Agenda packet — San Mateo City Council, December 1, 2022 (part 3 of 6)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. August. 12 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program. Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February.
13 BAAQMD, 2020. Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. December. 412 of 1252
8/9
Under the mitigated scenario, the cancer risk from Project construction and operation at the MEIR receptor is calculated to be 9.1 in 1 million. The other health risks under the mitigated scenario at the MEIR and MEIS are also shown in Table 5 and are below the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, with the use of Tier 4 Final diesel engines, or equivalent lower emitting equipment, for tractors/loaders/backhoes, rubber tired dozers, water trucks, cranes, forklifts, and aerial lifts, the Project’s health risks on on-site and off-site sensitive receptors are all below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance; thus, health risk impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project are less than significant with the engine tier requirement as a mitigation measure. There may be other methods for reducing emissions below thresholds (e.g., implementing Tier 4 Final requirements on other categories of equipment), but further analysis would be necessary to confirm they would meet the threshold. The location of the off-site MEIR and MEIS, and the on-site MEIR is shown in Figure 2.

Cumulative Health Risk Assessment
In accordance with BAAQMD CEQA guidelines, Ramboll conducted a cumulative HRA for both offsite sensitive receptors and new onsite sensitive receptors created by the Project. The cumulative assessment tabulates the impact of Project-related risks plus existing offsite sources (stationary and mobile) at the off-site and on-site MEIR locations. The cumulative assessment for onsite receptors is determined at the location of the maximum total risk from the proposed emergency generator. The evaluation requires the identification of any stationary and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of the Project boundary. In addition to the evaluation of each single source, the combined health risk from all TAC and PM2.5 sources are evaluated.

Sources evaluated in the cumulative health risk assessment include any BAAQMD permitted stationary source, roadways with over 10,000 vehicles per day, and any other major source of emissions within the zone of influence such as railways. The BAAQMD provides tools with conservative estimates of impacts from these sources, including a stationary source tool and raster files for railways major streets, and highways. The preliminary health risk screening values from the existing stationary sources on the MEIRs were determined using the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Calculator (Beta Version 4.0)14 and the stationary source information provided by the BAAQMD.15 One foreseeable future stationary source (emergency generator at the proposed development at 500 East 3rd Ave) was also included in the cumulative HRA. The preliminary health risk screening values from the stationary sources considered in the cumulative HRA are presented in Table 20.

BAAQMD’s highway raster file includes impacts from highways in the Bay Area while the major street raster file includes impacts from all roadways with daily traffic above 30,000 vehicles per day.

BAAQMD previously had a roadway screening analysis calculator that could be used to calculate impacts of roadways between 10,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day, but BAAQMD has since removed this roadway screening analysis calculator from their website. There is currently no alternative BAAQMD tool available for quantifying these results. There are no roadways with daily traffic between 10,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day within 1,000 feet of the MEIRs so the impacts from roadways with daily traffic below 30,000 vehicles per day were not calculated.

The raster files and stationary source screening tools were used to estimate the health impacts from all highways, major streets, railways, and stationary sources and combined with the impacts from all other sources at the construction offsite MEIR and on-site cumulative MEIR. 14 BAAQMD, 2019. BAAQMD Risk and Hazards Emissions Screening Calculator, Version 4.0 Beta. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/tools/baaqmd-health-risk-calculator-beta-4- 0-xlsx.xlsx?la=fil-ph. September 19.
15 BAAQMD. 2022. Personal Communication from Matthew Hanson to Carlos Ciudad-Real. March 25. 413 of 1252
9/9
Details of each source included in the cumulative analysis are presented in Table 6. The combined impact from all the sources results in a cancer risk of 20 in 1 million at the on-site MEIR. The combined impact from all the sources results in an unmitigated cancer risk of 62 in 1 million and a mitigated cancer risk of 25 in a million at the off-site MEIR, compared to a threshold of 100 in 1 million. The combined non-cancer hazard index at all sensitive receptors are less than 0.1 (threshold of 10). The combined maximum PM2.5 concentrations are 0.19 µg/m3 at the on-site MEIR and 1.3 µg/m3 at the off-site MEIR under the mitigated scenario, compared to a threshold of 0.8 µg/m3). This would be considered a significant cumulative impact.

The primary contributor to the cumulative PM2.5 concentration at the off-site MEIR is a lumber company with woodwork operation, located about 850 feet from the off-site MEIR and contributing approximately 1.1 µg/m3 (80%). This stationary source with BAAQMD Facility Number 9555 caused the exceedance of the cumulative PM2.5 concentrations over the cumulative threshold of 0.8 µg/m3.

BAAQMD provides generalized risk estimates and estimated PM2.5 concentrations for the existing stationary sources, which represents a screening-level analysis based on the size and type of activity that occurs on site. Therefore, the identified concentrations and risks are conservative. If this stationary source were not operational, there would be no cumulative impact associated with the Project and the rest of the cumulative sources. Further, the Project’s contribution from construction activities would be temporary and are below the single source (Project level) thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant impact.

CLOSING
The analysis presented above represents emissions and health risk impacts from construction of the proposed Project. The Project does not exceed any BAAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, with the mitigation measure requiring Tier 4 Final diesel engines for the equipment categories of tractors/loaders/backhoes, rubber tired dozers, water trucks, cranes, forklifts, and aerial lifts. Other equivalent or better construction requirements may be available to reduce the Project’s impacts to the same extent as the mitigation measure. Possible alternative measures include the use of natural gas or propane generators, electric welders, and use of cleaner diesel engines on selected pieces of construction equipment. These alternative measures will require additional emissions analysis to demonstrate the same effectiveness as the mitigation measure.

Attachments:

Tables
Figures
Appendix A: Traffic Study
Appendix B: AERMOD Input Files (provided Electronically) 414 of 1252
Ramboll
TABLES
415 of 1252
Project Description
Land Use Type1
CalEEMod® Land Use
Type CalEEMod® Land Use Subtype Value Units Square Footage Acreage Residential Space Residential Apartments Mid Rise 10 Dwelling Units 8,938 0.21 Retail Space Retail Regional Shopping Center 17.7 1000sqft 17,658 0.41 Office Space Commerical General Office Building 104.8 1000sqft 104,755 2.40 Shared Space Commercial General Office Building 1.5 1000sqft 1,515 0.03 Parking Garage Parking Enclosed Parking with Elevator 239 Spaces 101,910 2.34 Notes:

1. Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model®
Table 1
Land Use Summary for Proposed Project
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Information provided by project applicant.
416 of 1252
Summary of Construction Emissions by Source
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Exhaust 12 105 4.7 4.4
Mobile Exhaust 1.5 66 3.1 1.3
Fugitive Dust -- -- 2.8 0.42
On-Site Exhaust 0.38 4.4 0.15 0.13
Mobile Exhaust 0.0089 0.0065 0.0012 0.00043
Fugitive Dust -- -- 0.0080 0.0012
On-Site Exhaust 78 690 28 26
Mobile Exhaust 5.9 233 11 4.8
Fugitive Dust -- -- 10 1.6
On-Site Exhaust 5.7 58 2.8 2.6
Mobile Exhaust 0.36 0.26 0.048 0.017
Fugitive Dust -- -- 0.32 0.048
On-Site Exhaust 51 556 25 23
Mobile Exhaust 22 236 12 5.2
Fugitive Dust -- -- 24 3.6
On-Site Exhaust 38 406 18 16
Mobile Exhaust 16 180 10 4.0
Fugitive Dust -- -- 19 2.9
On-Site Exhaust 63 677 29 26
Mobile Exhaust 21 230 12 5.2
Fugitive Dust -- -- 25 3.7
On-Site Exhaust 3.1 29 1.5 1.4
Mobile Exhaust 1.3 11 0.66 0.28
Fugitive Dust 0 0 1.4 0.2
Paving Off-Gassing 0.75 0 0 0
Architectural Coating 503 0 0 0
Average Construction Emissions by day
ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
2023 0.81 8.9 0.40 0.31
2024 2.8 6.7 0.31 0.23
BAAQMD Thresholds2 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Notes:

1. 2.

Abbreviations:

BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District NOx - nitrogen oxides CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model® PM10 - particulate matter less than 10 microns CAP - Criteria Air Pollutants PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act ROG - reactive organic gases lb/yr - pounds per year
References:

Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading / Excavation
Trenching/Foundation
Building - Exterior
Building - Structure
Table 2
Unmitigated Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions from Proposed Project Construction Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Source
CAP Emissions1
lb/yr
Phase
Paving
California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2020.4.0. CAPCOA. 2020. Available online at: http://www.caleemod.com Construction emissions were estimated with methodology equivalent to CalEEMod® 2020.4.0. On-Site Exhaust represents emissions from offroad equipment, while mobile exhaust includes emissions from worker, vendor, and hauling trucks. For PM, the construction emissions of fugitive dust include the entrained roadway dust.

Thresholds are from BAAQMD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. For PM, this excludes construction fugitive emissions.
lb/day
Year
417 of 1252
Summary of Construction Emissions by Source
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
On-Site Exhaust 9 71 3.1 2.8
Mobile Exhaust 1.5 66 3.1 1.3
Fugitive Dust -- -- 2.8 0.42
On-Site Exhaust 0.38 4.4 0.15 0.13
Mobile Exhaust 0.0089 0.0065 0.0012 0.00043
Fugitive Dust -- -- 0.0080 0.0012
On-Site Exhaust 29 192 7 6
Mobile Exhaust 5.9 233 11 4.8
Fugitive Dust -- -- 10 1.6
On-Site Exhaust 1.5 7 0.20 0.20
Mobile Exhaust 0.36 0.26 0.048 0.017
Fugitive Dust -- -- 0.32 0.048
On-Site Exhaust 12 83 1.4 1.4
Mobile Exhaust 22 236 12 5.2
Fugitive Dust -- -- 24 3.6
On-Site Exhaust 9.6 65 1.1 1.1
Mobile Exhaust 16 180 10 4.0
Fugitive Dust -- -- 19 2.9
On-Site Exhaust 21 180 2.7 2.7
Mobile Exhaust 21 230 12 5.2
Fugitive Dust -- -- 25 3.7
On-Site Exhaust 3.1 29 1.5 1.4
Mobile Exhaust 1.3 11 0.66 0.28
Fugitive Dust -- -- 1.4 0.22
Paving Off-Gassing 0.75 -- 0 0
Architectural Coating 503 -- 0 0
Average Construction Emissions by day
ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust)
2023 0.38 4.1 0.17 0.10
2024 2.5 3.1 0.12 0.064
BAAQMD Thresholds2 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No
Notes:

1. 2.

Abbreviations:

Building - Exterior
Thresholds are from BAAQMD Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts. For PM, this excludes construction fugitive emissions.

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2020.4.0. CAPCOA. 2020. Available online at: http://www.caleemod.com Paving
Year
lb/day
Construction emissions were estimated with methodology equivalent to CalEEMod® 2020.4.0. On-Site Exhaust represents emissions from offroad equipment, while mobile exhaust includes emissions from worker, vendor, and hauling trucks. For PM, the construction emissions of fugitive dust include the entrained roadway dust.

Grading / Excavation
Trenching/Foundation
Site Preparation
Demolition
Building - Structure
Table 3
Mitigated Criteria Air Pollutants Emissions from Proposed Project Construction Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Phase Source
CAP Emissions1
lb/yr
418 of 1252
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk1 Chronic HI
Annual
average
PM2.5
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk1 Chronic HI
Annual
average
PM2.5
Excess
Lifetime
Cancer Risk1
Chronic HI
Annual
average
PM2.5
in a million unitless ratio μg/m3in a million unitless ratio μg/m3in a million unitless μg/m3 Unmitigated off-road construction equipment
exhaust and on-road construction mobile
vehicles

43.15 0.033 0.051 0.44 0.00061 0.00094
-- -- --
Emergency Generator 2.37 0.00084 0.0042 0.014 0.000054 0.00027 2.78 0.00075 0.0037 Unmitigated Total 46 0.033 0.051 0.45 0.00061 0.00094 -- -- -- Significance Threshold 10 1 0.3 10 1 0.3 10 1 0.3
Exceeds thresholds? Yes No No No No No No No No
UTMx
UTMy
Note:

1. Abbreviations:
µg - microgram m
3 - cubic meter
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM - particulate matter Excess lifetime cancer risks were estimated using the following equation:

Project Construction + Operation

2. Riskinh = ΣCi x CF x IFinh x CPFi x ASF
Where:

Riskinh = Cancer Risk for the Inahalation Pathway (unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical "i" ug/m3 CF = Conversion Factor (mg/ug)
IFinh = Intake Factor for Inhalantion (m3/kg-day)
CPFi = Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Age Sensitivity Factor (unitless)

3. Chronic HI for each receptor was estimated using the following equation:

HIinh = ΣCi / cREL
Where:

HIinh = Chronic HI for the Inhalation Pathway (unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical "i" (ug/m3) cREL = Chronic Reference Exposure Level (ug/m3)
Source Category
Table 4
Unmitigated Maximum Project Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk, Chronic HI and PM2.5 Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Excess lifetime cancer risk and chronic HI from construction sources represent the incremental increase in activity expected as a result of the Project.

Off-Site Resident Off-Site Daycare Child
559960 559555
Project Operation
On-Site Resident
559960
4157625 4157657 4157665
419 of 1252
HI - Hazard Index BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District UTMx, UTMy - Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates
Reference:

6.71 0.0064 0.010 0.072 0.00012 0.00020
-- -- --
Emergency Generator 2.37 0.00084 0.0042 0.014 0.000054 0.00027 2.78 0.00075 0.0037 Mitigated Total 9.1 0.0064 0.010 0.085 0.00012 0.00027 -- -- -- Significance Threshold 10 1 0.3 10 1 0.3 10 1 0.3
Exceeds thresholds? No No No No No No No No No
UTMx
UTMy
Note:

1. Abbreviations:
µg - microgram m
3 - cubic meter
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM - particulate matter Excess lifetime cancer risk and chronic HI from construction sources represent the incremental increase in activity expected as a result of the Project.

2. Excess lifetime cancer risks were estimated using the following equation:

Riskinh = ΣCi x CF x IFinh x CPFi x ASF
Where:

3. Chronic HI for each receptor was estimated using the following equation:

HIinh = ΣCi / cREL
Where:

HIinh = Chronic HI for the Inhalation Pathway (unitless) Ci = Annual Average Air Concentration for Chemical "i" (ug/m3) cREL = Chronic Reference Exposure Level (ug/m3)
4157625 4157657 4157665
Source Category
Off-Site Resident Off-Site Daycare Child On-Site Resident 559960 559555 559960
Table 5
Mitigated Maximum Project Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk, Chronic HI and PM2.5 Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Project Construction + Operation Project Operation
421 of 1252
HI - Hazard Index BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District UTMx, UTMy - Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates
Reference:

BAAQMD. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. 422 of 1252
Lifetime Excess Cancer
Risk1
PM2.5
Concentration1
(in a million) (µg/m3
)
Stationary Sources2 1.1 0.00062 1.1
Highway3 6.7 -- 0.15
Major Streets3 0.14 -- 0.0036
Railways3 8.2 -- 0.016
Project Construction+Operation 46 0.033 0.051
Total 62 0.034 1.4
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO YES
Stationary Sources2 1.1 0.00062 1.14
Highway3 6.7 -- 0.15
Major Streets3 0.14 -- 0.0036
Railways3 8.2 -- 0.016
Project Construction+Operation 9.1 0.0064 0.010
Total 25 0.0071 1.3
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO YES
Stationary Sources2 0.89 0.0018 0.019
Highway3 6.8 -- 0.15
Major Streets3 0.14 -- 0.0036
Railways3 9.3 -- 0.018
Project Operation 2.8 0.00075 0.0037
Total 20 0.0025 0.19
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO
100 10 0.8
Notes:
1 2 Stationary sources include existing stationary sources and foreseeable future stationary sources. 3 Abbreviations:
µg - microgram m
3 - cubic meter
HI - hazard index PM2.5 - fine particulate matter
References:

Ramboll. 2022. CEQA Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment for the Block 21 Mixed-Use Project, San Mateo, California (Draft). April

1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Permitted Sources Risk and Hazards Map. June. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Health Risk Calculator Beta 4.0. March. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/tools/baaqmd-health-risk-calculator-beta-4-0- xlsx.xlsx?la=en&rev=dab7d85a772d45caa9c99e59395bf12d\
BAAQMD. 2022. Personal Communication from Matthew Hanson to Carlos Ciudad-Real. March 25.

Cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration values were determined using BAAQMD screening tools and are based on the maximum impact of a raster cell located on the identified sensitive receptors.

Table 6
Construction and Operation Cumulative Risks and Hazards Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
If the cell is marked with "--", no risk was calculated. For existing stationary sources, this is because the source was more than 1,000 feet from the identified sensitive receptors. For roadways, the chronic HI is not calculated in the BAAQMD screening tool.

Unmitigated OffSite Resident
On-Site Resident
Receptor Type Source1 Noncancer Chronic
HI1
Threshold
Mitigated OffSite Resident
423 of 1252
Phase Start Date End Date Number of Work
Days Days per Week
Demolition 3/1/2023 4/5/2023 26 5
Site Preparation 4/5/2023 4/5/2023 1 5
Grading / Excavation 3/23/2023 6/29/2023 71 5
Trenching/Foundation 6/30/2023 8/24/2023 40 5
Building - Structure 8/16/2023 4/17/2024 176 5
Building - Exterior 4/18/2024 9/4/2024 100 5
Paving 9/5/2024 11/13/2024 50 5
Notes:

1. Table 7
Construction Phasing Schedule
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
The construction schedule is based on information provided by the project applicant. 424 of 1252
Phase Construction
Subphase Equipment1 CalEEMod Equipment2 Fuel3 Number1 Horsepower1 Daily Usage4 (hours/day) Utilization5 Unmitigated Tier6 Mitigated Tier5 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws Concrete/Industrial Saws Diesel 1 81 2 100% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Demolition Excavators Excavators Diesel 1 158 8 100% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 1 97 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Site Preparation Site Preparation Graders Graders Diesel 1 187 8 100% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Grading / Excavation Excavators Excavators Diesel 1 158 8 35% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Grading / Excavation Graders Graders Diesel 1 187 8 7.0% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Grading / Excavation Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel 1 247 8 35% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Grading / Excavation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Diesel 1 97 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Grading / Excavation Shoring Drill Rig Bore/Drill Rigs Diesel 1 221 8 35% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Grading / Excavation Water Truck7 Off-Highway Trucks Diesel 1 402 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Trenching/Foundation Trenching/Foundation Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Tractor/Loader/Backhoe Diesel 1 97 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Structure Cranes Cranes Diesel 1 231 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Structure Forklifts Forklifts Diesel 2 89 5 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Structure Aerial Lifts Aerial Lifts Diesel 1 63 6 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Exterior Cranes Cranes Diesel 1 231 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Exterior Forklifts Forklifts Diesel 2 89 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Exterior Aerial Lifts Aerial Lifts Diesel 2 63 8 100% No Specific Tier Tier 4 Final Building - Exterior Welders Welders Diesel 1 46 8 15% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Paving Pavers Pavers Diesel 1 130 8 12% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Paving Paving Equipment Paving Equipment Diesel 1 132 8 12% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Paving Rollers Rollers Diesel 1 80 8 12% No Specific Tier No Specific Tier Notes:

1. Equipment lists were provided/confirmed by the Project Sponsor.

2. CalEEMod equipment types are assgined using CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix D.

3. 4. Construction activities are assumed to occur during 8AM to 8PM, consistent with San Mateo County guidelines.

5. Utilization is calculated based on the average hours per day of the equipment divided by daily usage (8 hours for all equipment except for concrete/industrial saws).

6. Assumed fleet-average tier.

7. An off-highway truck is added to account for water truck usage during the grading phase.

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod - California Emissions Estimator Model
References:

Table 8
Construction Equipment
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Demolition
Building - Structure
425 of 1252
Worker Vendor Hauling
Demolition4 2023 26 8 0 459 10.8 7.3 20 2,246 0 9,180
Site Preparation 2023 1 3 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 32 0 0
Grading / Excavation 5 2023 71 13 0 1,615 10.8 7.3 20 9,968 0 32,300 Trenching/Foundation 2023 40 3 0 0 10.8 7.3 20 1,296 0 0 Building - Structure6 2023 98 61 23 839 10.8 7.3 20 64,562 16,454 16,780 Building - Structure6 2024 78 61 23 668 10.8 7.3 20 51,386 13,096 13,360 Building - Exterior6 2024 100 61 23 857 10.8 7.3 20 65,880 16,790 17,140 Paving 7 2024 50 8 0 77 10.8 7.3 20 4,320 0 1,540
EMFAC Data8
Trip Type EMFAC Settings Fleet Mix Fuel Type
Worker 50% LDA, 25% LDT1,
25% LDT2 Gasoline
Vendor 50% MHDT, 50% HHDT Diesel
Hauling 100% HHDT Diesel
Notes:

1. 2.

3. Trip lengths are based on CalEEMod Appendix D defaults for San Mateo County (urban).

4. 5.

6. Based on information provided by the project applicant, 2,364 total round trips for cement trucks for building construction phases.

7. Based on information provided by the project applicant, 1,220 cubic yards of asphalt imported.

8. Emissions were calculated using emission factors from EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory with the specified settings and fleet and fuel assumptions.

Abbreviations:

CalEEMod - California Emissions Estimator Model
EMFAC2021 - California Air Resources Board EMission FACtor model LDA - light-duty automobiles
LDT - light-duty trucks
HHDT - heavy-heavy duty trucks
MHDT - medium-heavy duty trucks
References:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod®), Version 2020.4.0. Available online at http://www.caleemod.com/ California Air Resources Board (ARB) 2021. EMFAC2021. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools Based on information provided by the project applicant, 75,000 square feet of building to be demolished and 22 tons of pavement to be demolished.

Based on information provided by the project applicant, 25,828 cubic yards of export volume San Mateo County
Calendar Years 2023-2024
Annual Season
Aggregated Model Year
EMFAC2007 Vehicle Categories
Hauling trip rates are calculated based on the import and export quantities provided by the Project Sponsor. Import and export quantities are converted from tons or cubic yards to corresponding one-way trips per phase by assuming 20 tons per truck or 16 cubic yards per truck. Default truck capacities are consistent with CalEEMod User's Guide Appendix A.

Vendor VMT
(miles)
Hauling VMT
(miles)
Worker and vendor trips during building construction is based on project land use areas and was scaled from default CalEEMod worker and vendor trips. Worker trips during architectural coating are equal to 20% of the building construction trips.

Worker
VMT
(miles)
Phase Year Construction Days
Worker Trip
Rates1
(one-way
trips/day)
Vendor Trip Rates1
(one-way trips/day)
Hauling Trip
Number2
(one-way
trips/phase)
Trip Lengths3
(miles/one way trip)
Table 9
Construction Trips
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
426 of 1252
Phase Year Asphalt-Paved
Area (sqft)
AsphaltPaved Area
(acre)
Asphalt
Paving OffGassing ROG
Emission
Factor
(lb/acre)1
Asphalt Paving OffGassing ROG
Emissions (lb)
Paving 2024 101,910 2.34 2.62 6.13
Notes:

1. Abbreviations:
lb - pound
ROG - reactive organic gas
sqft - square foot
References:

Emission factor from CalEEMod User's Guide, Appendix A.

Table 10
Estimated Emissions from Construction Paving Off-Gassing Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2020. Appendix A. Available at: http://www.caleemod.com 427 of 1252
Inputs
Input Units

2.7 Non-Residential Surface Area to Floor Area Ratio 2.0 6%
100%
Interior Surfaces 75%
Exterior Shell 25%
100 g/L
150 g/L
Emissions
Land Use1 Square Footage (square
feet)
Buidling Surface Area
(square feet)
Architectural
Coating VOC
emissions2
(lb)
Residential Exterior 8,938 24,133 42
Nonresidential Exterior 123,928 247,856 431
Parking 101,910 6,115 28.3
501
Notes:

1. Abbreviations:

CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model L - liter EF - Emission Factor lb - pound
g - grams VOC - Volatile Organic Compound
References:

Parameter
Table 11
Estimated Emissions from Construction Architectural Coating Off-Gassing Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Residential Surface Area to Floor Area Ratio
Fraction of Surface Area
Total
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. Available online at http://www.caleemod.com/ Calculated based on CalEEMod® assumption that 1 gallon of paint covers 180 square feet.

Painted Area in Parking Structures
Application Rate
Indoor Paint VOC Content
Outdoor Paint VOC Content
428 of 1252
Roadway Category Silt Loading1
(g/m2) Travel Fraction1
Freeway 0.015 63%
Major 0.032 27%
Collector 0.032 5%
Local 0.32 5%
Weighted Silt Loading Factor 0.036 100%
Notes:

1. Abbreviations:

ARB - Air Resources Board
g - gram(s)
m - meter
References:

Table 12
Silt Loading Emission Factors
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
California Air Resources Board. 2021. Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust. March. Available online at:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/2021_paved_roads_7_9.pdf Entrained Roadway Dust Constants for San Mateo County
Travel fraction by roadway category and silt loading are from the ARB's Entrained Road Travel Emission Inventory Source Methodology, Tables 2 and 4, respectively. 429 of 1252
Road Dust Equation1
E [lb/VMT] = k*(sL)^0.91 * (W)^1.02 * (1-P/4N)
Parameters Value
E = annual average emission factor in the same units as k [calculated] k = particle size multiplier for particle size range
PM10 (lb/VMT) 0.0022
PM2.5 (lb/VMT) 3.3E-04
sL = roadway silt loading [grams per square meter - g/m2] 0.036 W = average weight of vehicles traveling the road [tons] 2.4 P = number of “wet” days in county with at least 0.01 in of precipitation during the annual averaging period 74
N = number of days in the averaging period 365
Entrained Road Dust Emission Factors
PM10 Emission Factor [lb/VMT] 2.5E-04
PM2.5 Emission Factor [lb/VMT] 3.7E-05
Notes:

1. Abbreviations:

ARB - California Air Resources Board lb - pound
CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns EMFAC - EMission FACtor Model PM10 - particulate matter less than 10 microns g - gram VMT - vehicle miles traveled
References:

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2020.4.0. Available online at http://www.caleemod.com/ Table 13
Emission Factors for Entrained Roadway Dust
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Road dust equation and parameters are from the California Air Resources Board's (ARB) 2021 Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9 for Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust. The silt loading emission factor assumes San Mateo county default roadway fractions and silt loading levels from ARB 2021. The number of "wet" days for San Mateo county is from ARB 2021. This is slightly higher than the default from CalEEMod® Appendix D Table 1.1 (70 days), which was based on older historic data and would result in slightly higher emissions. Other parameters (average weight of vehicles, size multipliers) are from ARB 2021. PM2.5 is assumed to be 15% of PM10 based on paved road dust sampling in California (ARB Speciation Profile #471), which is a more representative fraction than provided in the older AP-42 fugitive dust methodology as discussed in ARB 2021 (page 10).

California Air Resources Board. 2021. Miscellaneous Process Methodology 7.9, Entrained Road Travel, Paved Road Dust.

