 12.97 9.89 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.00 0.76 0.76 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.95 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.04 300.68 Building Worker Trips 0.31 0.53 9.98 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.05 1,217.23 Coating 02/09/2014- 07/02/2014 38.36 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Architectural Coating 38.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.72 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2013 - 1/28/2013 - Bldg A Acres to be Paved: 2.14 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2013 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:38:05 PM 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 2/9/2014 - 7/2/2014 - Bldg A Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:37:53 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg A.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 5.88 29.89 32.98 0.02 0.09 2.17 2.26 0.03 2.00 2.03 4,742.40 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 41.38 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 37.55 14.48 21.17 0.02 0.07 0.89 0.97 0.03 0.82 0.84 3,184.82 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 122 1.07 2.0 LLZ 0.99 2.L Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 8.22 1.07 9.30 1.72 0.99 2.71 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 1.72 0.00 1.72 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 LIA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 35.29 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 32.10 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 32.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 84% PM25: 84% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5% PM25: 5% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 3x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 61% PM25: 61% The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Exterior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: Page: 3 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM ROG: 10% For Nonresidential Architectural Coating Measures, the Nonresidential Interior: Use Low VOC Coatings mitigation reduces emissions by: ROG: 10% Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Phase Assumptions Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 4 11/16/2011 11:31:56 AM Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/2/2012- 1/31/2012 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 3108 0.99 Z&Z Active Days: 22 Fine Grading 01/01/2012- 2.72 22.00 12.50 0.00 32.00 1.07 33.08 6.68 0.99 7.67 01/31/2012 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 Active Days: 20 Asphalt 02/01/2012- 02/28/2012 Paving Off -Gas Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Q�L 2,349.35 2,349.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 0.00 32.00 6.68 0.00 6.68 0.00 2.69 21.95 11.51 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.04 LIA 31.19 31.29 Q,Qt 0.07 2.M 2.42 0.02 2.1Z 2.19 4.331.44 2.65 14.99 11.14 0.00 0.01 1.26 1.28 0.00 1.16 1.17 1,571.59 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 14.35 8.99 0.00 0.00 1.24 1.24 0.00 1.14 1.14 1,272.04 0.04 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 95.48 0.06 0.11 1.97 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 204.07 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Page: 2 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM Time Slice 2/29/2012- 12/31/2012 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Active Days: 219 Building 02/01/2012- 08/01/2013 3.49 16.20 20.15 0.01 0.05 1.09 1.15 0.02 1.00 1.02 2,759.85 Building Off Road Diesel 3.14 14.81 10.52 0.00 0.00 1.04 1.04 0.00 0.95 0.95 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.90 0.80 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.72 Building Worker Trips 0.28 0.48 8.83 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 912.93 Time Slice 1/1/2013- 4/5/2013 Active 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Days: 69 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Time Slice 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 Active 38.86 15.17 19.46 Q,Q1 Q,QL Q,a, 1.04 Q,QZ 2„u LU 2.802.85 Days: 84 Building 02/01/2012 - 08/01/2013 3.20 15.15 19.09 0.01 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,760.37 Building Off Road Diesel 2.88 13.91 10.20 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.93 0.00 0.86 0.86 1,621.20 Building Vendor Trips 0.07 0.80 0.74 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 225.73 Building Worker Trips 0.25 0.44 8.14 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.03 913.44 Coating 04/08/2013- 08/01/2013 35.66 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Architectural Coating 35.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.02 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.48 Phase: Fine Grading 1/1/2012 - 1/31/2012 - Entire site Total Acres Disturbed: 6.42 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 1.6 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day Page: 3 11/9/2011 2:39:25 PM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 2/1/2012 - 2/28/2012 - Bldg B Acres to be Paved: 1.6 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Paving Equipment (104 hp) operating at a 0.53 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 2/1/2012 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 6 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Generator Sets (49 hp) operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day 3 Welders (45 hp) operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 4/8/2013 - 8/1/2013 - Bldg B Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:39:11 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Bldg B.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x fQ _Q22 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2012 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 32.00 2.36 33.08 6.68 2.17 7.67 4,331.44 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 38.86 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 2013 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 35.29 15.17 19.46 0.01 0.06 0.98 1.04 0.02 0.90 0.92 2,802.85 Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Mitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated) ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Construction Related Mitigation Measures Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:46:40 AM 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const Garage.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated) Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day ROG N x M y SQ2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total Time Slice 1/1/2014- 6/30/2014 &U 18.65 29.63 Q,Q2 9 i a 1 U !04 1.14 1. 1 8 4.424.97 Active Days: 129 Asphalt 01 /01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.56 9.64 8.21 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.71 0.71 1,162.60 Paving Off -Gas 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.51 9.54 6.74 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.77 0.00 0.71 0.71 979.23 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.63 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.47 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 178.75 Building 01/01/2014- 06/30/2014 1.49 9.01 21.42 0.02 0.11 0.47 0.58 0.04 0.43 0.47 3,262.36 Building Off Road Diesel 0.88 6.70 4.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.34 0.34 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.13 1.48 1.45 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.06 469.26 Building Worker Trips 0.48 0.83 15.58 0.02 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.03 0.04 0.07 1,899.71 Phase Assumptions Phase: Paving 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Acres to be Paved: 0.5 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 2 11/16/2011 11:48:59 AM Phase: Building Construction 1/1/2014 - 6/30/2014 - Parking Garage Off -Road Equipment: 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors /Loaders /Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 11/9/2011 2:35:45 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Const.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Df N x f Q _Q2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2014 TOTALS (Ibs /day unmitigated) 3.05 18.65 29.63 0.02 0.12 1.25 1.37 0.04 1.14 1.18 4,424.97 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:26:31 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES BDfa N x S �%L2 P M 10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.19 2.19 3.38 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,610.97 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.17 1.99 3.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 2,365.80 Percent Reduction 0.91 9.13 5.33 NaN 0.00 0.00 9.39 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BDfa N x S �%L2 P M 10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 14,514.81 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:26:32 PM L�L2 119.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.87 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 13.73 12.95 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 13.71 12.75 Percent Reduction 0.15 1.54 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 119.15 0.14 25.53 4.87 17,125.78 118.97 0.14 25.53 4.87 16,880.61 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 Page: 1 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Winter Emissions (Pounds /Day) File Name: Z: \EBell \Forbes \Urbemis \494 Forbes Blvd - Ope ratio nal_new.urb924 Project Name: 494 Forbes Blvd Project Location: Bay Area Air District On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES BDfa N x S �%L2 P M 10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) BDfa N x f,.a �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.07 2.17 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,608.