HomeMy WebLinkAbout101 Gull Drive Addendum
FIRST ADDENDUM TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
101 GULL DRIVE PROJECT
Lead Agency:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
315 MAPLE AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080
ADDENDUM DATE APRIL 2023
ORIGINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DATE MARCH 2022
Prepared By:
Lamphier-Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Introduction and Project Information...................................................................................................... 1
Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 12
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 25
TABLES
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction ................................................... 13
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations ............................................................... 14
Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 17
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location .................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Illustrative Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3a: Exterior Elevations - Northeast ...................................................................................... 10
Figure 3b: Exterior Elevations - South ............................................................................................. 11
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Emissions Modeling
Attachment B: Transportation Impact Analysis Update
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 1
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT INFORMATION
This document serves as an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the currently
proposed expansion to 101 Gull Drive, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 1500 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines (Section 15164), an addendum may be prepared if only minor technical changes or
additions are necessary or none of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or
negative declaration have occurred.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
• Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and discusses the
project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
• Environmental Analysis. This section analyzes the currently proposed expansion in comparison to
the analysis in the EIR and discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions with the
potential to be changed from that previously assessed.
• Conclusions. This section summarizes the conclusions of the analysis and makes CEQA conclusions.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
CEQA analysis of the original 101 Gull Drive Project (“original project”) was completed in an Initial Study
followed by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2021100227), which
was certified in April 2022 (together referred to in this document as the “Prior EIR”). The original project
was approved at the same hearing in April 2022. The approved original project consisted of construction
and operation of a new 166,613-square-foot, 7-story, office / research and development (R&D) building
and an attached 4.5-level 419-stall parking garage. The project was consistent with the City of South San
Francisco General Plan and zoning in effect at the time.
The same applicant, Sanfo Group LLC, is now proposing an “expanded project,” consisting of a 281,058-
square-foot, 9-story, office / R&D building and an attached 7-level 574-stall parking garage.
Compared to the original project, the “proposed expansion” represents an increase in the office/R&D
area by approximately 115,000 square feet on the same footprint, through increased height of the
office/R&D component (2 additional stories) and parking garage (2.5 additional levels). The expanded
project is consistent with the updated General Plan 2040 and zoning now in effect.
The purpose of this Addendum is to make changes to the project description to allow for the expanded
size of the project and demonstrate that a subsequent environmental document is not required per
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as follows:
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
Page 2 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical
changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling
for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to
the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted
negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section
15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project,
or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence.
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of
substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,
but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects
on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 3
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after
adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under
subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent
negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless
further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval
does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions
described in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared
by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this
situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent
EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.
(d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public
review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A subsequent EIR or negative declaration
shall state where the previous document is available and can be reviewed.
The conclusions related to Sections 15164 and 15162 are discussed in the addendum section of this
document.
Page 4 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
2. Lead Agency Contact: City of South San Francisco
Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner
Department of Economic and Community
Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
650.877.8535 or [email protected]
3. Project Location: 101 Gull Drive (APN 015-082-250)
4. Project Applicant's Name and Address: Mike Sanford
Sanfo Group LLC
3351 Greenview Drive
El Dorado Hills, CA 96762
5. General Plan Designation: Business Technology Park High
6. Zoning: Business Technology Park – High (BTP-H)
7. Site and Vicinity:
The project site (APN 015-082-250) is a vacant, generally triangular-shaped 3.8-acre lot located in
the East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco, California. The project site location is shown
on Figure 1.
Other than that site preparation/construction of the original project is expected to be underway
soon, the site has not changed since the Prior EIR. The following site description is consistent with
that in the Prior EIR.
The site is located along Gull Drive but is largely separated from the roadway by a grade change and
steep slope. The project site is located behind businesses fronting Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point
Boulevard and existing access easements with nearby properties would provide mutual access to
driveways on those roadways and the new driveway on Gull Drive approved as a part of the original
project.
The site is relatively level, except along its south and east portions, which slope down at inclinations
of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The maximum slope height is around 40 feet.
The site is generally underlain by about 10 to 55 feet of undocumented fill consisting of loose to
medium dense sandy soil and stiff to very stiff clayey soil with varying amounts of debris. The fill is
around 10 feet thick at the northeast corner of the site and increases to the south and to the west
with the thickest portion near the top of the existing slope. The fill is underlain by stiff to hard clay
and sandy clay over bedrock. Bedrock, consisting of sandstone and claystone of the Francisco
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 5
Complex was encountered at depths ranging from 12 to 68 feet below ground surface. Bedrock
generally becomes deeper to the southwest.
Due to the steep slope of the native soil and bedrock underlying the site and the current site
topography, the depth to groundwater is variable. The depth to groundwater is approximately 30
feet below ground surface and the groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward
the San Francisco Bay.
The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses. During the 1950s, trash was
reportedly burned on a portion of the project site and/or burn ash dumped at the site. The trash
burning/ash dumping activities were not licensed. While the burn ash located at the project site is
assumed to be associated with activity at the now-closed Oyster Point Landfill across Gull Drive from
the site, the project site was not used for disposal of municipal solid waste. The residual burn ash
material consists of ash, brick, concrete, metal fragments, and glass, and select metals
concentrations were reported at concentrations above industrial or commercial environmental
screening levels, requiring further action. Additionally, migration of landfill gas from the Oyster Point
Landfill had historically been a concern.
Uses in the project vicinity include a mix of office, warehouse, corporate, commercial, and light
industrial uses in Business Technology Park – High (BTP-H) zoning. The project parcel is bounded to
the north, west, and south by office/commercial and light industrial buildings and associated parking
lots. Gull Drive borders the project parcel to the east.
As indicated above, there is an approved project with associated certified EIR at this site. The
current expanded project represents a proposal to add additional floors to the project already
approved and expected to be underway soon.
8. Project Description:
Summary Comparison to the Current Project to the Project Description in the Prior EIR
The approved original project consisted of construction and operation of a new 166,613-square-
foot, 7-story, office / research and development (R&D) building and an attached 4.5-level 419-stall
parking garage. The project was consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan and
zoning in effect at the time.
The proposed expanded project consists of a 281,058-square-foot, 9-story, office / R&D building and
an attached 7-level 574-stall parking garage. Compared to the original project, the proposed
expansion represents an increase of the office/R&D area by approximately 115,000 square feet on
the same footprint, through increased height of the office/R&D component (2 additional stories)
and parking garage (2.5 additional levels). The expanded project is consistent with the updated
General Plan 2040 and zoning now in effect.
Building Massing
The exterior office/R&D building design would include fiber cement panels and colored glass with
metal louvers and overhangs and would reach heights of 142.25 feet tall to the top of the parapet,
with allowable rooftop elements up to 152.5 feet above ground level (with the height of the site,
this would equate to maximum heights of 217.5 feet above mean sea level). The parking garage
Page 6 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
would reach heights of approximately 71 feet tall with allowable rooftop elements (stair tower) to
approximately 87 feet.
The project site plan is shown on Figure 2 and building elevations are shown on Figures 3a and 3b.
Access & Parking
There would be small modifications to the site circulation to accommodate better access for fire
trucks. Access points at the project site boundary would remain unchanged but on-site circulation
would be modified to move the drop-off area closer to the main building entrance.
The following description remains unchanged from the Prior EIR:
Vehicular access to and from the project would be via three routes (all of which have mutual access
easements with nearby properties per discussion above):
• A new right-in/right-out only driveway on Gull Drive (which would require recording a new
access easement over a sliver of City-owned land).
• Along the shared drive aisle heading southwest from the site then along an existing driveway
between the Plenty Unlimited and Nickell properties to connect with Eccles Avenue at an
unsignalized intersection.
• Along one of the two adjacent 30-foot drive aisle easements between the Plenty Unlimited and
Iron Mountain buildings to Oyster Point Boulevard. While the intersection of these driveways
with Oyster Point Boulevard is not signalized and would be limited to right-in, right-out
movements by existing medians on Oyster Point Boulevard, it is possible for vehicles to access
the adjacent signalized driveway intersection internally through the parking lot area for full
turning options. Due to the constraints of the connection to Oyster Point Boulevard at this
access point, the project’s on-site circulation has been designed to discourage outbound
movement along this pathway.
The companies currently using the existing paved drive aisle along the northwestern boundary of
the existing parcel for access and circulation would continue to have the same access and rights to
do so; with development of the project, vehicles accessing the project site would also use the
driveway and drive aisles.
Site improvements
The expanded project would involve construction of a new 281,058-square-foot, 9-story, office /
R&D building and an attached 7-level 574-stall parking garage. Site improvements would also
include open space, landscaping, outdoor seating areas, pedestrian walkways, and vehicular
circulation elements, including a connection to Gull Drive for the mutual access easements in the
vicinity (see above).
Construction
The current project is a proposed expansion of the size of a project for which construction is
expected to be underway soon. The following description updates the total construction activities,
which represents an addition of 3.5 months to the overall schedule (previously 22.5 months):
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 7
Construction is expected to span approximately 26 months. Site preparation would occur in the first
2 months, followed by 4 months of foundation work, then 20 months of building and parking garage
construction, which would overlap with 2 months for hardscape and landscaping toward the end of
that period. This active construction period would be followed by inspections and closeout. It is
expected that future tenants would engage in additional interior build out of the space to suit their
needs. Construction activities are targeted to begin in mid-2022 with operations beginning as early
as mid- to late-2025.