March. Available online at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/2021_paved_roads_7_9.pdf 430 of 1252
Entrained Road Dust Emission Factors
PM10 Emission Factor [lb/VMT] 2.5E-04
PM2.5 Emission Factor [lb/VMT] 3.7E-05
PM10 PM25
Demolition 2023 26 11,426 2.8 0.42
Site Preparation 2023 1 32 0.0080 0.0012
Grading / Excavation 2023 71 42,268 10 1.6
Trenching/Foundation 2023 40 1,296 0.32 0.048
Building - Structure 2023 98 97,797 24 3.6
Building - Structure 2024 78 77,843 19 2.9
Building - Exterior 2024 100 99,810 25 3.7
Paving 2024 50 5,860 1.4 0.22
Abbreviations:
lb - pound VMT - vehicle miles travelled
Table 14
Emission Factors for Entrained Roadway Dust
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Phase Year Construction Days Total VMT
(miles)
Total Emissions (lb)
431 of 1252
DPM PM2.5 DPM PM2.5 DPM PM2.5
Demolition 2023 1.4E-04 1.3E-04 8.8E-05 8.2E-05 1.1E-06 2.6E-06 Site Preparation 2023 4.2E-06 3.9E-06 4.2E-06 3.9E-06 3.6E-10 1.5E-09 Grading / Excavation 2023 8.1E-04 7.5E-04 2.0E-04 1.8E-04 3.7E-06 9.3E-06 Trenching/Foundation 2023 8.0E-05 7.4E-05 5.8E-06 5.8E-06 1.4E-08 5.9E-08 Building - Structure 2023 7.1E-04 6.5E-04 4.3E-05 4.3E-05 7.0E-06 1.7E-05 Building - Structure 2024 5.1E-04 4.7E-04 3.4E-05 3.4E-05 5.3E-06 1.3E-05 Building - Exterior 2024 8.2E-04 7.6E-04 8.0E-05 7.8E-05 6.8E-06 1.7E-05 Paving 2024 4.3E-05 3.9E-05 4.3E-05 3.9E-05 2.2E-07 6.1E-07 Notes:

1. Abbreviations:

BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District DPM - diesel particulate matter CalEEMod® - California Emissions Estimator Model® PM2.5 - particulate matter less than 2.5 microns CAP - Criteria Air Pollutants g/s - grams/second
CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act
References:

Table 15
Modeled Emission Rates from Proposed Project Construction Sources Construction TAC emissions were estimated from on-site off-road emissions, where all PM10 tailpipe emissions are assumed to be DPM (although a portion of this is likely not from diesel sources). On-road emissions from hauling and vendor vehicles were estimated using a modeled trip length of 0.65 miles. These emissions were modeled with the on-site construction sources rather than on separate haul roads. The inclusion of on-road emissions and decision to model these emissions onsite is conservative as the estimated traffic volumes do not exceed the screening levels recommended by BAAQMD (i.e., more than 5,000 vehicles per day and 500 trucks per day) and can be considered minor sources (BAAQMD 2011).

California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2020.4.0. CAPCOA. 2020. Available online at: http://www.caleemod.com California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). May. Available online at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. 2012. BAAQMD. May. Available online at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Onroad
Construction Emissions1 [g/s]
Phase Year Unmitigated Offroad Mitigated Offroad
432 of 1252
Release
Height2
Exit
Temperature3 Exit Flow3 Exit Diameter3
Annual Average
Emission Rate4
(m) (K) (m3/min) (mm) (g/s)
Generators1 Point 1 2.4 823 71 183 1.80E-04
Notes:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Abbreviations:

K - Kelvin min - minute
m - meter mm - millimeter
g/s - grams/second
Table 16
Emergency Generator Moedeling Parameters
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Source Source Type Number of
Sources
One generator rated 500 kilowatts woud be located on the western side of the proposed building.

According to the Project Sponsor, generator would exhaust between the first and second floors of the building.

Based on the specification sheet for the Generac SD500 model.

Annual emissions of DPM and PM2.5 were based on 50 hours of non-emergency operation of the emergency generator operating at 100% load. 433 of 1252
Construction Sources
Release Height Initial Vertical
Dimension3
Initial Lateral
Dimension3
Value Units [m] [m] [m]
Construction Equipment Area 2 1 800 m
2 5 1.2 -
On-Road Haul Trucks Volume Multiple Width of Road + 6 m 2.55 2.37 Source Dimension/2.15 Notes:

1. 2.

3. Abbreviations:
m - meter SCAQMD - South Coast Air Quality Management District m
2 - square meter LST - Localized Significance Thresholds AERMOD - Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency References:

Table 17
Construction Modeling Parameters
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Source1 Source Type Number of
Sources
Source Dimension
USEPA. 2019. User's Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model (AERMOD). U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/models/aermod/aermod_userguide.pdf Modeled emission rates for emission sources are 1 g/s to generate unit dispersion factors. The complete AERMOD input file can be found in Appendix C.

Area source release height assumed to be 5 meters, consistent with SCAQMD LST Guidance.

According to USEPA's AERMOD guidance, initial vertical dimension of the modeled construction equipment area sources is the release hegith divided by 4.3. According to the USEPA Haul Road Guidance, the initial vertical dimension for line sources is the top of plume height divided by 2.15, where the top of the plume is equal to 2*Release Height. According to USEPA's AERMOD guidance, the initial horizontal dimension for construction volume sources is the source width divided by 2.15.

SCAQMD. 2008. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. July. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localizedsignificance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology-document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package20120302.pdf USEPA. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality and Planning Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package-20120302.pdf 434 of 1252
Construction + Operation Scenario
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)1
Exposure
Duration (ED)2
Fraction of
Time at Home
(FAH)3
Exposure
Frequency
(EF)4
Averaging
Time (AT)
Intake Factor,
Inhalation
(IFinh)
[L/kg-day] [years] [unitless] [days/year] [days] [m3/kg-day] 2023 3rd Trimester 361 0.30 1.0 10 0.015
2023 0-<2 1090 0.70 1.0 10 0.105
2024 0-<2 1090 1.00 1.0 10 0.149
2024 0-<2 1090 1.00 1.0 10 0.149
2025 2-<16 572 14.00 1.0 3 0.329
2029 16-30 261 14.00 0.7 1 0.037
2023 0-<2 750 1.00 1.00 10 0.073
2024 0-<2 750 1.00 1.00 10 0.073
Operation 2024 2-<16 415 3.75 1.0 3 0.046
2023 2-<9 415 1.00 1.0 3 0.012
2024 2-<9 415 1.00 1.0 3 0.012
Operation 2024 2-<9 415 4.75 1.0 3 0.058
Operation Only Scenario
Daily Breathing
Rate (DBR)1
Exposure
Duration (ED)5
Fraction of
Time at Home
(FAH)3
Exposure
Frequency
(EF)4
Averaging
Time (AT)
Intake Factor,
Inhalation
(IFinh)
[L/kg-day] [years] [unitless] [days/year] [days] [m3/kg-day] 3rd Trimester 361 0.25 1.0 10 0.012
0-<2 1090 2.00 1.0 10 0.299
2-<16 572 14.00 1.0 3 0.329
16-30 261 14.00 0.7 1 0.037
Notes:

1. 2 Exposure duration for residential receptor is assumed to begin at the start of construction and continue for 30 years of operation. 3 4
5 Calculation:

IFinh = DBR * FAH * EF * ED * CF / AT
CF = 0.001 (m3/L)
Abbreviations:

AT - averaging time IFinh - intake factor
Construction
250.0
Childcare
Construction
Receptor Type Project Phase Year Receptor Age Group
Exposure Parameters
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Resident Operation 350 25500
Daily breathing rates reflect default breathing rates from OEHHA 2015 as follows:
95th percentile moderate intensity 8-hour daily breathing rate for age 16-70 9th percentile 8-hour daily breathing rate for age 0-2 years, assuming 2 hours of moderate intensity and 6 hours of light intensity activity Fraction of time spent at home is conservatively assumed to be 1 (i.e., 24 hours/day) for age groups from the third trimester to less than 16 years old based on the recommendation from BAAQMD (BAAQMD 2016) and OEHHA (OEHHA 2015). The fraction of time at home for adults age 16-30 reflects default OEHHA guidance (OEHHA 2015) as recommended by BAAQMD (2016).

Exposure frequency reflects default exposure frequency from OEHHA 2015.

For the operation-only, the maximally exposed project resident is assumed to be exposed to risks for 30 years, beginning at the start of operation. 2024
Table 18
Construction and Operational Exposure Parameters
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Receptor Type Project Phase Year Receptor Age Group
Exposure Parameters
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Resident
Construction
350
25500
Operation
Daycare
435 of 1252
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District kg - kilogram DBR - daily breathing rate L - liter
ED - exposure duration m
3 - cubic meter
EF - exposure frequency OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment FAH - fraction of time at home
References:

OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

Available at https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf 436 of 1252
Chemical1 Cancer Potency Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1 Chronic REL (µg/m3)
Diesel PM 1.1 5.0
Notes:

1. Abbreviations:
µg/m3 - micrograms per cubic meter
ARB - Air Resources Board
Cal/EPA - California Environmental Protection Agency
(mg/kg-day)-1 - per milligram per kilogram-day
OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment PM - particulate matter
REL - reference exposure level
Reference:

Cal/EPA. 2015. OEHHA/ARB Consolidated Table of Approved Risk Assessment Health Values. May 13.

Table 19
Toxicity Values
Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Chemicals presented in this table reflect air toxic contaminants in the proposed fuel types that are expected from off-road equipment and on-road truck trips.
1 of 1
437 of 1252
Latitude Longitude
Lifetime
Excess Cancer
Risk
PM2.5
Concentration
(in a million) (µg/m3
)
15342 Eurocraft Auto Body
LLC
Auto Body Coating
Operation 37.564 -122.318 0.00 0.00 0.000
20478 Gramercy on the
Park Condos Generators 37.564 -122.321 0.96 0.00 0.001
9555 San Mateo Lumber
Co , Inc
Woodworking
Operation 37.563 -122.318 0.00 0.00 1.118
10327
Sutter Bay Hospitals
dba Mills-Peninsula
Health
Generators 37.563 -122.324 0.05 0.00 0.018
NA Block 21
Development4 Emergency Generator 37.566 -122.320 0.09 0.00 0.000 15342 Eurocraft Auto Body
LLC
Auto Body Coating
Operation 37.564 -122.318 0.00 0.00 0.000
20478 Gramercy on the
Park Condos Generators 37.564 -122.321 0.39 0.00 0.000
112208 APRO LLC dba
United Pacific #2201
Gas Dispensing
Facility 37.566 -122.319 0.32 0.00 0.000
10327
Sutter Bay Hospitals
dba Mills-Peninsula
Health
Generators 37.563 -122.324 0.05 0.00 0.018
NA Block 21
Development4 Emergency Generator 37.566 -122.320 0.12 0.00 0.000 Notes:

1. 2.

3. 4.

Abbreviations:
µg - microgram m - meter
BAAQMD - Bay Area Air Quality Management District m
3 - cubic meter
ft - feet MEI - maximum exposed individual
HI - hazard index PM2.5 - fine particulate matter
References:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Permitted Sources Risk and Hazards Map. June. Available at:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 BAAQMD. 2022. Personal Communication from Matthew Hanson to Carlos Ciudad-Real. March 25.

Ramboll. 2022. CEQA Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment for the Block 21 Mixed-Use Project, San Mateo, California (Draft).

April 1.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2020. Health Risk Calculator Beta 4.0. March. Available at:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/tools/baaqmd-health-risk-calculator-beta-4-0- xlsx.xlsx?la=en&rev=dab7d85a772d45caa9c99e59395bf12d\
Noncancer
Chronic HI
(degrees)
On-Site
Resident
Off-Site
Resident
Health impacts estimated using BAAQMD Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Risk values listed are maximum values, not expected values.

Results have been adjusted by the BAAQMD-recommended distance multiplier, where relevant.

Screening level health risk impacts from the foreseeable future development were obtained from the environmental study of this project.

Facility information provided by the BAAQMD except for where facility numbers are absent.

Locations are approximate for preliminary assessment of risk.

Facility Name1
BAAQMD
Facility
Number1
Location of
MEIR
Table 20
Health Risk Impacts from Stationary Sources for Cumulative Analysis Draeger's Mixed-Use Project
222 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
Location1,2 Health Risk Screening Values Adjusted by
BAAQMD Screening Tool3
Source type (used
for distance
multiplier)1
438 of 1252
Ramboll

FIGURES
439 of 1252
Map Scale: 1:10,490 | Map Center: 122°19'6"W 37°34'1"N
C:\Users\CCiudadReal\Ramboll\DJPA Draeger's Mixed Use 222 E 4th - Documents\GIS\Draegers.aprx\ PROJECT: 1690002413 | DATED: | DESIGNER:

Service Layer Credits: USGSTopo: USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road Data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State Humanitarian Information Unit; and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, U.S. Coastal Relief Model. Data refreshed June, 2022. 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC.

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
FIGURE 01
222 E 4th Ave Mixed Use Project
500 E 3rd Ave
San Mateo, CA
LEGEND
Project Site
Emergency Generator
Haul Route
Childcare
Daycare
Elementary School
Off-site Residents
On-site Residents
Buildings included for building downwash

SOURCE AND RECEPTOR
SETUP
(!
Ná
440 of 1252
Map Scale: 1:4,297 | Map Center: 122°19'25"W 37°33'51"N C:\Users\CCiudadReal\Ramboll\DJPA Draeger's Mixed Use 222 E 4th - Documents\GIS\Draegers.aprx\ PROJECT: 1690002413 | DATED: | DESIGNER:

A RAMBOLL COMPANY
FIGURE 02
222 E 4th Ave Mixed Use Project
500 E 3rd Ave
San Mateo, CA
LEGEND
Project Site
Off-Site Daycare Child
On-Site Resident
Off-Site Resident

LOCATION OF MEIR'S AND
MEIS
(!
Ná
441 of 1252
Ramboll

APPENDIX A

TRAFFIC STUDY
442 of 1252
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) prepared this trip generation memorandum for the 222 East 4th Avenue Project at the existing Draeger’s site in San Mateo, California (Project). The Project proposes to redevelop the existing Draeger Market into a mixed-use building with office, residential, and retail space.

Site access will be accommodated for personal and delivery vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians.

Project Description
Lane Partners is proposing to replace the existing 60,965 square feet Draeger’s market located at 222 East 4 th Avenue with a 5-story, approximately 155,052 square feet mixed-use building with two levels of below grade parking. The building would consist of approximately 104,722 square feet of office space, 17,658 square feet of retail space, and 8,971 square feet of residential space for 10 below-market-rate units at the lower income level. The retail floor would be located on the ground floor, the office space would be spread throughout the first four floors, and the residential space would be split between the ground floor (i.e., residential lobby/elevator) and the fifth floor living areas. The ground floor would also include 12,392 square feet of covered parking area and two levels (89,519 square feet) below grade for a total of 239 parking spaces and 50-60 valet parking spaces. The Project site plan is shown in Figure 1.

The Project site is in downtown San Mateo and is zoned as Central Business District/Residential Overlay District – Mixed Use (CBD). The site is also in a designated “Transit Oriented Development” area as it is within a half mile of the San Mateo Caltrain station.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
July 11, 2022 Project# 24837.004
To: Wendy Lao
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403
From: Allison Woodworth; Anusha Musunuru, PhD; Mychal Loomis, PE CC: Bethany Lopez, Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Mike Kato
RE: San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Trip Generation Memorandum DRAFT 443 of 1252
July 11, 2022 Page 2
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Trip Generation Memorandum DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1: Proposed Mixed-Use Project Site Plan
Source: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4386/222-E-4th-Ave-Draegers 444 of 1252
July 11, 2022 Page 3
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Trip Generation Memorandum DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Trip Generation Calculation

ITE DEVELOPMENT LAND USE CODES
Trip generation is a key consideration for determining local effects of the project on the transportation network. Trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition were used to estimate the number of trips the mixed-use proposed project would generate. ITE trip estimates are tied to specific land use codes. The ITE land use codes found to be most applicable to the Project are listed below.
• Supermarket (ITE 850)
• General Office Building (ITE 710)
• Affordable Housing (ITE 223)
In addition, this Project is assumed to be in the ‘Dense Multi-Use Urban’ context, considered by ITE to be an area that has diverse and interacting complementary land uses with good pedestrian connectivity, and convenient and frequent transit service. This is consistent with the Transit Oriented Development overlay and CBD zoning for the project site for which the San Mateo Municipal code promotes mixed-uses and pedestrian activity. Table 1 below shows the trip generation rates used for the analysis.

Table 1: Trip Generation Rates, ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition Land Use
ITE
Code
Land Use
Context Units*
Weekday
Daily
Rate
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
Rate In % Out % Rate In % Out %
Retail
(Supermarket)
850 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
1000 SF
GFA
107.42 4.99 55% 45% 9.32 50% 50%
Office Space 710 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
1000 SF
GFA
none
provided

0.84 87% 13% 0.87 16% 84%
Office Space 710 General
Urban/
Suburban1
1000 SF
GFA
Fitted
Curve2
Affordable
Housing
223 Dense
Multi-Use
Urban
DU 3.83 0.5 29% 71% 0.36 61% 39%
*: GFA – Gross Floor Area, SF – Square Feet, DU – Dwelling Units 1: The weekday daily rate for General Urban/Suburban land use was used for Office Space (ITE 710) as no vehicle rate was provided for the Dense Multi-Use Urban land use context. 2: ITE 710 (General Urban/Suburban) daily rate fitted curve equation: Ln(T) = 0.87 Ln(X) + 3.05

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION
Trip generation estimates for this Project took into consideration three types of trips:
• Primary or New: These are the trips whose specific purpose was to visit the site. Primary trip rates were generated using ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. • Pass-by: Drivers already on their way to a destination that stop temporarily at the Project Site without a major roadway diversion are considered making “pass-by” trips. Supermarket 850 is the only land use code in ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition for which a pass-by rate was supplied.

The 24% average pass-by rate for this land use was only applicable for Weekday PM Peak, resulting in a reduction of 39 trips.
445 of 1252
July 11, 2022 Page 4
San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Trip Generation Memorandum DRAFT Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Internal: Trips that occur between land-uses on a multi-use project site and which can be made without using the off-site street network are considered “internal trips”. Internal trips for this project can be made by walking between uses. Internal capture was estimated using methodology from NCHRP Report 684 – Enhancing Internal Trip Capture for Mixed-Use Developments.

The existing Draeger’s market was included as existing trip credits as it currently generates trips to and from the site. Pass-by trips were also applied to the existing supermarket use.

Table 2 provides a summary of the proposed project’s trip generation. As shown in the table, the net new trip generation would be a reduction of 3,645 average daily weekday trips with a reduction of 135 new trips occurring the morning peak and a reduction of 231 new trips occurring the afternoon peak.

Table 2: Proposed Project Net Trip Generation Calculations Land Use Size
Weekday
Daily Trips
Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
Retail (Supermarket) 17.6 KSF 1,891 48 40 88 82 82 164
Office Space 104.7 KSF 1,208 77 11 88 15 76 91
Affordable Housing 10 DU 38 1 4 5 2 2 4
Internal Capture -233 -6 -6 -12 -11 -11 -22
Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -18 -18 -36
Total Proposed
Project Trips
2,904 120 49 169 70 131 201
Existing Project
Retail (Supermarket) 61 KSF 6,549 167 137 304 284 284 568 Pass-by reduction
(24% PM only)
0 0 0 0 -68 -68 -136
Total Existing Trips 6,549 167 137 304 216 216 432
Net New Project Trips -3,645 -47 -88 -135 -146 -84 -231 Conclusion
The Proposed Project would generate less daily and peak hour trips than what is currently being generated by the existing Draeger’s supermarket. The proposed mixed-use site would therefore not affect the operations of the roadway network and no further traffic analysis is required. 446 of 1252
Ramboll

APPENDIX B

AERMOD INPUT FILES (PROVIDED ELECTRONICALLY)
447 of 1252

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUES AND REVISIONS

PROJECT NUMBER
16010.00
SCALE

SHEET TITLE

ARCHITECTS

KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
222 EAST 4TH

LANE PARTNERS
No. Date Description
A 05/05/20 Pre-Application Set

ANDREA COCHRAN

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
2325 Third Street #210
San Francisco CA 94107
415.503.0060
B 10/21/20 Pre-Application Resubmittal
C 03/19/21 Pre-Application Resubmittal
D 10/15/21 Pre-Application Resubmittal
L-003

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUES AND REVISIONS

PROJECT NUMBER
16010.00
SCALE

SHEET TITLE

ARCHITECTS

KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
222 EAST 4TH

LANE PARTNERS
No. Date Description
A 05/05/20 Pre-Application Set

ANDREA COCHRAN

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUES AND REVISIONS

PROJECT NUMBER
16010.00
SCALE

SHEET TITLE

ARCHITECTS

KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
222 EAST 4TH

LANE PARTNERS
No. Date Description
A 05/05/20 Pre-Application Set

ANDREA COCHRAN

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUES AND REVISIONS

PROJECT NUMBER
16010.00
SCALE

SHEET TITLE

ARCHITECTS

KORTH SUNSERI HAGEY
222 EAST 4TH

LANE PARTNERS
No. Date Description
A 05/05/20 Pre-Application Set

ANDREA COCHRAN

TREE INVENTORY
NA
No. Date Description
A 05/05/20 Pre-Application Set
B 10/21/20 Pre-Application Resubmittal
C 03/19/21 Pre-Application Resubmittal
D 10/15/21 Pre-Application Resubmittal
E 02/04/22 Pre-Application Resubmittal
451 of 1252
Type of Services Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name 222 East 4th Avenue
Location 222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California
Client Lane Partners
Client Address 644 Menlo Avenue, Suite 204
Menlo Park, California
Project Number 129-6-1
Date December 20, 2019
DRAFT
Prepared by Nicholas S. Devlin, P.E.

Senior Project Engineer
Geotechnical Project Manager
Scott E. Fitinghoff, P.E., G.E.

Principal Engineer
Quality Assurance Reviewer
452 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.2 Scope of Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

1.3 Exploration Program --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

1.4 Laboratory Testing Program----------------------------------------------------------------------------2

1.5 Environmental Services----------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 SECTION 2: REGIONAL SETTING ............................................................................................. 2

2.1 Geological Setting -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2

2.2 Regional Seismicity ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances.................................................................................. 3 SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Site Background--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

3.2 Surface Description ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

3.3 Subsurface Conditions -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------4

3.3.1 Plasticity/Expansion Potential ................................................................................... 5

3.3.2 In-Situ Moisture Contents .......................................................................................... 5

3.4 Groundwater-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5

3.5 Corrosion Screening --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 Table 2A: Summary of Corrosion Test Results................................................................... 5

3.4.1 Preliminary Soil Corrosion Screening....................................................................... 6 Table 2B: ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 Exposure Categories and Classes ............................ 6 Table 2C: ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.2.1 Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class ....... 6 SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS........................................................................................... 6

4.1 Fault Rupture ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

4.2 Estimated Ground Shaking -----------------------------------------------------------------------------7

4.3 Liquefaction Potential-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 453 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page ii

4.3.1 Background................................................................................................................. 7

4.3.2 Analysis....................................................................................................................... 7

4.3.3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential ........................................................................... 8

4.3.4 Ground Rupture Potential .......................................................................................... 8

4.4 Lateral Spreading ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8

4.5 Seismic Settlement/Unsaturated Sand Shaking--------------------------------------------------8

4.6 Tsunami/Seiche---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

4.7 Flooding-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................... 9

5.1 Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9

5.1.1 Proximity of Basement Excavation to Existing Improvements...........................10

5.1.2 Presence of Cohesionless Soil at Basement Level .................................................10

5.1.3 Differential Movement At On-grade to On-Structure Transitions ...........................10

5.1.4 Potential For Seismic and Static Settlement............................................................10

5.1.5 Soil Corrosion Potential ............................................................................................11

5.2 Plans and Specifications Review-------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

5.3 Construction Observation and Testing------------------------------------------------------------ 11 SECTION 6: EARTHWORK........................................................................................................12

6.1 Site Demolition-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12

6.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements...................................12

6.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities............................................................................13

6.2 Site Clearing and Preparation------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13

6.2.1 Site Stripping .............................................................................................................13

6.3 Removal of Existing Fills ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13

6.4 Temporary Cut and Fill Slopes----------------------------------------------------------------------- 13

6.5 Below-Grade Excavations ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14

6.5.1 Temporary Shoring....................................................................................................14 Table 3: Suggested Temporary Shoring Design Parameters .............................................14

6.6 At-Grade Subgrade Preparation --------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

6.7 Subgrade Preparation----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15

6.8 Subgrade Stabilization Measures ------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 454 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page iii

6.8.1 Below-Grade Excavation Stabilization .....................................................................16

6.9 Material for Fill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16

6.9.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils .............................................................................................16

6.9.2 Potential Import Sources...........................................................................................16

6.10 Compaction Requirements---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Table 4: Compaction Requirements.....................................................................................17

6.10.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning ....................................................................18

6.11 Trench Backfill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

6.12 Site Drainage----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18

6.13 Landscape Considerations---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 SECTION 7: FOUNDATIONS.....................................................................................................19

7.1 Summary of Recommendations --------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

7.2 Seismic Design Criteria -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Table 4: 2019 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients ............................................20

7.3 Shallow Foundations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20

7.3.1 Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundation ......................................................................20

7.3.2 Allowable Mat Bearing Pressure...............................................................................21

7.3.3 Mat Foundation Settlement.......................................................................................21

7.3.4 Mat Foundation Lateral Loading...............................................................................21

7.3.5 Mat Modulus of Soil Subgrade Reaction..................................................................21

7.4 Hydrostatic Uplift and Waterproofing-------------------------------------------------------------- 22 SECTION 8: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS.......................................22

8.1 Below-Grade Interior Slab-on-Grade --------------------------------------------------------------- 22

8.2 Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations-------------------------------------------- 22

8.3 Exterior Flatwork (At-Grade)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 SECTION 9: RETAINING WALLS..............................................................................................23

9.1 Static Lateral Earth Pressures ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 Table 5: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures................................................................24

9.2 Seismic Lateral Earth Pressures -------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

9.3 Wall Drainage---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 455 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page iv

9.4 Vehicle Surcharge Loads ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 25

9.5 Backfill------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

9.6 Foundations (AT-GRADE) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 SECTION 10: LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................26 SECTION 11: REFERENCES.....................................................................................................27 FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3: REGIONAL FAULT MAP
APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
456 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 1 ends

Type of Services Geotechnical Investigation
Project Name 222 East 4th Avenue
Location 222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, California
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical report was prepared for the sole use of Lane Partners for the 222 East 4th Avenue project located in San Mateo, California. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. For our use, we were provided with the following document:
 As-built plans titled, “Draeger’s Market, San Mateo, CA”, prepared by Field-Paoli Architecture & Planning, dated June 24, 1996.

It is noted that building code references and recommendations provided in this report are based on the 2016 California Building Code (CBC); therefore, this recommendations and code references in this report will need to be updated based on the 2019 CBC that takes effect on January 1, 2020.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of a 4-story, mixed-use (office and retail) building with 2 levels of belowgrade parking on an approximately 1.1-acre site. The above-grade portion of the structure is anticipated to be of wood- and/or steel-frame construction with the below-grade parking levels of concrete-frame construction.

Structural loads were not available at the time of this report and are anticipated to be typical of this type of structure. Grading is anticipated to include cuts of up to 25 feet for excavation of the below-grade parking levels.

1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services was presented in our proposal dated October 2, 2019 and consisted of field and laboratory programs to evaluate physical and engineering properties of the subsurface soils, engineering analysis to prepare recommendations for site work and grading, temporary shoring, building foundations, flatwork, retaining walls, and pavements, and preparation of this report. Brief descriptions of our exploration and laboratory programs are presented below. 457 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 2 ends

1.3 EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Field exploration consisted of two borings drilled on November 6 and 21, 2019 with truckmounted, hollow-stem auger drilling equipment. The borings were drilled to a depth of 60 feet below the existing grades. The borings were backfilled with cement grout in accordance with local requirements; exploration permits were obtained as required by local jurisdictions.