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 2.05 1.97 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,362.99 Percent Reduction 0.97 9.22 9.84 NaN NaN NaN 9.40 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BDfa N x S �%L2 P M 10 PM2 5 L�L2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 12,534.27 Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 2 �%L2 PM10 11/9/2011 5:27:12 PM L�L2 123.43 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4.86 Df N x TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 12.86 18.16 TOTALS (Ibs /day, mitigated) 12.84 17.96 Percent Reduction 0.16 1.10 Se.Q �%L2 PM10 PM2 5 L�L2 123.43 0.12 25.52 4.86 15,142.43 123.25 0.12 25.52 4.86 14,897.26 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 APPENDIX 4.4 Environmental Hazards Documentation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , S , ENVI RONMENT A� - TE ASSSlET .r `ON SU UA N"S' r - , r r December .13, 20'02 tw 494. Forbes Boulevard .r . South S. *.Francisco, , C9` if Prepared for Jessica Mcolutock, Inc r ' r t ACC 2 67 5 =001 �OFO 1 r ; 1. C' fl'AxL�Np SN."t Mt;N SE'AT 'T I IN "ES :., :u�FY�fi -: i ii, fie. Yy i 1 � u C MEN, 7SULTANTS ■ / ^• rYy � ION�- ENTAL PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California ACC Project No. '02- 6735 - 001.00 Prepared for: Jessica McClintock, Inc. 1400 16th Street San Francisco, California 94103 December 13, 2002 Prepared by: Jyd Patel Environmental Assessor Reviewed by: David R. DeMent, RG, REA II #20115 v 1 Environmental Division Manager cp�-` 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, CA 94621 • (510) 638 -8400 • FAX: (510) 638,8404 OAKLAND • LOS ANGELES • SACRAMENTO • SEATTLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Consultant: ACC Environmental Consultants, Inc. (ACC) Subject Property: 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California Client: Jessica McClintock, Inc. Location: The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California — - -- — - — - ___ ...... ___._.__...__ -- Current Use: The building located at the subject property is used as a retail store and a warehouse storage area for overstock clothing. Current Owner: Jessica McClintock, Inc. Site Characteristics: The subject property is approximately 7.5 -acres and consists of a two -story, 161,845- square -foot concrete block warehouse and office building with a parking lot and two loading docks. The main entrance lobby opens up to two retail areas with dressing rooms. The first retail area has been improved with cement floors, baseboard, and high ceilings. The dressing room in this area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The second retail area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The dressing room in this area did not contain any vinyl floor tiles. The warehouse area was improved with cement floors, restrooms, a lunch room, some offices and storage rooms, and a mezzanine level. The mezzanine level was not in use at the time of ACC's visit. 'Vicinity Characteristics: The subject property and surrounding areas are zoned P -I, Planned Industrial District, by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. A mixture of commercial, service, and light manufacturing businesses occupy the surrounding area. Purpose: This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) was performed to provide a record of the site conditions, and to evaluate what, if any, environmental issues exist on this site. Recognized Environmental Conditions: This asse as revea n ev idence of any Recogn md-., „Envir�onmental.,,,Cgnd lions at the subject property. Additional Observations: The following observations were made during this assessment: During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loading dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the air handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this structure. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed several storm drains located throughout the property. ACC did not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and/or peeling paint on the � exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead - based paint. A lead -based paw survey, performed by a- California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. ACC reviewed information for sites located within 0.125 miles of the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any of these sites have migrated to the subject property, though the property located at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................... ............................... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services ..................................... ............................... 1 1.2 Limitations and Exceptions of Agreement ....................... ............................... 1 1.3 Limiting Conditions ................................................. ............................... 3. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .................... ............................. ............................... 3 2.1 Location and Legal Description ................................... ............................... 3 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics ...........................:...... ............................... 3 2.3 Descriptions of Structures and Improvements .................. ............................... 3 2.4 Environmental Liens or Specialized Knowledge .............................................. 4 2.5 Current Uses of the Property .................. ........... ................. ............... 4 2.6 Past Uses of the Property ........................................... ............................... 4 2.7 Current and Past Uses of Adjacent Properties .................. ............................... 5 3 RECORDS REVIEW .................................................. ............................... 9 3.1 Physical Setting ....................................... . ......................................... I... 9 3.2 Government Environmental Agency Record Review ......... ............................... 9 3.3 Historical Use Information ......................................... ............................... 14 3.4 Additional Record Sources ......................................... ............................... 14 4.0 INFORMATION FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS ........... 14 4.1 Recognized Environmental Concerns ............................ ............................... 15 4.2 Physical Setting Analysis ........................................... ............................... 16 4.3 Other Conditions of Concern ....................................... ............................... 16 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................ ............................... 17 6.0 AGENCY REVIEW .................................................... ............................... 19 7 REFERENCES ........................................................... ............................... 19 8.0 INTERVIEWS ........................................................... ............................... 19 FIGURES AND PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Location Map 2 Topographical Map 3 Site Plan 4 Aerial Photograph 5 Assessor's Parcel Map 6 Radius Map Photographs 1- 4 APPENDICES A: Scope of Work B: EDR Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION On behalf of Jessica McClintock, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Client), ACC Environmental Consultants, Inc., (ACC), performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) for the property identified as 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Services This ESA was performed to provide a record of the site conditions at the subject property and to evaluate what, if any, environmental issues exist at this site. Additional goals of this ESA are to assess the potential for adverse environmental impact from current and historical practices on the site and surrounding area. The following tasks were performed in accordance with the Scope of Services (Appendix A). • Site reconnaissance of the subject property to investigate for recognized environmental conditions. • A historical review of the use and improvements made to the subject property. • A review of available geologic and hydrogeologic literature concerning the property and surrounding area.. • Interviews of persons familiar with the history of the subject property. • A visual inspection of the onsite structures to evaluate if suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) are present. ACC will only be responsible for the identification of accessible materials. ACC shall not be responsible for the identification of suspect ACBM located in inaccessible areas including but not limited to above ceilings, under carpets, within wall cavities, within mechanical systems, under floors, or underground. Sampling was not performed. • Review of appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to reveal known hazardous wastes sites or significant leaks or spills of hazardous materials which may have occurred at the subject property and immediate vicinity. No radon survey was conducted as there is no documented evidence suggesting excessive radon levels in the South San Francisco area (State of California Department of Health Services, "California Statewide Radon Survey - Interim Results, " March 1990). 