No substantial excavation or subsurface floors / parking is proposed, which hasn’t changed since the
Prior EIR. Grading would involve 18,440 cubic yards of cut across the site. Some of that would be
balanced on site, with a net import of 1,780 cubic yards and export of 16,460 cubic yards. Drilled
piles are proposed for building support that would be drilled down to bedrock (approximately 15 to
60 feet). To address the stability of the slope along the south and east portions of the site, design-
level geotechnical recommendations would include a combination of additional rows of piles,
ground improvement and/or tighter spacing of piles.
Depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet below the ground surface (of the development
portion of the site, not the slope), and dewatering is not anticipated during foundation work.
Note that the site preparation and foundations work are anticipated to be underway soon, under
prior approvals.
9. Required Approvals:
Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San
Francisco: Design Review, Exceptions (from Parking Garage Rooftop Planting and Loading
Requirements), Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus with Community Benefits Fee,), , Transportation
Demand Management Program. The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional
Permit requirements related to stormwater pollution prevention.
Page 8 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
Figure 1: Project Location
Source: Fehr & Peers, for the original project analysis
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 9
Figure 2: Illustrative Site Plan
Source: Amended Project Plan Set, dated 2/13/2023
Page 10 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
Figure 3a: Exterior Elevations - Northeast
Source: Amended Project Plan Set, dated 2/13/2023
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 11
Figure 3b: Exterior Elevations - South
Source: Amended Project Plan Set, dated 2/13/2023
Page 12 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHANGES
The proposed project is in the same location and footprint as previously assessed in the Prior EIR.
The difference from the Prior EIR is in the size (height and square footage) of the main building as well
as the parking garage. The following discussion is broken down by CEQA topic and focuses on
assessment of the changed size.
AESTHETICS
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The proposed expansion would result in a taller building with a modified design in the same location as
was analyzed in the Prior EIR.
There would be no substantial change to the assessment or conclusions related to scenic vistas or scenic
highways from the analysis in the Prior EIR. The expanded project occupies the same building footprint
as the original project. As under the Prior EIR, the site and surrounding area is predominately developed
with business park and industrial uses and is not considered a scenic resource or vista in any vicinity
plans, nor are there any designated or eligible scenic highways. The updated General Plan 2040 lists the
following as protected views: the South San Francisco Hillside Sign; hillside open spaces, including Sign
Hill, San Bruno Mountain and the Coast Range; unique public views of the City, the San Francisco Bay
and local landmarks, as seen from major thoroughfares and hillside open spaces. There are no
designated public viewing areas in the vicinity of the project and San Bruno Mountain is not visible from
Gull Drive or Forbes Boulevard. The added height of the expansion would not block any additional views.
The impact related to scenic vistas or highways would remain less than significant.
There would be no substantial change to the assessment or conclusions related to visual character. With
the updated General Plan 2040, the project site’s zone changed from Business and Technology Park to
Business Technology Park – High. With this change of zoning, additional building height is allowed
compared to the previous zoning. The proposed height of the expansion, 142.25 feet (plus allowable
rooftop projections), is within zoning standards. The project remains R&D and office use, which is
explicitly permitted. Any changes from the previously approved design of the building would need to be
approved by City staff. The impact related to visual character would remain less than significant.
The project remains in a commercial and industrial area. The previously analyzed lighting plan was
approved by the City. Any changes to the lighting plan would be required to comply with all rules and
regulations as well. With compliance with applicable rules and regulations, the impact related to light
and glare would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Aesthetics conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (less than
significant).
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 13
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact
As under the Prior EIR, the expanded project is located on the same project site, in a developed
industrial area, and no part of the site is zoned for or currently being used for agricultural or forestry
purposes or is subject to the Williamson Act.
Therefore, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial changes to the Prior EIR Agricultural
and Forestry Resources analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (no impact).
AIR QUALITY
Impacts remain Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
The proposed expansion would not change the project’s consistency with current air quality plan
primary goals and control measures compared to the original project. The expanded project would be
required to comply with the same rules and regulations related to emissions and health risks and would
not result in a new substantial source of emissions or toxic air contaminants. The impact related to air
quality plans would remain less than significant.
The proposed expansion would extend the construction time and increase operational emissions
compared to the original project, as assessed below.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed expansion would involve additional construction time, primarily during the
building erection phase. The estimated construction schedule would span an additional 2.5 months.
Construction emissions for the project were re-modeled using the updated construction schedule.
Additionally, because an updated version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”), is
now available (CalEEMod version 2020.4.0), this model was used to re-model the emissions for the
original project plus the project expansion. Project details were entered into the model including the
proposed land uses, Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions, Peninsula Clean Energy
carbon intensity factors, demolition/earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults
were otherwise used. The CalEEMod results are included in Attachment A. Emissions from construction
are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction (Pounds per Day)
Description
Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)*
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) *
Average Daily Emissions 7 17 0.67 0.62
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54
* Applies to exhaust emissions only
Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A, converted from tons per year to pounds per day across the active
construction days (approximately 609 days).
Construction emissions for the project would remain below BAAQMD thresholds with the proposed
expansion.
Page 14 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
As indicated in the Prior EIR, BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to
be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends
implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction-related emissions and dust
for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction-period thresholds. These basic
construction management practices were included as Mitigation Measure Air-1 to reduce the impact to
a less than significant level. This impact and conclusion would remain applicable to the expanded
project. The impact from construction period emissions on regional air quality would remain less than
significant with mitigation.
Operational Emissions
The proposed expansion would add additional emissions during operations due to increased building
square footage and related employees and transportation, energy and other utility usage, and building
cleaning and maintenance compared to the original project. As indicated under Construction Emission
above, the emissions were re-modeled using a new CalEEMod version for the original project plus the
project expansion. CalEEMod inputs and results are included in Attachment A and summarized in Table
2, below.
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations (Pounds per Day for Daily, Tons per Year for
Annual)
Description Reactive Organic Gases Nitrogen Oxides Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Project Emissions, Daily 12.6 7.1 12.1 3.3
BAAQMD Daily Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Project Emissions, Annual 2.3 1.3 2.2 0.6
BAAQMD Annual
Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per year
to pounds/days.
Operational emissions would remain below BAAQMD thresholds with the proposed expansion. The
impact from operational emissions on regional air quality would remain less than significant.
The proposed expansion would not change the project’s distance to sensitive receptors compared to the
original project. There are no sensitive receptors within the 1,000-foot screening distance of the project
site. With no nearby sensitive receptors and criteria pollutant emission levels remaining below
significance thresholds during both the construction and operational periods, the expanded project’s
impact related to sensitive receptors would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Air Quality analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (less
than significant or less than significant with mitigation).
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 15
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact/ Less than Significant
The project site has not changed. The project is located in a developed urban area, and special-status
species are unlikely to occur in the project vicinity due to its highly disturbed and urbanized nature. The
proposed expansion involves additional floors on top of the original project, for which construction is
expected to be underway soon. As the expansion would involve only increased height, and not
substantially change the footprint of the project or the location, it would not require substantially
different land disturbance than what was already analyzed in the Prior EIR.
Since the Prior EIR, Chapter 20.310.002(I)(6) of the South San Francisco Building Code has been adopted,
which now requires the use of bird safe glazing for buildings within 300 feet of an Urban Bird Refuge.
There is not currently an official definition for “Urban Bird Refuge.” The project site is within 300 feet of
an unnamed slough to the west of Gull Drive. This slough is Northern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat and is
known to attract birds. While only a small portion of the slough is within 300 feet of the project, and
separated by a roadway and grade change, it is unclear if this provision should apply to the project with
no official definition of “Urban Bird Refuge.” The applicant has coordinated with a qualified biologist to
undertake a project-specific bird-safe design analysis to determine the risk of bird strikes at the site and
the appropriate bird safe measures that would be required for the project. The City would review the
bird-safe design analysis and would need to find that the provision either does not apply or is
adequately satisfied by the proposed design measures.
With the inclusion of any required bird-safe design measures, the impact of the expanded project on
special-status species, wildlife corridors, and sensitive habitats would remain less than significant.
No local policies, ordinances, or Habitat Conservation Plans are directly applicable to this project site
and the no impact conclusion would remain unchanged.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Biological Resources analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant with Mitigation
The proposed expansion is an increase in height to the original project previously analyzed in the Prior
EIR, on the same site and with substantially the same ground disturbance.
The expanded project would be located on the same site that was vacant at the time of the analysis of
the original project, therefore the previous conclusion for impacts on historic resources would remain
no impact.
While not anticipated, the Prior EIR identified discovery/disturbance of currently unknown cultural
resources as a potentially-significant Impact related to cultural resources and included Mitigation
Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3, requiring cultural resources awareness training for construction
workers and required processes to follow if previously unknown cultural resources or human remains
are discovered, that would reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation. These mitigation
measures would remain applicable to the expanded project.