The approximate locations of our exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.

Details regarding our field program are included in Appendix A.

1.4 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
In addition to visual classification of samples, the laboratory program focused on obtaining data for foundation design and seismic ground deformation estimates. Testing included moisture contents, dry densities, washed sieve analyses, a Plasticity Index test, unconfined triaxial compression tests, and preliminary corrosion screening. Details regarding our laboratory program are included in Appendix B.

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Environmental services were not requested for this project. If environmental concerns are determined to be present during future evaluations, the project environmental consultant should review our geotechnical recommendations for compatibility with the environmental concerns.

SECTION 2: REGIONAL SETTING

2.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING
The San Francisco Peninsula is a relatively narrow band of rock at the north end of the Santa Cruz Mountains separating the Pacific Ocean from San Francisco Bay. This represents one mountain range in a series of northwesterly-aligned mountains forming the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that stretches from the Oregon border nearly to Point Conception. In the San Francisco Bay area, most of the Coast Ranges have developed on a basement of tectonically mixed Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age (70- to 200-million years old) rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Locally these basement rocks are capped by younger sedimentary and volcanic rocks. Most of the Coast Ranges are covered by still younger surficial deposits that reflect geologic conditions of the last million years or so.

Movement on the many splays within the San Andreas Fault system has produced the dominant northwest-oriented structural and topographic trend seen throughout the Coast Ranges today.

This trend reflects the boundary between two of the Earth's major tectonic plates: the North American plate to the east and the Pacific plate to the west. The San Andreas Fault system is about 40 miles wide in the Bay area and extends from the San Gregorio Fault near the coastline to the Coast Ranges-Central Valley blind thrust at the western edge of the Great Central Valley as shown on the Regional Fault Map, Figure 3. The San Andreas Fault is the dominant structure in the system, nearly spanning the length of California, and capable of producing the 458 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 3 ends

highest magnitude earthquakes. Many other subparallel or branch faults within the San Andreas system are equally active and nearly as capable of generating large earthquakes. Right-lateral movement dominates on these faults but an increasingly large amount of thrust faulting resulting from compression across the system is now being identified also.

The project site is located on the flatlands surrounding San Francisco Bay west of the present tidal flats. The site is mapped as Holocene age coarse-grained alluvium (Qoa: Pampeyan, 1994) and alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf: Brabb et al., 1998), underlain by Franciscan Complex sandstone (fs) with interbedded siltstone and shale.

2.2 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The San Francisco Bay area region is one of the most seismically active areas in the Country.

While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities 2015 revises earlier estimates from their 2008 (2008, UCERF2) publication. Compared to the previous assessment issued in 2008, the estimated rate of earthquakes around magnitude 6.7 (the size of the destructive 1994 Northridge earthquake) has gone down by about 30 percent. The expected frequency of such events statewide has dropped from an average of one per 4.8 years to about one per 6.3 years.

However, in the new study, the estimate for the likelihood that California will experience a magnitude 8 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years has increased from about 4.7 percent for UCERF2 to about 7.0 percent for UCERF3.

UCERF3 estimates that each region of California will experience a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake in the next 30 years. Additionally, there is a 63 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2007 and 2036.

The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes are generally associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly. The table below presents the State-considered active faults within 25 kilometers of the site.

Table 1: Approximate Fault Distances
Fault Name
Distance
(miles) (kilometers)
San Andreas (1906) 3.2 5.1
Monte Vista-Shannon 9.1 14.7
San Gregorio 10.2 16.5
Hayward (Total Length) 15.1 24.3
A regional fault map is presented as Figure 3, illustrating the relative distances of the site to significant fault zones.
459 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 4 ends

SECTION 3: SITE CONDITIONS

3.1 SITE BACKGROUND
Based on aerial images provided on HistoricAerials.com website (NETROnline, 2019) and the referenced plans, the site was occupied by a few residential and/or commercial developments and several large trees in an image dated 1946. The site was occupied by a large commercial building with at-grade parking areas and a residential development in the western and eastern portions of the site, respectively, in an image dated 1956. The residential development was not observed in the eastern portion of the site in an image dated 1968; however, additional at-grade parking was observed. Significant changes to the commercial development were not observed in images dated 1980 through 1993. The current commercial development at the site was observed in an image dated 2002, and based on the referenced plans, the current development was constructed in 1996. Significant changes to the current development were not observed in images dated after 2002.

3.2 SURFACE DESCRIPTION
The site is currently occupied by a commercial development consisting of a two-story commercial building with at-grade and one level of below-grade parking. The site is relatively level and at or near the elevation of the adjacent properties and roadways. Based on the referenced plans, the elevation of the site ranges from Elevation 25 feet in the southeastern portion of the site to 29.5 feet in the northwestern portion of the site, City of San Mateo Datum (CSMD).

Surface pavements of the adjacent roadways (Ellsworth Avenue and B Street) generally consisted of 6 to 8 inches of asphalt concrete over 3 to 8 inches of aggregate base. Based on our observations, the existing pavements are in good/poor condition with significant alligator cracking.

3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Below the surface pavements, our explorations generally encountered undocumented fill over alluvial soil. The undocumented fill was encountered to a depth of 5 feet (corresponding to Elevations 20.5 and 24 feet CSMD for Exploratory Borings EB-1 and EB-2, respectively), and consisted of sandy lean clay and clayey sand. The underlying alluvial soil was encountered to a depth of 60 feet below the existing grades (corresponding to Elevations -34.5 and -31 feet CSMD), the maximum depth explored and consisted of very stiff to hard, sandy lean clay with gravel, sandy lean clay, and lean clay with sand. Several prominent layers of medium dense to dense, clayey sand with gravel and dense to very dense, poorly graded sand with gravel were encountered at depths of 5 to 22 feet (corresponding to Elevations 20.5 and 3.5 feet CSMD, respectively) within EB-1, and 1 to 17½ feet (corresponding to Elevations 28 and 11.5 feet CSMD, respectively) and 22½ to 26 feet (corresponding to Elevations 6.5 and 3 feet CSMD, respectively) within EB-2.
460 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 5 ends

3.3.1 Plasticity/Expansion Potential
We performed one Plasticity Index (PI) test on a representative sample of the foundation bearing soil. Test results were used to evaluate expansion potential of surficial soil. The test resulted in a PI of 17, indicating low expansion potential to wetting and drying cycles.

3.3.2 In-Situ Moisture Contents
Laboratory testing indicated that the in-situ moisture contents within the upper 10 feet are at or near the estimated laboratory optimum moisture. Moisture contents from 10 to 25 feet range from 0 to 5 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum moisture.

3.4 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in our Exploratory Borings (EB-1 and EB-2) at depths of 31 to 32 feet below existing grades (corresponding to Elevations -2 and -6.5 feet CSMD, respectively).

All measurements were taken at the time of drilling and may not represent the stabilized levels that can be higher than the initial levels encountered. Historic high groundwater at the site is mapped at a depth of 18 feet (CGS 2018). Additionally, groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site (e.g. within approximately 600 feet), indicate depths to groundwater to be about 16¾ to 21½ feet below the existing grades. therefore, a design groundwater depth of 18 feet is recommended.

Fluctuations in groundwater levels occur due to many factors including seasonal fluctuation, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors.

3.5 CORROSION SCREENING
We tested one sample collected at a depth of 25 feet for resistivity, pH, soluble sulfates, and chlorides. The laboratory test results are summarized in Table 2A.

Table 2A: Summary of Corrosion Test Results
Sample
Location
Soil Type Depth
(feet) Soil pH1 Resistivity2(ohm-cm)
Chloride3
(mg/kg)
Sulfate4,5
(mg/kg)
EB-1 Lean Clay 25 6.7 3,304 5 10
Notes: 1ASTM G51
2 ASTM G57 - 100% saturation 3
ASTM D3427/Cal 422 Modified
4 ASTM D3427/Cal 417 Modified
5 1 mg/kg = 0.0001% by dry weight
Many factors can affect the corrosion potential of soil including moisture content, resistivity, permeability, and pH, as well as chloride and sulfate concentration. Typically, soil resistivity, which is a measurement of how easily electrical current flows through a medium (soil and/or water), is the most influential factor. In addition to soil resistivity, chloride and sulfate ion concentrations, and pH also contribute in affecting corrosion potential. 461 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 6 ends

3.4.1 Preliminary Soil Corrosion Screening
Based on the laboratory test results summarized in Table 2A and published correlations between resistivity and corrosion potential, the soil may be considered moderately corrosive to buried metallic improvements (Chaker and Palmer, 1989).

In accordance with the 2016 CBC Section 1904A.1, alternative cementitious materials for different exposure categories and classes shall be determined in accordance with ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1, Table R19.3.1, and Table 19.3.2.1. Based on the laboratory sulfate test results, a cement type restriction is not required, although, in our opinion, it is generally a good idea to include some sulfate resistance and to maintain a relatively low water-cement ratio. We have summarized applicable exposure categories and classes from ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.1.1 below in Table 2B.

Table 2B: ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 Exposure Categories and Classes Boring No. / Soil Type Freezing and
Thawing (F) Sulfate (S, soil) In Contact with Water (W) Corrosion Protection
of Reinforcement (C)
EB-1 / Lean Clay F0¹ S0² W0³ C1⁴
1 (F0) “Concrete not exposed to freezing-and-thawing cycles” (ACI 318-14) 2 (S0) “Water soluble sulfate in soil, percent by mass” is less than 0.10 (ACI 318-14) 3 (W0) “Concrete in contact with water and low permeability is not required” (ACI 318-14) 4 (C1) “Concrete exposed to moisture but not to an external source of chlorides” (ACI 318-14) In addition, ACI 318-14, Table 19.3.2.1 provides requirements for concrete by exposure class.

Table 2C below indicates different requirements that we recommend be followed for the concrete design.

Table 2C: ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.2.1 Requirements for Concrete by Exposure Class Exposure
Class
Maximum
water:cement
ratio
Minimum
Compressive
Strength (psi)
Cementitious
materials – Types
(ASTM C150)
Maximum WaterSoluble Chloride Ion
Content (% wt)
F0 N/A 2,500 N/A N/A
S0 N/A 2,500 No type restriction N/A
W0 N/A 2,500 N/A N/A
C1 N/A 2,500 N/A 0.30 (0.06)¹
1 Maximum water-soluble chloride ion content for non-pre-stressed concrete, (value for pre-stressed concrete).

We recommend the structural engineer and a corrosion engineer be retained to confirm the information provided and for additional recommendations, as required.

SECTION 4: GEOLOGIC HAZARDS

4.1 FAULT RUPTURE
As discussed above several significant faults are located within 25 kilometers of the site. The site is not located within a State-designated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As shown in 462 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 7 ends

Figure 3, no known surface expression of fault traces is thought to cross the site; therefore, fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site.

4.2 ESTIMATED GROUND SHAKING
Moderate to severe (design-level) earthquakes can cause strong ground shaking, which is the case for most sites within the Bay Area. Peak ground accelerations (PGA) of 0.764g was estimated for analysis using a value equal to PGAM = FPGA × PGAG (Equation 11.8-1) as allowed in the 2016 California Building Code (CBC).

4.3 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The site is not currently mapped within a liquefaction hazard zone (CGS, 2018) and is within a zone mapped as having a very low to low susceptibility to liquefaction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, 2007). We screened the site for liquefaction during our site exploration by retrieving samples from the site, performing visual classification on sampled materials, and performing various tests to further classify the soil properties.

4.3.1 Background
During strong seismic shaking, cyclically induced stresses can cause increased pore pressures within the soil matrix that can result in liquefaction triggering, soil softening due to shear stress loss, potentially significant ground deformation due to settlement within sandy liquefiable layers as pore pressures dissipate, and/or flow failures in sloping ground or where open faces are present (lateral spreading) (NCEER 1998). Limited field and laboratory data is available regarding ground deformation due to settlement; however, in clean sand layers settlement on the order of 2 to 4 percent of the liquefied layer thickness can occur. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, non-cohesive soils that are saturated and are bedded with poor drainage, such as sand and silt layers bedded with a cohesive cap.

4.3.2 Analysis
As discussed in the “Subsurface” section above, our borings predominately encountered dense sand below the design groundwater depth of 18 feet; however, we performed a liquefaction analysis to evaluate the potential for liquefaction induced settlement. Following the procedures in the 2008 monograph, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes (Idriss and Boulanger, 2008) and in accordance with CDMG Special Publication 117A guidelines (CDMG, 2008) for quantitative analysis, this layer was analyzed for liquefaction triggering and potential post-liquefaction settlement. These methods compare the ratio of the estimated cyclic shaking (Cyclic Stress Ratio - CSR) to the soil’s estimated resistance to cyclic shaking (Cyclic Resistance Ratio - CRR), providing a factor of safety against liquefaction triggering. Factors of safety less than or equal to 1.3 are considered to be potentially liquefiable and capable of post-liquefaction reconsolidation.

The CSR for each layer quantifies the stresses anticipated to be generated due to a designlevel seismic event, is based on the peak horizontal acceleration generated at the ground 463 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 8 ends

surface discussed in the “Estimated Ground Shaking” section above, and is corrected for overburden and stress reduction factors as discussed in the procedure developed by Seed and Idriss (1971) and updated in the 2008 Idriss and Boulanger monograph.

The soil’s CRR is estimated from the in-situ density and strength obtained from field SPT blow counts (“N” value). The “N” values are corrected for effective overburden stresses, taking into consideration both the ground water level at the time of exploration and the design ground water level, and stress reduction versus depth factors. The “N” values are also corrected for fines content, hammer efficiency, boring diameter, rod length, and sampler type (with or without liners).

4.3.3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential
Our analyses indicate the dense to very dense sandy layers encountered in our borings below the design groundwater depth of 18 feet are not susceptible to liquefaction based on the Yoshimine (2006) method.

4.3.4 Ground Rupture Potential
The methods used to estimate liquefaction settlement assume there is a sufficient cap of nonliquefiable material to prevent ground rupture or sand boils. Based on the results of our liquefaction analysis discussed above, the potential for ground rupture to occur at the site is negligible.

4.4 LATERAL SPREADING
Lateral spreading is horizontal/lateral ground movement of relatively flat-lying soil deposits towards a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water; typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. As failure tends to propagate as block failures, it is difficult to analyze and estimate where the first tension crack will form.

San Mateo Creek is located approximately 980 to 1,450 feet northwest and northeast of the site, respectively. Additionally, the potential for liquefaction at the site is negligible. Therefore, the potential for lateral spreading to occur and/or impact the proposed improvements at the site is also considered to be negligible.

4.5 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT/UNSATURATED SAND SHAKING
Loose unsaturated sandy soils can settle during strong seismic shaking. We evaluated the potential for seismic compaction of the medium dense sandy soil encountered in our borings above a design groundwater depth of 18 based on the work by Pradell (1998). Our analyses indicate that seismic compaction of the sandy soil could result in up to ¾ inch of settlement at the ground surface after strong seismic shaking; however, based on the upper 25 feet of soil being removed for excavation of the basement levels, the remaining seismic sand settlement that could occur would be negligible.
464 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 9 ends

4.6 TSUNAMI/SEICHE
The terms tsunami or seiche are described as ocean waves or similar waves usually created by undersea fault movement or by a coastal or submerged landslide. Tsunamis may be generated at great distance from shore (far field events) or nearby (near field events). Waves are formed, as the displaced water moves to regain equilibrium, and radiates across the open water, similar to ripples from a rock being thrown into a pond. When the waveform reaches the coastline, it quickly raises the water level, with water velocities as high as 15 to 20 knots. The water mass, as well as vessels, vehicles, or other objects in its path create tremendous forces as they impact coastal structures.

Tsunamis have affected the coastline along the Pacific Northwest during historic times. The Fort Point tide gauge in San Francisco recorded approximately 21 tsunamis between 1854 and 1964. The 1964 Alaska earthquake generated a recorded wave height of 7.4 feet and drowned eleven people in Crescent City, California. For the case of a far-field event, the Bay area would have hours of warning; for a near field event, there may be only a few minutes of warning, if any.

A tsunami or seiche originating in the Pacific Ocean would lose much of its energy passing through San Francisco Bay. Based on maps of tsunami inundation zones (CGS, 2009) and the study of tsunami inundation potential for the San Francisco Bay Area (Ritter and Dupre, 1972), areas most likely to be inundated are marshlands, tidal flats, and former bay margin lands that are now artificially filled, but are still at or below sea level, and are generally within 1½ miles of the shoreline. The site is approximately 1.2 miles inland from the San Francisco Bay shoreline and is approximately 25.5 to 29 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the potential for inundation due to tsunami or seiche is considered low.

4.7 FLOODING
Based on our internet search of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood map public database, the site is located within Zone X described as “Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. We recommend the project civil engineer be retained to confirm this information and verify the base flood elevation, if appropriate.

SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS

5.1 SUMMARY
From a geotechnical viewpoint, the project is feasible provided the concerns listed below are addressed in the project design. Descriptions of each concern with brief outlines of our recommendations follow the listed concerns.
 Proximity of basement excavation to existing improvements  Presence of cohesionless soil at basement level
 Differential movement at on-grade to on-structure transitions 465 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 10 ends

 Potential for seismic and static settlement
 Soil corrosion potential

5.1.1 Proximity of Basement Excavation to Existing Improvements We understand the basement will likely extend to the existing property lines. Temporary shoring to support the approximately 25-foot deep excavation adjacent to East 4th and 5th Avenues, Ellsworth Avenue, and B Street will likely be necessary. Recommendations for temporary shoring are provided in this report.

5.1.2 Presence of Cohesionless Soil at Basement Level
As discussed, cohesionless (sandy) soils with variable amounts of fines were encountered within portions of the upper 25 feet of the soil profile that may be susceptible to localized sloughing or caving. Contractors should plan on forming footings where sand with low fines contents are encountered, as well as preparation of slab-on-grade subgrade just prior to concrete placement. Other similar construction issues as relates to temporary shoring, utility excavations, and granular material at the base of the basement excavation. These considerations are discussed further within the “Earthwork” and “Foundations” sections of this report.

5.1.3 Differential Movement At On-grade to On-Structure Transitions Some of the at-grade sidewalks and other improvements will transition from on-grade support to overlying the basement. Where the depth of soil cover overlying the basement roof and atgrade improvements is thin or where basement walls extend to within inches of finished grade, these transition areas typically experience increased differential movement due to a variety of causes, including difficulty in achieving compaction of retaining wall backfill closest to the wall.

We recommend consideration be given to where engineered fill is placed behind retaining walls extending to near finished grade, and that subslabs be included beneath flatwork or pavers that can span at least 3 feet beyond the wall. If surface improvements are included that are highly sensitive to differential movement, additional measures may be necessary. We also recommend that retaining wall backfill be compacted to 95 percent where surface improvements are planned (see “Retaining Wall” section).

5.1.4 Potential For Seismic and Static Settlement

5.1.4.1 Seismic Sand Settlement
Additionally, our seismic sand settlement analysis indicates that there is a potential for seismic compaction of localized sand layers located above the design groundwater depth of 18 feet during a significant seismic event. Our analysis indicates that seismic sand settlement of up to ¾ inch could occur at the ground surface; however, based on the upper 25 feet of soil being removed for excavation of the basement levels, our analysis indicates the remaining total seismic sand settlement will be negligible.
466 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 11 ends

5.1.4.2 Static Settlement
We performed static settlement analyses, based on assumed foundation loads, to estimate the settlement that will occur due to static loading conditions for the proposed building. Our analysis indicates that approximately 1¼ inches of total static settlement will occur for the proposed four-story office/retail building under the anticipated static structural loads, with about ¾ inch of differential static settlement in 30 feet across a mat foundation.

Foundations should be designed to tolerate the anticipated total and differential settlement.

Based on our analysis with assumed foundation loads, it should be feasible to support the proposed building on shallow foundations; however, the building foundations will need to be designed to tolerate total and differential settlement due to static loads and liquefaction-induced settlement. Detailed foundation recommendations are presented in the “Foundations” section.

5.1.5 Soil Corrosion Potential
Our testing indicates sulfate exposure at the site is low and therefore no cement-type restrictions to buried concrete. The corrosion potential for buried metallic structures, such as metal pipes, is considered moderately corrosive. Based on the results of the preliminary soil corrosion screening, special requirements for corrosion control will likely be required to protect metal pipes and fittings.

5.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW
We recommend that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the project structural, civil, and landscape plans and specifications, allowing sufficient time to provide the design team with any comments prior to issuing the plans for construction.

5.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING
As site conditions may vary significantly between the small-diameter borings performed during this investigation, we also recommend that a Cornerstone representative be present to provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and foundation construction. This will allow us to form an opinion and prepare a letter at the end of construction regarding contractor compliance with project plans and specifications, and with the recommendations in our report.

We will also be allowed to evaluate any conditions differing from those encountered during our investigation and provide supplemental recommendations as necessary. For these reasons, the recommendations in this report are contingent of Cornerstone providing observation and testing during construction. Contractors should provide at least a 48-hour notice when scheduling our field personnel.
467 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 12 ends

SECTION 6: EARTHWORK

6.1 SITE DEMOLITION
All existing improvements not to be reused for the current development, including all foundations, flatwork, pavements, utilities, and other improvements should be demolished and removed from the site. Recommendations in this section apply to the removal of these improvements, which are currently present on the site, prior to the start of mass grading or the construction of new improvements for the project.

Cornerstone should be notified prior to the start of demolition and should be present on at least a part-time basis during all backfill and mass grading as a result of demolition. Occasionally, other types of buried structures (wells, cisterns, debris pits, etc.) can be found on sites with prior development. If encountered, Cornerstone should be contacted to address these types of structures on a case-by-case basis.

6.1.1 Demolition of Existing Slabs, Foundations and Pavements All slabs, foundations, and pavements should be completely removed from within planned building areas.

We anticipate the majority of the existing improvements at the site will be removed during excavation for the basement; however, as an owner value-engineered option, existing slabs and foundations that extend into areas of planned at-grade improvements such as flatwork or landscape areas may be left in place provided there is at least 3 feet of engineered fill overlying the remaining materials, they are shown not to conflict with new utilities, and that asphalt and concrete more than 10 feet square is broken up to allow subsurface drainage. Future distress and/or higher maintenance may result from leaving these prior improvements in place. A discussion of recycling existing improvements is provided later in this report.

Special care should be taken during the demolition and removal of existing floor slabs, foundations, utilities and pavements to minimize disturbance of the subgrade. Excessive disturbance of the subgrade, which includes either native or previously placed engineered fill, resulting from demolition activities can have serious detrimental effects on planned foundation and paving elements.

Existing foundations are typically mat-slabs, shallow footings, or piers/piles. If drilled piers are encountered within areas of planned at-grade improvements, they should be cut off at an elevation at least 60 inches below proposed improvements or the final subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The remainder of the drilled pier could remain in place. As discussed, improvements encountered within the planned building footprint are anticipated to be removed during excavation for the below-grade parking levels. Foundation elements to remain in place should be surveyed and superimposed on the proposed development plans to determine the potential for conflicts or detrimental impacts to the planned construction. Following review, additional mitigation or planned foundation elements may need to be modified. 468 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 13 ends

6.1.2 Abandonment of Existing Utilities
All existing utilities within the building footprint are anticipated to be removed during excavations for the basement levels. Utilities extending beyond the building area may be abandoned in place provided the ends are plugged with concrete, they do not conflict with planned improvements, and that the trench fills do not pose significant risk to the planned surface improvements.

The risk for owners associated with abandoning utilities in place include the potential for future differential settlement of existing trench fills, and/or partial collapse and potential ground loss into utility lines that are not completely filled with grout.

6.2 SITE CLEARING AND PREPARATION

6.2.1 Site Stripping
The site should be stripped of all surface and subsurface improvements to be removed within the proposed development area. Demolition of existing improvements is discussed in the prior paragraphs.

6.3 REMOVAL OF EXISTING FILLS
Although up to 5 feet of undocumented fill was encountered within our borings, fills extending into planned at-grade flatwork areas will likely be removed during excavation for the basement levels.

If materials are encountered that do not meet the requirements, such as debris, wood, trash, those materials should be screened out of the remaining material and be removed from the site.

Backfill of excavations should be placed in lifts and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.

6.4 TEMPORARY CUT AND FILL SLOPES
The contractor is responsible for maintaining all temporary slopes and providing temporary shoring where required. Temporary shoring, bracing, and cuts/fills should be performed in accordance with the strictest government safety standards. On a preliminary basis, the upper 15 feet at the site may be classified as OSHA Soil Type C materials. A Cornerstone representative should be retained to confirm the preliminary site classification. Recommended soil parameters for temporary shoring are provided in the “Temporary Shoring” section of this report.

Excavations performed during site demolition and fill removal should be sloped at 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) within the upper 5 feet below building subgrade. Excavations extending more than 5 feet below building subgrade and excavations in pavement and flatwork areas should be sloped in accordance with the OSHA soil classification. 469 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 14 ends

6.5 BELOW-GRADE EXCAVATIONS
Below-grade excavations may be constructed with temporary slopes in accordance with the “Temporary Cut and Fill Slopes” section above if space allows. Alternatively, temporary shoring may support the planned cuts up to 25 feet. We have provided geotechnical parameters for shoring design in the section below. The choice of shoring method should be left to the contractor’s judgment based on experience, economic considerations and adjacent improvements such as utilities, pavements, and foundation loads. Temporary shoring should support adjacent improvements without distress and should be the contractor’s responsibility. A pre-condition survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements should be included in the contractor’s scope. We should be provided the opportunity to review the geotechnical parameters of the shoring design prior to implementation; the project structural engineer should be consulted regarding support of adjacent structures.

6.5.1 Temporary Shoring
Based on the site conditions encountered during our investigation, the cuts may be supported by soldier beams and tie-backs, braced excavations, soil nailing, or potentially other methods.

Where shoring will extend more than about 10 feet, restrained shoring will most likely be required to limit detrimental lateral deflections and settlement behind the shoring. In addition to soil earth pressures, the shoring system will need to support adjacent loads such as construction vehicles and incidental loading, existing structure foundation loads, and street loading. Heavy construction loads (cranes, etc.) and material stockpiles are not likely to be able to be kept at least 15 feet behind the shoring; therefore, we recommend the shoring be designed to support the loading. The shoring designer should provide for timely and uniform mobilization of soil pressures that will not result in excessive lateral deflections. Minimum suggested geotechnical parameters for shoring design are provided in the table below.

Table 3: Suggested Temporary Shoring Design Parameters
Design Parameter Design Value
Minimum Lateral Wall Surcharge (upper 5 feet) 120 psf
Cantilever Wall – Triangular Earth Pressure 40 pcf
Restrained Wall – Uniform Earth Pressure 25H*
Passive Pressure – Starting at 2 feet below the bottom of the excavation or bottom of foundation excavations, whichever is deeper
400 pcf up to 2,000 psf
maximum uniform pressure
* H equals the height of the excavation; passive pressures are assumed to act over twice the soldier pile diameter
We performed our borings with hollow-stem auger drilling equipment and as such were not able to evaluate the potential for caving soils, which can create difficult conditions during soldier beam, tie-back, or soil nail installation; caving soils can also be problematic during excavation and lagging placement. The contractor is responsible for evaluating excavation difficulties prior to construction. Where relatively clean sands were encountered during our exploration, pilot 470 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 15 ends

holes performed by the contractor may be desired to further evaluate these conditions prior to the finalization of the shoring budget.