1.2 Limitations and Exceptions to Agreement _ ACC has performed the services for this project in accordance with our proposal, and within (�) current standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments. Except for the representations set forth in this Phase I ESA, no other representations, guarantees, or warrantees are either expressed or implied. The records search was limited to reasonably ascertainable information and a site reconnaissance. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 2 1 ° The investigation was limited to a search for recognized environmental conditions at the subject property. The term recognized environmental condition means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. The term includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. The term is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. There is no investigation that is thorough enough to preclude the presence of hazardous materials that presently, or in the future, may be considered hazardous at the site. Because regulatory evaluation criteria are constantly changing, concentrations of constituents presently considered low may, in the future, fall under more stringent regulatory standards that require remediation. The site reconnaissance was limited to visual observation of surface conditions at the site. _ Interviews with public agency personnel were conducted. Reasonably ascertainable information was reviewed. This approach reflects current ASTM standards unless the information obtained as part of C � this work suggests the need for further investigation. Except for site conditions observed by ACC expressed in this Phase I ESA, no other representations, guaranteed, or warrantees of site conditions are either expressed or implied. Where there is a conflict between the environmental database and ACC's actual knowledge with regard to the distance and direction from the subject property of sites listed on the database, information obtained by ACC from the site reconnaissance will be used. Whenever feasible, ACC will note such conflict within the text of the report. The investigation addresses recognized environmental conditions at the subject site. However, certain conditions, such as those listed below may not be revealed: 1) naturally occurring toxic materials in the subsurface soils, rocks, water or toxicity of onsite flora; 2) toxicity of substances common in current habitable environments, such as stored household products, building materials, and consumables; 3) biological pathogens; 4) constituent plume below sampled or observed surface from remote source; <� 5) constituents or constituent concentrations that do not violate present regulatory standards, but may violate future standards; and 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 3 6) unknown site contamination, such as illegal dumping and/or accidental spillage which may occur following the site visit by ACC. Opinions and judgments expressed herein, which are based on our understanding and interpretation of current regulatory standards, should not be construed as legal opinions. This document and the information contained herein have been prepared solely for the Client and any reliance on this report by third parties not authorized by the Client shall be at such party's sole risk. 1.3 Limiting Conditions ACC did not encounter any limiting conditions. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California (Figures 1 - 3). The San Mateo County Assessor's Office identifies the subject property as assessor's parcel number (API) 015- 050 -580 (Figure 5) 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics The subject property is approximately 7.5 -acres and consists of a building and a parking lot. The subject property and surrounding area are zoned P -I, Planned Industrial District, by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. A mixture of commercial, service, and manufacturing businesses occupy the surrounding area. 2.3 Descriptions of Structures and Improvements The subject property is occupied by a two -story concrete block warehouse and office building approximately 161,845 square feet in size, parking lot, and two loading docks. The mein entrance lobby opens up to two retail areas with dressing rooms. The first retail area has been improved with cement floors, baseboard, and high ceilings. The dressing room in this area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The second retail area has been improved with nine -inch by nine -inch vinyl floor tiles, 12 -inch by 12 -inch acoustic ceiling tiles, and baseboard. The dressing room in this area did not contain any vinyl floor tiles. The warehouse area was improved with cement floors, restrooms, a lunch room, some offices and storage rooms, and a mezzanine level. The mezzanine level was not in use at the time of ACC's visit. According to information available at the South San Francisco Building (. - Department, the building was constructed circa 1966. 3 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 '\ South San Francisco, California Page 4 2.4 Environmental Liens or Specialized Knowledge ACC was not informed of any environmental liens associated with the subject property. 2.5 Current Uses of the Property The subject property is occupied by Jessica McClintock, Inc. as a retail store and for overstock clothing storage. ACC was not informed of the future use of the property. 2.6 Past Uses of the Subject Property ACC reconstructed a brief history of the subject property through a review of Haines City Directories available at the South San Francisco Public Library and aerial photographs available at Pacific Aerial Surveys. Historic Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were not available for the subject property. A listing of Haines City Directories and aerial photographs reviewed can be found in section 7.0 of this report. Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, the subject property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, the subject property was vacant. Circa 1966 Circa 1967: According to information available at the South San Francisco Building Department ( SSFBD), the building located at the subject property was under construction. Circa 1967 - Circa 1983: According to permits available at SSFBD, the subject property was occupied by Kovet of California, a clothing distributor. Circa 1984: According to permits available at SSFBD, the subject property was occupied by Levi Strauss and Company, a clothing business. Circa 1989 - Present: According to permits available at SSFBD and information provided to ACC by the Client, the subject property was and continues to be occupied by Jessica McClintock, Inc. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 5 J ^J 2.7 Current and Past Uses of Adjacent Properties 501 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the Northeast Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1974 - Circa. 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Present: According to Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by a commercial building. 493 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the North Circa. 1938 - Circa. 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1969 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 2000: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property continued to be occupied by the same building. Circa. 2002 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Columbus Sausage Company. 477 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the Northwest Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building related to a meat packing business. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 6 Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. According to a development plan for this area, this property was occupied by Owens - Corning Fiberglass Corporation from May 1967 to at least July 1968. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Circa 1994: According to the Haines City Directory, this property was occupied by HK Enterprises, Inc. Circa. 1997 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Pacific Agri - Products, Inc. 466 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the West -- Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was under construction. Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: According to Haines City Directories, this property was occupied by Wisconsin Toy Company, AB Dick Company, and Cheshire (a video jet company). Circa 1994 - Present: According to Haines City Directories and based on visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by South San Francisco Imported Auto Parts and Master Protection Corporation. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 7 465 Cabot Road, Adjacent Property to the Southwest Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1987: According to information available at the South San Francisco Public Library (SSFPL), this property was occupied by Sonoma Mission Creamery. Circa 1987 - Present: According to information available at SSFPL and visual observations, this property was and continues to be occupied by Columbus Salami Company. 485 -487 Cabot Road, Adjacent Property to the South Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1966: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1967 - Circa 1969: According to a development plan of the area, this property was occupied by Riva Distributing Company and Chemical Exhaust Fire Protection Company. Circa 1970 - Circa 1987: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by O'Connor Carpet Upholstery and Drapery Cleaners. Circa 1987 - Circa 1988: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by Falcon Services. Circa 1989 - Circa 1991: According to Haines City Directories, this property was occupied by Western Contract International and SGI Beverage Company. Circa 1994 - Circa 2002: According to Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by Spider Staging Corporation. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 8 405 Allerton Avenue, Adjacent Property to the South/Southeast Circa 1938 - Circa. 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - Circa 1963: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1966 - Circa 1979: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by Underwriters Salvage Company of New York. Circa 1981 - Circa 2002: According to information available at SSFPL and Haines City Directories, this property was and continues to be occupied by Elena's Food Specialties. 444 Allerton Avenue, Adjacent Property to the East/Southeast Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. �� Circa 1958 - Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1986: According to information available at SSFPL, this property was occupied by the Magic Store. Circa 1989 - Circa 2002: This address was not listed in the Haines City Directories. Present: Based on visual observations, this property is occupied by See's Candies. 500 Forbes Boulevard, Adjacent Property to the East Circa 1938 - Circa 1955: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by cow pens related to a meat packing business. Circa 1958 - C � Circa 1969: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was vacant. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 9 Circa 1975 - Circa 1979: Based on a review of aerial photographs, this property was occupied by a building. ACC was unable to determine the exact nature of the business occupying this building. Circa 1989 - Circa 1997: According to the Haines City Directory, this property was occupied by Galoob Lewis Toys, Inc. Circa 2000 - Present: Based on a review of aerial photographs and visual observations, this property was under construction with the development of two office buildings. 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW 3.1 Physical Setting According to subsurface investigations performed in the vicinity of the subject property, the area is underlain by a thin layer of soil over resistant bedrock that appears to be the buried surface of a former topographic high. Unconfined groundwater occurs at approximately 14 feet below ground !� surface (bgs). A second water bearing zone occurs from 30 to 41 feet bgs and is separated from the overlying zone by a 10 foot thick clayey silt deposit. Groundwater flow direction has been determined to flow toward the south/southwest. 3.2 Government Environmental Agency Record Review "Table 1: Records Review" lists the government environmental agency databases ACC reviewed. Shaded cells indicate that, in accordance with ASTM guidelines, the Environmental Database was not searched to the corresponding distance. The database obtained from EDR is included as Appendix B. When locations and distances reported by EDR were observed to be incorrect, ACC amended the information to provide a more accurate assessment. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 10 ...,,.... .�:..::- :-:: -: ,_ _.i -::.,: �:�:.,, 111!::: ➢:'.. ". lil.'r; ': n.: !!i:':.:., ,.;r ;, ft ', ,: a ..., ,. 1. 'i. 'y ...1..1..1.......1. ,., t.. : .11., ,: i ... _:.!I HIM .: , p..a171.:.....!.,.u. ..! :!n llbvL:IIF !!il�•1 ra.dlll: l:9.;., ... ,!:. :ill.: U ! �i!�I!,rl:,!!::r!LI!I!!r!!n ,!. �� ..a .!1 a. '• l,tl.. Jl:l I :, 1 ' ! !, '!': �� 111!..., HIM :�., .:.:: I. �. 1.11!:, . IIL," _ ti l ! ilr.i !! ! J, !,. ! i �* 4!Ii IIII'!�', ( r i!!:!:�!!!! lir•I' !i I r ll!� h , ,!:! i•U ,, 'I L.I h: ! - ! + 'n I!!::Illt UL: �IPnI:! n.. 4:11' '.!.1::.:. .::: ..If 1. �:rc:!:: =:I::: I1., !!!I!ly :,.i::,!. l,nl �: r6:,,! j : .: , 1 :,I ;�! I,�!IJ !! N! I 1 1.91'IIII!Iia,,�,h,!4!1,!�h. 1: ITa, �I! IJ::,: Imiil9.: A „ {!I!•!nl�!I!. xf!llx�;L,!::::t::,, IL FI!f a ll Environmental Database Subject Within 118 - % - 2 % — 1 Total Site 118 % mile mile mile mile National Priority List No 0 0 0 0 0 Resource Conservation and Recovery No 0 0 1 1 2 Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Sites State Priority List No 0 0 0 0 0 State Contaminant List No 0 0 4 II �!!�i�i 1� ji!I I r ll 4 1,I rII I�� III:�1 CERCLIS Sites /No Further Remedial No I!�� 0 0 0 ! �;!hll! 0 fl� !n. Action Planned (NFRAP) Sites 'i�l9l��il ! ! ah9 RCRIS Treatment , Storage and No fl�rl Disposal Facilities .Nl Leaking Underground Storage Tank No n ,,� 3 8 19 ; �� ; 1 I�!� n ''�� 30 (LUST) Database California Solid Waste Landfills No ,I t 6,.. l, 0 0 2 !+ I�r�S� 2 (SWLF), Incinerators, or Transfer Stations Database ! E Hl ll!!! it! 1!I + II�!,,I !! I ! III i'! 11�!IIl p!'ll�!II'�l 0 0 li ���;,'! IIIFI! 0 Underground Storage Tank Database No II�I�I!! I± •! !!;�'1= !!!:�q�li!!! {!� Ilnn,lr !d.11.l 0 Tank Aboveground k Database g No riit 1. Emergency Re Notification g Y P No I!„ �!i t III L'I i! !, II I II I � , ilj I ! ++ ;l I ! ! I � !! I r h , !!'� �nl !, u�! :� N loll �I4i 1111�!!a qi ti � 11 I'r n�,��1 il� hlili!I�I II�!I!?! h 0 ll ,, ,!,� l :� I�I, I; ' II,' yli� o� !!!'! II!IPrli 1 �`. ; I is !, !+ ! ° ! I { i !!,�!II I, ! � � i' i!lll'rc � System ( Database Y "iF ) Db . . !! : ,, ,1 !, : ! !I:! !!'ii1, Ih lh ;lll�a:!11Lllhll!:I: CI{1! t h�1M IIIh1I�l�lht;1 �n�l•`h� ! Large Generators No l t ! 1 I'.!!!7' RCRA Quantity !!�I RCRA Small Quantity Generators No M, ' .!I (!'! It (I I!I �I!Ir!1011!!!!!; i!rl i!i !I! ;';!!11!4!1 it l! 2 !G „ ; ,!; +aCh�,l I! H. 'i ! ! ! ?i,; !, l!ll,!.li!Ik�T�OM 7 No II!1!�h Fln,h!I!!�ll�! 0 0 SLIC h; !!;!!liI!I� !�,'!':!! II! 1I_'; z {'! .''r!i 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 13 Site Name: Spider Staging Corporation Site Address: 485 -489 Cabot Road Gradient Direction: Downgradient Location: Adjacent Property to the South of the subject property Radius Map: Figure 6, Mapped Site ##2 Discussion: According to information available at SMCDEH, one 1,000 -gallon UST was removed from the site in 1986. In January 2001, a subsurface investigation was performed and petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons were detected in the groundwater beneath the property. In August 2001, six groundwater monitoring wells were installed at the site and elevated levels of chlorinated solvents were detected. In March 2002, five additional monitoring wells were installed to define the extent of hydrocarbon impact to groundwater. Significant concentrations of chlorinated solvents were identified in the upgradient and crossgradient monitoring wells. Based on these concentrations, the Responsible Party for this site requested permission from Jessica McClintock, Inc. to install a groundwater monitoring well on the subject property (494 Forbes Boulevard) to determine the extent of chlorinated solvent impact in the upgradient direction. ACC understands that the monitoring well will be installed in January 2003. Until the monitoring well is installed and sampled, ACC is unable to determine if the chlorinated solvent plume has impacted the subject property. ACC recommends that the groundwater monitoring report and subsequent quarterly monitoring reports be reviewed to determine if the solvent plume is impacting the subject property. 3.2.6 Solid Waste Landfill (SWLF) The SWLF database contains information regarding active and closed solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. The database is maintained by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. There are two sites listed on the database that are located within 0.50 mile of the subject property. Both sites are not located within 0.125 mile of the subject property. Based on the distance of these sites relative to the subject property, the potential to impact the subject property is considered to be low. In addition, because the responsible party has been identified, should constituents originating at this site have an impact on the subject property, it is unlikely that the owner of the subject property would be held responsible. 3.2.7 RCRA Large Quantity Generator Database RCRA large quantity generators are facilities that generate more than 1000 kilograms of hazardous wastes per month. The generator database is maintained by the USEPA. There is one site listed on the database that is located within 0.125 mile of the subject property. In accordance with ASTM Standards (ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00), only the subject property and adjoining properties are required to be reviewed. The subject property nor any adjoining properties are listed on this database. 3.2.8 RCRA Small Quantity Generator Database 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 I _ \ South San Francisco California Page 14 The RCRA Small Quantity Generator Database contains sites that generate less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. This database is maintained by the US -EPA. In accordance with ASTM Standards (ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00) , ACC reviews the Small Quantity Generator database for only the subject property and adjoining properties. There are two sites listed on the Small Quantity Generator database that are located within 0.25 miles of the subject property. The subject property nor any adjoining properties are listed on this database. 3.2.9 Other Sites of Potential Environmental Concern ACC did not identify any other sites of potential environmental concern. 3.3 Historical Use Information For a history of the subject property see Section 2.6, Past Uses of the Property. 3.4 Additional Record Sources ACC reviewed the City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Department records. All relevant information from these sources is discussed elsewhere.in this report. 