Page 16 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
Therefore, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial changes to the Prior EIR Cultural
Resources analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (no impact/less than
significant with mitigation).
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant/ Less than Significant with Mitigation
This section utilizes information from the Geotechnical Investigation (“Geotechnical Report”) prepared
for the applicants by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, dated April 8, 2022, which is
available as part of project application materials.
The expanded project is located on the same site as analyzed under the Prior EIR and therefore would
be built upon the same soils and be subject to the same geologic hazards as previously analyzed. The
proposed expansion would result in the project building being taller and heavier than the original
project. Therefore, the expanded project was assessed in an updated Geotechnical Report as detailed
above.
The Prior EIR identified geologic hazards due to seismic hazards, unstable soil and expansive soil as
potentially significant and identified Mitigation Measure Geo-1, requiring applicant compliance with a
design level Geotechnical Investigation report, to reduce the impact to less than significant. The updated
Geotechnical Investigation report prepared for the proposed expansion includes updated
recommendations to properly prepare the foundation of the proposed taller building, with which
applicant will be required to comply. The applicant will implement Mitigation Measure Geo-1 to the
proposed expanded project as well. Therefore, the impact related to seismic and soil hazards would
remain less than significant with mitigation.
With the same site and building footprint as under the original project, the potential for erosion would
not substantially change with the expanded project. The construction plan of the expanded project
would be subject to the same requirements to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General
Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The conclusion of a less
than significant impact in relation to soil erosion under the Prior EIR would remain unchanged. The
conclusion of no impact related to the use of septic tanks would remain unchanged, as no septic takes
are proposed.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Geology and Soils analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged
(no impact/less than significant/less than significant with mitigation).
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The proposed expansion would require extended construction activities and result in increased
operational activities, both of which are associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The expanded
project’s GHG emissions were re-modeled using CalEEMod, as discussed under Air Quality above. A
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 17
summary of the results is included in Table 3, and the CalEEMod input and output can be found in
Attachment A.
Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Description metric tons CO2e per year
Project Emissions, Operational 2,202
Project Emissions, Construction
(averaged over 40 years) 34
Project Emissions, Total 2,236
Project Service Population 936
Project Emissions, Total
(per Service Population) 2.39
BAAQMD Project Service Population
Significance Threshold 2020 4.6
Exceeds 2020 Threshold? No
Projected Service Population
Significance Threshold 2030 2.8
Exceeds 2030 Threshold? No
Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A.
Notes: CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses.
Consistent with the Prior EIR, Service Population was calculated at approximately 300 square feet per employee for office/R&D.
While office and specifically tech office uses could have a higher number of employees, a lower number was used here for a
more conservative analysis of GHG emissions.
As shown in Table 3, GHG emissions of the expanded project would remain below BAAQMD’s efficiency
threshold based on 2020 reductions and also the projected 2030 efficiency threshold.
Since analysis of the Prior EIR, BAAQMD has updated their thresholds of significance. One of the criteria
a project can meet to stay below the threshold is to be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy
that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Along with the updated General
Plan 2040, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in October 2022 with the goal of achieving
carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2040. There is not currently a
checklist for development projects, but the applicant would be required to comply with the CAP’s
strategies and actions as determined applicable by the City for the expanded project. Therefore, the
impact related to increased GHG emissions would remain less than significant.
As indicated above, the proposed expansion would not change the project’s compliance with applicable
GHG reduction plans. The impact would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (less than significant).
Page 18 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
The project site and potential for existing hazardous materials at the site (discussed below) have not
changed since the original project. The proposed expansion would add height to a building within the
boundary of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). While the expanded project would
have space for more tenants, the proposed use of office/R&D would not change from the previous
analysis.
The expanded project, being on the same site as the original project, would not create hazardous
emissions/materials near a school, would not impact emergency response, and is not located in a
wildland fire hazard area and impacts related to these topics would remain unchanged from the Prior
EIR (no impact/less than significant).
The Prior EIR identified a potentially-significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous
materials due to the potential for soil contamination (burn ash) and migration of landfill gases from the
former Oyster Point Landfill to the east, and included Mitigation Measure Haz-2 requiring the applicant
to adhere to remediation measures recommended in the Amended Site Closure Plan and Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan to reduce the impact to less than significant. This mitigation measure would remain
applicable to the applicant for the expanded project. The proposed expansion would not require
substantial changes to ground disturbance that might have changed the level of impact (less than
significant with mitigation).
With the adoption of the updated General Plan 2040 and associated EIR, South San Francisco Municipal
Code section 20.300 requires consistency with the current ALUCP and projects meeting height limits
under the update would also meet height limits for airport safety. Accordingly, the Airport Land Use
Commission (ALUC) no longer requires project-specific review for conforming projects in South San
Francisco. The expanded project has a proposed height of 217.5 feet above mean sea level, in
compliance with heights allowed under the updated General Plan 2040 and associated zoning as well as
the ALUCP height limitations of up to 250 feet above mean sea level at this site. Therefore, the impact
related to Airport Hazards would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Hazards and Hazardous Materials analysis or conclusions and impacts would
remain unchanged (no impact/less than significant/less than significant with mitigation).
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The proposed expansion involves additional square footage through a change of height on the same site
and approximate footprint as previously proposed, which is not located in an area subject to flooding or
inundation. Some revisions to the site circulation (and associated location of drive aisles and
landscaping) would be necessary to allow for increased fire truck access to the taller building, but the
revised plans for stormwater retention and pollution prevention would be required of the applicant to
meet the same standards and regulations. As under the Prior EIR, the project would not extract
groundwater or interfere with groundwater recharge. The expansion would not substantially change the
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 19
project site’s drainage pattern compared to the original project, or compliance with applicable water
quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans. (less than significant)
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Hydrology and Water Quality analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (less than significant).
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant
The proposed expansion involves a vertical addition to the original project in the same location as that
analyzed in the Prior EIR, with no physical changes to the project site that would have the potential to
divide an established community. Therefore, the conclusion of no impact related to these items would
remain unchanged.
The original project was consistent with the zoning that was in place when the Prior EIR was analyzed
(Business and Technology Park). Since that time, the City’s General Plan 2040 update was approved,
along with associated zoning code amendments. The expanded project is in compliance with the new
zoning of the project site, Business Technology Park - High, allowing for additional height at this site. The
project site plans would remain in compliance with other development standards, or would request
approval of a Conditional Use Permit, such as for Parking/Loading Reduction, that are standard
approvals under the City’s planning process, generally consistent with the original project. Therefore,
impacts related to land use plan conflicts would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Land Use and Planning analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
MINERAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain No Impact
The expanded project is in the same location as that analyzed under the Prior EIR, located on a site that
contains no known mineral resources and has not been delineated as a locally important mineral
recovery site on any land use plan. There would be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the
proposed expansion.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Mineral Resources analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact).
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The construction (and associated noise) of the expanded project would span a longer period by about
2.5 months compared to the original project, but the applicant would comply with all South San
Francisco Noise Ordinances concerning construction days and times, and there are no sensitive
receptors within 1,000 feet from the project site. The expanded project would represent increased
Page 20 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
operational activity, but the applicant would comply with applicable regulations related to site and
generator/rooftop equipment noise levels and would not have the potential to substantially increase
roadway noise. (As discussed in the Prior EIR, roadways noise increases perceptibly with about a
doubling of traffic volumes. Even with the increased operational activity and associated trips of the
expanded project, roadways volumes would increase between 1% and 23.6%, which is less than a
doubling and therefore would not result in perceptible increases in roadway noise.) The construction-
period and operational noise and vibration impacts of the expanded project would remain less than
significant.
The expanded project is in the same location as the original project, which is not subject to excessive
aircraft noise and therefore impacts related to excessive aircraft noise exposure would be less than
significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Noise and Vibration analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (less than significant).
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts remain No Impact/Less than Significant
The proposed expansion would result in more square footage and therefore more jobs than the original
project. As under the Prior EIR, while the expanded project would not directly increase residential
population, employment opportunities can indirectly increase population and housing demand. The
original project was estimated to result in 555 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. Using the
same average employment density projection of 300 gross square feet per employee, the expanded
project, including the original project plus the expansion, would result in approximately 936 jobs. The
South San Francisco General Plan 2040 EIR estimates that approximately 69,500 new jobs would be
created in South San Francisco from 2019 to 2040, and determined that this would be a less than
significant impact.1 As a small portion of the expected job growth, the additional 381 jobs from the
expansion (totaling 936 with the original project), would remain a less than significant impact.
As under the Prior EIR, the expanded project would not displace housing or people and would have no
impact related to housing.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Population and Housing analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (no impact/less than significant).
PUBLIC SERVICES
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The proposed expansion would increase the square footage and associated building operations and
number of employees, which are associated with demand for public services. As under the Prior EIR, the
project site is served by existing public service facilities, and an office/R&D use would not be anticipated
1 FirstCarbon Solutions, Draft Program Environmental Impact Report General Plan Update, Zoning Code Amendments, and
Climate Action Plan, City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California. June 24, 2022.