In addition to anticipated deflection of the shoring system, other factors such as voids created by soil sloughing, and erosion of granular layers due to perched water conditions can create adverse ground subsidence and deflections. The contractor should attempt to cut the excavation as close to neat lines as possible; where voids are created, they should be backfilled as soon as possible with sand, gravel, or grout.

As previously mentioned, we recommend that a monitoring program be developed and implemented to evaluate the effects of the shoring on adjacent improvements. All sensitive improvements should be located and monitored for horizontal and vertical deflections and distress cracking based on a pre-construction survey. For multi-level excavations, the installation of inclinometers at critical areas may be desired for more detailed deflection monitoring. The monitoring frequency should be established and agree to by the project team prior to start of shoring construction.

The above recommendations are for the use of the design team; the contractor in conjunction with input from the shoring designer should perform additional subsurface exploration they deem necessary to design the chosen shoring system. A California-licensed civil or structural engineer must design and be in responsible charge of the temporary shoring design. The contractor is responsible for means and methods of construction, as well as site safety.

6.6 AT-GRADE SUBGRADE PREPARATION
After site clearing and demolition is complete, and prior to backfilling any excavations resulting from fill removal or demolition, at-grade excavation subgrade and subgrade within areas to receive additional site fills and/or slabs-on-grade should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the “Compaction” section below.

6.7 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
Due to the sandy soils likely to be encountered at the subgrade elevation, we recommend that subgrade compaction and proof rolling be performed within 24 hours of capillary break layer or slab-on-grade construction.

6.8 SUBGRADE STABILIZATION MEASURES
Soil subgrade and fill materials, especially soils with high fines contents such as clays and silty soils, can become unstable due to high moisture content, whether from high in-situ moisture contents or from winter rains. As the moisture content increases over the laboratory optimum, it becomes more likely the materials will be subject to softening and yielding (pumping) from construction loading or become unworkable during placement and compaction. 471 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 16 ends

As discussed in the “Subsurface” section in this report, the in-situ moisture contents are about 0 to 5 percent over the estimated laboratory optimum in the upper 25 feet of the soil profile. The contractor should anticipate drying the soils prior to reusing them as fill. In addition, repetitive rubber-tire loading will likely de-stabilize the soil.

6.8.1 Below-Grade Excavation Stabilization
As the planned basement excavation will extend near the current ground water level, we recommend that the contractor plan to excavate an additional 12 to 18 inches below subgrade, place a layer of stabilization fabric (Mirafi RS380i, or equivalent) at the bottom, and backfill with clean, crushed rock. The crushed rock should be consolidated in place with light vibratory equipment. Rubber-tire equipment should not be allowed to operate on the exposed subgrade; the crushed rock should be stockpiled and pushed out over the stabilization fabric.

6.9 MATERIAL FOR FILL

6.9.1 Re-Use of On-site Soils
On-site soils with an organic content less than 3 percent by weight may be reused as general fill. General fill should not have lumps, clods or cobble pieces larger than 6 inches in diameter; 85 percent of the fill should be smaller than 2½ inches in diameter. Minor amounts of oversize material (smaller than 12 inches in diameter) may be allowed provided the oversized pieces are not allowed to nest together and the compaction method will allow for loosely placed lifts not exceeding 12 inches.

6.9.2 Potential Import Sources
Imported and non-expansive material should be inorganic with a Plasticity Index (PI) of 15 or less, and not contain recycled asphalt concrete where it will be used within the building area.

To prevent significant caving during trenching or foundation construction, imported material should have sufficient fines. Samples of potential import sources should be delivered to our office at least 10 days prior to the desired import start date. Information regarding the import source should be provided, such as any site geotechnical reports. If the material will be derived from an excavation rather than a stockpile, potholes will likely be required to collect samples from throughout the depth of the planned cut that will be imported. At a minimum, laboratory testing will include PI tests. Material data sheets for select fill materials (Class 2 aggregate base, ¾ inch crushed rock, quarry fines, etc.) listing current laboratory testing data (not older than 6 months from the import date) may be provided for our review without providing a sample.

If current data is not available, specification testing will need to be completed prior to approval.

Environmental and soil corrosion characterization should also be considered by the project team prior to acceptance. Suitable environmental laboratory data to the planned import quantity should be provided to the project environmental consultant; additional laboratory testing may be required based on the project environmental consultant’s review. The potential import source should also not be more corrosive than the on-site soils, based on pH, saturated resistivity, and soluble sulfate and chloride testing.
472 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 17 ends

6.10 COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS
All fills, and subgrade areas where fill, slabs-on-grade, and pavements are planned, should be placed in loose lifts 8 inches thick or less and compacted in accordance with ASTM D1557 (latest version) requirements as shown in the table below. In general, clayey soils should be compacted with sheepsfoot equipment and sandy/gravelly soils with vibratory equipment; opengraded materials such as crushed rock should be placed in lifts no thicker than 18 inches consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. Each lift of fill and all subgrade should be firm and unyielding under construction equipment loading in addition to meeting the compaction requirements to be approved. The contractor (with input from a Cornerstone representative) should evaluate the in-situ moisture conditions, as the use of vibratory equipment on soils with high moistures can cause unstable conditions. General recommendations for soil stabilization are provided in the “Subgrade Stabilization Measures” section of this report. Where the soil’s PI is 20 or greater, the expansive soil criteria should be used.

Table 4: Compaction Requirements
Description Material Description
Minimum Relative1
Compaction
(percent)
Moisture2
Content
(percent)
General Fill (within upper 5 feet) On-Site Soils 90 >1
General Fill (below a depth of 5 feet) On-Site Soils 95 >1 Basement Wall Backfill Without Surface Improvements 90 >1 Basement Wall Backfill With Surface Improvements 954 >1 Trench Backfill On-Site Soils 90 >1
Trench Backfill (upper 6 inches of
subgrade)
On-Site Soils 95 >1
Crushed Rock Fill ¾-inch Clean Crushed Rock Consolidate In-Place NA Non-Expansive Fill Imported Non-Expansive Fill 90 Optimum Flatwork Subgrade On-Site Soils 90 >1
Flatwork Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 90 Optimum Pavement Subgrade On-Site Soils 95 >1
Pavement Aggregate Base Class 2 Aggregate Base3 95 Optimum Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete 95 NA
1 – Relative compaction based on maximum density determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 2 – Moisture content based on optimum moisture content determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 3 – Class 2 aggregate base shall conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition, except that the relative compaction should be determined by ASTM D1557 (latest version) 4 – Using light-weight compaction or walls should be braced 473 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 18 ends

6.10.1 Construction Moisture Conditioning
Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change when dried then wetted. The contractor should keep all exposed expansive soil subgrade (and also trench excavation side walls) moist until protected by overlying improvements (or trenches are backfilled). If expansive soils are allowed to dry out significantly, re-moisture conditioning may require several days of re-wetting (flooding is not recommended), or deep scarification, moisture conditioning, and re-compaction.

6.11 TRENCH BACKFILL
Utility lines constructed within public right-of-way should be trenched, bedded and shaded, and backfilled in accordance with the local or governing jurisdictional requirements. Utility lines in private improvement areas should be constructed in accordance with the following requirements unless superseded by other governing requirements.

All utility lines should be bedded and shaded to at least 6 inches over the top of the lines with crushed rock (⅜-inch-diameter or greater) or well-graded sand and gravel materials conforming to the pipe manufacturer’s requirements. Open-graded shading materials should be consolidated in place with vibratory equipment and well-graded materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with vibratory equipment prior to placing subsequent backfill materials.

General backfill over shading materials may consist of on-site native materials provided they meet the requirements in the “Material for Fill” section, and are moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the requirements in the “Compaction” section.

Where utility lines will cross perpendicular to strip footings, the footing should be deepened to encase the utility line, providing sleeves or flexible cushions to protect the pipes from anticipated foundation settlement, or the utility lines should be backfilled to the bottom of footing with sandcement slurry or lean concrete. Where utility lines will parallel footings and will extend below the “foundation plane of influence,” an imaginary 1:1 plane projected down from the bottom edge of the footing, either the footing will need to be deepened so that the pipe is above the foundation plane of influence or the utility trench will need to be backfilled with sand-cement slurry or lean concrete within the influence zone. Sand-cement slurry used within foundation influence zones should have a minimum compressive strength of 75 psi.

On expansive soils sites it is desirable to reduce the potential for water migration into building and pavement areas through the granular shading materials. We recommend that a plug of low-permeability clay soil, sand-cement slurry, or lean concrete be placed within trenches just outside where the trenches pass into building and pavement areas.

6.12 SITE DRAINAGE
Ponding should not be allowed adjacent to building foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.

Hardscape surfaces should slope at least 2 percent towards suitable discharge facilities; landscape areas should slope at least 3 percent towards suitable discharge facilities. Roof 474 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 19 ends

runoff should be directed away from building areas in closed conduits, to approved infiltration facilities, or on to hardscaped surfaces that drain to suitable facilities. Retention, detention or infiltration facilities should be spaced at least 10 feet from buildings, and preferably at least 5 feet from slabs-on-grade or pavements. However, if retention, detention or infiltration facilities are located within these zones, we recommend that these treatment facilities meet the requirements in the Storm Water Treatment Design Considerations section of this report.

6.13 LANDSCAPE CONSIDERATIONS
Since the near-surface soils are moderately to highly expansive, we recommend greatly reducing the amount of surface water infiltrating these soils near foundations and exterior slabson-grade. This can typically be achieved by:
 Using drip irrigation
 Avoiding open planting within 3 feet of the building perimeter or near the top of existing slopes
 Regulating the amount of water distributed to lawns or planter areas by using irrigation timers
 Selecting landscaping that requires little or no watering, especially near foundations.

We recommend that the landscape architect consider these items when developing landscaping plans.

SECTION 7: FOUNDATIONS

7.1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, the proposed structure may be supported on shallow foundations consisting of a mat foundation provided the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section and the sections below are followed.

7.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA
As discussed, the 2019 CBC will take effect starting January 1, 2020; therefore, the project structural design will be based on the 2019 CBC, which provides criteria for the seismic design of buildings in Chapter 16. The “Seismic Coefficients” used to design buildings are established based on a series of tables and figures addressing different site factors, including the soil profile in the upper 100 feet below grade and mapped spectral acceleration parameters based on distance to the controlling seismic source/fault system. Based on our borings and review of local geology, the site is underlain by deep alluvial soils with typical SPT “N” values between 15 and 50 blows per foot. Therefore, we have classified the site as Soil Classification D. The mapped spectral acceleration parameters SS and S1 were calculated using the online web-based program ATC Hazards by Location (https://hazards.atcouncil.org), based on the site coordinates 475 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 20 ends

presented below and the site classification. The values in Table 4 should not be used for design unless in the judgement of the project structural engineer Exception 2 under Section 11.4.8, of ASCE 7-16, can be used for project design.

Table 4: 2019 CBC Site Categorization and Site Coefficients Classification/Coefficient Design Value
Site Class D
Site Latitude 37.564246°
Site Longitude -122.321656°

0.2-second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration1, SS 1.88g 1-second Period Mapped Spectral Acceleration1, S1 0.771g Short-Period Site Coefficient – Fa 1.0
Long-Period Site Coefficient – Fv *null

0.2-second Period, Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects - SMS

1.88g
1-second Period, Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Adjusted for Site Effects – SM1
*null

0.2-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – SDS 1.254g 1-second Period, Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration – SD1 *null *null – Site-specific ground motion hazard analysis required.

In our opinion, the proposed structure may be supported on shallow foundations consisting of a mat foundation provided the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section and the sections below are followed.

7.3 SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
As discussed, groundwater was encountered within our borings at depths of 31 to 32 feet below the existing grade. Additionally, a design groundwater depth of 18 feet is recommended. The bottom of the basement foundations is assumed to be at a depth of 25 feet; therefore, the design groundwater is about 7 feet above the assumed bottom of the basement foundation. We recommend that waterproofing and hydrostatic pressure due perched water (above the basement slab and behind the walls) be considered in the foundation design. Detailed recommendations are provided below.

7.3.1 Reinforced Concrete Mat Foundation
As discussed, the four-story office/retail building will include a two-level basement anticipated to be up to 25 feet below the existing grades. Based on the assumed structural loads and the depth to historic high groundwater, the structure may be supported on a mat foundation. 476 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 21 ends

7.3.2 Allowable Mat Bearing Pressure
We have estimated areal loading for our analysis based on a building load of 125 psf per floor for the above-grade steel office/retail structure and 150 psf per floor for the basement. Based on the assumed structural loads and provided total footprint, we have estimated an average areal pressure of about 800 pounds per square foot (psf) for the structure. We recommend the allowable bearing pressure at heavier loaded portions of the mat slab be limited to an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for dead plus live loads. The maximum bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for all loads, including wind or seismic. This pressure is a net value; the mat weight may be neglected for the portion of the mat extending below grade. Top and bottom reinforcing steel should be included as required to help span irregularities and differential settlement. It is essential that we observe the mat foundation pad prior to placement of reinforcing steel.

7.3.3 Mat Foundation Settlement
We estimate the total settlement due to static loading would be about 1¼ inches with differential movement of about ¾ inch generally from the center of the mat to the mat edges. If foundations designed in accordance with the above recommendations are not capable of resisting such differential movement, additional reinforcement or increased mat thickness may be required.

7.3.4 Mat Foundation Lateral Loading
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the bottom of mat foundation and the supporting subgrade, and also by passive pressures generated against deepened mat edges.

An ultimate frictional resistance of 0.4 (0.27 allowable) applied to the mat dead load, and an ultimate passive pressure based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 500 pcf (330 pcf allowable) may be used in design.

7.3.5 Mat Modulus of Soil Subgrade Reaction
We recommend using a variable modulus of subgrade reaction to provide a more accurate soil response and prediction of shears and moments in the mat. This will require at least one iteration between our soil model and the structural SAFE (or equivalent) analysis for the mat. A preliminary modulus of subgrade reaction for the initial analysis is provided below.

As discussed above, we estimated an average areal pressure of 800 psf within the structure.

Based on this pressure, we calculated a preliminary modulus of soil subgrade reaction for the mat foundation. Based on the anticipated loads for the mat slabs and soil conditions, we recommend an initial modulus of soil subgrade reaction of 10 pci be used for preliminary SAFE runs. As discussed above, this modulus of soil subgrade reaction is intended for use in the first iteration of the structural SAFE analysis for the mat design. We will provide a revised plan with contours of equal modulus of subgrade reaction values following our receipt of output from initial SAFE runs indicating bearing pressures due to dead plus live loading across the mat. 477 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 22 ends

7.4 HYDROSTATIC UPLIFT AND WATERPROOFING
As discussed, perched groundwater conditions could potentially develop in the sand layers during the life of the structure. To mitigate potential impacts to the structure due to perched groundwater buildup, we recommend that basement walls be designed with full drainage behind the walls or be designed for hydrostatic pressure (an additional 40 pcf of fluid pressure) and waterproofed. However, waterproofing should be considered for drained wall also.

If a perimeter foundation drain system to on-site detention is not planned, we recommend designing the slab for some amount of hydrostatic uplift pressure. As the issue is the potential for short duration perched water events and not long-term water table rises, the choice of the amount of uplift pressure is difficult to predict, if it will even occur over the life of the structure.

Therefore, the design could proceed based on a risk versus cost basis. For a lower risk, we judge 7 feet of hydrostatic pressure to be reasonable, as measured from the basement finished floor. To lower slab cost, at somewhat higher risk, 5 feet can be used.

SECTION 8: CONCRETE SLABS AND PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTS

8.1 BELOW-GRADE INTERIOR SLAB-ON-GRADE
As the Plasticity Index (PI) of the surficial soils ranges up to 17, the proposed slabs-on-grade may be directly on subgrade prepared in accordance with the recommendations in the “Earthwork” section of this report. However, if unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, subgrade stability recommendations provided in Section If moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned, the recommendations in the “Interior Slabs Moisture Protection Considerations” section below may be incorporated in the project design if desired. If significant time elapses between initial subgrade preparation and slab-on-grade NEF construction, the subgrade should be proof-rolled to confirm subgrade stability, and if the soil has been allowed to dry out, the subgrade should be re-moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent over the optimum moisture content.

The structural engineer should determine the appropriate slab reinforcement for the loading requirements and considering the expansion potential of the underlying soils. For unreinforced concrete slabs, ACI 302.1R recommends limiting control joint spacing to 24 to 36 times the slab thickness in each direction, or a maximum of 18 feet.

8.2 INTERIOR SLABS MOISTURE PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS
The following general guidelines for concrete slab-on-grade construction where floor coverings are planned are presented for the consideration by the developer, design team, and contractor.

These guidelines are based on information obtained from a variety of sources, including the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and are intended to reduce the potential for moisture-related problems causing floor covering failures, and may be supplemented as necessary based on project-specific requirements. The application of these guidelines or not will not affect the geotechnical aspects of the slab-on-grade performance.
478 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 23 ends

 Place a minimum 10-mil vapor retarder conforming to ASTM E 1745, Class C requirements or better directly below the concrete slab; the vapor retarder should extend to the slab edges and be sealed at all seams and penetrations in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM E 1643 requirements. A 4-inch-thick capillary break, consisting of crushed rock should be placed below the vapor retarder and consolidated in place with vibratory equipment. The mineral aggregate shall be of such size that the percentage composition by dry weight as determined by laboratory sieves will conform to the following gradation:

Sieve Size Percentage Passing Sieve
1” 100
¾” 90 – 100
No. 4 0 - 10
 The concrete water:cement ratio should be 0.45 or less. Mid-range plasticizers may be used to increase concrete workability and facilitate pumping and placement.  Water should not be added after initial batching unless the slump is less than specified and/or the resulting water:cement ratio will not exceed 0.45.  Where floor coverings are planned, all concrete surfaces should be properly cured.  Water vapor emission levels and concrete pH should be determined in accordance with ASTM F1869-98 and F710-98 requirements and evaluated against the floor covering manufacturer’s requirements prior to installation.

8.3 EXTERIOR FLATWORK (AT-GRADE)
Exterior concrete flatwork subject to pedestrian and/or occasional light pick up loading may be supported directly on subgrade prepared in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report. To help reduce the potential for uncontrolled shrinkage cracking, adequate expansion and control joints should be included. Consideration should be given to limiting the control joint spacing to a maximum of about 2 feet in each direction for each inch of concrete thickness. Flatwork should be isolated from adjacent foundations or retaining walls except where limited sections of structural slabs are included to help span irregularities in retaining wall backfill at the transitions between at-grade and on-structure flatwork.

SECTION 9: RETAINING WALLS

9.1 STATIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
The structural design of any site retaining wall should include resistance to lateral earth pressures that develop from the soil behind the wall, any undrained water pressure, and surcharge loads acting behind the wall. Provided a drainage system is constructed behind the wall to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures as discussed in the section below, we recommend that the walls with level backfill be designed for the following pressures:
479 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 24 ends

Table 5: Recommended Lateral Earth Pressures
Wall Condition Lateral Earth Pressure* Additional Surcharge Loads Unrestrained – Cantilever Wall 45 pcf ⅓ of vertical loads at top of wall Restrained – Braced Wall 45 pcf + 8H** psf ½ of vertical loads at top of wall * Lateral earth pressures are based on an equivalent fluid pressure for level backfill conditions ** H is the distance in feet between the bottom of footing and top of retained soil Basement walls should be designed as restrained walls. If adequate drainage cannot be provided behind the wall, an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf should be added to the values above for both restrained and unrestrained walls for the portion of the wall that will not have drainage. Damp proofing or waterproofing of the walls may be considered where moisture penetration and/or efflorescence are not desired.

9.2 SEISMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
The 2016 California Building Code (CBC) states that lateral pressures from earthquakes should be considered in the design of basements and retaining walls. We developed seismic earth pressures for the proposed basement using interim recommendations generally based on refinement of the Mononobe-Okabe method (Lew et al., SEAOC 2010). Because the walls are greater than 12 feet in height, and peak ground accelerations are greater than 0.40g, we checked the result of the seismic increment when added to the recommended active earth pressure against the recommended fixed wall earth pressures. Basement walls are not free to deflect and should therefore be designed for static conditions as a restrained wall, which is also a CBC requirement. Based on current recommendations for seismic earth pressures, it appears that active earth pressures plus a seismic increment exceed the restrained (i.e. at-rest), static wall earth pressures. Therefore, we recommend checking the walls for the seismic condition in accordance with the interim recommendations of the above referenced paper and the 2013 CBC.

The CBC prescribes basic load combinations for structures, components and foundations with the intention that their design strength equals or exceeds the effects of the factored loads. With respect to the load from lateral earth pressure and groundwater pressure, the CBC prescribes the basic combinations shown in CBC equations 16-2 and 16-7 below.

1.2(D + F) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R) [Eq. 16-2]
In Eq. 16-2: H - should represent the total static lateral earth pressure, which for the basement wall will be restrained (use 45 pcf + 8H psf)

0.9(D + F) + 1.0E + 1.6H [Eq. 16-7]
In Eq. 16-7: H - should represent the static “active” earth pressure component under seismic loading conditions (use 45 pcf)
480 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 25 ends

E - should represent the seismic increment component in Eq. 16-7, a triangular load with a resultant force of 18.5H2, which should be applied one third of the height up from the base of the wall (and which can also be expressed as an equivalent fluid pressure equal to 37 pcf).

The interim recommendations in the SEAOC paper more appropriately split out "active" earth pressure (and not the restrained ["at-rest"] pressure) from our report and provide the total seismic increment so that different load factors can be applied in accordance with different risk levels.

9.3 WALL DRAINAGE
Miradrain, AmerDrain or other equivalent drainage matting should be used for wall drainage where below-grade walls are temporarily shored and the shoring will be flush with the back of the permanent walls. The drainage panel should be connected at the base of the wall by a horizontal drainage strip and closed or through-wall system such as the TotalDrain system from AmerDrain.

Sections of horizontal drainage strips should be connected with either the manufacturer’s connector pieces or by pulling back the filter fabric, overlapping the panel dimples, and replacing the filter fabric over the connection. At corners, a corner guard, corner connection insert, or a section of crushed rock covered with filter fabric must be used to maintain the drainage path. In addition, where drainage panels will connect from a horizontal application for plaza areas to vertical basement wall drainage panels, the drainage path must be maintained.

We are not aware of manufactured corner protection suitable for this situation; therefore, we recommend that a section of crushed rock be placed at the transitions. The crushed rock should be at least 3 inches thick, extend at least 12 inches horizontally over the top of the basement roof and 12 inches down from the top of the basement wall, and have a layer of filter fabric covering the crushed rock.

Drainage panels should terminate 18 to 24 inches from final exterior grade unless capped by hardscape. The drainage panel filter fabric should be extended over the top of and behind the panel to protect it from intrusion of the adjacent soil. If the shoring system will be offset behind the back of permanent wall, the drainage systems discussed in the “At-Grade Site Walls” section may also be used.

9.4 VEHICLE SURCHARGE LOADS
We understand the basement walls along East 4th and 5th Avenues, B Street, and South Ellsworth Avenue will possibly be extended under the existing sidewalk. Therefore, the basement walls will likely be subject to traffic loads. We recommend the basement walls along these streets be designed to resist a traffic surcharge load of 250 psf located at the top of the wall.
481 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 26 ends

9.5 BACKFILL
Where surface improvements will be located over the retaining wall backfill, backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction using light compaction equipment. Where surface improvements are not planned, backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced.

As discussed previously, consideration should be given to the transitions from on-grade to onstructure. Providing subslabs or other methods for reducing differential movement of flatwork or pavements across this transition should be included in the project design.

9.6 FOUNDATIONS (AT-GRADE)
Site retaining walls may be supported on a continuous spread footing on natural, undisturbed soil or engineered fill, be at least 15 inches wide, and extend at least 16 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Lowest adjacent grade is defined as the deeper of the following: 1) bottom of the adjacent interior slab-on-grade, or 2) finished exterior grade, excluding landscaping topsoil.

The deeper footing embedment is due to the presence of highly expansive soils and is intended to embed the footing below the zone of significant seasonal moisture fluctuation, reducing the potential for differential movement.

Footings constructed to the above dimensions and in accordance with the “Earthwork” recommendations of this report are capable of supporting maximum allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 psf for dead loads, 3,000 psf for combined dead plus live loads, and 4,000 psf for all loads including wind and seismic. These pressures are based on factors of safety of 3.0, 2.0, and 1.5 applied to the ultimate bearing pressure for dead, dead plus live, and all loads, respectively. These pressures are net values; the weight of the footing may be neglected for the portion of the footing extending below grade (typically, the full footing depth).

Top and bottom mats of reinforcing steel should be included in continuous footings to help span irregularities and differential settlement.

SECTION 10: LIMITATIONS
This report, an instrument of professional service, has been prepared for the sole use of Lane Partners specifically to support the design of the commercial development located at 222 East 4th Avenue in San Mateo, California. The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report have been formulated in accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in Northern California at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred.

Recommendations in this report are based upon the soil and groundwater conditions encountered during our subsurface exploration. If variations or unsuitable conditions are encountered during construction, Cornerstone must be contacted to provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.
482 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 27 ends

Lane Partners, LLC may have provided Cornerstone with plans, reports and other documents prepared by others. Lane Partners, LLC understands that Cornerstone reviewed and relied on the information presented in these documents and cannot be responsible for their accuracy.

Cornerstone prepared this report with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representatives to see that the recommendations contained in this report are presented to other members of the design team and incorporated into the project plans and specifications, and that appropriate actions are taken to implement the geotechnical recommendations during construction.

Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are valid as of the present time for the development as currently planned. Changes in the condition of the property or adjacent properties may occur with the passage of time, whether by natural processes or the acts of other persons. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur through legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Therefore, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or in part, by changes beyond Cornerstone’s control. This report should be reviewed by Cornerstone after a period of three (3) years has elapsed from the date of this report. In addition, if the current project design is changed, then Cornerstone must review the proposed changes and provide supplemental recommendations, as needed.

An electronic transmission of this report may also have been issued. While Cornerstone has taken precautions to produce a complete and secure electronic transmission, please check the electronic transmission against the hard copy version for conformity.

Recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Cornerstone will be retained to provide observation and testing services during construction to confirm that conditions are similar to that assumed for design, and to form an opinion as to whether the work has been performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications. If we are not retained for these services, Cornerstone cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Cornerstone’s report by others. Furthermore, Cornerstone will cease to be the GeotechnicalEngineer-of-Record if we are not retained for these services.

SECTION 11: REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2018, Interactive Liquefaction Hazard Map:
http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefaction/
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2004, Evaluating the Potential for Liquefaction or Cyclic Failure of Silts and Clays, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis.

Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., 2014, CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of California at Davis, Report No. UCD/GCM-14/01, April. 483 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 28 ends

California Building Code, 2019, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2.

California Building Code, 2016, Structural Engineering Design Provisions, Vol. 2.

California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada, International Conference of Building Officials, February, 1998.

California Division of Mines and Geology (2008), “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, September.

California Geological Survey, 2018, State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, San Mateo 7.5- Minute Quadrangle, California: Seismic Hazard Zone Report 113.

Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), 2009, FIRM City of San Mateo, California, Community Panel #060328.

Idriss, I.M., and Boulanger, R.W., 2008, Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 237 p.

Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes: Proceedings Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco.

Ishihara, K. and Yoshimine, M., 1992, Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, 32 (1): 173-188.

Lew, M. et al, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures on Deep Building Basements, Proceedings, SEAOC Convention, Indian Wells, CA.

Pradell, D., 1988, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering, April 1998, p. 364 – 368 and Errata October 1998 p. 1048.