4.0 INFORMATION FROM SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND INTERVIEWS On Thursday, November 21, 2002, ACC Environmental Assessor, Ms. Jyotika Patel, conducted a site reconnaissance at the subject property. No evidence of the following items was found at the property during the reconnaissance: • aboveground high power transmission lines • aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) • hydraulic lifts • monitoring well(s) • oil burners • oil /water separators • pipes of unknown use • ponds, pits, culverts, lagoons • regulated quantities of hazardous wastes • stressed vegetation • sumps • used batteries • USTs - fill ports (� - vent pipes • wastewater other than ordinary domestic sewage 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02 -6735- 001.00 South San Francisco, California Page 15 4.1 Recognized ]Environmental Concerns • electrical transformers • regulated quantities of hazardous materials • stained surfaces • storm drains • suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) • suspect lead -based paint 4.1.1 Electrical Transformers During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed one Dad mounted ,electrical ,transformer in the parking lot of the subject property. The concern with electrical transformers is that the dielectric fluid contains polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). ACC did not observe any evidence of leaks associated with the transformers or any evidence that the transformers have had an impact on the environment. Based on these observations, the potential to impact the environment is considered to be low. 4.1.2 Regulated Quantities of Hazardous Materials � During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any.leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.3 Stained Surfaces During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loa ft dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the `air "handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.4 Storm Drain During the site reconnaissance,. ACC , observed several storm drains Jocated throughout the property . ACC did not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. 4.1.5 Suspect Asbestos Containing Building Materials 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 16 ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBM) at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. 4.1.6 Suspect Lead -Based Paint During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and/or peeling paint on the exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead -based paint. A lead -based paint survey performed by a California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means .as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. 4.2 Physical Setting Analysis Jl Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. Because regional groundwater flow direction is south/southeast in the vicinity of the subject property, constituents originating at sites to the north/northwest would be more .likely to migrate to the subject property than would constituents originating at sites in other positions relative to the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any sites have migrated to the 'subject property, but the property at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. 4.3 Other Conditions of Concern During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the'structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that .these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this It Is ACC'i' . opanlon that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. �J 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco, California Page 17 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ACC has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope of services and within the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 -00, of the property identified as 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, California. Exceptions to, or deletions from, the Standard Practice are described within the report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of any Recognized Environmental Conditions at the subject property. The'following observations were made during this assessment: During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed four 5 -gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5 -gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other one -gallon containers of cleaners. ACC did not observe any leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amount of materials stored on -site are below the State of California Health and Safety Code (HSC) 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting (an amount equal to or greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet at standard temperature or pressure). It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these materials poses a low potential to impact the environment. J During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor located in the warehouse area. ACC was unable to open the structure to determine the use of these structures. ACC recommends that these structures be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery exists within the structure. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed surficial staining in the parking lot, loading docks, and two of the air handling units. ACC believes that the staining in the parking lot and loading dock is the result of leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. The staining in the air handling rooms is the result of leaking oil from the machines. The cement floor in the vicinity of this staining appeared to be intact. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of the stainings poses a low potential to impact the environment. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed a cement pad with several cut off pipes located to the rear of the building in the landscaping. ACC was unable to determine the former use of this structure. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of this cement pad poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC recommends that the cut off pipes be capped. During the site reconnaissance, ACC observed several storm drains located throughout the property. ACC did, not observe any staining in the vicinity of these drains. It is ACC's opinion that the presence of these drains poses a low potential to impact the environment. ACC identified suspect asbestos containing building materials (ACBW at the subject property. ACC performed an asbestos survey. The results of this survey will be reported in a separate report. 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California Page 18 During the site reconnaissance, ACC did not observe chipped and /or peeling paint on the exterior or interior of the building. The subject property contains a structure constructed prior to 1978, which have painted surfaces that may meet the definition of lead -based paint. Lead was used in most paints until the 1950's. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned paints containing lead in excess of 0.06% by weight for most non - industrial paints. There are state and federal occupational safety and health (OSHA) regulations and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines that are designed to protect residents and workers who disturb lead -based paint. A lead -based paint survey performed by a California Certified Lead Inspector is recommended if construction work is performed that disturbs the painted surfaces by such means as manual demolition, sanding, or scraping. Within 1.0 mile of the subject property, there are several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and/or petroleum products. ACC reviewed information for sites located within 0.125 miles of the subject property. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any of these sites have migrated to the subject property, though the property located at 485 -489 Cabot Road may have had an impact on the subject property. For a detailed description of this site, please refer to section 3.2.5 of this Report. l 494 Forbes Boulevard ACC Project No. 02- 6735- 001.00 South San Francisco California __ _ __ Page 19 6.0 AGENCY REVIEW 7.0 REFERENCES Haines City Directories: 1989, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, and 2002. Pacific Aerial Surveys: 1938, 1946, 1955, 1958, 1961, 1963, 1966, 1969, 1975, 1979, 1989, 1993 and 2000. 8.0 INTERVIEWS Mr. Bruce Hutchins — Jessica McClintock, Inc. �,J Source; The Thomas Guide, San Mateo County, 2000 Title: Location Map 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 1 Scale: None Project No.:02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP e ^ • C Date: 12/12/02 ( ` J N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capwell Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 688 -8400 Fax: (510) 638 -8404 S M7Z i'' it �.Q'jl T'Ll "N: I;', +1�_ n" - � - ra l rt b �:. , . .-�-�� `r K 1: ;4., ji :12 op �. ` � , � 1 e ..�tAe �1A �11�� ,. Ff � r' �R W��tw- M h P S 772 Ram 17 14i' .'M(RjI `!1#w,. sex t a i; i :.! ��" r r.ty - ri A ti ov Pacific A ri- Product Columbus 9 493 Forbes Office Buildings 477 Forbes 5oulevar6i 501 Forbes Boulevard Boulevard i I Forbes Boulevard 55F Imported Auto Parts 466 Forbes Boulevard Jessica McClintock, Inc. 494 Forbes Boulevard 0 Under Construction 500 Forbes Boulevard Railroad 5 Columbus Salami 465 Cabot Road 566'5 Candles 444 Allerton Avenue 566'5 Candles Cabot Road Title: Site Plan 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 3 Scale: None Project No. :02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12/12/02 A'C'C N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capweli Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 688 8404 S 7s o � o -° o LD L o 566'5 Candles 444 Allerton Avenue 566'5 Candles Cabot Road Title: Site Plan 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 3 Scale: None Project No. :02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12/12/02 A'C'C N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capweli Drive, 5ulte 100 Oakland, California 94621 (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 688 8404 S ME t ���'`�'` ir+'r+r'r` . n air, � _.r F• q ua.. I", -•-le r��e � t ��y -'�� �1 +h� `r. \ "Kiel ..a: �jr ,a va f-g.