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 21
to substantially increase utilization of public services such that new or physically altered facilities would
be required. The minimal increases in demand for services expected with the extra worker population
and potential indirect population growth (see Population and Housing, above) would be offset through
payment of development fees and annual taxes from the applicant, a portion of which go toward
ongoing provision of and improvements to public services. The impact of the project on public services
with the proposed expansion would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Public Services analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged
(less than significant).
RECREATION
Impacts remain Less than Significant
The project expansion would increase the number of employees at the site, some of whom would be
expected to use area recreational facilities, including the nearby Oyster Point Park (approximately 0.5
miles to the northeast) and the Bay Trail. As under the original project, the project would add onsite
open space and would pay in-lieu fees to help fund City recreational facilities and programs to meet
increased demand and prevent physical deterioration due to increased use. The impact of the proposed
expansion with respect to recreation would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Recreation analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (less
than significant).
TRANSPORTATION
Impacts remain Less than Significant/ Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation
This section utilizes information from the Transportation Impact Analysis Update prepared for this
analysis by Fehr & Peers, dated January 30, 2023, which is included as Attachment B.
The proposed expansion would result in more employees and increase the number of trips generated by
the project. The number of daily trips would be approximately 1,462, an increase of 641 over the
original project. This would include an increase of 113 AM peak hour trips and 120 PM peak hour trips.
Consistent with the findings of the Prior EIR, the Transportation Impact Assessment Update (Attachment
B) concluded that the additional trips associated with the project expansion would not result in a
detrimental impact to existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities during construction or operation, or
conflict with adopted policies in adopted City plans. While temporary sidewalk and bike lane rerouting
on Gull Drive is expected and roadway traffic control would be used as needed during construction,
detours would be temporary in nature, would follow applicable guidance, and would not fully impede
movement or have a sustained detrimental impact on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Additionally, the level of added vehicle traffic would not adversely affect existing or planned bicycle or
pedestrian facilities or substantially lengthen travel times by existing shuttle services. The impact of the
expanded project on transit, bicycle or pedestrian plans or policies would remain less than significant.
The Prior EIR determined that the original project would have a significant and unavoidable impact with
mitigation with respect to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), as follows:
Page 22 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
Impact TR-2: Vehicles Miles Traveled. The vehicle miles traveled per employee exceeds the City’s
adopted threshold of 15 percent below the regional average under existing and future
conditions. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation)
As detailed in the Transportation Impact Assessment Update (Attachment B), the project would
generate 16.2 VMT per employee under existing conditions and 12.9 VMT per employee under future
cumulative conditions compared to a threshold of 12.1. The average VMT would be the same for the
expanded project as for the original project and would remain above the threshold of significance. The
Prior EIR identified Mitigation Measure TR-2 to require first- and last-mile strategies to reduce the VMT
impact, though it remained significant. Since the Prior EIR, the City has updated its TDM Ordinance. Due
to this update, the following changes are made to Mitigation Measure TR-2, which would remain
applicable to the expanded project:
Deletions are noted by strikethrough. Additions are underlined.
Mitigation Measure TR-2: First- and Last-Mile Strategies. The project sponsor shall coordinate with the
City for the project sponsor to implement the following off-site improvements to support the project’s
first- and last-mile and active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home-
Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled.
• Implementation of a TDM Program consistent with the City’s performance and monitoring
requirements for Tier 3 projects (office/R&D land uses), including implementing required measures
such as Pparticipation in first-/last-mile shuttle program(s) to Caltrain and BART, 50 percent transit
pass subsidies, carpool/vanpool programs, a designated TDM coordinator, and encouraging
telecommuting and flexible work schedules. Shuttles may be operated by Commute.org and/or
other East of 101 shuttle providers offering services open to the general public.
• Restriping of five crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue, one
crosswalk at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard, and two crosswalks at the intersection of
Oyster Point Boulevard and the 329-333 Oyster Point Boulevard driveway with high-visibility
longitudinal markings to enhance pedestrian access to the westbound shuttle stop and nearby land
uses.
The project sponsor shall additionally coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to pay fair-share
contribution toward the following off-site improvements to support the project’s first and last-mile and
active transportation connections necessary to support reductions in Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles
Traveled.
• Modification of the existing eastbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection to provide an accessible five-foot long by eight-foot wide
landing pad and pavement markings (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by
the City or SamTrans).
• Installation of a bus shelter consistent with city specifications at the planned westbound bus shuttle
stop at on the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection (bus stop to be
implemented by the City) including a pole, accessible five-foot long by eight-foot wide landing pad,
pavement markings, and shelter (if such facilities are not already fully funded or constructed by the
City or SamTrans).
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 23
• Provision of eastbound and westbound Class II buffered bicycle lanes along Eccles Avenue between
Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, spanning approximately 3,000 linear feet. The
improvement consists primarily of restriping the curbside vehicle travel lane in each direction to a
Class II buffered bicycle lane and signage. The bicycle facility will help close a gap between the
project and a planned Class I shared-use pathway between Forbes Boulevard / Eccles Avenue and
the South San Francisco Caltrain station.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2, the expanded project’s impact on VMT would remain
significant and unavoidable with mitigation, consistent with the impact and conclusions in the Prior
EIR.
The proposed expansion would not change site access compared to the original project. Existing
driveways at 340 Oyster Point Boulevard and 570-590 Eccles Avenue as well as the driveway on Gull
Drive, proposed as part of the original project, would be appropriate to handle expected traffic in and
out of the project site. The proposed expansion would not worsen any existing geometric design
features, cause new design hazards, or include any uses that are incompatible with the surrounding land
use or the existing roadway system. Therefore, the expanded project’s impacts related to hazards would
remain less than significant.
The proposed expansion would not substantially change the project’s impact on emergency access.
Vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak hour
traffic on roadways and freeways near the project site. The proposed expansion would generate about
one to two additional vehicle trips per minute on average during peak hours, which is not expected to
introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project site. The expanded
project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway
facilities; fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities around the entire City.
Emergency vehicles would continue to have full access to the project site via three driveways connecting
to adjacent streets; each driveway would be equipped to handle all types of emergency vehicles.
Therefore, the expanded project’s impact to emergency access would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Transportation analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged
(less than significant/significant and unavoidable with mitigation).
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts remain Less than Significant with Mitigation
The proposed expansion is an increase in height of the original project on the same site and would have
substantially the same ground disturbance as the original project.
While not anticipated, the Prior EIR identified discovery/disturbance of currently unknown cultural
resources, including tribal cultural resources, as a potentially-significant impact and included Mitigation
Measures Cul-1, Cul-2, and Cul-3, requiring the applicant to implement cultural resources awareness
training for construction workers and required processes if previously unknown cultural resources or
human remains are discovered that would reduce the impact to less than significant. These mitigation
measures would remain applicable to the expanded project and reduce potential impacts with respect
to Tribal Cultural Resources to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
Page 24 101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Tribal Cultural Resources analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain
unchanged (less than significant with mitigation).
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impacts remain Less than Significant/Less than Significant with Mitigation
The proposed expansion would increase the square footage and associated building operations and
number of employees, which are associated with demand for public services. As under the Prior EIR, the
project site is served by existing public service facilities, and an office/R&D use would not be anticipated
to substantially increase utilization of public services such that new or physically altered facilities would
be required. The minimal increases in demand for services expected with the extra worker population
and potential indirect population growth (see Population and Housing, above) would be offset through
applicant payment of development fees and annual taxes, a portion of which go toward ongoing
provision of and improvements to public services. The impact of the project on public services with the
proposed expansion would remain less than significant.
The project expansion would increase the number of employees at the site, some of whom would be
expected to use area recreational facilities, including the nearby Oyster Point Park (approximately 0.5
miles to the northeast) and the Bay Trail. As under the original project, the project would add onsite
open space and would pay in-lieu fees to help fund City recreational facilities and programs to meet
increased demand and prevent physical deterioration due to increased use. The impact of the proposed
expansion with respect to recreation would remain less than significant.
The proposed expansion would increase the square footage and associated building operations and
number of employees, which are associated with demand for utilities and service systems. The
expanded project is consistent with the current General Plan 2040 and therefore area utility and service
planning and the applicant would be required to pay appropriate development and connection fees.
Since the Prior EIR, the water provider, Cal Water, is now in the process of adopting a Water Neutral
Development Policy, which would require the payment of a Development Offset Program fee based on
anticipated water usage to that would be used by Cal Water to offset increases in water demand on a
system-wide level.
The Prior EIR recognized that Mitigation Measure Util-1, requiring a subtrunk replacement in a portion
of the Oyster Point sewer, would be necessary to accommodate cumulative demand for sewer capacity,
including the project. While this improvement is expected to be completed by other parties, the
mitigation measure would require fair-share contribution from the applicant toward the cost and would
remain relevant to the expanded project to reduce the impact to less than significant with mitigation.
Consistent with conclusions in the Prior EIR and the discussion above, the impact on other utilities and
service facilities would remain less than significant.
Therefore, given the substantial evidence above, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial
changes to the Prior EIR Utilities and Service Systems analysis or conclusions (less than significant/ less
than significant with mitigation).