Ritter, J.R., and Dupre, W.R., 1972, Map Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California: San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, USGS Basic Data Contribution 52, Misc. Field Studies Map MF-480.

Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1971, A Simplified Procedure for Evaluation soil Liquefaction Potential: JSMFC, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM 9, pp. 1249 – 1274.

Seed, H.B. and I.M. Idriss, 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes:

Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.

Seed, Raymond B., Cetin, K.O., Moss, R.E.S., Kammerer, Ann Marie, Wu, J., Pestana, J.M., Riemer, M.F., Sancio, R.B., Bray, Jonathan D., Kayen, Robert E., and Faris, A., 2003, Recent 484 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1

Page 29 ends

Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework., University of California, Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report 2003-06.

Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March.

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. Bolton, 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, August 1987, pp. 861-878.

USGS, 2011, Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.1.0, revision date February 10, 2011 - A Computer Program for determining mapped ground motion parameters for use with IBC 2006 available at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/index.php.

Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2007, The Uniform Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCRF 2), U.S.G.S. Open File Report 2007-1437.

Yoshimine, M., Nishizaki, H., Amano, Kl, and Hosono, Y., 2006, Flow Deformation of Liquefied Sand Under Constant Shear Load and Its Application to Analysis of Flow Slide in Infinite Slope, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Eng. 26, 253-264.

Youd, T.L. and C.T. Garris, 1995, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805 - 809.

Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M., et al, 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Technical Report NCEER - 97-0022, January 5, 6, 1996.

Youd et al., 2001, “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vo. 127, No. 10, October, 2001.

Youd, T. Leslie, Hansen, Corbett M., and Bartlett, Steven F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement: ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, December 2002, p 1007-1017.

Youd, T.L. and Hoose, S.N., 1978, Historic Ground Failures in Northern California Triggered by Earthquakes, United States Geologic Survey Professional Paper 993. 485 of 1252
N
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
129-6-1
Figure 1
RRN
Vicinity Map
222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
December 2019
SITE
E 4th Ave
E 3rd Ave
S Ellsworth Ave
S B St
486 of 1252
South Ellsworth Avenue
South B Street
East 4th Street
East 5th Street
Base by Google Earth, dated 8/9/2018
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
129-6-1
Figure 2
RRN
Site Plan
222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
December 2019
0 40 80

APPROXIMATE SCALE (FEET)
N
Approximate location of exploratory boring (EB)
Legend
EB-2
EB-3
EB-1
487 of 1252
Base by California Geological Survey - 2010 Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings and Bryant, 2010) SITE
Displacement during historic time (e.g. San Andreas fault 1906).

Includes areas of known fault creep.

Displacement during Holocene
time.

Fault offsets seafloor sediments
or strata of Holocene age.

Faults showing evidence of
displacement during late
Quaternary time.

Fault cuts strata of Late
Pleistocene age.

Undivided Quaternary faults -
most faults in this category show
evidence of displacement during
the last 1,600,000 years;
possible exceptions are faults
which displace rocks of
undifferentiated Pilo-Pleistocene
age.

Fault cuts strata of Quaternary
age.

Faults without recognized
Quaternary displacement or
showing evidence of no
displacement during Quaternary
time. Not necessarily inactive.

Fault cuts strata of Pliocene or
older age.
0 5 10

APPROXIMATE SCALE (MILES)
N
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
Figure 3
RRN
Regional Fault Map
129-6-1
222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
December 2019
488 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page A-1
APPENDIX A: FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using truck-mounted, hollow-stem, auger drilling equipment. Two 8-inch-diameter exploratory borings were drilled on November 6 and 21, 2019 to a depth of 60 feet. The approximate locations of exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The soils encountered were continuously logged in the field by our representative and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). Boring logs, as well as a key to the classification of the soil, are included as part of this appendix.

Boring locations were approximated using existing site boundaries and other site features as references. Boring elevations were based on interpolation of plan contours. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.

Representative soil samples were obtained from the borings at selected depths. All samples were returned to our laboratory for evaluation and appropriate testing. The standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by dropping a 140-pound hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler was driven 18 inches and the number of blows was recorded for each 6 inches of penetration (ASTM D1586). 2.5-inch I.D. samples were obtained using a Modified California Sampler driven into the soil with the 140-pound hammer previously described. Unless otherwise indicated, the blows per foot recorded on the boring log represent the accumulated number of blows required to drive the last 12 inches. The various samplers are denoted at the appropriate depth on the boring logs.

Field tests included an evaluation of the unconfined compressive strength of the soil samples using a pocket penetrometer device. The results of these tests are presented on the individual boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Attached boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions at the locations indicated and on the date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. In addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types and the transition may be gradual.
489 of 1252

24.8 24.6

20.5 17.5

3.5 -1.5
GB
GB-2 GB MC-4B
MC-5B
MC-6B
MC-7B
SPT MC-9B
115
128
111
125
118
50 5"
66 50
6"
73 51
50 6"
8 inches asphalt concrete over 3 inches
aggregate base
Sandy Lean Clay (CL) [Fill]
dry, reddish brown, fine to medium sand, low
plasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
very dense, moist, brown to reddish brown,
fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse
subrounded to subangular gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel
(SP-SC)
dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, fine
to coarse subrounded to angular gravel
becomes very dense
becomes dense
Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL)
very stiff to hard, moist, brown, fine to coarse
sand, fine to coarse subrounded to
subangular gravel, low plasticity
7 11
5 8
8 16
NOTES B Street

LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-61, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.

DATE STARTED 11/21/19 DATE COMPLETED 11/21/19 GROUND ELEVATION 25.5 FT +/- BORING DEPTH 60 ft.

LATITUDE 37.564387° LONGITUDE -122.321193°
AT TIME OF DRILLING 30 ft.

AT END OF DRILLING 32 ft.

GROUNDWATER LEVELS: SYMBOL

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
Continued Next Page
-2.5

25.5 ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT NAME 222 East 4th Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER 129-6-1
PROJECT LOCATION San Mateo, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-1
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER DEPTH (ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25 DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

HAND PENETROMETER
N-Value (uncorrected)
blows per foot
DESCRIPTION PERCENT PASSING No. 200 SIEVE PLASTICITY INDEX NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT, % CORNERSTONE EARTH GROUP2 - CORNERSTONE 0812.GDT - 12/13/19 07:55 - P:\DRAFTING\GINT FILES\129-6-1 222 EAST 4TH AVENUE.GPJ >4.5

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
490 of 1252
-5.5
-11.5
-21.5
-26.5
-34.5
MC-10B
MC-11B
MC-12B
MC-13B
SPT-14
SPT-15
SPT-16
108
129
112
105
75 50
6"
52 50
6"
54 74
46 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
very stiff, moist, gray with brown mottles, fine
to medium sand, trace gravel, low to
moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL)
hard, moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, fine
to coarse subangular to angular gravel, low to
moderate plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
very stiff, moist, brown and gray mottled, fine
to medium sand, some gravel, low plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay with Gravel (CL)
very stiff, moist, brown, fine to coarse sand,
fine to coarse subangular to angular gravel,
low plasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
very dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse
sand, fine to coarse subangular to angular
gravel
becomes dense
Bottom of Boring at 60.0 feet.
21 16
19 23
19 15
14 SYMBOL

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
-2.5 ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT NAME 222 East 4th Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER 129-6-1
PROJECT LOCATION San Mateo, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-1
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER DEPTH (ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
491 of 1252

28.5 27.8

24.0 11.5

6.5 3.0
GB-G1
MC-1B
MC-2B
MC-3B
SPT-4
MC-5B
MC-6A
128
124
125
134
113
44 47
69 36
50 5"
44 6 inches asphalt concrete over 8 inches
aggregate base
Clayey Sand (SC) [Fill]
moist, brown to reddish brown, fine to
medium sand, some fine subangular to
subrounded gravel
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
medium dense, moist, brown to reddish
brown, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse
subrounded to subangular gravel
becomes dense
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
hard, moist, brown, fine to coarse sand, some
fine gravel, low to moderate plasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
very dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse
sand, fine to coarse subangular to angular
gravel 17
11 12
9 11
16 12
19 NOTES Ellsworth Avenue

LOGGED BY BCG
DRILLING METHOD Mobile B-56, 8 inch Hollow-Stem Auger
DRILLING CONTRACTOR Exploration Geoservices, Inc.

DATE STARTED 11/6/19 DATE COMPLETED 11/6/19 GROUND ELEVATION 29 FT +/- BORING DEPTH 60 ft.

LATITUDE 37.564053° LONGITUDE -122.322136°
AT TIME OF DRILLING 29 ft.

AT END OF DRILLING 31 ft.

GROUNDWATER LEVELS: SYMBOL

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION
Continued Next Page

1.0 29.0 ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT NAME 222 East 4th Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER 129-6-1
PROJECT LOCATION San Mateo, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-2
PAGE 1 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER DEPTH (ft)
0 5
10 15
20 25 DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
492 of 1252
-3.0
-8.0
-13.0
-18.0
-22.0
-31.0
SPT-7
MC-8B
MC-9B
MC-10
SPT-11
SPT-12
SPT-13
115
120
122
36 50
6"
72 50
5"
50 6"
46 65
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
very stiff, moist, reddish brown, fine to
medium sand, fine subangular gravel, low to
moderate plasticity
Liquid Limit = 32, Plastic Limit = 15
Lean Clay with Sand (CL)
hard, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium
sand, some fine subangular gravel, moderate
plasticity
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
hard, moist, reddish brown, fine to medium
sand, some fine subangular gravel, low
plasticity
Clayey Sand with Gravel (SC)
very dense, moist to wet, orange-brown, fine
to coarse sand, fine to coarse subangular to
angular gravel
Poorly Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel
(SP-SC)
very dense, moist, brown, fine to coarse
sand, fine to coarse subrounded to angular
gravel
Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
very stiff, moist, brown, fine to medium sand,
some subangular gravel, low to moderate
plasticity
becomes stiff, increased sand content
Bottom of Boring at 60.0 feet.
12 16 17
20 17
15 10
19 20 SYMBOL
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION 1.0 ELEVATION (ft)
PROJECT NAME 222 East 4th Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER 129-6-1
PROJECT LOCATION San Mateo, CA
BORING NUMBER EB-2
PAGE 2 OF 2
This log is a part of a report by Cornerstone Earth Group, and should not be used as a stand-alone document. This description applies only to the location of the exploration at the time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change at this location with time. The description presented is a simplification of actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual.

UNDRAINED SHEAR STRENGTH,
ksf SAMPLES TYPE AND NUMBER DEPTH (ft)
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 DRY UNIT WEIGHT PCF

TORVANE

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

UNCONSOLIDATED-UNDRAINED

TRIAXIAL
493 of 1252
222 EAST 4TH AVENUE
129-6-1
Page B-1
APPENDIX B: LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
The laboratory testing program was performed to evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of the soils retrieved from the site to aid in verifying soil classification.

Moisture Content: The natural water content was determined (ASTM D2216) on 27 samples of the materials recovered from the borings. These water contents are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Dry Densities: In place dry density determinations (ASTM D2937) were performed on 17 samples to measure the unit weight of the subsurface soils. Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Washed Sieve Analyses: The percent soil fraction passing the No. 200 sieve (ASTM D1140) was determined on two samples of the subsurface soils to aid in the classification of these soils.

Results of these tests are shown on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths.

Plasticity Index: One Plasticity Index determination (ASTM D4318) was performed on a sample of the subsurface soil to measure the range of water contents over which this material exhibits plasticity. The Plasticity Index was used to classify the soil in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and to evaluate the soil expansion potential. Results of this test are shown on the boring log at the appropriate sample depth.

Undrained-Unconsolidated Triaxial Shear Strength: The undrained shear strength was determined on two relatively undisturbed samples by unconsolidated-undrained triaxial shear strength testing (ASTM D2850). The results of this test are included as part of this appendix.

Soil Corrosion: One soluble sulfate determination (ASTM D4327), one resistivity test (ASTM G57), one chloride determination (ASTM D4327), and one pH determination (ASTM G51) were performed on a sample of the subsurface soil. Results of these tests are attached in this appendix.
494 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
Project Number
Figure Number
Date Drawn By
129-6-1
Figure B1
November 2019 FLL
Plasticity Index Testing Summary
60 0
10 20
30 40
50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
CL ML - OL ML or
OH MH or
CH
CL
Plasticity Index (%)
Liquid Limit (%)
Group Name ( - D2487) USCS ASTM Boring No.

Symbol
Depth
(ft)
Natural
Water
Content
(%)
Liquid
Limit
(%)
Plastic
Limit
(%)
Plasticity
Index
Passing
No. 200
(%)
“A” line
Plasticity Index ( D4318) Testing Summary ASTM
EB-2 32 28.5 — 16 15 17 Sandy Lean Clay (CL)
495 of 1252
Cooper Testing Labs, Inc.
937 Commercial Street
Palo Alto, CA 94303
1 2 3 4
Moisture % 21.1 19.2
Dry Den,pcf 108.3 111.9
Void Ratio 0.585 0.534
Saturation % 99.2 99.0
Height in 4.99 4.98
Diameter in 2.42 2.41
Cell psi 18.1 20.8
Strain % 15.00 15.00
Deviator, ksf 7.899 5.253
Rate %/min 1.00 1.00
in/min 0.050 0.050
Job No.:

Client:

Project:

Boring: EB-1 EB-1
Sample: 10B 12B
Depth ft: 29.5 39.0
Sample #
1 2
3 4
Note: Strengths are picked at the peak deviator stress or 15% strain which ever occurs first per ASTM D2850.

Remarks:

Sample Data
Visual Soil Description
Yellowish Brown Sandy CLAY w/ Gravel
Yellowish Brown Sandy CLAY
640-1369
Cornerstone Earth Group
129-6-1

0.0 3.0

6.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.0 12.0
Shear Stress, ksf
Total Normal Stress, ksf

0.00 1.00

2.00 3.00

4.00 5.00

6.00 7.00

8.00 9.00

0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0
Deviator Stress, ksf
Strain, %
Stress-Strain Curves
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 3
Sample 4
Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Test
ASTM D2850
496 of 1252
Moisture pH Temp. Chloride Sulfate
Content at Testing Dry Wt. Dry Wt.
% C° As Received Saturated mg/kg mg/kg
ASTM D2216 ASTM G51 G57 ASTM G57 ASTM D4327 ASTM D4327
EB‐1 9A 25.0 16.4 6.7 19.7 15,139 3,304 5 10
Corrositivity Tests Summary
129‐6‐1
222 East 4th Avenue
San Mateo, CA
Brown Sandy Lean Clay
(CL)
Sample I.D. Resistivity (Ohm‐cm)
Soil Visual Description
BoringSample No.Depth, ft.

Job Number
Job Name
Location
Corrected to 15.5 C°
Date Tested
Tested By
11/26/2019
PWG
497 of 1252
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment
222 East 4th Avenue Project
San Mateo, California
Prepared For:

David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
1736 Franklin Street, Suite 200
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared By:

September 2022
498 of 1252
Draeger Mixed Use Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
i September 2022
2022-053

CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Greenhouse Gas emissions .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting ................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...................................................................................... 5

2.2 Regulatory Framework ...................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 State ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.2 Local ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................................. 9

2.3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.3 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1. Greenhouse Gases .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 11 Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 13

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Description
°F Degrees Fahrenheit
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AEP Association of Environmental Planners
AQMD Air Quality Management District
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
499 of 1252
Draeger Mixed Use Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
ii September 2022
2022-053

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 Methane
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of San Mateo
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent
County San Mateo County
EO Executive Order
GHG Greenhouse gas
GWP Global warming potential
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers’
MTCO2e Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalents
N2O Nitrous oxide
Project 222 East 4th Avenue Project
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SR State Route
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
500 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
1 September 2022
2022-053

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for the 222 East 4th Avenue Project (Project), located on 222 East 4th Avenue in the City of San Mateo (City), California. The Project includes the demotion of the existing building on site, an approximate 60,965 square foot supermarket, and the construction of a new five-story 155,052 square foot mixed-use office/residential/commercial building and associated features in the City of San Mateo (City), California.

This assessment is based on the methodology recommended by the City of San Mateo and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for project-level review and was prepared with consideration of the emissions reduction actions proposed by the Project. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate Project-generated GHG emissions attributable to the Project and to determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment.

1.1 Project Location
The approximate 1.1-acre Project Site (APNs 034-176-050, 034-176-070, 034-176-080, 034-176-090) is bounded by East 4th Avenue to the northwest, South B Street to the northeast, East 5th Avenue to the southeast, and South Ellsworth Avenue to the southwest. The Project Site is designated as Downtown Retail Core under the City’s Downtown Area Plan and is zoned CBD/R (Central Business District/Residential Overlay District – Mixed Use). The Downtown Area Plan generally describes the Downtown Retail Core designation as a good mix of ground floor retail uses that will contribute to foster retail vitality and downtown’s pedestrian-oriented environment. The San Mateo Municipal Code states that the purpose of the CBD District is to encourage the development and re-use of existing downtown structures as a center for retail, cultural, entertainment, and community services uses. Pedestrian activity should be strongly encouraged at the ground floor level, while upper floor office and residential uses should be encouraged to promote active daytime and nighttime use of the downtown area. The Residential Overlay District requires that residential development on properties zoned CBD/R be subject to /R density standards.

1.2 Project Description
The Project proposes the demotion of the existing building on site, an approximate 60,965 square foot supermarket, and the construction of a new five-story 155,052 square foot mixed-use office/residential/commercial building. The Proposed Project includes 104,722 square-feet of office space, 17,658 square-feet of retail space (supermarket), 8,971 square-feet of residential space in the form of single bedroom apartments and studios. The retail space would be located on the ground floor of the proposed building, the office space would be spread throughout the first four floors, and the residential space would be split between the ground floor (i.e. residential lobby/elevator) and the fifth floor living areas. The residential space would consist of a total of 10 units made up of eight one-bedroom units and two studio units. The ground floor would also include 12,392 square-feet of covered parking area, and approximately 9,309 square-feet of shared use space (i.e., lobbies, utility rooms, etc.) split between the ground floor and fifth floor. The proposed building would include two outdoor terraces on the third level, one terrace on the fourth level, and a roof deck totaling 14,821 square-feet. The roof deck would include 1,724 square-feet of common usable open space for the proposed residential tenants. The Project would 501 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
2 September 2022
2022-053
also include an approximate 2,070 square-foot community open space and an approximate 1,450 squarefoot outdoor dining space both located at the western corner of the Project Site, at the intersection of East 4th Avenue and South Ellsworth Avenue. The community open space and outdoor dining space would include landscaping and outdoor seating.

Site Access and Parking
Vehicle access to the Project Site would primarily be provided via a parking garage entrance on East 5th Avenue. From this garage entrance, vehicles would have access to covered parking on the ground floor and the two basement levels. The Project would include approximately 239 total physical parking spaces as well as approximately 50-60 valet parking spaces. Out of the 239 total parking spaces, approximately 36 spaces would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. The Project would also include a truck loading area along South B Street. The Project would also retain some existing uncovered surface parking spaces along East 4th Avenue and South Ellsworth Avenue.

The Project would also include bicycle storage rooms with capacity for 21 bikes and additional bike racks for 17 bikes. Pedestrian access to the ground floor of the proposed building would be provided via several entrances along East 4th Avenue, South B Street, and South Ellsworth Avenue.

Landscaping and Trees
There is one existing tree on-site and 38 street trees located around the perimeter of the Project Site. The Project would remove all 39 existing trees, none of which are considered Heritage Trees under the City’s Protected Trees Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.40). The Project would plant approximately 37 new trees, resulting in a net decrease of two trees on-site. Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the proposed building, in the community open space, along the third-floor terrace, and along portions of the perimeter of the rooftop.

Off-Site Improvements
Off-site improvements include the following:
 Remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb extensions, and ADA curb ramps along all frontages.
 Curb to curb pavement restoration (grind & overlay) and striping along all frontages including intersections.
 Street lighting along all frontages.
 Bike lane improvement along B street.
 Landscaping including, tree wells, street trees and Green Infrastructure along frontages.  New 18” Storm Drain line installation along B, Ellsworth and portion of 4th and 5th Avenue.  Utility connection
 Possible signal improvement
Green Building Measures
The Project would be designed for energy efficiency and water conservation in accordance with the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). This includes mandatory installation of electric 502 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
3 September 2022
2022-053
vehicle charging stations, low-flow plumbing fixtures, and low-water use landscaping. In addition, photovoltaic panels would be installed on the rooftop. The Project would conform to the City’s Reach Code (Municipal Code Chapter 23.24), which requires new mixed-use buildings to be all-electric (no natural gas infrastructure).

Construction
It is anticipated that the Project would be constructed over an approximate 20-month period. It is estimated that construction of the Project would require the export of approximately 25,828 cubic yards of soil material. Construction equipment would be staged on the Project Site, as necessary. Construction hours in the City of San Mateo are between 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays, and 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. 503 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
4 September 2022
2022-053

2.0 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

2.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space.

This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), and N2O. Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride; however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development.

Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014).

Table 3-1 describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties, primary sources, and contributions to the greenhouse effect.

Each GHG differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere based on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. CH4 traps over 25 times more heat per molecule than CO2, and N2O absorbs 298 times more heat per molecule than CO2 (IPCC 2014). Often, estimates of GHG emissions are presented in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which weight each gas by its global warming potential.

Expressing GHG emissions in CO2e takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 504 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
5 September 2022
2022-053
emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).

Table 3-1. Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Description
CO2 Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1 CH4 Methane is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (intestinal fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about12 years.2
N2O Nitrous oxide is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3
Sources: 1USEPA 2016a, 2 USEPA 2016b, 3 USEPA 2016c
The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; it is sufficient to say the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature or to global, local, or microclimates.

From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

2.1.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2021, CARB released the 2021 edition of the California GHG inventory covering calendar year 2019 emissions. In 2019, California emitted 418.2 million gross metric tons of CO2e including from imported electricity. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2019, accounting for approximately 40 percent of total GHG emissions in the State. When emissions from extracting, refining and moving transportation fuels in California are included, transportation is responsible for over 50 percent of statewide emissions in 2019. Continuing the downward trend from 2018, transportation emissions decreased 3.5 million metric tons of CO2e in 2019, 505 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
6 September 2022
2022-053
only being outpaced by electricity, which reduced emissions by 4.3 million metric tons of CO2e in 2019.

Emissions from the electricity sector account for 14 percent of the inventory and have shown a substantial decrease in 2019 due to increases in renewables. California’s industrial sector accounts for the second largest source of the State’s GHG emissions in 2019, accounting for 21 percent (CARB 2021).

2.2 Regulatory Framework

2.2.1 State

2.2.1.1 Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets for the State. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

On April 20, 2015 Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15 to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments such as the European Union, which adopted the same target in October 2014. California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 will make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

2.2.1.2 Assembly Bill 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates In 2006, the California legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Health and Safety Code § 38500 et seq., or AB 32), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 required CARB to design and implement feasible and cost-effective emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, which outlined measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals. California exceeded the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2017.

The Scoping Plan is required by AB 32 to be updated at least every five years. The latest update, the 2017 Scoping Plan Update, addresses the 2030 target established by Senate Bill (SB) 32 as discussed below and establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. The key programs that the Scoping Plan Update builds on include increasing the use of renewable energy in the State, the Cap-and-Trade Regulation, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and reduction of methane emissions from agricultural and other wastes. 506 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
7 September 2022
2022-053

2.2.1.3 Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include § 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the longterm target expressed in EOs S-3-05 and B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.

2.2.1.4 Senate Bill 100 of 2018
In 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown, codifying a goal of 60 percent renewable procurement by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 Renewables Portfolio Standard.

2.2.1.5 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings
The Building and Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) were first adopted and put into effect in 1978 and have been updated periodically in the intervening years. These standards are a unique California asset that have placed the State on the forefront of energy efficiency, sustainability, energy independence and climate change issues. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2016 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The 2019 standards are a major step toward meeting Zero Net Energy. The most significant efficiency improvement to the residential Standards include the introduction of photovoltaic into the perspective package, improvements for attics, walls, water heating and lighting. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards.

In 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards.

The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24) is commonly referred to as CalGreen Building Standard (CalGreen) and establishes voluntary and mandatory standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. Like Part 6 of Title 24, the CalGreen standards are periodically updated, with increasing energy savings and efficiencies associated with each code update. CalGreen contains voluntary "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" standards that are not mandatory statewide but could be required by a City or County. These are 'reach' standards that can be adopted by local jurisdictions and may be incorporated as mandatory standards in future code cycles. 507 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
8 September 2022
2022-053

2.2.2 Local

2.2.2.1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in CEQA documents, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include guidance on assessing GHGs and climate change impacts as required under CEQA Section 15183.5(b). On April 20, 2022, the Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) was adopted. This document presents a project-level operational threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or adherence to a suite of BAAQMD performance standards for land uses projects directly related to building design, transportation and consistency with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).

2.2.2.2 The City of San Mateo (City) Climate Action Plan The City adopted an updated CAP in April 2020, which updates and consolidated the various City’s GHG reduction efforts based on the vision of San Mateo residents, businesses, and local government. The CAP provides the framework for San Mateo to reduce its community-wide GHG emissions in a manner consistent with state reduction targets and goals for 2030 and 2050. The CAP was prepared consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for Plans for the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CCR 15183.5). This allows the 2020 CAP to support (and possibly streamline) environmental review of GHG emissions related to future development projects within the City. The 2020 CAP is a direct update to the 2015 CAP. The 2020 CAP analyzes San Mateo’s progress to date in meeting its GHG reduction targets and contains new information to achieve more significant and longer-term GHG reductions.

A CAP is a comprehensive strategy for a community to reduce emissions of GHGs, which, according to scientific consensus, are primarily responsible for causing climate change. The CAP identifies a strategy, reduction measures, and implementation actions the City will use to achieve targets consistent with state recommendations of 4.3 metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e) per person by 2030 and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. The City CAP includes five key pieces:

1. An inventory of the annual GHG emissions attributable to San Mateo based on the types of activities occurring within the community and guidance from various protocols and agencies.

2. A forecast of what GHG emissions are likely to look like in 2030 and 2050 based on expected population and economic growth as predicted in the City’s General Plan; with the consideration of major CO2e emission reduction policies.

3. A reduction target, which identifies goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2030 and 2050.

4. Reduction strategies, which describe the actions the community intends to take to achieve the reduction target. Each strategy identifies the amount of GHGs that will be reduced once the strategy is implemented. The CAP also estimates benefits of existing programs. 508 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
9 September 2022
2022-053

5. An implementation and monitoring program to track progress toward the reduction target and the status of the reduction strategies. A CAP consistency checklist for future development projects is included in the implementation program.

2.2.2.3 City CAP Consistency Checklist
As part of the CAP, the City developed a CAP consistency checklist for land use projects. The checklist is a streamlined tool that identifies the CAP’s mandatory requirements and provides an opportunity for project applicants to demonstrate project consistency with GHG reduction measures and actions in the CAP. The checklist identifies a general development class and the strategies which must be implemented for the Project to be compliant with the CAP. The checklist is also an opportunity to identify additional Project characteristics that support the GHG reduction targets and programs in the CAP. If a project does not comply with the applicable mandatory GHG reduction measures, mitigation measures must be implemented to require compliance.

2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment

2.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant impact to GHG emissions if it would:
1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases or
The Appendix G thresholds for GHG emissions do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 CCR 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.
509 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
10 September 2022
2022-053

2. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project.

3. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions (14 CCR 15064.4(b)).