- 3F P f WV ;",4 O j'L . fr. (t r :.j!.A _ 40twaaw"'A-p ell i j -AX.A. _Fat. ig i `1 a� 0 Source: San Mateo County A55e66or'6 Office Title: Assessor's Map 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California Figure Number: 5 Scale: None 'roject No: 02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP Date: 12112102 N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS .W E 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94 (510) 638 -5400 Fina (510) 635.8404 S I IC, ® - 5ojECT SITE Z W � - Listed sites LV -1/8 Mile Radius J Title: 1/8 Mile Radius Map 494 Forbes Boulevard south San Francisco, California Figure Number: 6 Scale: None Project No. 02- 6735 - 001.00 Drawn By: JTP (� (� Date: 12/12/02 - A - � - ` � N ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS W E 7977 Capwell Drive, Suite 100 Oakland, California 94621 S (510) 638 -8400 Fax: (510) 638 -8404 i� 'la'vv TY . ZZA Tr UE w1 1 1 � rJ fh i - �r. r i i fi F t � r � }a tl t y �'L P l iW 1'T J; jig ,t ;yy f t r tr . a S Lei G 1{ Y 7 }k i 7 - , r ' r , Ji.W l uTf6t�� a{'�, fFa a a� '�J f r t4 1i x 4 f .� . 51t sae f44t „ �'a n l} r j d6 rr e �. gd I ^2, �` r t♦ r rr- Q� t d r .�`Py - c 4 y: ��Nele� y�C _ H R s3 .,, ! �;* r M.A. 'M 1 y fF �q 'r�W �, � r ��J� �1rys s'PM r7 m r � J sue' t S� 7 ��1 �rt5r RVrrl P L .. .......... 51}d�` Environmental Investigation Activities Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1 2.0 SITE SETTING AND DESCRIPTION .............................................. ..............................1 3.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ....................................................... ..............................2 3.1 FIELD PROCEDURES .................................................................. ..............................3 3. 1.1 Soil Vapor Survey ....................................................... ..............................3 3.1.2 Soil and Groundwater Sampling ................................. ..............................3 3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS ........................................................... ..............................4 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ............................................................ ..............................5 4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................ ..............................5 4.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................................. ..............................5 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... ..............................6 6.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................... ..............................7 7.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... ..............................8 TABLES Table 1 Soil and Groundwater Analytical Program Table 2 Summary of Results—Metals in Soil Table 3 Summary of Results —Grab Groundwater Samples FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 Sampling Locations APPENDIXES Appendix A San Mateo County Environmental Health Permit Appendix B Boring Logs Appendix C Analytical Laboratory Reports M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc i REPORT OF RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California 1.0 INTRODUCTION Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., (Geomatrix), conducted a soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling program in support of due diligence activities on behalf of Bayside Area Developments, LLC ( Bayside) for the property at 494 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco California (the Site). This report provides a brief description of the site setting and summarizes the methods and procedures used as part of sampling activities, along with the results of the sampling program. This report is being submitted to the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health Groundwater Protection Program (GPP) as a condition of GPP permit 04 -0797 (Appendix A). 2.0 SITE SETTING AND DESCRIPTION The Site is located on the southwest corner of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue in the City of South San Francisco (Figure 1). The site is approximately 7.5 aces in size and is identified by the San Mateo County Assessor's Office with Assessors Parcel Number 015- 050 -580. The majority of the Site is occupied up by an approximately 160,000- square -foot warehouse of concrete tilt -up construction. Office and retail space are attached to the northern portion of the warehouse. The warehouse has two loading docks and a mezzanine is present within the southwestern portion. The warehouse and a portion of the retail space have a concrete floor. The areas to the north and west of the building are primarily paved with asphalt- concrete and used for parking and driveways. Loading docks are located on both the east and west sides of the building; area drains are present within each loading dock. The areas in front of the loading docks are paved with concrete. The areas to the north and east of the northern parking area (along Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue), contain landscaping mounds, covered in grass and containing mature trees. The area along the east side of the building (i.e., along Allerton Avenue) is planted with abundant ground cover and contains many mature trees. The area M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc along the southwest of the Site (i.e., along the railroad right -of -way) is not paved, and is covered with shrubs, brush, and grasses. The site is bound on all sides by light industrial uses; specifically, it is bound to the northeast by a processed meat manufacturing facility and an agricultural products facility; to the northwest by an auto parts distribution facility, to the southwest by a former railroad right -of- way and processed meat manufacturing /food distribution facilities; and to the northeast and southeast by a commercial building and a candy manufacturing/distribution facility. Based on a review of GPP files, soil and groundwater beneath the 487 Cabot Road property, located to the southwest of the Site, contains petroleum constituents and chlorinated solvents at concentrations of potential environmental concern (TEC Accutite [TEC], 2004). Specifically, samples collected from monitoring well MW -12 in December 2003, which was previously installed by others as part of site investigation activities, contained concentrations of benzene at 1.6 micrograms per liter (µg/L) and perchloroethyene (PCE) at a concentration of 6 µg/L. 3.0 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES Based on the presence of chemicals associated with the adjacent properties, and to establish that previous site activities at the 494 Forbes site did not impact soil or groundwater beneath the Site, Geomatrix developed a soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling plan. Sampling activities are described below; and boring locations (GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8 through GMX -17) are shown on Figure 2. • Samples of shallow soil (less than 5 feet bgs) were collected from seven locations (GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8) and submitted for laboratory analyses for chemicals that may be associated with fill at the Site (e.g., metals). • Soil vapor samples were collected from eight locations beneath the concrete flooring of the warehouse (GMX -9 through GMX -17) to evaluate for the presence of VOCs that may be associated with VOCs in groundwater identified at the adjacent 487 Cabot Road property. Grab groundwater samples were collected from six locations (GMX -1 through GMX -5 and GMX -8) and submitted for laboratory analyses for chemicals primarily associated with adjacent properties with known or potential groundwater impacts. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 2 3.1 FIELD PROCEDURES The following sections provide a short description of field procedures associated with soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling activities. Sample depths associated with soil and grab groundwater sampling activities are summarized in Table 1. Logs of borings advanced as part of this investigation are included in Appendix B. 3.1.1 Soil Vapor Survey The soil vapor survey was conducted by Transglobal Environmental Geochemistry (TEG), of Rancho Cordova, California, in accordance with the protocols set forth in the January 28, 2003 Advisory for Active Soil Gas Investigations, jointly issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances. The soil vapor survey involved the following basic steps: • Contracting a private underground utility locating service to identify underground utilities in the sample area; • Notifying Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify underground utilities in the sample areas; • Cutting concrete cores as needed prior to advancing the soil vapor probe; • Advancing soil vapor sampling probes for the collection of soil vapor samples. The probes were retracted up to 6 inches to expose the soil vapor probe inlet. Bentonite was placed around the annular space at the surface of each sampling location and hydrated to seal the open space around the drive rod; • Conducting a purge volume test at the first sampling location to determine the necessary purge volume for collecting soil vapor samples devoid of stagnant and /or ambient air at each subsequent sampling location; • Conducting a leak test at each sampling location with 1, 1 -difluoroethane; and • Collecting soil vapor samples from each sampling location with a syringe and analyzing the soil vapor for VOCs (EPA Method 8260) in an on -site California- certified mobile laboratory. 