101 Gull Drive Project Proposed Expansion Page 25
WILDFIRE
Impacts remain No Impact
The expanded project is located on the same project site as analyzed in the Prior EIR, in a developed
industrial area. Neither the project site nor the City of South San Francisco is identified as being within a
State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a very high fire hazard severity zone nor are located near such an
area.
Therefore, the proposed expansion would result in no substantial changes to the Prior EIR Wildfire
analysis or conclusions and impacts would remain unchanged (no impact).
CONCLUSIONS
Given the substantial evidence presented in this document, the proposed expansion of the project
would not require subsequent analysis per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, as confirmed by the
following statements:
(1) The proposed expansion of the project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) There are no changes in circumstances that would result in the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects; and
(3) There is no new information resulting in a new significant effect not discussed in new significant
environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects, or a change in the feasibility (or acceptance) of mitigation measures.
While the proposed expansion would result in a larger building and parking garage than analyzed under
the Prior EIR, the change in size would be considered a minor technical change per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164, as it would not change environmental conclusions. Therefore, this Addendum, in
combination with the Prior EIR, is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed expansion. No
additional CEQA analysis or documentation is required to make a decision on the proposed expansion of
the project.
All mitigation measures identified in the Prior EIR would remain applicable to the expanded project, with
the revisions to Mitigation Measure TR-2 consistent with updated TDM requirements, as indicated in
this document.
ATTACHMENT A
Emissions Modeling
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMtblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/3/2024 5/30/2025tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 43.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/23/2024 5/30/2025tblConstructionPhase NumDays 8.00 87.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 22.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 18.00 22.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 435.00Construction Phase - Per preliminary construction schedule.Grading - Based on site plan.Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - Specifics of emergency generator were ot yet known so assumed to be similar in size and usage to those for similar projects.Table Name Column Name Default Value New ValueN2O Intensity (lb/MWhr)01.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default DataProject Characteristics - Penninsula Clean Energy 2021 CO2 intensity factor used.Land Use - Project total lot acreage is 166,613 square feet per plans, which was split between the parking and building uses for the analysis.Utility CompanyPeninsula Clean EnergyCO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)5CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr)0Precipitation Freq (Days)70Climate Zone5Operational Year20251.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationUrbanWind Speed (m/s)2.20Enclosed Parking with Elevator 613.00 Space 1.80 245,200.00 0Research & Development 281.06 1000sqft 2.00 281,058.00101 Gull Drive Expanded ProjectSan Mateo County, Annual1.0 Project Characteristics1.1 Land UsageLand Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area PopulationCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualSSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 1 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual681.9493 681.9493 0.0903 0.0382 695.58380.0430 0.0155 307.3296Maximum 1.6277 2.3183 2.7682 7.4000e-0030.7278 0.0846 0.8124 0.3783 0.0790 0.4566 0.00000.0324 0.0644 0.0000 301.6470 301.64703.2900e-0030.1175 0.0344 0.1519 0.03202025 1.6277 0.9955 1.2907681.9493 681.9493 0.0903 0.0382 695.58380.0826 9.8300e-003367.77752024 0.2560 2.3183 2.7682 7.4000e-0030.2726 0.0840 0.3566 0.0742 0.0790 0.1533 0.00000.0784 0.4566 0.0000 362.7839 362.78394.0400e-0030.7278 0.0846 0.8124 0.37832023 0.2015 1.9814 1.7508N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH42.1 Overall ConstructionUnmitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse NumberOfEquipment 0.00 1.002.0 Emissions SummarytblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HorsePowerValue 0.00 670.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsUse HoursPerYear 0.00 50.00tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF CH4_EF 0.07 0.07tblStationaryGeneratorsPumpsEF ROG_EF 2.2480e-003 2.2477e-003tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.52 1.80tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 5tblGrading AcresOfGrading 64.50 0.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 6.45 2.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/29/2023 4/3/2023tblGrading AcresOfGrading 87.00 3.00tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/6/2023 6/1/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/4/2024 4/1/2025tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/30/2024 5/1/2025tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 5/18/2023 10/2/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/29/2024 4/30/2025tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/5/2023 5/31/2023tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/17/2023 9/29/2023SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 2 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual2.2 Overall OperationalUnmitigated OperationalHighest1.9564 1.95649 4-3-2025 7-2-20251.9564 1.95648 1-3-2025 4-2-20250.6041 0.60417 10-3-2024 1-2-20250.6493 0.64936 7-3-2024 10-2-20240.6407 0.64075 4-3-2024 7-2-20240.6335 0.63354 1-3-2024 4-2-20240.6428 0.64283 10-3-2023 1-2-20240.6867 0.68672 7-3-2023 10-2-20230.6336 0.63361 4-3-2023 7-2-20230.8624 0.86240.00 0.00 0.00Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)N20 CO2ePercent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5ROG NOx CO SO2681.9489 681.9489 0.0903 0.0382 695.58340.0430 0.0155 307.3294Maximum 1.6277 2.3183 2.7682 7.4000e-0030.7278 0.0846 0.8124 0.3783 0.0790 0.4566 0.00000.0324 0.0643 0.0000 301.6469 301.64693.2900e-0030.1175 0.0344 0.1519 0.03202025 1.6277 0.9955 1.2907681.9489 681.9489 0.0903 0.0382 695.58340.0826 9.8300e-003367.77722024 0.2560 2.3183 2.7682 7.4000e-0030.2726 0.0840 0.3566 0.0742 0.0790 0.1533 0.00000.0784 0.4566 0.0000 362.7836 362.78364.0400e-0030.7278 0.0846 0.8124 0.37832023 0.2015 1.9814 1.7508N2O CO2eYear tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated ConstructionROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 3 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualTotal CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e4.8846 0.1895 2,380.9228ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalBio- CO2 NBio-CO20.0414 0.6259 48.1790 2,154.1499 2,202.32890.0213 2.1886 0.0422 2.2308 0.5846Total 2.2539 1.2799 9.39721.6959 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063 189.80230.2562 0.0000 10.7420Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 43.84310.0000 0.0000 4.3359 0.0000 4.33590.0000 0.0000Waste12.7567 12.7567 1.7900e-0030.0000 12.80140.1164 0.0764 1,789.1001Stationary 0.0275 0.0768 0.0701 1.3000e-0044.0400e-0034.0400e-003 4.0400e-0034.0400e-003 0.00000.0116 0.5961 0.0000 1,763.4112 1,763.41120.0191 2.1886 0.0124 2.2010 0.5846Mobile 0.9232 0.8645 9.0345376.2702 376.2702 7.0600e-0036.7600e-003378.46004.0000e-0050.0000 0.0170Energy 0.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.00003.0000e-0053.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0160 0.01600.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005Area 1.2660 7.0000e-0058.1900e-003CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO4.8846 0.1895 2,380.9228Mitigated Operational0.0414 0.6259 48.1790 2,154.1499 2,202.32890.0213 2.1886 0.0422 2.2308 0.5846Total 2.2539 1.2799 9.39721.6959 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063 189.80230.2562 0.0000 10.7420Water0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 43.84310.0000 0.0000 4.3359 0.0000 4.33590.0000 0.0000Waste12.7567 12.7567 1.7900e-0030.0000 12.80140.1164 0.0764 1,789.1001Stationary 0.0275 0.0768 0.0701 1.3000e-0044.0400e-0034.0400e-003 4.0400e-0034.0400e-003 0.00000.0116 0.5961 0.0000 1,763.4112 1,763.41120.0191 2.1886 0.0124 2.2010 0.5846Mobile 0.9232 0.8645 9.0345376.2702 376.2702 7.0600e-0036.7600e-003378.46004.0000e-0050.0000 0.0170Energy 0.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.00003.0000e-0053.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0160 0.01600.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005Area 1.2660 7.0000e-0058.1900e-003N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 4 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual0.40Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 2470.36Paving Rollers 2 6.00 80 0.38Paving Paving Equipment 2 6.00 1320.41Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42Grading Graders 1 8.00 1870.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 890.29Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 2310.48Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6.00 9 0.56Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78Acres of Paving: 1.8Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 421,587; Non-Residential Outdoor: 140,529; Striped Parking Area: 14,712 OffRoad EquipmentPhase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor522Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 35 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 5/1/2025 5/30/20255 4354 Paving Paving 4/1/2025 4/30/2025 5 223 Building Construction Building Construction 10/2/2023 5/30/20255432 Grading Grading 6/1/2023 9/29/2023 5 871 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/3/2023 5/31/2023Start Date End Date Num Days WeekNum Days Phase Description3.0 Construction DetailConstruction PhasePhase NumberPhase Name Phase Type0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Percent Reduction0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 5 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualCH4 N2O CO2eExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0233 0.0000 72.5005Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0250 0.2386 0.0000 71.9190 71.91908.2000e-0040.3884 0.0272 0.4156 0.2135Total 0.0572 0.5918 0.392371.9190 71.9190 0.0233 0.0000 72.50050.