In addition, Section 15064.7(c) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that “[w]hen adopting or using thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence” (14 CCR 15064.7(c)). The CEQA Guidelines also clarify that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). As a note, the CEQA Guidelines were amended in response to Senate Bill 97. In particular, the CEQA Guidelines were amended to specify that compliance with a GHG emissions reduction plan renders a cumulative impact insignificant.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

The local air quality agency regulating the SFBAAB is the BAAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. As previously stated, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines include guidance on assessing GHGs and climate change impacts as required under CEQA Section 15183.5(b) and establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions. The City has determined, in its discretion, that the BAAQMD recommended GHG significance thresholds are based on substantial evidence to “attribute an appropriate share of GHG reductions necessary to reach statewide reduction goals to new land use development projects in the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction that are evaluated pursuant to CEQA” (BAAQMD 2017a). Therefore, the City uses the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to determine the level of impact from the project contributions of GHG emissions.

As previously described, BAAQMD’s Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans presents a project-level operational threshold of significance for GHG emissions based on compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy or adherence to a suite of BAAQMD performance standards for land uses projects directly related 510 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
11 September 2022
2022-053
to building design, transportation and consistency with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). The City CAP is a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. The 2020 City CAP is the most recent update after the 2015 CAP and is written to align with the goals of SB 32. The CAP addresses estimate emissions beyond 2020, as informed by the post-2020 GHG reduction targets of SB 32 and EO S-3-05. Specifically, the City set emission reduction goals of 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, 4.3 MTCO2e per person by 2030, and 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050. Therefore, Project compliance with the CAP adequately establishes Project compliance with statewide GHG reduction goals for the year 2030 associated with SB 32, and with statewide GHG reduction goals for the years beyond 2030.

2.3.2 Methodology
Construction and operations of the Proposed Project are compared for consistency with the overall Citywide GHG-reduction program encapsulated in the City’s 2020 CAP. Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction generated GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County. Operational GHG emissions were based on CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County coupled with land use data contained in the Project Site plans prepared by KSH Architects and Project traffic trip generation rates identified by Kittelson & Associates (2022). For the purposes of this analysis, projected operational emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, an existing 60,965 square-foot supermarket.

2.3.3 Impact Analysis
Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project Site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Table 3-2 illustrates the specific construction generated GHG emissions that would result from construction of the Project. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease.

Table 3-2. Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emissions Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Construction Year 1 348
Construction Year 2 623
Construction Year 3 71
Total Construction Emissions 1,042
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

As shown in Table 3-2, Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 1,042 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Furthermore, GHG emissions generated by the construction sector have been 511 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
12 September 2022
2022-053
declining in recent years. For instance, construction equipment engine efficiency has continued to improve year after year. The first federal standards (Tier 1) for new off-road diesel engines were adopted in 1994 for engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in from 1996 to 2000. In 1996, a Statement of Principles pertaining to off-road diesel engines was signed between the USEPA, CARB, and engine makers (including Caterpillar, Cummins, Deere, Detroit Diesel, Deutz, Isuzu, Komatsu, Kubota, Mitsubishi, Navistar, New Holland, Wis-Con, and Yanmar). On August 27, 1998, the USEPA signed the final rule reflecting the provisions of the Statement of Principles. The 1998 regulation introduced Tier 1 standards for equipment under 50 hp and increasingly more stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for all equipment with phase-in schedules from 2000 to 2008. As a result, all off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2006 or later has been manufactured to Tier 3 standards. Tier 3 engine standards reduce precursor and subset GHG emissions such as nitrogen oxide by as much as 60 percent. On May 11, 2004, the USEPA signed the final rule introducing Tier 4 emission standards, which were phased in over the period of 2008-2015. The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of nitrogen oxide be further reduced by about 90 percent. All off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2015 or later will be manufactured to Tier 4 standards.

In addition, the California Energy Commission recently released the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (also known as the California Energy Code). Both the 2016 and 2019 updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and alterations to existing buildings. For instance, effective January 1, 2017, owners/builders of construction projects have been required to divert (recycle) 65 percent of construction waste materials generated during the project construction phase. This requirement greatly reduces the generation of GHG emissions by reducing decomposition at landfills, which is a source of CH4, and reducing demand for natural resources.

Long-term operational GHG emissions attributable to the Project are identified in Table 3-3 512 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
13 September 2022
2022-053
Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons/ Year)
Proposed Project
Area Source 0
Energy 0
Mobile 1,008
Waste 101
Water 24
Total 1,133
Existing Onsite Land Uses
Area Source 0
Energy 134
Mobile 2,385
Waste 173
Water 10
Total 2,702
Difference
Area Source 0
Energy -134
Mobile -1377
Waste -72
Water +14
Total -1,569
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Emission projections predominately based on CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County. Project emissions projections account for trip generation rates identified by Kittelson & Associates (2022), compliance with City Municipal Code Chapter 23.24, which prohibits the use of natural gas at the Project, and Peninsula Clean Energy CO2e intensity factor of 0 pounds of CO2e per electrical megawatt generated. Baseline emissions account for the current use of natural gas appliances.

As shown in Table 3-3, there would be a decrease in operational GHG emissions over the existing baseline of 1,569 MTCO2e per year as a result of the Project.
513 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
14 September 2022
2022-053

2.3.3.1 Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting in Conflicts with any Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
San Mateo Climate Action Plan
The City CAP (2020) is the most recent update to the prior 2015 City CAP. The CAP is a strategic planning document that identifies sources of GHG emissions within the city’s boundaries, presents current and future emissions estimates, identifies a GHG reduction target for future years, and presents strategic programs, policies, and projects to reduce emissions from the energy, transportation, land use, water use, and waste sectors. The CAP includes GHG reduction measures in the form of GHG reduction programs, policies, projects, and strategies. The BAAQMD Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program criteria, in conjunction with the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (2017a), guided the development of the emissions reduction program developed by the City. All three guidelines comply with the requirements of statewide GHG-reduction targets and achieve the goals of the Scoping Plan.

A Qualified Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program adopted by a local jurisdiction should include the elements below, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines outline the methodology to determine whether a GHG reduction program meets these requirements.  Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.
 Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.  Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.
 Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, which substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.
 Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.  Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

The City CAP meets BAAQMD guidelines as follows:
 The CAP quantifies citywide GHG emissions, both existing and projected over the specified time period. The CAP projects emissions for the years 2020, 2030, and 2050 based on growth assumptions from the California Department of Finance and ABAG and were approved by City staff. Relative to 2017 emissions, San Mateo’s GHG emissions are expected to rise by more than 23 percent by 2050 if no action is taken.
 The CAP establishes a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution of emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable. 514 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
15 September 2022
2022-053
 The CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to 15 percent below 2005 emissions levels by 2020.  The CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to 4.3 MTCO2e per person by 2030.  The CAP policy provisions reduce emissions to 1.2 MTCO2e per person by 2050.  The CAP identifies and analyzes the emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the City.
 The CAP specifies measures or a group of measures, including performance standards.  The CAP establishes a mechanism to monitor its progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specific levels.

The reduction measures contained in the CAP build on inventory results and key opportunities prioritized by City staff, members of the San Mateo Sustainability Commission, and members of the public. The CAP strategies consist of measures and actions that identify the steps the City will take to support reductions in GHG emissions. The City will achieve these reductions in GHG emissions through a mix of voluntary programs and new strategic standards. All standards presented in the CAP respond to the needs of development, avoiding unnecessary regulation, streamlining new development, and achieving more efficient use of resources.

The CAP specifically states, “A project-specific environmental document that relies on this CAP for its cumulative impact analysis must identify specific GHG reduction measures applicable to the project and demonstrate the project’s incorporation of the measures. Project applicants and City staff will identify specific measures applicable to each project during project review. If applicable measures are not otherwise binding and enforceable, they must be incorporated as mitigation measures for the project.” A specific project proposal is considered consistent with the City CAP if it complies with the “required” GHG reduction measures in the adopted CAP. The required GHG reduction measures applicable to the Proposed Project, which the Project would comply with, include the following:

Reduction Measure BE 1: All new development: The project does not have natural gas connections, and does not have any natural gas appliance or other equipment installed. The Project does not have any natural gas connections and no natural gas appliances installed. The Project would conform to the City’s Reach Code (Municipal Code Chapter 23.24), which also requires new mixed-use buildings to be all-electric (no natural gas infrastructure).

Reduction Measure RE 2: All new developments with residential units: The project includes an on-site renewable energy system that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the California State Building Code: The Project is required, per California state law, to meet the minimum requirements of the 2019 California State Building Code for Project approval. In addition, Section

23.24.030 of the City Municipal Code states “New residential buildings four stories or more shall provide a minimum of a 3-kilowatt photovoltaic system”. The proposed building included in the Project would be required to comply with this provision of the Municipal Code. As described in the Planning Application for the Proposed Project, the roof will contain 1,000 square feet of 5 kilowatt solar panels.

Reduction Measure EE 3: All new developments with residential units: The project includes trees that provide shade to residences: Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the 515 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
16 September 2022
2022-053
proposed building, in the community open space, along the third-floor terrace, and along portions of the perimeter of the rooftop.

Reduction Measure CF 1(a): All new development with dedicated offstreet parking: The project includes parking spaces with installed EV chargers or are pre-wired for EV chargers, consistent with state and any local regulations: Out of the 239 total Project parking spaces, approximately 36 spaces would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.

Reduction Measure ST 6: New developments of at least six multifamily units and/or 10,000 square feet of nonresidential space- Implement TDM strategies to comply with the appropriate trip reduction target identified in applicable area plans and San Mateo Citywide TDM Plan: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single-occupant vehicle trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollutants, including GHG emissions. The purpose of TDM is to promote more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities, and to ensure that new developments are designed to maximize the potential for sustainable transportation usage. A part of the TDM Plan, the Project is proposing bicycle storage rooms with capacity for 21 bikes and additional bike racks for 17 bikes.

Additionally, the Project Site is located approximately 65 feet from a samTrans bus stop located at the corner of South Ellsworth and East 4th Avenue. This accessibility to mass transit would result in fewer vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to the statewide average and encourage walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, thus resulting in the reduction of, transportation-related emissions. Further, the Project is also located within easy access to numerous restaurants, markets, and other services in the vicinity of the Project Site. These services are conveniently located for future residents of the Proposed Project, which will further reduce the number of vehicle trips. Additionally, the Project Site would be located within an area surrounded by other offsite nonresidential and residential uses. The Project includes bike storage, which would encourage residents to bike rather than drive, when feasible. Lastly it is noted, as shown in Table 3-3, there would be a decrease in operational GHG emissions of 1,569 MTCO2e per year compared with the existing baseline.

Reduction Measure ST 7: All new development: Be located along El Camino Real, within one-half mile of any Caltrain station, or in the Rail Corridor Transit Oriented Development or Hillsdale Station Area Plan areas: The Project Site would be located less than one-half mile (0.3 mile) from the nearest Caltrain station (the San Mateo Station), located at 385 First Avenue.

Reduction Measure SW 1: All developments with multifamily units or nonresidential space: provide an area of sufficient space to store and allow access to a compost bin; the Project plans show access to composting.

Based on review of the Project Plans, the following applicable City CAP reduction measure requirements are not proposed by the Project:

WW 3: All new development: include a greywater system
All development in the City, including the Project, is required to adhere to all City-adopted policy provisions, including those contained in the adopted CAP. The Project applicant must complete a checklist 516 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
17 September 2022
2022-053
to confirm consistency with the CAP to the satisfaction of City staff. The City ensures all provisions of the CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. The Proposed Project would not produce enough greywater internally to feasibly be required to construct the needed infrastructure in downtown San Mateo.

Therefore, the implementation of Reduction Measure WW 3 is considered infeasible for the Project until such time that the infrastructure for greywater exists in downtown San Mateo.

As demonstrated above, the Project does comply with all applicable and feasible reduction measures included in the CAP. As also demonstrated, there would be a decrease in operational GHG emissions of 1,569 MTCO2e per year compared with the existing baseline.

BAAQMD Plan 2017 Clean Air Plan
The 2017 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017b) provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan defines a vision for transitioning the region to a post-carbon economy needed to achieve ambitious GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2050 and provides a regional climate protection strategy that will put the Bay Area on a pathway to achieve those GHG emissions reduction targets. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a wide range of control measures designed to reduce emissions of CH4 and other ‘super GHGs’ in the near term, and to decrease emissions of CO2 by reducing fossil-fuel combustion.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a diverse range of control measures designed to decrease GHG emissions. Consistency of the Proposed Project with 2017 Clean Air Plan is demonstrated by assessing whether the Project supports all of the Project-applicable Clean Air Plan control measures for GHG emissions. The GHG-related control strategies of the Clean Air Plan include Mobile Source Measures, Transportation Control Measures and Energy and Climate Measures.

Note, the Land Use and Local Impact Measures of the 2017 Clean Air Plan address the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants and is thereby not applicable to this impact discussion of GHG emissions. Additionally, the Stationary Source Measures in the Clean Air Plan such as those implemented to control emissions from metal melting facilities, cement kilns, refineries, and glass furnaces are not applicable to the Proposed Project.

Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures
The BAAQMD identifies transportation and mobile source control measures as part of the Clean Air Plan to reduce emissions from these sources. The transportation control measures are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and VMT in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion. The Proposed Project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan’s transportation and mobile source control measures in that it is the redevelopment of an existing urban environment. The Project is considered “infill development” as it proposes to redevelop a build-out property and enhance the physical design of the urban environment. Under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21061.3, an “infill site” is defined as a site that “has been previously developed for qualified urban uses.” In turn, a “qualified urban use” is defined, pursuant to PRC section 21072, as “a residential, commercial, or public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” Additionally, the 517 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
18 September 2022
2022-053
Project Site is located in an “urbanized area,” which is defined under PRC section 21071 as “an incorporated city” that meets the criteria of having a population of at least 100,000 persons.

The Proposed Project would be located in close proximity to the San Mateo Caltrain station, which is located less than 0.3 mile to the northwest of the site at 385 First Avenue. At this location, Caltrain provides for local, limited and Baby Bullet service. There are two bus stops in close proximity to the Project Site, one on East 4th Street and South Ellsworth Avenue and the other on East 4th Avenue and North Delaware Street. The public transit accessibility would result in fewer vehicle trips and VMT compared to the statewide average and encourage walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, thus resulting in the reduction of, or no increase in, transportation-related emissions. The Project would also provide short-term and long-term bike storage.

Pedestrian access to the Project Site would be provided via sidewalks along East 4th Avenue Street and South Ellsworth Avenue. The Proposed Project would provide convenient accessibility to nearby retail shops, markets, offices and more. These places of commerce and employment are conveniently located for the future residents of the Proposed Project to access via walking, biking, or a short vehicle trip, which will further reduce VMT.

These aspects of the Project would result in the generation of a reduced amount of GHG emissions.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), redevelopments (namely at brownfield sites such as the Project Site) produce 32 to 57 percent less emissions per capita relative to conventional developments (USEPA 2011); this is because the number of daily vehicle trips and daily VMT associated with the redevelopment tend to be lower compared with development on vacant land. As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the Clean Air Plan.

Land Use and Local Impact Measures
The BAAQMD Clean Air Plan includes Land Use and Local Impact Measures to ensure that planned growth is focused in a way that protects the people and environment from exposure of emissions associated with stationary and mobile sources and to promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel. The Land Use and Local Impact Measures identified by the BAAQMD are not specifically applicable to the Proposed Project as they relate to actions the BAAQMD will take to reduce impacts from goods movement and health risks in affected communities at the plan level. The measures also detail new regulatory actions the BAAQMD will undertake related to land use, including updates to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, and indirect source review.

However, the Proposed Project would be a redevelopment, infill Project in support of these measures. For instance, the Project can be identified for its “location efficiency.” Location efficiency describes the location of the Project relative to the type of urban landscape its proposed to fit within, such as an “urban area,” “compact infill,” or “suburban center.” The Project site represents an urban/compact infill location within an area of the city developed with residential and commercial uses. The Project site is served by existing public transportation as previously described; it is within an active urban center surrounded with many existing offsite office, commercial, and residential buildings. The Project would locate additional residential land uses in close proximity to existing offsite office, commercial, and residential uses. 518 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
19 September 2022
2022-053
Therefore, the Project would provide future Project residents with the potential work opportunities and commercial service options within the Site and in close proximity to the Site. Additionally, the Project would locate potential employment opportunities for residents already living in the vicinity. The location efficiency of the Project site would result in synergistic benefits that would reduce vehicle trips and VMT compared to the statewide average and would result in corresponding reduction of transportation related GHG emissions.

The Project would increase housing density in the vicinity over current conditions. Increased density reduces emissions associated with transportation as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation for the implementation of other strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

Energy and Climate Control Measures
The Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control Measures, which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of emissions of CO2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, promote the planting of (low volatile organic compound-emitting) trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. The measures include voluntary approaches to reduce the heat-island effect by increasing shade in urban and suburban areas through the planting of trees. The Proposed Project would increase landscaping throughout the Project Site which would help reduce the urban heat-island effect.

The Project is consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Proposed Project would conform to the Project-applicable control measures in the Clean Air Plan and would not disrupt or hinder the implementation of any other control measures.

ABAG Final Plan Bay Area 2050
ABAG’s Plan Bay Area is the RTP/SCS for the San Francisco Bay Area. Plan Bay Area establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light-duty trucks, a potent source of GHG emissions attributable to land use development. As previously described, ABAG was tasked by CARB to achieve a 19 percent reduction of passenger car and light truck automotive GHG emissions by 2035 compared to 2005. Plan Bay Area 2050 establishes an overall mechanism to achieve these GHG targets for the Project region consistent with the target date of SB 32. According to ABAG, the San Francisco Bay Area will exceed the mandated GHG reduction target of 19 percent for 2035 by implementing Plan Bay Area.

The RTP/SCS contains thousands of individual transportation projects, including highway improvements, railway electrification, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs, and replacement bridges. These future investments seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding. In addition, the RTP/SCS is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support the vital goods movement industry, and use resources more efficiently. 519 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
20 September 2022
2022-053
Plan Bay Area 2050’s core strategy is “focused growth” in existing communities along the existing transportation network. This strategy allows the best “bang for the buck” in achieving key regional economic, environmental, and equity goals: it builds upon existing community characteristics, efficiently leverages existing infrastructure, and mitigates impacts on areas with less development. Plan Bay Area 2050’s Growth Geographies identify a mix of locally identified Priority Development Areas, areas near high quality transit and areas of high opportunity as communities poised to accommodate additional growth.

Priority Development Areas are defined as areas generally near existing job centers or frequent transit that are locally identified (i.e., identified by towns, cities or counties) for housing and job growth. Meanwhile, Plan Bay Area 2050 identifies areas outside of the existing urban footprint or in areas that are at a very high risk of wildfire as areas where additional construction should be deprioritized.

The Project Site is located in an area identified as the “San Mateo Downtown Priority Development Area” in Plan Bay Area 2050 (ABAG 2020). Therefore, Plan Bay Area 2050 considers the Project location to be included in an area near high-quality transit and within a communities poised to accommodate additional growth, and therefore encourages urban growth in the Project Area. Furthermore, the Project is proposed within a built environment (infill development). The Project will increase density and land use diversity in the vicinity over current conditions. Increased density, measured in terms of persons, jobs, or building square footage, as well as increased land use diversity, potentially reduces emissions associated with transportation as it reduces the distance people travel for work or services and provides a foundation for the implementation of other strategies such as enhanced transit services. The Project would increase the site density from 60,965 total square feet of retail space to 155,052 square-foot mixed use-residentialretail-office space.

For these reasons, the Project is consistent with Plan Bay Area. Based on the Project’s proximity to public transportation, availability of bike storage space and proximity to retail stores, it can be assumed that regional mobile emissions will decrease in line with the goals of Plan Bay Area with implementation of the Proposed Project. Implementing ABAG’s RTP/SCS will greatly reduce the regional GHG emissions from transportation, and the Proposed Project will not obstruct the achievement of Plan Bay Area’s emission reduction targets.

520 of 1252
222 East 4th Avenue Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc.
222 East 4th Avenue Project
21 September 2022
2022-053

3.0 REFERENCES
ABAG. 2021. Bay Area 2050. https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 05/Draft_Plan_Bay_Area_2050_May2021_0.pdf
_____. 2020. Bay Area 2050 GIS Data Catalog. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::prioritydevelopment-areas-plan-bay-area-2050/about BAAQMD. 2022. Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans
_____. 2017a. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. _____. 2017b. Bay Area Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2021 Edition. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
_____. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices (Appendix F).

Crockett, Alexander G. 2011. Addressing the Significance of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under CEQA:

California’s Search for Regulatory Certainty in an Uncertain World.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2022. San Mateo Draeger’s Traffic Impact Analysis – Project Travel Demand Memo.

KSH Architects. 2022. 222 E 4th Street Plans.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report:

Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/. _____. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions:

Carbon Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html. _____. 2016b. Methane. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. _____. 2016c. Nitrous Oxide. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html. _____. 2011. Air and Water Quality Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/bfenvironimpacts042811.pdf 521 of 1252

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

522 of 1252

ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Output Files – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
523 of 1252
Draeger's Mixed Use Project
San Mateo County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Ground floor supermarket and office, other components not a part of acreage Construction Phase - Project description says it would take approximately 20 months for construction Grading - Site is 1.1 acres
Woodstoves - No woodstoves or fireplaces
Energy Use - Building is all electric, BMP 1
Land Use Change -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Supermarket 17.60 1000sqft 0.60 17,600.00 0
General Office Building 104.72 1000sqft 0.50 104,720.00 0 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 86.24 1000sqft 0.00 86,240.00 0 Apartments Low Rise 8.97 Dwelling Unit 0.00 8,970.00 26 Parking Lot 12.39 1000sqft 0.00 12,390.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 524 of 1252
Area Mitigation -
Energy Mitigation - solar panels installed on rooftop
Water Mitigation - electric vehicle charging, low flow plumbing, low water landscaping Vehicle Trips - values based off of traffic memo
Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 430.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 430.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 430.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 10.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/17/2023 2/11/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/20/2023 2/11/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/13/2022 6/20/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/3/2023 2/11/2025
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 10/7/2022 6/16/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/4/2023 6/21/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/14/2022 6/21/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/8/2022 6/7/2023
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/21/2023 6/21/2023 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 10/6/2022 6/5/2023
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 810.36 8,913.96
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 3.58 374,908.34
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 7.42 131,029.78
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3,172.76 34,900.36
tblEnergyUse NT24E 4.80 502,670.40
tblEnergyUse NT24E 27.24 481,031.16
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 2,615.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 525 of 1252
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 1.01 0.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 12.69 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 49.64 546.04
tblEnergyUse T24E 3.66 383,286.00
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.43 42,911.37
tblEnergyUse T24NG 16,900.98 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 18.14 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 24.29 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 11.14 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.50 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 1.35 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.36 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.52 0.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 1.10
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 9.38 1.10
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.40 0.60
tblLandUse LotAcreage 2.40 0.50
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.98 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.56 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.28 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.14 4.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 177.62 108.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.28 4.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.47 108.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 7.32 4.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.74 12.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 106.78 108.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 0.18 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 526 of 1252

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 0.18 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 527 of 1252

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.4270 1.5944 1.8810 3.9100e0030.1386 0.0682 0.2067 0.0531 0.0648 0.1179 0.0000 343.3603 343.3603 0.0580 9.2000e003347.5507 2024 0.7666 2.6221 3.3951 6.9900e0030.1523 0.1056 0.2579 0.0413 0.1006 0.1418 0.0000 615.2963 615.2963 0.0990 0.0170 622.8468 2025 0.0854 0.2809 0.3853 7.9000e0040.0174 0.0106 0.0280 4.7200e0030.0101 0.0148 0.0000 69.9870 69.9870 0.0112 1.9000e00370.8352 Maximum 0.7666 2.6221 3.3951 6.9900e0030.1523 0.1056 0.2579 0.0531 0.1006 0.1418 0.0000 615.2963 615.2963 0.0990 0.0170 622.8468 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.4270 1.5944 1.8810 3.9100e0030.1069 0.0682 0.1750 0.0359 0.0648 0.1007 0.0000 343.3600 343.3600 0.0580 9.2000e003347.5504 2024 0.7666 2.6221 3.3951 6.9900e0030.1523 0.1056 0.2579 0.0413 0.1006 0.1418 0.0000 615.2958 615.2958 0.0990 0.0170 622.8463 2025 0.0854 0.2809 0.3853 7.9000e0040.0174 0.0106 0.0280 4.7200e0030.0101 0.0148 0.0000 69.9870 69.9870 0.0112 1.9000e00370.8351 Maximum 0.7666 2.6221 3.3951 6.9900e0030.1523 0.1056 0.2579 0.0413 0.1006 0.1418 0.0000 615.2958 615.2958 0.0990 0.0170 622.8463 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 528 of 1252
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.28 0.00 6.44 17.30 0.00 6.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 3 3-8-2023 6-7-2023 0.0202 0.0202
4 6-8-2023 9-7-2023 0.8815 0.8815
5 9-8-2023 12-7-2023 0.8839 0.8839
6 12-8-2023 3-7-2024 0.8541 0.8541
7 3-8-2024 6-7-2024 0.8488 0.8488
8 6-8-2024 9-7-2024 0.8476 0.8476
9 9-8-2024 12-7-2024 0.8418 0.8418
10 12-8-2024 3-7-2025 0.5895 0.5895
Highest 0.8839 0.8839
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 529 of 1252

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.9319 0.7836 8.1123 0.0151 1.6478 0.0105 1.6583 0.4401 9.7300e0030.4498 0.0000 1,413.190 3 1,413.190
3 0.1112 0.0690 1,436.526
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.7565 0.0000 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.7785 0.0000 6.7785 0.6962 0.0164 29.0829 Total 1.5253 0.7844 8.1809 0.0151 1.6478 0.0109 1.6586 0.4401 0.0101 0.4502 47.5351 1,413.303 0 1,460.838
1 3.2162 0.0854 1,566.697
2 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 530 of 1252

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.8206 0.6212 6.4722 0.0105 1.1304 7.8200e0031.1382 0.3019 7.2500e0030.3092 0.0000 988.7687 988.7687 0.0936 0.0552 1,007.568 7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 40.7565 0.0000 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.6424 0.0000 5.6424 0.5795 0.0137 24.2086 Total 1.4140 0.6220 6.5408 0.0105 1.1304 8.2000e0031.1386 0.3019 7.6300e0030.3095 46.3990 988.8814 1,035.280 4 3.0819 0.0689 1,132.865
4 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/5/2023 6/16/2023 5 10 2 Grading Grading 6/7/2023 6/20/2023 5 10
3 Paving Paving 6/21/2023 2/11/2025 5 430
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

7.30 20.71 20.05 30.06 31.40 24.49 31.35 31.40 24.53 31.24 2.39 30.03 29.13 4.18 19.33 27.69 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 531 of 1252
4 Building Construction Building Construction 6/21/2023 2/11/2025 5 430 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/21/2023 2/11/2025 5 430 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Residential Indoor: 18,164; Residential Outdoor: 6,055; Non-Residential Indoor: 183,480; Non-Residential Outdoor: 61,160; Striped Parking Area: 5,918 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 1.1
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 1.1
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 532 of 1252

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 7 87.00 37.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 17.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 533 of 1252