3.1.2 Soil and Groundwater Sampling The soil and groundwater investigation involved the following basic steps: • Contracting a private underground utility locating service to identify underground utilities in the sample area; • Notifying USA to identify underground utilities in the sample areas; M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 3 • Obtaining permits from San Mateo County for environmental borings (Appendix A); • Performing direct -push sampling at each sample location, except GMX -9, which was hand augered; • Steam - cleaning all sampling equipment before use at each location. Borings GMX -1 through GMX -6 and GMX -8 were sampled continuously. Soil samples were collected for classification and packaged for analysis in acetate liners or brass sleeves. Soil samples were labeled and placed into a cooler with ice for delivery to the laboratory; • Collecting groundwater samples at locations GMX -1 through GMX -5, and GMX -8. Borings were advanced to approximately 1 to 5 feet below the depth of where groundwater was first observed during drilling. At each boring, the exterior casings were retracted to expose between 5 to 10 feet of screened PVC. The exterior (Enviro -Core) casing maintained a seal with the subsurface material as the groundwater samples were collected. Groundwater samples were collected using a new disposable bailer and transferred into sample bottles provided by the laboratory. Groundwater samples were labeled and placed into a cooler with ice for delivery to the laboratory; • Grouting the boreholes to the surface by placing a PVC pipe to the bottom of the borehole, and pouring grout down the PVC pipe while retracting the pipe; and • Submitting the soil and groundwater samples by courier to the analytical laboratory following the standard Geomatrix chain -of- custody procedures. 3.2 ANALYTICAL METHODS Soil vapor samples were analyzed for VOCs (EPA Method 8260). Soil and groundwater samples were analyzed using a suite of analytical methods that were intended to cover the range of anticipated chemicals potentially present in the Site soil and groundwater. Selected soil samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • Gasoline- and diesel -range hydrocarbons (EPA Method 8015M); • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX; EPA Method 8260B); • Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs; EPA Method 8270C SIM); • Organochlorine pesticides (EPA 8081A); • Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs; EPA 8082); • Metals (CAM 17; EPA Method 6010B/747IA); and /or M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 4 • Nitrogen, Total Kjeldahl (TKN; EPA Method 351.4). Groundwater samples were analyzed for the following constituents: • Gasoline- and diesel -range hydrocarbons (EPA Method 8015M); • Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX; EPA Method 8260B); • Volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs; EPA Method 8260); • Metals (CAM 17; EPA Method 6010B); • Nitrates (EPA Method 300.0); and /or • Ammonia (EPA Method 350.1). The specific analytical methods associated with each soil and groundwater sample is summarized in Table 1. 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS The following section presents a summary of the analytical results of the soil vapor, soil, and grab groundwater sampling activities. Laboratory reports are included in Appendix C and sampling locations are shown on Figure 2. 4.1 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is primarily covered with concrete pavement (i.e., a wearing surface underlain by a thickness of aggregate base) underlain by native very stiff sandy clays and dense clayey to silty sands. The native soils encountered in the borings appear to be Colma Formation material. In general, groundwater was encountered at depths between 12 and 14 feet. Based on a review of available documents (TEC, 2003), groundwater flows primarily from the northeast to the southwest. 4.2 ANALYTICAL RESULTS To evaluate potential impacts to human health, the analytical results for soil and soil vapor samples were compared to pathway specific Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) developed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) for both residential and commercial land uses (RWQCB, 2003). The ESLs are conservative, generic risk -based screening criteria that are intended to be protective of human health, ecological receptors and groundwater. The RWQCB generally considers that if M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc chemical concentrations are below residential ESLs, no further evaluation is warranted. Grab groundwater results were compared to California primary /secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by the California Department of Health Services, when available. A comparison of results to these criteria is provided below. Soil Vapor Survey Six of the eight soil vapor survey locations did not contain detectable concentrations of VOCs. Concentrations of PCE (100 micrograms per cubic meter [[tg /m vapor) and toluene (150 µg /m were detected at both GMX -10 and GMX -11, respectively. These concentrations are less than their respective regulatory screening criteria of 410 µg /m 8300 µg /m which are used to evaluate potential health risks associated with the presence of VOCs in indoor air at residential properties. • Soil Sampling Soil samples did not contain concentrations TPHg, BTEX, PAHs, pesticides, or PCBs greater than their respective reporting limit. Concentrations of TPHd were less of 5 milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg), well below regulatory screening criteria (100 mg/kg to 500 mg/kg; depending on exposure pathway). As shown on Table 2, concentrations of metals were less than regulatory screening criteria. Groundwater Sampling Four of the six grab groundwater sampling locations did not contain detectable concentrations of VOCs (one sampling location, GMX -2, was not analyzed for VOCs). Benzene, total xylenes, and acetone were detected in the sample collected from GMX -8 at concentrations of 0.6 µg/L, 1.1 µg/L, and 20 µg/L, respectively. Acetone was detected in the sample collected from GMX -4 at concentrations of 21 µg/L. Concentrations of these compounds are less their respective MCL. Additionally, concentrations of inorganic constituents (i.e., metals and nitrogen related compounds) were less than regulatory screening criteria. A summary of compounds detected in grab groundwater samples, along with respective MCLs, is presented in Table 3. 5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarized the available results of environmental sampling activities conducted at the 494 Forbes Site: • Results of the soil vapor survey indicate that soil vapors beneath the existing warehouse structure do not contain VOCs that would limit the continued use of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or the potential future use as a residential property. • Available data indicates that there are VOCs are not present in the groundwater in the areas sampled at concentrations that would limit the continued used of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or potential future use as a residential property. Groundwater samples collected by others from MW -12, associated with the M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 6 adjacent 487 Cabot Road facility, contained concentrations of benzene and PCE slightly above MCLs. Laboratory results indicate that there are no chemicals of concern in soil in the areas sampled that would limit the continued used of the Site for commercial /industrial purposes or potential future use as a residential property. Based on the data collected as part of this investigation, it appears that environmental conditions at the Site would not limit the continued use of the property and environmental impacts associated with redevelopment are anticipated to be minimal, if any. No further environmental investigation activities are recommended at this time. 6.0 LIMITATIONS In the performance of our professional services, Geomatrix, its employees, and its agents comply with the standards of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession practicing in the same or similar localities. No warranty, either express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed by us, or by the proposal for consulting or other services, or by the furnishing or oral or written reports or findings. In preparing this report, Geomatrix has relied upon certain information and representations provided by government and Site employees, documents provided by the Site operator, and government database searches provided by others. Except as discussed, Geomatrix did not attempt to independently verify the accuracy or completeness of that information. To the extent that the conclusions in this report are based in whole or in part on such information, those conclusions are contingent on its accuracy and validity. Geomatrix assumes no responsibility for any consequence arising from any information or condition that was concealed, withheld, misrepresented, or otherwise not fully disclosed or available to Geomatrix. This report has been prepared for the express use of Bayside, although it has been submitted to the San Mateo County GPP as a requirement of the boring permit issued for this project. No other person or organization is entitled to rely upon any part of this report without the prior written consent of Geomatrix. Bayside may release all or part(s) of this report to third parties; however, such third party in using this report agrees that it shall have no legal recourse against Geomatrix or its subsidiaries, and shall indemnify and defend Geomatrix or its subsidiaries from and against all claims arising out of or in conjunction with such use or reliance. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc 7 7.0 REFERENCES San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2003, Screening for Environmental Concern at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Interim Final), July. TEC Accutite, 2004, Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Report— December 2003, February 23. M:AI. Project Folder \801 - 900 \861 - 870 \868.01 City of South SF\ Docs\ EIR\ 2ndRecircDraftEIR \Appendices\NewToPubs \4.4b Geomatrix 2004.doc Technical Memorandum Geomatrix Memorandum TO: Diane Floresca Smith DATE: June 8, 2006 FROM: Martin Bloes PROJ. NO.: 9798.003 CC: Tom Graf PROJ. NAME: 494 Forbes Boulevard SUBJECT: Summary of Environmental Issues 494 Forbes Boulevard South San Francisco, California This memorandum is being prepared on behalf of Slough Forbes, LLC. (Slough), and Project Management Advisors (PMA) to summarize potential items of concern identified as part of Phase I and II environmental assessments conducted b ACC Environmental Consultants (ACC) and Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Geomatrix), at the 494 Forbes property (the Site). Also included in this summary are future action items, if any, associated with each issue. Potential Issues 1) Testing of building materials for the presence of lead -based paint and asbestos. The building has been demolished and the resulting construction debris has been removed from the site by the contractor. Lead and asbestos abatement tasks were performed on behalf of Slough prior to building demolition. No additional follow-up ruarding this issue should be required. 2) The presence of a sub -slab structure covered with steel plating within the building. The area beneath the steel plates was inaccessible during site reconnaissance activities. It was speculated that the structure contained machinery (e.g., motors) for former Site operations. No machinery has been identified durin-a slab_ de molition activities; it is anticipated that no ditional follow-up regarding this issue should be required Consistent with general construction practices Slough should be notified j, p=iously unidentified subsurface structures ,grencountered during construction activities. 1 Phase I Environmental Assessment Report prepared by ACC Environmental in December 2002. 2 Environmental Investigation Activities Report prepared by Geomatrix in 2004. 2101 Webster Street, 12th Floor Tel 510. 663.4100 1 www.geoinatrix.com Oakland, California 94612 -3066 Fax 510.663,4141 ' Memorandum June 8, 2006 Page 2 3) Evaluate the presence of groundwater impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from the nearby 487 Cabot road property. To evaluate this issue, Geomatrix conducted environmental due diligence activities in April and May 2004; the results indicated that VOCs in groundwater would not limit the continual use of the property for commercial/industrial purposes. Geomatrix also conducted a soil vapor survey to evaluate the intrusion of VOCs into the existing warehouse structure. The results indicated that soil vapors beneath the warehouse do not contain VOCs that would limit the use of the property for residential or commercial/industrial purposes. Our report of results was submitted to the San Mateo County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA) and no additional environmental 4ork was requested; therefore, no additional work regarding this issues should be required at this time. 4) The presence of existing groundwater monitoring well MW -12. This well was installed in January 2003, as indicated in ACC's December 2002 Phase I site assessment. The well is located along the southern boundary of the Site adjacent to the existing railroad right -of -way. The well currently is monitored quarterly by TEC Accutite as part of environmental activities associated with the 487 Cabot Road property, as per the requirements of the SMCHSA. Samples collected from the well have historically contained low concentrations of VOCs (i.e., below regulatory thresholds). Access to this well should be preserved and the results of the groundwater monitoring activities periodically reviewed to evaluate potential impacts to the Site. 5) The presence of an undocumented groundwater monitoring well. This well was discovered during groundwater monitoring associated with the 487 Cabot Road property in 2005. No documentation of the well existed at the SMCHSA. Due to low concentrations of VOCs in groundwater samples collected from this well, Slough chose to decommission the well, Well decommissioning activities were performed as per SMCHSA requirements and are documented in Geomatrix's December 2005 report. No additional follow- up r arding_this issue should be required. 3 Groundwater Monitoring Well Decommissioning Report prepared by Geomatrix in December 2005. I:\Project \9000s \9798.003\Memo to Diane Fioresca Smitli 06.8,06.doe APPENDIX 4.7 Noise Level Calculations Existing Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,461 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 5,062 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 14,641 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 4,873 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,186 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 5,557 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as ae alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB (A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2015 Without Project Noise Levels 2015 No Project Page 1 ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,283 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 59.5 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 10,845 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.2 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 21,027 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 65.6 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 7,123 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 60.9 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,479 35 39 0 0 3.0% Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 6,127 35 56 0 0 8.0 % Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (%) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60 Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52 Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06 Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2015 With Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 2,520 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 59.9 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 10,845 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.2 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 21,442 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 65.6 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 7,130 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 60.9 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 6,645 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.0 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 6,616 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 63.4 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2035 Without Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 3,271 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 61.1 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 11,529 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.4 Oyster Point Blvd. (5-7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 29,829 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 67.1 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 8,421 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 61.6 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 7,515 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.5 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 9,217 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 64.8 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard' site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight. 2035 With Project Noise Levels ROADWAY NAME Segment Noise - Sensitive Land Use Number of Lanes in Each Direction Median Width ADT Volume Design Speed (mph) Distance From Edge of Pavemt Alpha (1) Factor Barrier Attn. dB(A) Vehicle Mix Medium Heavy Trucks Trucks dB(A) CNEL ROADWAY Allerton Ave. (19 -17) Child Care 2 0 3,485 30 39 0 0 8.0% 3.0% 61.3 Gateway Blvd. (5 -13) Hilton Garden Inn 4 25 11,529 35 57 0 0 6.0% 3.0% 64.4 Oyster Point Blvd. (5 -7) Larkspur Landing 6 10 30,211 35 61 0 0 5.5% 1.5% 67.1 Airport Blvd. (3 -9) Days Inn 6 10 8,429 35 56 0 0 4.5% 1.5% 61.6 E. Grand Ave. (12 -15) Comfort Suites 2 0 7,666 35 39 0 0 3.0% 3.0% 64.6 Forbes Blvd. (18 -19) Site 4 12 9,594 35 56 0 0 8.0% 5.0% 65.0 Notes: (1) Alpha Factor: Coefficient of absorption relating to the effects of the ground surface. An alpha factor of 0 indicates that the site is an acoustically "hard" site, such as aspalt. An alpha factor of 0.5 indicates that the site is an acoustically "soft" site such, as heavily vegetated ground cover. Assumed 24 -Hour Traffic Distribution Weighted Traffic Distribution (% ) Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium -Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy -Duty Trucks 89.10 2.84% 8.06% Notes to Modeler: Assign a barrier attenuation of 5 dB(A) if a solid wall exists that breaks the line of sight.