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0572 0.5918 0.3923 8.2000e-0040.0272 0.0272 0.0250 0.0250 0.00000.0000 0.2135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.3884 0.0000 0.3884 0.2135Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.1 Mitigation Measures Construction3.2 Site Preparation - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5HHDTArchitectural Coating 1 39.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixPaving 8 20.00 0.00 0.00HHDTBuilding Construction 9 193.00 86.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixGrading 6 15.00 0.00 0.00Hauling Vehicle ClassSite Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_MixHHDT0.45Trips and VMTPhase Name Offroad Equipment CountWorker Trip NumberVendor Trip NumberHauling Trip NumberWorker Trip LengthVendor Trip LengthHauling Trip LengthWorker Vehicle ClassVendor Vehicle ClassBuilding Construction Welders 1 8.00 460.37Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 970.37Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 6 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual3.3 Grading - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-Site2.2644 2.2644 6.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.28276.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.2827Total 8.3000e-0045.4000e-0047.5000e-0032.0000e-0053.0500e-0031.0000e-0053.0600e-0038.1000e-0041.0000e-0058.2000e-0040.00001.0000e-0058.2000e-004 0.0000 2.2644 2.26442.0000e-0053.0500e-0031.0000e-0053.0600e-003 8.1000e-004Worker 8.3000e-0045.4000e-0047.5000e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0233 0.0000 72.5004Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0250 0.2386 0.0000 71.9189 71.91898.2000e-0040.3884 0.0272 0.4156 0.2135Total 0.0572 0.5918 0.392371.9189 71.9189 0.0233 0.0000 72.50040.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0572 0.5918 0.3923 8.2000e-0040.0272 0.0272 0.0250 0.0250 0.00000.0000 0.2135 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.3884 0.0000 0.3884 0.2135Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52.2644 2.2644 6.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.28276.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.2827Total 8.3000e-0045.4000e-0047.5000e-0032.0000e-0053.0500e-0031.0000e-0053.0600e-0038.1000e-0041.0000e-0058.2000e-0040.00001.0000e-0058.2000e-004 0.0000 2.2644 2.26442.0000e-0053.0500e-0031.0000e-0053.0600e-003 8.1000e-004Worker 8.3000e-0045.4000e-0047.5000e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Category tons/yrMT/yrSSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 7 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual0.0367 0.0000 114.2801Mitigated Construction Off-Site0.0310 0.1752 0.0000 113.3635 113.36351.2900e-0030.2636 0.0337 0.2973 0.1442Total 0.0744 0.7802 0.6417113.3635 113.3635 0.0367 0.0000 114.28010.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0744 0.7802 0.6417 1.2900e-0030.0337 0.0337 0.0310 0.0310 0.00000.0000 0.1442 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.2636 0.0000 0.2636 0.1442Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.53.8178 3.8178 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0043.84881.0000e-0041.0000e-0043.8488Total 1.4100e-0039.2000e-0040.0127 4.0000e-0055.1400e-0032.0000e-0055.1600e-0031.3700e-0032.0000e-0051.3900e-0030.00002.0000e-0051.3900e-003 0.0000 3.8178 3.81784.0000e-0055.1400e-0032.0000e-0055.1600e-003 1.3700e-003Worker 1.4100e-0039.2000e-0040.01270.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.0367 0.0000 114.2803Unmitigated Construction Off-Site0.0310 0.1752 0.0000 113.3637 113.36371.2900e-0030.2636 0.0337 0.2973 0.1442Total 0.0744 0.7802 0.6417113.3637 113.3637 0.0367 0.0000 114.28030.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 0.0744 0.7802 0.6417 1.2900e-0030.0337 0.0337 0.0310 0.0310 0.00000.0000 0.1442 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.2636 0.0000 0.2636 0.1442Fugitive DustN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 8 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualMitigated Construction On-Site96.0825 96.0825 4.5900e-0039.6700e-00399.08069.4000e-0049.2000e-00436.9987Total 0.0165 0.1404 0.1688 9.9000e-0040.0676 9.2000e-0040.0685 0.0184 8.7000e-0040.0193 0.00002.2000e-0040.0134 0.0000 36.7007 36.70074.0000e-0040.0494 2.4000e-0040.0496 0.0131Worker 0.0135 8.8300e-0030.121659.3818 59.3818 3.6500e-0038.7500e-00362.08190.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 2.9800e-0030.1316 0.0472 5.9000e-0040.0182 6.8000e-0040.0189 5.2800e-0036.5000e-0045.9200e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.575.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.78460.0179 0.0000 75.7846Total 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e-0040.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.00000.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.33658.8000e-0040.0227 0.0227Off-Road 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2023Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.53.8178 3.8178 1.0000e-0041.0000e-0043.84881.0000e-0041.0000e-0043.8488Total 1.4100e-0039.2000e-0040.0127 4.0000e-0055.1400e-0032.0000e-0055.1600e-0031.3700e-0032.0000e-0051.3900e-0030.00002.0000e-0051.3900e-003 0.0000 3.8178 3.81784.0000e-0055.1400e-0032.0000e-0055.1600e-003 1.3700e-003Worker 1.4100e-0039.2000e-0040.01270.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx COSSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 9 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5303.7223 303.7223 0.0718 0.0000 305.51790.0718 0.0000 305.5179Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e-0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.00000.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7223 303.72233.5300e-0030.0803 0.0803Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2024Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.596.0825 96.0825 4.5900e-0039.6700e-00399.08069.4000e-0049.2000e-00436.9987Total 0.0165 0.1404 0.1688 9.9000e-0040.0676 9.2000e-0040.0685 0.0184 8.7000e-0040.0193 0.00002.2000e-0040.0134 0.0000 36.7007 36.70074.0000e-0040.0494 2.4000e-0040.0496 0.0131Worker 0.0135 8.8300e-0030.121659.3818 59.3818 3.6500e-0038.7500e-00362.08190.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 2.9800e-0030.1316 0.0472 5.9000e-0040.0182 6.8000e-0040.0189 5.2800e-0036.5000e-0045.9200e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.575.3365 75.3365 0.0179 0.0000 75.78450.0179 0.0000 75.7845Total 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279 8.8000e-0040.0227 0.0227 0.0214 0.0214 0.00000.0214 0.0214 0.0000 75.3365 75.33658.8000e-0040.0227 0.0227Off-Road 0.0511 0.4675 0.5279N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 10 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualN2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.4 Building Construction - 2025Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5378.2269 378.2269 0.0185 0.0382 390.06593.4200e-0033.4700e-003144.2418Total 0.0633 0.5571 0.6504 3.8700e-0030.2726 3.6500e-0030.2762 0.0742 3.4600e-0030.0777 0.00008.4000e-0040.0538 0.0000 143.1222 143.12221.5600e-0030.1990 9.1000e-0040.2000 0.0530Worker 0.0517 0.0319 0.4608235.1048 235.1048 0.0151 0.0347 245.82410.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0116 0.5252 0.1896 2.3100e-0030.0736 2.7400e-0030.0763 0.0213 2.6200e-0030.0239 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5303.7220 303.7220 0.0718 0.0000 305.51750.0718 0.0000 305.5175Total 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179 3.5300e-0030.0803 0.0803 0.0756 0.0756 0.00000.0756 0.0756 0.0000 303.7220 303.72203.5300e-0030.0803 0.0803Off-Road 0.1928 1.7611 2.1179N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5378.2269 378.2269 0.0185 0.0382 390.06593.4200e-0033.4700e-003144.2418Total 0.0633 0.5571 0.6504 3.8700e-0030.2726 3.6500e-0030.2762 0.0742 3.4600e-0030.0777 0.00008.4000e-0040.0538 0.0000 143.1222 143.12221.5600e-0030.1990 9.1000e-0040.2000 0.0530Worker 0.0517 0.0319 0.4608235.1048 235.1048 0.0151 0.0347 245.82410.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0116 0.5252 0.1896 2.3100e-0030.0736 2.7400e-0030.0763 0.0213 2.6200e-0030.0239 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 11 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual95.0094 95.0094 6.3400e-0030.0140 99.35100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 4.6500e-0030.2140 0.0781 9.3000e-0040.0303 1.1300e-0030.0315 8.7700e-0031.0800e-0039.8500e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5125.2364 125.2364 0.0294 0.0000 125.97230.0294 0.0000 125.9723Total 0.0738 0.6734 0.8686 1.4600e-0030.0285 0.0285 0.0268 0.0268 0.00000.0268 0.0268 0.0000 125.2364 125.23641.4600e-0030.0285 0.0285Off-Road 0.0738 0.6734 0.8686N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5152.0348 152.0348 7.6200e-0030.0154 156.80911.2800e-0031.3400e-00357.4581Total 0.0250 0.2259 0.2571 1.5500e-0030.1124 1.4900e-0030.1139 0.0306 1.4100e-0030.0320 0.00003.3000e-0040.0222 0.0000 57.0254 57.02546.2000e-0040.0821 3.6000e-0040.0824 0.0218Worker 0.0203 0.0119 0.179095.0094 95.0094 6.3400e-0030.0140 99.35100.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 4.6500e-0030.2140 0.0781 9.3000e-0040.0303 1.1300e-0030.0315 8.7700e-0031.0800e-0039.8500e-003 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Unmitigated Construction Off-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5125.2365 125.2365 0.0294 0.0000 125.97250.0294 0.0000 125.9725Total 0.0738 0.6734 0.8686 1.4600e-0030.0285 0.0285 0.0268 0.0268 0.00000.0268 0.0268 0.0000 125.2365 125.23651.4600e-0030.0285 0.0285Off-Road 0.0738 0.6734 0.8686SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 12 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual5.6600e-0030.0000 18.15763.5900e-0033.5900e-003 0.0000 18.0161 18.01612.1000e-0043.8800e-0033.8800e-003Off-Road 9.0200e-0030.0829 0.1340N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.51.2038 1.2038 3.0000e-0053.0000e-0051.21293.0000e-0053.0000e-0051.2129Total 4.3000e-0042.5000e-0043.