3.2 Site Preparation - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 3.1000e0040.0000 3.2000e0048.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2370 0.2370 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2389 Total 9.0000e0056.0000e0057.8000e0040.0000 3.1000e0040.0000 3.2000e0048.0000e0050.0000 9.0000e0050.0000 0.2370 0.2370 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2389 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0121 0.0000 0.0121 6.5500e0030.0000 6.5500e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.6700e0030.0621 0.0332 9.0000e0052.5400e0032.5400e0032.3300e0032.3300e0030.0000 7.5571 7.5571 2.4400e0030.0000 7.6182 Total 5.6700e0030.0621 0.0332 9.0000e0050.0121 2.5400e0030.0147 6.5500e0032.3300e0038.8800e0030.0000 7.5571 7.5571 2.4400e0030.0000 7.6182 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 534 of 1252

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0307 0.0000 0.0307 0.0166 0.0000 0.0166 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6700e0030.0723 0.0435 1.0000e0043.0200e0033.0200e0032.7800e0032.7800e0030.0000 9.0520 9.0520 2.9300e0030.0000 9.1252 Total 6.6700e0030.0723 0.0435 1.0000e0040.0307 3.0200e0030.0337 0.0166 2.7800e0030.0194 0.0000 9.0520 9.0520 2.9300e0030.0000 9.1252 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 535 of 1252

3.3 Grading - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1000e0047.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 3.9000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.2962 0.2962 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2986 Total 1.1000e0047.0000e0059.7000e0040.0000 3.9000e0040.0000 4.0000e0041.0000e0040.0000 1.1000e0040.0000 0.2962 0.2962 1.0000e0051.0000e0050.2986 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0138 0.0000 0.0138 7.4800e0030.0000 7.4800e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 6.6700e0030.0723 0.0435 1.0000e0043.0200e0033.0200e0032.7800e0032.7800e0030.0000 9.0520 9.0520 2.9300e0030.0000 9.1251 Total 6.6700e0030.0723 0.0435 1.0000e0040.0138 3.0200e0030.0168 7.4800e0032.7800e0030.0103 0.0000 9.0520 9.0520 2.9300e0030.0000 9.1251 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 536 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0445 0.4303 0.6074 9.3000e0040.0213 0.0213 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 81.2298 81.2298 0.0258 0.0000 81.8735 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0445 0.4303 0.6074 9.3000e0040.0213 0.0213 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 81.2298 81.2298 0.0258 0.0000 81.8735 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 537 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.9300e0031.2600e0030.0174 6.0000e0057.0600e0033.0000e0057.1000e0031.8800e0033.0000e0051.9100e0030.0000 5.3141 5.3141 1.3000e0041.3000e0045.3567 Total 1.9300e0031.2600e0030.0174 6.0000e0057.0600e0033.0000e0057.1000e0031.8800e0033.0000e0051.9100e0030.0000 5.3141 5.3141 1.3000e0041.3000e0045.3567 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0445 0.4303 0.6074 9.3000e0040.0213 0.0213 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 81.2297 81.2297 0.0258 0.0000 81.8734 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0445 0.4303 0.6074 9.3000e0040.0213 0.0213 0.0196 0.0196 0.0000 81.2297 81.2297 0.0258 0.0000 81.8734 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 538 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0810 0.7678 1.1561 1.7700e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0340 0.0340 0.0000 154.2403 154.2403 0.0489 0.0000 155.4627 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0810 0.7678 1.1561 1.7700e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0340 0.0340 0.0000 154.2403 154.2403 0.0489 0.0000 155.4627 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 539 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.4800e0032.1500e0030.0312 1.1000e0040.0134 6.0000e0050.0135 3.5700e0036.0000e0053.6200e0030.0000 9.8387 9.8387 2.3000e0042.3000e0049.9141 Total 3.4800e0032.1500e0030.0312 1.1000e0040.0134 6.0000e0050.0135 3.5700e0036.0000e0053.6200e0030.0000 9.8387 9.8387 2.3000e0042.3000e0049.9141 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0810 0.7678 1.1561 1.7700e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0340 0.0340 0.0000 154.2401 154.2401 0.0489 0.0000 155.4625 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0810 0.7678 1.1561 1.7700e0030.0368 0.0368 0.0340 0.0340 0.0000 154.2401 154.2401 0.0489 0.0000 155.4625 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 540 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 8.6000e0030.0799 0.1319 2.0000e0043.7000e0033.7000e0033.4100e0033.4100e0030.0000 17.6603 17.6603 5.6000e0030.0000 17.8003 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.6000e0030.0799 0.1319 2.0000e0043.7000e0033.7000e0033.4100e0033.4100e0030.0000 17.6603 17.6603 5.6000e0030.0000 17.8003 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 541 of 1252

3.4 Paving - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.8000e0042.2000e0043.3700e0031.0000e0051.5400e0031.0000e0051.5400e0034.1000e0041.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 1.0997 1.0997 2.0000e0053.0000e0051.1078 Total 3.8000e0042.2000e0043.3700e0031.0000e0051.5400e0031.0000e0051.5400e0034.1000e0041.0000e0054.1000e0040.0000 1.0997 1.0997 2.0000e0053.0000e0051.1078 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 8.6000e0030.0799 0.1319 2.0000e0043.7000e0033.7000e0033.4100e0033.4100e0030.0000 17.6603 17.6603 5.6000e0030.0000 17.8002 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 8.6000e0030.0799 0.1319 2.0000e0043.7000e0033.7000e0033.4100e0033.4100e0030.0000 17.6603 17.6603 5.6000e0030.0000 17.8002 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 542 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1051 0.8080 0.8702 1.5200e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0343 0.0000 125.3034 125.3034 0.0213 0.0000 125.8353 Total 0.1051 0.8080 0.8702 1.5200e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0343 0.0000 125.3034 125.3034 0.0213 0.0000 125.8353 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 543 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.7200e0030.1202 0.0431 5.3000e0040.0167 6.2000e0040.0173 4.8200e0035.9000e0045.4100e0030.0000 54.2403 54.2403 3.3400e0038.0000e00356.7066 Worker 0.0129 8.4500e0030.1167 3.8000e0040.0473 2.3000e0040.0475 0.0126 2.1000e0040.0128 0.0000 35.5637 35.5637 9.0000e0048.8000e00435.8489 Total 0.0157 0.1287 0.1598 9.1000e0040.0639 8.5000e0040.0648 0.0174 8.0000e0040.0182 0.0000 89.8040 89.8040 4.2400e0038.8800e00392.5555 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1051 0.8080 0.8702 1.5200e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0343 0.0000 125.3033 125.3033 0.0213 0.0000 125.8352 Total 0.1051 0.8080 0.8702 1.5200e0030.0355 0.0355 0.0343 0.0343 0.0000 125.3033 125.3033 0.0213 0.0000 125.8352 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 544 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1860 1.4494 1.6398 2.8900e0030.0590 0.0590 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 237.9108 237.9108 0.0396 0.0000 238.9013 Total 0.1860 1.4494 1.6398 2.8900e0030.0590 0.0590 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 237.9108 237.9108 0.0396 0.0000 238.9013 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 545 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.9900e0030.2260 0.0816 9.9000e0040.0316 1.1800e0030.0328 9.1500e0031.1300e0030.0103 0.0000 101.1497 101.1497 6.4800e0030.0149 105.7615 Worker 0.0233 0.0144 0.2086 7.0000e0040.0897 4.1000e0040.0901 0.0239 3.8000e0040.0243 0.0000 65.8433 65.8433 1.5400e0031.5600e00366.3480 Total 0.0283 0.2404 0.2902 1.6900e0030.1214 1.5900e0030.1230 0.0330 1.5100e0030.0345 0.0000 166.9930 166.9930 8.0200e0030.0165 172.1095 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1860 1.4494 1.6398 2.8900e0030.0590 0.0590 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 237.9105 237.9105 0.0396 0.0000 238.9010 Total 0.1860 1.4494 1.6398 2.8900e0030.0590 0.0590 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 237.9105 237.9105 0.0396 0.0000 238.9010 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 546 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0199 0.1562 0.1866 3.3000e0045.8900e0035.8900e0035.6800e0035.6800e0030.0000 27.2448 27.2448 4.4500e0030.0000 27.3560 Total 0.0199 0.1562 0.1866 3.3000e0045.8900e0035.8900e0035.6800e0035.6800e0030.0000 27.2448 27.2448 4.4500e0030.0000 27.3560 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 547 of 1252

3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.6000e0040.0256 9.3400e0031.1000e0043.6200e0031.4000e0043.7600e0031.0500e0031.3000e0041.1800e0030.0000 11.3545 11.3545 7.6000e0041.6800e00311.8733 Worker 2.5500e0031.4900e0030.0226 8.0000e0050.0103 5.0000e0050.0103 2.7300e0034.0000e0052.7800e0030.0000 7.3597 7.3597 1.6000e0041.7000e0047.4139 Total 3.1100e0030.0271 0.0319 1.9000e0040.0139 1.9000e0040.0141 3.7800e0031.7000e0043.9600e0030.0000 18.7142 18.7142 9.2000e0041.8500e00319.2872 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0199 0.1562 0.1866 3.3000e0045.8900e0035.8900e0035.6800e0035.6800e0030.0000 27.2448 27.2448 4.4500e0030.0000 27.3560 Total 0.0199 0.1562 0.1866 3.3000e0045.8900e0035.8900e0035.6800e0035.6800e0030.0000 27.2448 27.2448 4.4500e0030.0000 27.3560 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 548 of 1252

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5300e0031.6500e0030.0228 7.0000e0059.2300e0034.0000e0059.2800e0032.4600e0034.0000e0052.5000e0030.0000 6.9492 6.9492 1.7000e0041.7000e0047.0050 Total 2.5300e0031.6500e0030.0228 7.0000e0059.2300e0034.0000e0059.2800e0032.4600e0034.0000e0052.5000e0030.0000 6.9492 6.9492 1.7000e0041.7000e0047.0050 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.2316 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0132 0.0899 0.1250 2.1000e0044.8900e0034.8900e0034.8900e0034.8900e0030.0000 17.6174 17.6174 1.0500e0030.0000 17.6438 Total 0.2448 0.0899 0.1250 2.1000e0044.8900e0034.8900e0034.8900e0034.8900e0030.0000 17.6174 17.6174 1.0500e0030.0000 17.6438 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 550 of 1252

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5500e0032.8100e0030.0408 1.4000e0040.0175 8.0000e0050.0176 4.6700e0037.0000e0054.7400e0030.0000 12.8659 12.8659 3.0000e0043.1000e00412.9646 Total 4.5500e0032.8100e0030.0408 1.4000e0040.0175 8.0000e0050.0176 4.6700e0037.0000e0054.7400e0030.0000 12.8659 12.8659 3.0000e0043.1000e00412.9646 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.4396 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0237 0.1597 0.2371 3.9000e0047.9800e0037.9800e0037.9800e0037.9800e0030.0000 33.4476 33.4476 1.8800e0030.0000 33.4947 Total 0.4633 0.1597 0.2371 3.9000e0047.9800e0037.9800e0037.9800e0037.9800e0030.0000 33.4476 33.4476 1.8800e0030.0000 33.4947 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 552 of 1252

3.6 Architectural Coating - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e0042.9000e0044.4100e0032.0000e0052.0100e0031.0000e0052.0200e0035.3000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.4381 1.4381 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.4487 Total 5.0000e0042.9000e0044.4100e0032.0000e0052.0100e0031.0000e0052.0200e0035.3000e0041.0000e0055.4000e0040.0000 1.4381 1.4381 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.4487 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0503 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5600e0030.0172 0.0271 4.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Total 0.0529 0.0172 0.0271 4.0000e0057.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0047.7000e0040.0000 3.8299 3.8299 2.1000e0040.0000 3.8351 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 554 of 1252

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Increase Diversity
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 555 of 1252
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.8206 0.6212 6.4722 0.0105 1.1304 7.8200e0031.1382 0.3019 7.2500e0030.3092 0.0000 988.7687 988.7687 0.0936 0.0552 1,007.568 7 Unmitigated 0.9319 0.7836 8.1123 0.0151 1.6478 0.0105 1.6583 0.4401 9.7300e0030.4498 0.0000 1,413.190 3 1,413.190
3 0.1112 0.0690 1,436.526
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 35.88 35.88 35.88 82,869 56,848
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
General Office Building 1,256.64 231.43 73.30 2,249,077 1,542,867 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Supermarket 1,900.80 1,900.80 1900.80 2,162,053 1,483,168 Total 3,193.32 2,168.11 2,009.98 4,493,998 3,082,883
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 General Office Building 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Supermarket 9.50 7.30 7.30 6.50 74.50 19.00 34 30 36

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 556 of 1252
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601 General Office Building 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601 Parking Lot 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601 Supermarket 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 557 of 1252

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office
Building
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Supermarket 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 558 of 1252

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 General Office
Building
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Supermarket 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 559 of 1252

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
397912 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
469146 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

1.32038e
+011

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 4336.5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1.15275e
+010

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 560 of 1252
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

1.32038e
+011

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 4336.5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1.15275e
+010

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 561 of 1252
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Unmitigated 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0722 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.1900e0037.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Total 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 562 of 1252
Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Landscaping

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0722 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.5191 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 2.1900e0037.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Total 0.5935 7.9000e0040.0686 0.0000 3.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0043.8000e0040.0000 0.1127 0.1127 1.1000e0040.0000 0.1156 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 563 of 1252
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 5.6424 0.5795 0.0137 24.2086
Unmitigated 6.7785 0.6962 0.0164 29.0829

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

0.584432 /

0.368446

0.1854 0.0190 4.5000e0040.7955
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

18.6123 /

11.4075

5.9048 0.6065 0.0143 25.3343
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 2.16952 /

0.0670986

0.6883 0.0707 1.6700e0032.9531
Total 6.7785 0.6962 0.0164 29.0829
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 564 of 1252

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

0.486481 /

0.368446

0.1543 0.0159 3.7000e0040.6622
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

15.4929 /

11.4075

4.9152 0.5048 0.0119 21.0883
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 1.80591 /

0.0670986

0.5729 0.0589 1.3900e0032.4581
Total 5.6424 0.5795 0.0137 24.2086
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 565 of 1252
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726
Unmitigated 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726
Category/Year

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

4.13 0.8384 0.0496 0.0000 2.0770
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

97.39 19.7693 1.1683 0.0000 48.9776
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 99.26 20.1489 1.1908 0.0000 49.9180
Total 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 43 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 566 of 1252

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

4.13 0.8384 0.0496 0.0000 2.0770
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Office
Building

97.39 19.7693 1.1683 0.0000 48.9776
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Supermarket 99.26 20.1489 1.1908 0.0000 49.9180
Total 40.7565 2.4086 0.0000 100.9726
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 44 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 567 of 1252

11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 45 of 45 Date: 9/12/2022 9:47 AM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 568 of 1252
Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building
San Mateo County, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Two story building
Construction Phase - No building construction will be taking place, existing building will be demolished and replaced with a new, mixed use building.

Off-road Equipment - Existing building will be demolished and replaced with a new, mixed use building.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -
Vehicle Trips - Trips determined from traffic report

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Supermarket 60.97 1000sqft 1.10 60,965.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
5 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 70

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 60,970.00 60,965.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.40 1.10
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 177.62 107.41
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 569 of 1252

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 166.47 107.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 106.78 107.41
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Highest

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Energy 0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Mobile 1.9004 1.4626 15.1890 0.0254 2.7312 0.0186 2.7498 0.7294 0.0172 0.7466 0.0000 2,340.607 5 2,340.607
5 0.2184 0.1299 2,384.782
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 69.8025 0.0000 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3844 0.0000 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300 Total 2.1838 1.5848 15.2922 0.0261 2.7312 0.0278 2.7590 0.7294 0.0265 0.7559 72.1869 2,473.571 9 2,545.758
8 4.5911 0.1381 2,701.699
7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 570 of 1252

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Energy 0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Mobile 1.9004 1.4626 15.1890 0.0254 2.7312 0.0186 2.7498 0.7294 0.0172 0.7466 0.0000 2,340.607 5 2,340.607
5 0.2184 0.1299 2,384.782
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 69.8025 0.0000 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.3844 0.0000 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300 Total 2.1838 1.5848 15.2922 0.0261 2.7312 0.0278 2.7590 0.7294 0.0265 0.7559 72.1869 2,473.571 9 2,545.758
8 4.5911 0.1381 2,701.699
7 Mitigated Operational

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/2/2011 5 10 2 Building Construction Building Construction 1/2/2011 5 200 3 Demolition Demolition 1/2/2011 5 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 571 of 1252

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
4 Grading Grading 1/2/2011 5 4
5 Paving Paving 1/2/2011 5 10
6 Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/2/2011 5 2
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Building Construction 10.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Demolition 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Grading 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Paving 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 91,448; Non-Residential Outdoor: 30,483; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 572 of 1252

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.9004 1.4626 15.1890 0.0254 2.7312 0.0186 2.7498 0.7294 0.0172 0.7466 0.0000 2,340.607 5 2,340.607
5 0.2184 0.1299 2,384.782
2 Unmitigated 1.9004 1.4626 15.1890 0.0254 2.7312 0.0186 2.7498 0.7294 0.0172 0.7466 0.0000 2,340.607 5 2,340.607
5 0.2184 0.1299 2,384.782
2 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Supermarket 6,548.79 6,548.79 6548.79 7,448,877 7,448,877 Total 6,548.79 6,548.79 6,548.79 7,448,877 7,448,877
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Supermarket 9.50 7.30 7.30 6.50 74.50 19.00 34 30 36

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Supermarket 0.473689 0.072335 0.232457 0.144246 0.025248 0.006233 0.010124 0.002125 0.001469 0.000591 0.028445 0.000434 0.002601 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 573 of 1252

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: Y
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 574 of 1252

0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Total 0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Supermarket 2.49164e
+006

0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Total 0.0134 0.1221 0.1026 7.3000e0049.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0039.2800e0030.0000 132.9634 132.9634 2.5500e0032.4400e003133.7535 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 575 of 1252

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Supermarket 2.41117e
+006

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Supermarket 2.41117e
+006

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 576 of 1252
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Unmitigated 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003

0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Total 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 577 of 1252

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0318 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.2381 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 5.0000e0051.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Total 0.2699 1.0000e0055.6000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.0900e0031.0900e0030.0000 0.0000 1.1600e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 578 of 1252
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300
Unmitigated 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Supermarket 7.51566 /

0.232443

2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300
Total 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 579 of 1252

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Supermarket 7.51566 /

0.232443

2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300
Total 2.3844 0.2449 5.7800e00310.2300
Mitigated

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Unmitigated 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 580 of 1252

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Supermarket 343.87 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Total 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Supermarket 343.87 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Total 69.8025 4.1252 0.0000 172.9328
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 581 of 1252

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 14 Date: 9/2/2022 1:36 PM Draeger's Mixed Use Project - Existing Building - San Mateo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied 582 of 1252
Appendix 3:

CAP Consistency
Checklist
The following checklist assists project applicants and City staff to determine whether a proposed project complies with the City of San Mateo CAP. The CAP is an implementation tool of the General Plan, demonstrating the City’s strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions consistent with Section 15183.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. New projects deemed consistent with the CAP are eligible for streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions. Projects inconsistent with the CAP may refer to this checklist for informational purposes but may have to submit a separate GHG analysis for the project. Examples of projects inconsistent with the City’s forecast include:
 Stationary source emissions regulated by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.  General Plan amendments.
 New specific plans, amendments to specific plans, or new development agreements that would increase the population and nonresidential land use expectations beyond those anticipated in the General Plan buildout scenario.
583 of 1252
APPENDIX 3
April 2020 2020 Climate Action Plan A-64
Development Checklist
Project Description Characteristics
Please identify the applicable land uses included in the proposed project and provide a brief description of the proposed project (or the project description to be used for the associated environmental document). 1) What is the size of the project (in acres)?

2) Identify the applicable land uses:

Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Manufacturing
Other
3) If there is a residential component to the project, how many units are being proposed? Single-family residences: :

Multi-family residences: :
4) Please provide a brief project description, including the square footage of conditioned space by land use:

5) Does the project require any amendments to the General Plan or specific plans? Yes No
If yes, please explain:

THE SITE AREA OF THE PROJECT IS 1.14 ACRES. 10 TOTAL UNITS (8 X 1-BED, 2 X STUDIO) DEMOLISH AN EXISTING BUILDING. CONSTRUCT A NEW FIVE-STORY BUILDING WITH TWO LEVELS OF BELOW-GRADE PARKING. THE BUILDING PROVIDES 104,755 SF OF OFFICE SPACE, 17,658 SF OF RETAIL SPACE AND 8,938 SF OF RESIDENTIAL SPACE (INCLUDING 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS).

THE PROJECT WILL UTILIZE DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS, INCENTIVES AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP) TO ADDRESS SOME REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO MUNICIPAL CODE AND

DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN AS PER CURRRENT ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SEE BELOW 584 of 1252

CAP CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
A-65 City of San Mateo April 2020
6) Is the project located in a specific plan area?
Yes No
If so, which one? _______________
7) Please complete the following table to identify project compliance with any applicable CAP measures.

Standards for CAP Consistency – New Development
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Does the
Project Comply? Notes & Comments
BE 1: All new development: The project does not
have natural gas connections, and does not have
any natural gas appliances or other equipment
installed
Yes
No
N/A
Additional notes:

RE 2. All new developments with residential
units: The project includes an on-site renewable
energy system that meets or exceeds the minimum
requirements of the California State Building Code
Yes
No
N/A
If yes, what is the kW potential of
the renewable energy system?

Additional notes:

RE 2. All new developments with residential
units: The project includes an on-site energy
storage system, such as a battery.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, how much electricity does
the system store?

Additional notes:

RE 3. All new developments with nonresidential
space: The project includes an on-site renewable
energy system that meets or exceeds the minimum
requirements of the California State Building Code
Yes
No
N/A
If yes, what is the kW potential of
the renewable energy system?

Additional notes:

DOWNTOWN RETAIL CORE (CITY OF SAN MATEO DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN) The project will be designed to meet
code requirements
There will likely be a backup energy
storage system (details are T.B.D.)
The project will be designed to meet
code requirements 585 of 1252
APPENDIX 3
April 2020 2020 Climate Action Plan A-66
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Does the
Project Comply? Notes & Comments
RE 3. All new developments with nonresidential
space: The project includes an on-site energy
storage system, such as a battery.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, how much electricity does
the system store?

Additional notes:

EE 3. All new developments with residential
units: The project includes trees that provide
shade to residences.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, how many residences are
shaded by newly planted trees?

Additional notes:

CF 1. All new development with dedicated offstreet parking: The project includes parking spaces with installed EV chargers or are pre-wired
for EV chargers, consistent with state and any local
regulations.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, how many spaces include
installed EV chargers?

If yes, how many spaces are prewired for EV chargers?

Additional notes:

CF 1. All new development with dedicated offstreet parking: The project includes parking spaces with installed EV chargers that are
accessible by members of the public beyond those
who live and/or work at the project.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, how many spaces with
installed EV chargers are accessible
by members of the public?

If yes, how many Level 3 chargers
installed as part of this project are
publicly accessible?

Additional notes:

36 There will likely be a backup energy
storage system (details are T.B.D.) 586 of 1252

CAP CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
A-67 City of San Mateo April 2020
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Does the
Project Comply? Notes & Comments
ST 6. New developments of at least six multifamily units and/or 10,000 square feet of nonresidential space: Implement TDM strategies
to comply with the appropriate trip reduction
target identified in applicable area plans and San
Mateo Citywide TDM Plan.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, what is the trip reduction
target for the project?
% short-term commute trip
reduction
% long-term commute trip
reduction
What strategies will the project use
to achieve these trip reduction
targets?

Additional notes:

ST 6. Projects of at least 20 multi-family units
and/or 50,000 square feet of nonresidential
space undergoing additions or alterations (as
defined in San Mateo Municipal Code Section

23.06.012): Implement TDM strategies consistent
with the targets in relevant area plans and the San
Mateo Citywide TDM Plan.

Additional notes:

ST 7. All new development: Be located along El
Camino Real, within one-half mile of any Caltrain
station, or in the Rail Corridor Transit Oriented
Development or Hillsdale Station Area Plan areas.

Yes
No
N/A
Additional notes:

Strategies will be determined by the
City's 3rd party traffic study 587 of 1252
APPENDIX 3
April 2020 2020 Climate Action Plan A-68
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Does the
Project Comply? Notes & Comments
SW 1. All developments with multifamily units
or nonresidential space: Provide an area of
sufficient space to store and allow access to a
compost bin.

Yes
No
N/A
Does the project participate in any
composting programs?

Does the project compost on-site?

Additional notes:

WW 3. All new development: Include a greywater
system.

Yes
No
N/A
If yes, is the greywater system
“laundry-to-landscape” or another
type of system?

Additional notes:

YES 588 of 1252

DRAFT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT
200-222 EAST 4TH AVENUE

SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Lane Partners
644 Menlo Avenue, 2nd Floor
Menlo Park, California 94025
Prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.
1111 Broadway, 6th Floor
Oakland, California 94607
Project Number: WR2671
May 2, 2019
589 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA ii May 2, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

1.1 Scope of Work.................................................................................................................1

1.2 Significant Assumptions..................................................................................................3

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions.............................................................................................3

1.4 Special Terms and Conditions.........................................................................................4

1.5 User Reliance ..................................................................................................................4

2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................5

2.1 Location and Legal Description ......................................................................................5

2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics .......................................................................5

2.2.1 General Site Setting.............................................................................................5

2.2.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology.................................................................5

2.2.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology .........................................................................5

2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Parcels................................................................5

3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION......................................................................................7

3.1 Title Records ...................................................................................................................7

3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ...................................................7

3.3 Specialized Knowledge ...................................................................................................7

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information .......................................7

3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues...............................................................7

3.6 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA.......................................................................7

3.7 User Provided Documentation ........................................................................................7

4. RECORDS REVIEW ...............................................................................................................9

4.1 Standard Environmental Records Database Search ........................................................9

4.2 Environmental Records Search Results ..........................................................................9

5. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES................................................12

5.1 County of San Mateo County Health Services Agency ................................................12

5.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control – Region 2...................................................12

5.3 San Mateo Fire Department – Fire Prevention..............................................................12

5.4 Cal Fire – Office of the State Fire Marshall..................................................................12

5.5 City of San Mateo Public Works Department...............................................................13

5.6 City of San Mateo Building Department.......................................................................13

5.7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District..................................................................13

5.8 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Region ...........................................13 590 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA iii May 2, 2019

5.9 United States Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement and Compliance History Online Database ............................................................................................................13

5.10 State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Website ........................................................................................................13

5.11 State of California, DTSC, EnviroStor Database ..........................................................14

5.12 State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database ......14

5.13 Historical Documentation Review ................................................................................15

5.13.1 Historical Aerial Photograph Review................................................................15

5.13.2 Historical Topographic Map Review ................................................................16

5.13.3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review ................................................................18

5.13.4 City Directory Review.......................................................................................19

6. SITE RECONNAISSANCE...................................................................................................22

7. INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................................25

7.1 Interview with Owner....................................................................................................25

7.2 Interview with Occupant ...............................................................................................25

7.3 Interview with Local Government Officials .................................................................25

7.4 Interview with Others....................................................................................................25

8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS..................................................................................................26

8.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions.........................................................................26

8.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions........................................................27

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions.......................................................27

8.4 De Minimis Conditions.................................................................................................27

8.5 Data Gaps......................................................................................................................27

8.6 Exceptions and Deviations............................................................................................27

8.7 Signature by Environmental Professionals....................................................................28

8.8 Qualifications ................................................................................................................28

9. NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................29

10. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................30 591 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA iv May 2, 2019

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or CrossGradient) Table 2: Summary of Site Reconnaissance (page 47 of report)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Layout
Figure 3: Facilities with Documented or Potential Releases of Chemicals to Soil and Groundwater within 0.25 Miles

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: User Provided Documents
Appendix B: ERIS Database Report with Physical Setting Report Appendix C: Agency Records
Appendix D: Historical Aerial Photographs
Appendix E: Historical Topographical Maps
Appendix F: Sanborn Map Report
Appendix G: City Directory Report
Appendix H: Photographic Log
Appendix I: Property Owner’s Site Assessment Questionnaire 592 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA v May 2, 2019

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AST aboveground storage tanks
ASTM ASTM International
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
bgs below ground surface
CA-92 California Route 92
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRECs controlled recognized environmental conditions
CSMHSA County of San Mateo Health Service Agency
DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWR Department of Water Resources
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EKI Erler & Kalinowski, Inc.