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7300e-0031.0000e-0051.7400e-0034.6000e-0041.0000e-0054.7000e-0040.00001.0000e-0054.7000e-004 0.0000 1.2038 1.20381.0000e-0051.7300e-0031.0000e-0051.7400e-003 4.6000e-004Worker 4.3000e-0042.5000e-0043.7800e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.6600e-0030.0000 18.1576Unmitigated Construction Off-Site3.5900e-0033.5900e-0030.0000 18.0161 18.01612.1000e-0043.8800e-0033.8800e-003Total 9.0200e-0030.0829 0.13400.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00005.6600e-0030.0000 18.1576Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00003.5900e-0033.5900e-003 0.0000 18.0161 18.01612.1000e-0043.8800e-0033.8800e-003Off-Road 9.0200e-0030.0829 0.1340N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.5 Paving - 2025Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5152.0348 152.0348 7.6200e-0030.0154 156.80911.2800e-0031.3400e-00357.4581Total 0.0250 0.2259 0.2571 1.5500e-0030.1124 1.4900e-0030.1139 0.0306 1.4100e-0030.0320 0.00003.3000e-0040.0222 0.0000 57.0254 57.02546.2000e-0040.0821 3.6000e-0040.0824 0.0218Worker 0.0203 0.0119 0.1790SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 13 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.5000e-0040.0000 2.8124Unmitigated Construction Off-Site5.7000e-0045.7000e-0040.0000 2.8086 2.80863.0000e-0055.7000e-0045.7000e-004Total 1.5186 0.0126 0.01992.8086 2.8086 1.5000e-0040.0000 2.81240.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.8800e-0030.0126 0.0199 3.0000e-0055.7000e-0045.7000e-004 5.7000e-0045.7000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5167N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH43.6 Architectural Coating - 2025Unmitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.51.2038 1.2038 3.0000e-0053.0000e-0051.21293.0000e-0053.0000e-0051.2129Total 4.3000e-0042.5000e-0043.7800e-0031.0000e-0051.7300e-0031.0000e-0051.7400e-0034.6000e-0041.0000e-0054.7000e-0040.00001.0000e-0054.7000e-004 0.0000 1.2038 1.20381.0000e-0051.7300e-0031.0000e-0051.7400e-003 4.6000e-004Worker 4.3000e-0042.5000e-0043.7800e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO5.6600e-0030.0000 18.1576Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.5900e-0033.5900e-0030.0000 18.0161 18.01612.1000e-0043.8800e-0033.8800e-003Total 9.0200e-0030.0829 0.13400.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 14 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile2.3473 2.3473 5.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.36515.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.3651Total 8.4000e-0044.9000e-0047.3700e-0033.0000e-0053.3800e-0031.0000e-0053.3900e-0039.0000e-0041.0000e-0059.1000e-0040.00001.0000e-0059.1000e-004 0.0000 2.3473 2.34733.0000e-0053.3800e-0031.0000e-0053.3900e-003 9.0000e-004Worker 8.4000e-0044.9000e-0047.3700e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO1.5000e-0040.0000 2.8124Mitigated Construction Off-Site5.7000e-0045.7000e-0040.0000 2.8086 2.80863.0000e-0055.7000e-0045.7000e-004Total 1.5186 0.0126 0.01992.8086 2.8086 1.5000e-0040.0000 2.81240.0000 0.0000 0.0000Off-Road 1.8800e-0030.0126 0.0199 3.0000e-0055.7000e-0045.7000e-004 5.7000e-0045.7000e-004 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Archit. Coating 1.5167N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4Mitigated Construction On-SiteROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.52.3473 2.3473 5.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.36515.0000e-0056.0000e-0052.3651Total 8.4000e-0044.9000e-0047.3700e-0033.0000e-0053.3800e-0031.0000e-0053.3900e-0039.0000e-0041.0000e-0059.1000e-0040.00001.0000e-0059.1000e-004 0.0000 2.3473 2.34733.0000e-0053.3800e-0031.0000e-0053.3900e-003 9.0000e-004Worker 8.4000e-0044.9000e-0047.3700e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 15 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualCH4 N2O CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO0.000432 0.0026575.0 Energy DetailHistorical Energy Use: N5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy0.000572 0.028871 0.000432 0.002657Research & Development 0.465403 0.073585 0.235906 0.146720 0.025583 0.006412 0.010355 0.002060 0.001446 0.000572 0.0288710.025583 0.006412 0.010355 0.002060 0.001446Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.465403 0.073585 0.235906 0.146720OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MHMDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD4.4 Fleet MixLand Use LDA LDT1 LDT248.00 19.00 82 15 3Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.000.00 0.00 0 0 0Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-byLand Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W4.3 Trip Type InformationMiles Trip % Trip Purpose %5,968,288Total 3,164.71 534.01 311.97 5,968,288 5,968,288Research & Development 3,164.71 534.01 311.97 5,968,288Annual VMTEnclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT0.1164 0.0764 1,789.10014.2 Trip Summary InformationAverage Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated1,789.1001Unmitigated 0.9232 0.8645 9.0345 0.0191 2.1886 0.0124 2.2010 0.5846 0.0116 0.5961 0.0000 1,763.4112 1,763.41120.0000 1,763.4112 1,763.4112 0.1164 0.0764CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 0.9232 0.8645 9.0345 0.0191 2.1886 0.0124 2.2010 0.5846 0.01160.5961Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 TotalROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 16 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualLand Use kWh/yrtonMT/yr5.3 Energy by Land Use - ElectricityUnmitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e368.5089 368.5089 7.0600e-0036.7600e-003370.69876.7600e-003370.6987Total 0.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.00000.0257 0.0000 368.5089 368.5089 7.0600e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.9056e+0060.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.02570.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2MitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5368.5089 368.5089 7.0600e-0036.7600e-003370.69876.7600e-003370.6987Total 0.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.00000.0257 0.0000 368.5089 368.5089 7.0600e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Research & Development6.9056e+0060.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.02570.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000CH4 N2O CO2eLand Use kBTU/yr tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO25.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGasUnmitigatedNaturalGas UseROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5368.5089 368.5089 7.0600e-0036.7600e-003370.69877.0600e-0036.7600e-003370.6987NaturalGas Unmitigated0.0372 0.3385 0.2844 2.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.0257 0.00000.0257 0.0257 0.0000 368.5089 368.50892.0300e-0030.0257 0.0257NaturalGas Mitigated0.0372 0.3385 0.28447.7613 7.7613 0.0000 0.0000 7.76130.0000 0.0000 7.7613Electricity Unmitigated0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.7613 7.76130.0000 0.0000Electricity MitigatedSSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 17 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1517CH4 N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrExhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5ROG NOx CO4.0000e-0050.0000 0.01706.2 Area by SubCategoryUnmitigated0.0170Unmitigated 1.2660 7.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0160 0.01600.0000 0.0160 0.0160 4.0000e-0050.0000CO2eCategory tons/yrMT/yrMitigated 1.2660 7.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2OExhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5PM2.5 Total6.0 Area Detail6.1 Mitigation Measures AreaROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM100.0000 4.7361Total 7.7613 0.0000 0.0000 7.7613Research & Development2.08826e+0064.7361 0.0000Land Use kWh/yrtonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator1.33389e+0063.0252 0.0000 0.0000 3.0252MitigatedElectricity UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 4.7361Total 7.7613 0.0000 0.0000 7.7613Research & Development2.08826e+0064.7361 0.0000Enclosed Parking with Elevator1.33389e+0063.0252 0.0000 0.0000 3.0252SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 18 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualLand Use MgaltonMT/yr189.80237.2 Water by Land UseUnmitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eUnmitigated 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063CategorytonMT/yrMitigated 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063 189.80237.0 Water Detail7.1 Mitigation Measures WaterTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0160 0.0160 4.0000e-0050.0000 0.01704.0000e-0050.0000 0.0170Total 1.2659 7.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-0053.0000e-0053.0000e-0050.00003.0000e-0053.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0160 0.01600.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005Landscaping 7.5000e-0047.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00000.0000 0.0000Architectural Coating0.1517N2O CO2eSubCategory tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4MitigatedROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.50.0160 0.0160 4.0000e-0050.0000 0.01704.0000e-0050.0000 0.0170Total 1.2659 7.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-0053.0000e-0053.0000e-0050.00003.0000e-0053.0000e-005 0.0000 0.0160 0.01600.0000 3.0000e-0053.0000e-005Landscaping 7.5000e-0047.0000e-0058.1900e-0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Consumer Products1.1135 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 19 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, AnnualLand Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.000010.74208.2 Waste by Land UseUnmitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Unmitigated 4.3359 0.2562 0.0000tonMT/yr Mitigated 4.3359 0.2562 0.0000 10.74208.0 Waste Detail8.1 Mitigation Measures WasteCategory/YearTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.1063 189.8023Total 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063 189.8023Research & Development138.196 / 045.5390 4.5031Land Use MgaltonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedIndoor/Outdoor UseTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.1063 189.8023Total 45.5390 4.5031 0.1063 189.8023Research & Development138.196 / 045.5390 4.5031Enclosed Parking with Elevator0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 20 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual10.1 Stationary SourcesUnmitigated/MitigatedBoiler Rating Fuel TypeUser Defined EquipmentEquipment Type NumberBoilersEquipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/YearLoad Factor Fuel TypeEmergency Generator 1 0 50 670 0.73 DieselEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse PowerHorse Power Load Factor Fuel Type10.0 Stationary EquipmentFire Pumps and Emergency Generators9.0 Operational OffroadEquipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year0.0000 10.7420Total 4.3359 0.2562 0.0000 10.7420Research & Development21.36 4.3359 0.2562Land Use tonstonMT/yrEnclosed Parking with Elevator0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000MitigatedWaste DisposedTotal CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e0.0000 10.7420Total 4.3359 0.2562 0.0000 10.7420Research & Development21.36 4.3359 0.2562SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 21 of 22
Date: 2/8/2023 4:45 PMCalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0101 Gull Drive Expanded Project - San Mateo County, Annual11.0 Vegetation12.7567 12.7567 1.7900e-0030.0000 12.80141.7900e-0030.0000 12.8014Total 0.0275 0.0768 0.0701 1.3000e-0044.0400e-0034.0400e-0034.0400e-0034.0400e-0030.00004.0400e-0034.0400e-003 0.0000 12.7567 12.75671.3000e-0044.0400e-0034.0400e-003Emergency Generator - Diesel (600 750 HP)0.0275 0.0768 0.0701N2O CO2eEquipment Type tons/yrMT/yrPM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10Exhaust PM10PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5Exhaust PM2.5SSF 101 Gull Drive Expanded Project, CalEEMod Emissions ResultsPage 22 of 22
ATTACHMENT B
Transportation Impact Analysis Update
Memorandum
Date: April 5, 2023
To: Rebecca Auld, Lamphier Gregory
Stephanie Skangos, City of South San Francisco
From: Daniel Jacobson, Fehr & Peers
Subject: 101 Gull Transportation Impact Analysis Update
SF21-1164
Introduction
This memorandum provides an update to the Transportation Impact Analysis for the 101 Gull
Project prepared by Fehr & Peers in December 2021. The Proposed Project (Figure 1) includes a
nine story office/R&D building with approximately 281,058 square feet and 574 parking spaces. It
would add about 114,445 square feet and 155 parking spaces over the previously approved project,
which included 166,613 square feet with 419 parking spaces (“Previously Approved Project”). The
Proposed Project’s site plan and a summary of changes to trip generation and transportation
impacts is summarized below.
Figure 1: Site Plan
Trip Generation
By adding approximately 114,445 square feet, the Proposed Project would result in a net increase
of approximately 641 daily trips, including 113 AM peak hour trips and 120 PM peak hour trips
(Table 1). Most of these trips would occur via Oyster Point Boulevard, while some trips would also
use Eccles Avenue and Gull Drive. The project would also generate a net increase of about 30 to 40
walking and bicycling trips during each peak hour, with most trips traveling to and from nearby
shuttle stops and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal.
Table 1: Change in Trip Generation
Land Use
Size
(KSF)
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate Total In Out Total Rate In Out Total Rate
Proposed Project
(Office/R&D) 281.1
5.6
1,462 230 28 258
0.99
38 236 274
1.05 Previous Project
(Office/R&D) 166.6 933 147 18 165 24 150 175
Net Trips Added 114.4 641 101 12 113 17 103 120
Notes: Trip generation rates based on 2019 driveway count data collected at similar sites in South San Francisco’s East of
101 area. Rates per 1,000 square feet.
Impact Analysis
Conflict with a Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Plan or Policy
Consistent with the findings of the Previously Approved Project, the Proposed Project would not
produce a detrimental impact to existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities during construction or
operation, or conflict with adopted policies in adopted City plans. While temporary sidewalk and
bike lane rerouting on Gull Drive is expected and roadway traffic control would be used as needed
during construction, detours would be temporary in nature, would follow applicable guidance, and
would not fully impede movement or have a sustained detrimental impact on existing bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. Additionally, by adding approximately one to two vehicles per minute to the
surrounding street network during peak hours, the project would not adversely affect existing or
planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities or substantially lengthen travel times by existing shuttle
services.
Therefore, the Proposed Project’s impacts to walking, bicycling, and transit facilities would be less
than significant. In addition, Project-related conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies
addressing the circulation system would be less than significant. The Proposed Project would not
produce a detrimental impact on existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities during construction and
construction-related conflicts with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the
circulation system would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) consistent
with the impact identified in the Transportation Impact Analysis for the Previously Approved Project.
As shown in Table 2, the Proposed Project would generate 16.2 HBW VMT per employee under
existing conditions and 12.9 HBW VMT per employee under future cumulative conditions, which
exceeds the threshold of significance of 12.1 HBQ VMT per employee.
Table 2: Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled Per Employee
Location Estimated HBW VMT
per Employee
Estimated
Employees
Estimated HBW
VMT
Threshold of
Significance
(HBW VMT per
Empoyee)
Bay Area Region
(Existing) 14.2 4,461,700 63,336,200 12.1
Proposed Project
(Existing) 16.2 940 15,200 Exceeds
Proposed Project (2040
Cumulative) 12.9 940 12,100 Exceeds
Source: Fehr & Peers 2021; C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2021.
Notes: HBW = home-based work; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; threshold of significance for HBW VMT
per employee is 15% below regional average
Project estimated employees are based on employment density of 1 employee per 300 square feet.
The Transportation Impact Analysis identifies Mitigation Measure TR-2 (First- and Last- Mile
Strategies) to address the VMT Impact. Mitigation Measure TR-2 would also apply to the Proposed
Project. The City of South San Francisco has recently updated its TDM Ordinance and advanced a
Quick Strike Bus Stop Improvement Project which affects the scope of off-site improvements to
support the Proposed Project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation connections. The
following modifications to Mitigation Measure TR-2 are recommended.
Revised Mitigation Measure TR-2: First- and Last-Mile Strategies. The project sponsor
shall coordinate with the City for the project sponsor to implement the following off-site
improvements to support the project’s first- and last-mile and active transportation
connections necessary to support reductions in Home-Based Work Vehicle Miles Traveled.
• Implementation of a TDM Program consistent with the City’s performance and
monitoring requirements for Tier 3 projects (office/R&D land uses), including
implementing required measures such as participation in first-/last-mile shuttle
program(s) to Caltrain and BART, 50 percent transit pass subsidies, carpool/vanpool
programs, a designated TDM coordinator, and encouraging telecommuting and
flexible work schedules.
• Restriping of two crosswalks at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and the 329-
333 Oyster Point Boulevard driveway with high-visibility longitudinal markings to
enhance pedestrian access to the westbound shuttle stop and nearby land uses.
• Modification of the existing eastbound shuttle stop at the far side of the Oyster Point
Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection to provide an accessible five-foot long by eight-
foot wide landing pad and pavement markings.
• Installation of a bus shelter consistent with city specifications at the planned westbound
bus stop on the far side of the Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue intersection (bus
stop to be implemented by the City).
• Provision of eastbound and westbound Class II buffered bicycle lanes along Eccles
Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, spanning
approximately 3,000 linear feet.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure TR-2, the Proposed Project would achieve consistency
with the VMT mitigation identified under the Previously Approved Project.
Transportation Hazards
The Proposed Project would not change site access and circulation compared to the Previously
Approved Project. Existing driveways at 340 Oyster Point Boulevard and 570-590 Eccles Avenue as
well as the proposed driveway on Gull Drive would be appropriate to handle expected vehicle traffic
in and out of the buildings constructed pursuant to the project. The Proposed Project would not
worsen any existing geometric design features, cause new design hazards, or include any uses that
are incompatible with the surrounding land use or the existing roadway system. Therefore, the
Proposed Project’s impacts to hazards would be less than significant under existing plus project
conditions and less than significant under cumulative plus project conditions. No mitigation is
required.
Emergency Access
Vehicle trips generated by the project would represent a small percentage of overall daily and peak
hour traffic on roadways and freeways in the study area. The Proposed Project would generate
about one to two additional vehicle trips per minute on average during peak hours, which is not
expected to introduce or exacerbate conflicts for emergency vehicles traveling near the project. The
project would not include features that would alter emergency vehicle access routes or roadway
facilities; fire and police vehicles would continue to have access to all facilities around the entire
City. Emergency vehicles would continue to have full access to the project site via three driveways
connecting to adjacent streets; each driveway would be equipped to handle all types of emergency
vehicles. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in adequate emergency access, and its
impacts to emergency access would be less than significant under existing plus project conditions
and less than significant under cumulative plus project conditions. No mitigation is required.