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services
ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
ESLs Environmental Screening Levels
ESS Environmental Support Services
ft2 square feet
Geosyntec Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

GIS geographic information system
HRECs historical recognized environmental conditions
Lane Lane Partners
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
msl mean sea level
PCE tetrachloroethene
RECs recognized environmental conditions
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
593 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA vi May 2, 2019
the Site 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California the Standard ASTM E1527-13 Standard
TRPH total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons
US-101 United States Highway 101
User Lane Partners
USGS United States Geologic Survey
UST underground storage tank
VOCs volatile organic compounds
594 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 1 May 2, 2019

1. INTRODUCTION
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) completed this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California (the Site, Figure 1). This Phase I ESA was completed by Geosyntec for Lane Partners (hereafter referred to as “Lane” or “User”). It is our understanding that Lane is contemplating purchase of the Site.

This report documents the methods and findings of the Phase I ESA in general conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM International’s (ASTM) Standard E1527-13 (the Standard) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 312). The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HRECs), and/or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) at the Site and potential impacts from nearby facilities. For the purpose of this report, and as defined by the Standard, a REC is “… the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to any release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” A HREC is “… a past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).” A CREC is a REC “… resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting riskbased criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).”
Specific conditions that were not considered to be within the scope of this work, as well as limitations and exceptions, are identified in Section 1.3 of this report.

1.1 Scope of Work
The scope of the Phase I ESA included:
• A review of the general Site setting and condition, including known information regarding the regional and local geologic and hydrologic conditions. • A review of information provided by the User. Copies of documents provided to Geosyntec by the User are included in Appendix A.
• A review of regulatory agency records to obtain information regarding environmental investigations on or near the Site. The records review included retaining the services 595 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 2 May 2, 2019
of a commercial database firm (Environmental Risk Information Services [ERIS]) to provide a listing of publicly documented environmental records for the Site and at nearby properties within a 1-mile radius. A copy of this report is included as Appendix B.
• A review of available public agency records for information regarding environmental permits, violations, or incidents, and/or the status of enforcement actions. Agencies contacted included the following:
 San Mateo County Environmental Health Department;
 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) – Region 2;  San Mateo Fire Department – Fire Prevention;
 Cal Fire – Office of the State Fire Marshall;
 City of San Mateo Public Works Department;
 City of San Mateo Building Department;
 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD);
 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – Bay Area Region;  EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database;  State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) website;
 State of California, DTSC, EnviroStor Database;
 State of California, State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), GeoTracker Database; and
 Copies of relevant documents obtained from agency files are included in Appendix C.
• A review of historical records for the Site and nearby facilities to assess potential for environmental impairment. Historical records reviewed included historical aerial photographs, historical topographic maps, historical Sanborn Fire Insurance maps (if available), and historical city directory files. Copies of these historical records are included in Appendices D through G.
• Performance of a Site reconnaissance to observe general conditions at the Site and adjacent properties as they relate to potential environmental impacts. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to identify, to the extent possible, current uses and improvements of the Site, past uses of the Site, current uses of adjacent properties, and evidence of existing and historical hazardous materials use, disposal, storage, and releases on the Site and/or adjacent properties. Photographs representative of Site conditions at the time of the reconnaissance are presented in Appendix H and the property assessment questionnaire completed by the property owner is included in Appendix I.
596 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 3 May 2, 2019
• Preparation of this Phase I ESA report, which documents the above activities, our findings and opinions as they pertain to the identification of RECs, and data gaps.

1.2 Significant Assumptions
While this report provides an overview of potential environmental conditions both past and present, this Phase I ESA is limited by the availability of information at the time of the assessment. The conclusions and recommendations regarding environmental conditions presented in this report are based on observed conditions during the time of the Site reconnaissance and on information gathered during interviews, review of agency records, and execution of the scope of work previously described.

1.3 Limitations and Exceptions
This Phase I ESA is intended to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs, HRECs, and CRECs to be present at the Site. Not every property warrants the same level of assessment. Consistent with good commercial or customary practice, the appropriate level of assessment was guided by the type of property subject to assessment and the information developed in the course of inquiry.

Additional services considered optional by the Standard, such as asbestos-containing building materials, biological agents, cultural and historic resources, ecological resources, endangered species, health and safety, industrial hygiene, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, mold, radon, and wetlands were not included in the scope of work.

The findings and conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA are the result of professional interpretation of the information collected at the time of this study. This Phase I ESA was not an exhaustive search of all available records. Geosyntec cannot “certify” or guarantee that any property is free of environmental impairment; no warranties regarding the environmental quality of the property are expressed or implied. Specific limitations to our conclusions as a result of information gaps or incomplete information are documented in Section 8.5.

The findings of this report, to the best of our knowledge, are valid as of the date of this report.

However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate regulations and standards may occur, whether they result from legislation, from the broadening of knowledge, or from other reasons. Per the Standard, a Phase I ESA completed less than 180 days prior to the date of acquisition of the Site is presumed valid.

A Phase I ESA for which the information was collected or updated within one year of the date of acquisition of the Site may be used, provided that the report is updated within 180 days of the date of purchase or intended transaction. Per the Standard, if a Phase I ESA or Phase I ESA Update is not completed within 12 months of the information collected, a new Phase I ESA is required.

Specified information contained in this report has been obtained from publicly available sources and other secondary sources of information. Although care has been taken in compiling this information, Geosyntec disclaims any and all liability for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies of the third parties in such information and data.
597 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 4 May 2, 2019
The work was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time these services were provided. No other warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made as to the findings, opinions, and conclusions included in this report.

1.4 Special Terms and Conditions
Except as noted in Geosyntec’s scope of work included in the executed contract effective March 20, 2019, no special contractual terms and conditions were taken into account as part of this project or influenced the interpretations and conclusions presented herein.

1.5 User Reliance
This Phase I ESA report has been prepared solely for the benefit of Lane, the User. Geosyntec has issued the Phase I ESA report to this entity and grants the right to rely on the report contents.

No third party, other than the User and its creditor, financial or insurance underwriter, shall have the right to rely on Geosyntec opinions rendered in connection with the services without Geosyntec’s written consent. Any reliance shall be conditioned on the third party’s agreement to be bound to the conditions and limitations included within this Phase I report under Section 1.3.

Geosyntec’s consent to provide a right-to-rely on this Phase I ESA report is further subject to the User’s approval.
598 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 5 May 2, 2019

2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Legal Description
The Site is located at 200-222 East 4th Avenue in San Mateo, California (Figure 1). Topographic map coverage of the Site and vicinity is provided by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS),

7.5-Minute, San Mateo Quadrangle (USGS, 2015). The Site consists of an approximately 65,608 square-foot multi-story building on 1.14 acres of land and is referenced in the San Mateo County Assessor’s records as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 034-176-090, 034-176-080, 034-176- 070, and 034-176-050.

2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics

2.2.1 General Site Setting
According to the 2015 USGS topographic map (USGS, 2015), the Site has an elevation of approximately 33 feet above mean sea level (msl). The Site and surrounding areas are relatively flat, sloping to the north-northwest. The Site is bordered by South B Street to the west, East 4th Avenue to the north, South Ellsworth Avenue to the east, and East 5th Avenue to the south (Figure 2). The surrounding area consists of high-density residential buildings and commercial businesses. Historically the Site has contained residences, gasoline service stations, and a department store.

2.2.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology
The Site is located in the San Mateo Groundwater Subbasin (Department of Water Resources [DWR], 2004). The subbasin occupies a structural trough, sub-parallel to the northwest trending Coast Ranges, at the southwest end of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay constitutes its eastern boundary. The Santa Cruz Mountains form the western margin of the basin. The Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118 (updated in 2004) indicates that the water-bearing formations of the subbasin are comprised of two groups: the Santa Clara Formation and the Quaternary age alluvial deposits (DWR, 2004). The Quaternary alluvium constitutes the most important water-bearing formation of this basin and larger yielding wells acquire their water from it. Groundwater flow in the area is generally toward San Francisco Bay.

2.2.3 Site Geology and Hydrogeology
The soil beneath the Site is classified as Quaternary alluvium and marine deposits (ERIS, 2018).

The ERIS report indicated the soils below the Site as “Urban Land;” no other information was reported. According to files reviewed for the Site, depth to groundwater is approximately 30 feet below ground surface (bgs) with a flow direction to the northeast toward the San Francisco Bay (Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. [EKI], 1996). According to files reviewed for neighboring sites, depth to groundwater in the Site vicinity in 2017 was approximately 16 feet bgs with a groundwater flow direction to the east (Antea Group, 2018).

2.3 Current Use of the Site and Adjoining Parcels
The Site is located in the downtown area of San Mateo at the intersection of South B Street and East 4th Avenue. The multi-story building at the Site was constructed in 1996-1997 and includes 599 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 6 May 2, 2019
a basement and two floors above the ground level. The building is approximately 65,608 square feet (ft2) in total. Since 1997, the facility has operated as grocery retail store and a restaurant.

Figure 2 shows the layout of the Site at the time of Geosyntec’s Site reconnaissance on April 8, 2019. The parcel maps from the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County Property Maps Portal are included in Appendix C.

The Site vicinity and adjoining properties have been developed with residential and commercial/industrial facilities since the late 1890s. Adjacent properties included:
• North – East 4th Avenue and commercial properties, including: restaurants, a beauty salon, a bakery, a parking garage, and a retail cell phone location. • South – East 5th Avenue and a multi-story residential building. • East – South Ellsworth Avenue and commercial properties, including: restaurants, a barber shop, a beauty salon, a bicycle shop, and a toy shop. • West – South B Street and commercial properties, including: a beauty salon, a dry-cleaner store front (no cleaning is done at this property), and a restaurant.

The adjacent properties were observed from vantage points along the perimeter of the Site during the Site reconnaissance. The purpose of these observations was to attempt to identify sources of potential environmental impairment near the Site that could represent potential threats to the Site due to surface water runoff, groundwater transport, or other contaminant transport pathways.

These observations are discussed in Section 6 of this report. 600 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 7 May 2, 2019

3. USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
In accordance with the Standard, Geosyntec requested that the User of the Phase I ESA provide information that would assist in identifying the possibility of RECs in connection with the Site.

3.1 Title Records
The User provided Geosyntec with a copy of the title record dated February 14, 2019 from First American Title Insurance Company National Commercial Services. Review of the title record did not identify deed restrictions or land use covenants recorded for the Site.

3.2 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations The User did not indicate to Geosyntec if they were aware of any environmental liens or activity and use limitations associated with the Site as they are defined by the Standard.

3.3 Specialized Knowledge
The User did not indicate any specialized knowledge in relation to the Site or vicinity.

3.4 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User did not indicate that they had any commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information regarding the Site.

3.5 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
The User did not provide Site property value information.

3.6 Reason for Performing This Phase I ESA
The User indicated this Phase I ESA is being completed as part of their due diligence for a potential purchase of the property.

3.7 User Provided Documentation
The User provided a number of documents for the Site, including as-built drawings, the title report, and the ground lease for the Site building, a Phase I ESA prepared for the Site in 1998 (EKI, 1998), a Closure Report for excavation of petroleum-affected soils (EKI, 1996), and a case closure confirmation letter from the County of San Mateo (County of San Mateo Health Service Agency [CSMHSA], 1997). Copies of these documents are presented in Appendix A.

According to the previous 1998 Phase I ESA, the Site was occupied as early as 1888. Between 1888 and 1920, land use was residential. By 1929, Mohawk Oil gasoline service station was present on the north corner of the Site at East 4th Avenue and South B Street. By 1950, two auto repair/gasoline service stations were present, one in the north corner at East 4th Avenue and South B Street and one in the east corner at South B Street and East 5th Avenue. The Levy Brothers leased the Site in 1951, built a department store, and operated the business until 1985.

By 1969, the service station in the east corner at South B Street and East 5th Avenue had been replaced by a parking lot. By 1985, the service station in the north corner at East 4th Avenue and South B Street had been replaced by a paved parking lot. The Levy Brothers department store 601 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 8 May 2, 2019
building was vacant from 1985 until at least 1988. The report indicated that no changes were apparent at the Site between 1985 and 1995 (EKI, 1998).

Underground storage tanks (USTs) associated with the former gasoline service station at the north corner of the Site (East 4th Avenue and South B Street) were removed in 1988 (EKI, 1998).

Soil sampling conducted as part of the tank removals identified a low concentration of total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPH) at 60 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in the area of the excavation. Approximately 335 tons of soil associated with UST removal activities were excavated. In 1993, one hydraulic lift associated with the former gasoline service station at the east corner of the Site (East 5th Avenue and South B Street) was removed. TPH concentrations were detected in soil around the excavation and approximately 20 cubic yards were removed (EKI, 1998).

Sampling performed at the Site in 1994 by EKI identified petroleum hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater, as well as a detection of lead in one groundwater sample. EKI performed a Phase II ESA in 1995. Results from sampling activities identified low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and water samples (EKI, 1998).

In 1996, the Levy Brothers Department Store was demolished and construction began on the Draeger’s Market building. Construction activities included the excavation of soil for the subterranean parking structure, which included excavating the majority of the parcel. Petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soils were encountered in the north corner of the Site (East 4th Avenue and South B Street) during excavation for the below-grade parking structure. The petroleum hydrocarbon-impacted soil was excavated and confirmation sampling did not identify the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil that would warrant further investigative or remedial actions. In addition, no petroleum hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in groundwater at the Site (EKI, 1998).

CSMHSA issued a closure letter in 1997 stating that the site investigation for the impacted surface soils from past operations at the Site is complete. Based on available information, including current land use, no further action related to the surface soils is required (CSMHSA, 1997).
602 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 9 May 2, 2019

4. RECORDS REVIEW

4.1 Standard Environmental Records Database Search
In accordance with the Standard, Geosyntec reviewed applicable and reasonably accessible federal, state, and local records as part of this Phase I ESA. The environmental records review was performed in the form of an environmental database search by ERIS, in an attempt to ascertain whether the Site or neighboring properties were suspected of having environmental conditions with the potential to impact (or that have impacted) the soil, soil gas, and/or groundwater at the Site. The database search includes regulatory agency lists of known or potential hazardous waste facilities, landfills, hazardous waste generators, and disposal facilities in addition to properties under investigation. The information provided in this report was obtained from publicly available sources. The locations of the properties listed in this report are plotted with a geographic information system (GIS) utilizing geocoding of property addresses.

Specific records and search distances for these environmental databases were reported by ERIS to be consistent with the Standard and are discussed in the ERIS report (dated March 29, 2019); this report is presented as Appendix B.

4.2 Environmental Records Search Results
The complete list of properties that ERIS has identified is included in the report in Appendix B.

A total of 234 facilities are listed in at least one of the databases searched. A summary of properties within 0.25 mile of the Site and located hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient from the Site is provided below in Table 1.

The Site vicinity has been densely developed with residential and commercial/industrial facilities since the late 1890s and available regulatory databases reviewed to date indicate several releases of VOCs, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, and other hazardous substances to soil and groundwater from nearby facilities. ERIS’s search of available “reasonably ascertainable” government records found numerous listings, including the Site address, within the ASTMspecified search distances in the sub-sections that follow.

According to ERIS, the Site is listed in the following databases:
• California Environmental Reporting System Hazardous Waste Sites (CERS HAZ); • San Mateo Certified Unified Program Agency (SANMATEO CUPA); • Facility Registry Service/Facility Index (FINDS/FRS); • Hazardous Waste Manifest Data (HAZNET);
• RCRA Non-Generators (RCRA NON GEN);
• Delisted County Records (DELISTED COUNTY); and
• Leaking Underground Fuel Tank Reports (LUST).
603 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 10 May 2, 2019
These listings are related to recordkeeping violations, the releases from the USTs historically present on the Site, and the excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soils. A summary of ERIS findings for the Site is presented in Table 1.

Geosyntec’s review of the ERIS information also identified five facilities within 0.25 mile of the Site with documented or potential releases of chemicals to soil and groundwater. These facilities are shown in Figure 3 and include:
• Wardrobe Cleaners/Park’s Wardrobe Cleaners, 333/335/344 E 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401: This facility is located approximately 200 feet to the northeast of the Site. Tetrachloroethene (PCE) was detected in groundwater downgradient of this facility at a fuel leak case lead which led to an investigation of dry-cleaning facilities nearby. Voluntary soil and groundwater sampling at the facility indicated detections of PCE and its breakdown products at concentrations above the RWQCB’s 2019 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) (RWQCB, 2019). CSMHSA requested a work plan to evaluate the VOC concentrations in groundwater, soil, and soil vapor be submitted in early 2019. On March 29, 2019, CSS Environmental Services issued a work plan to collect and analyze soil vapor and groundwater samples at Wardrobe Cleaners. This facility is located downgradient to the Site with respect to groundwater flow direction; however, there is a potential that vapors from the VOCs associated with this facility may migrate and potentially pose a vapor encroachment condition at the Site. Based on the open status of the facility and distance from the Site, there is potential for this listing to have impacted the subsurface at the Site; therefore, this facility is considered a REC for the Site.
• Blue Ribbon Cleaners, 37 East 3rd Avenue and 22 2nd Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401:

This facility is located approximately 1,000 feet to southwest of the Site. This facility is listed in the ERIS report under the DRYCLEANERS database, but no additional information is provided. Based on the lack of documented spills and distance from the Site, this facility has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.
• A-1 Cleaners/New A-1 Cleaners/A 1 Cleaners, 17 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401: This facility is located approximately 965 feet to the southwest of the Site.

Investigation of a nearby gasoline release (402 South Delaware Street) indicates the source of the PCE and breakdown products discovered in soil and groundwater samples may have originated at this facility, located hydraulically-upgradient from the gasoline release case location. Several utilities nearby could act as a preferential pathway for contaminant migration. Historical review indicates that dry-cleaning operations using PCE were conducted at this facility from approximately 1987 to 2008. These findings suggest that this facility represents a potential source for PCE contamination in the neighborhood. CSMHSA requested voluntary soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the facility to determine if the facility released PCE to soil and groundwater. It does not appear the facility has prepared a work plan to conduct soil and groundwater sampling since no other information is available on GeoTracker as of the date of preparation of this Phase I ESA. Based on the lack of information regarding contamination in the subsurface at this property and 604 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 11 May 2, 2019
the location hydraulically upgradient of the Site, this facility may impact the subsurface at the Site and is considered a REC for the Site. • R NU IT Cleaners, 200 East 2nd Avenue: This facility is located approximately 710 feet to the northwest of the Site. According to EnviroStor, this is an actively operating dry-cleaning facility in business since 1985. The business currently operates under the name of Y.S. One-Hour Martinizing. The cleanup status is listed as “Refer: Other Agency as of 7/29/1994.” No other information is available on EnviroStor. Based on the cross-gradient location of this facility with the respect to the groundwater flow direction, this facility is not considered a REC for the Site. • Sunrise Cleaners, 233 Baldwin Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401: This facility is located approximately 1,600 feet to the northwest of the Site. Dry-cleaning operations at this facility began in the late 1960s and PCE was reportedly used as part of daily operations. No major violations or reports of releases or spills have been reported for this facility. The cleanup status is listed as “Refer: Other Agency as of 7/29/1994.” According to GeoTracker this facility is currently being remediated. Based on the cross-gradient location of this facility with the respect to the groundwater flow direction, this facility is not considered a REC for the Site. 605 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 12 May 2, 2019

5. ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD SOURCES
Local and state agencies were also contacted by Environmental Support Services (ESS) for available current or previous documentation of hazardous materials use, storage, and/or unauthorized releases that may have impacted the Site. Section 1.1 of this Phase I ESA detailed the additional environmental record sources searched. The requested information and subsequent information received from the agencies is summarized below and provided in Appendix C.

5.1 County of San Mateo County Health Services Agency
ESS requested records concerning the utilization, manufacture, storage and/or discharge of hazardous materials/waste, and any information concerning previous or ongoing Site investigations or remediation pertaining to hazardous materials or waste from the CSMHSA on April 1, 2019. ESS received a response on April 12, 2019 from CSMHSA indicating that the department did have records for the Site.

The findings of the records reviewed for the two gas stations formerly located on the Site are consistent with information presented in EKI’s Phase I Preliminary ESA Update Report dated December 1998 (Section 3.7). Hazardous Materials Business Plan and Hazardous Waste Small Quantity Generator violations reviewed for the Site are associated with documentation and recordkeeping activities. These violations are not associated with releases or potential releases of hazardous materials to the Site soil or groundwater.

5.2 Department of Toxic Substances Control – Region 2
According to ESS, previous contacts with the DTSC have disclosed that this office only collects and stores information (such as treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste) concerning sites which have existing businesses, industries, etc. present. On April 1, 2019, ESS requested files/information concerning the Site. On April 2, 2019, Ms. Reina Lopez of the DTSC informed ESS no records were found for the Site.

5.3 San Mateo Fire Department – Fire Prevention
ESS requested file information from the Public Records Section of the San Mateo Fire Department – Fire Prevention on April 1, 2019. On April 8, 2019 ESS was informed by Ms. Patrice Olds of the City of San Mateo Fire Department – Fire Prevention that this department did not have records for the Site; she indicated that the lead agency for sites in San Mateo would be the CSMHSA.

5.4 Cal Fire – Office of the State Fire Marshall
On April 1, 2019, ESS requested that the Public Records Section with Cal Fire check their records concerning the storage of hazardous materials/waste, pipelines, and USTs with regards to the Site. On April 10, 2019, Ms. Anne Henigan of Cal Fire indicated her department did have records for the Site.

Records reviewed included a cleanup report for a diesel spill in the gutter at 222 East 4th Avenue on June 15, 2017. The diesel in the gutter was contained using an absorption pad. The absorption pad containing the spilled diesel was removed from the gutter and properly disposed. 606 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 13 May 2, 2019

5.5 City of San Mateo Public Works Department
On April 1, 2019, ESS requested the City of San Mateo’s Public Works Department check their records for information relating to industrial waste discharge permits or violations for the Site.

On April 2, 2019, Mr. Chris Ortega of that department indicated that his department did have records for the Site.

Records reviewed included a Waste Discharge Permit for 222 East 4th Avenue issued on January 1, 2016 for the 5,000 gallon grease interceptor discharge. The Public Works Department indicated no illicit discharges were found in the past 10 years for the Site.

5.6 City of San Mateo Building Department
On April 1, 2019, ESS requested the City of San Mateo Building Department search for building permits and certificates of occupancy for the Site. On April 5, 2019, the City of San Mateo’s Building Department provided documents for the Site. Those records encompassed building permits and inspection records as well as building project information sheets and correspondences that discussed various construction projects that occurred onsite, including new building construction, interior improvements, cooling tower installation, roof improvements, sign and banner installations, demolition of existing site improvements/building, shoring and grading, temporary power pole installation, building foundation, superstructure construction, fire sprinkler system installation, fire alarm system installation, electrical/mechanical/plumbing improvements, and tenant improvements.

5.7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District
ESS requested files from the BAAQMD on April 1, 2019 concerning active, inactive, and old files concerning the Site. Ms. Michelle Reed of the Public Records department indicated on April 2, 2019 that her department had no records for the Site.

5.8 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Region ESS requested files regarding the Site on April 1, 2019 with the RWQCB. Ms. Melinda Wong of the RWQCB indicated on April 2, 2019 that her department had records for the Site and that all available records should be in the State of California, SWRCB GeoTracker database.

5.9 United States Environmental Protection Agency Enforcement and Compliance History Online Database
Geosyntec visited the EPA ECHO database on April 16, 2019 to review records related to compliance, releases, and other information for facilities handling hazardous materials. The Site was listed as Draeger’s at 200 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA 94401 with Facility Registry Service ID 110065610191. No enforcement and compliance records were listed for the Site.

5.10 State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Website
Geosyntec visited the State of California DOGGR website (https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close) on April 15, 2019 to obtain 607 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 14 May 2, 2019
information about past or present oil, gas, or geothermal wells in the vicinity of the Site. No wells were identified within 0.25 miles of the Site.

5.11 State of California, DTSC, EnviroStor Database
Geosyntec reviewed the State of California, DTSC EnviroStor database for additional information regarding the Site and adjacent properties. The Site was not identified in the database. Records were found for facilities in the vicinity of Site as described in Section 4.2 and in Table 1. Copies of these records are included in Appendix C.

5.12 State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database
Geosyntec reviewed the State of California, SWRCB GeoTracker database for additional information regarding the Site and adjacent properties. The Site was identified in the database as case number T0608178405. The cleanup status is listed as “Completed – Case Closed as of 3/12/1997.” Details for this case are included in the files reviewed in Section 5.1. Records were also found for properties in the vicinity of Site. Many of these properties were also identified in the ERIS report and are summarized in Table 1 and described in Section 4.2. Below are the records for facilities in the vicinity of the Site not identified in the ERIS report that are located hydraulically upgradient or cross-gradient from the Site. Copies of these records are included in Appendix C.
• Rivendell III, LTD, 980 Claremont Street (T0608100612): This facility, located approximately 2,190 feet east of the Site, lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in October 1989. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 3/16/2001. No other information is available.
• Nedwick & Son, 1028 South Claremont Street (T0608100886): This facility, located approximately 2,540 feet southeast of the Site, lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in September 1995. CSMHSA issued a closure letter and summary on February 16, 2007 confirming completion of site investigation and corrective action for the USTs former located at the facility. Two 500-gallon USTs were removed in 1995. According to the information provided, the water quality objectives of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB were satisfied but an unknown quantity of residual impacted soil and/or groundwater remain in the subsurface. CSMHSA must be notified should excavation or development of the property be proposed that may encounter impacted soil and/or groundwater. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 2/16/2007.
• Central Park South Apartments, 31 9th Avenue (T10000011175): This facility, located approximately 1,600 feet south of the Site, lists a release of heating oil to soil reported in October 2017 during removal of a 500-gallon heating oil tank.

Approximately 96 cubic yards of soil was excavated beneath the UST in October 2017. Petroleum concentrations in confirmation soil samples were non-detect for all constituents. CSMHSA issued a letter dated March 30, 2018 confirming the completion of a site investigation and corrective action for the USTs formerly located 608 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 15 May 2, 2019
at the facility. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 3/30/2018.
• The Towers, 20 West 3rd Avenue (T0608101119): This facility, located approximately 1,400 feet west-southwest of the Site, lists a release of diesel and has a status of COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 9/2/1999. No other information is available.
• Private Residence in Hillsborough (T0608100986): This facility, located approximately 2,460 feet west of the Site, lists a release of gasoline to soil reported in March 1998. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 12/19/2001. No other information is available.
• Shell, 94 South El Camino Real (T0608100493): This facility, located approximately 1,770 feet west of the Site, lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in March 1987. The Cleanup Action Report lists free product removal from August 11, 1995 to January 17, 1996 and the facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 10/30/2001. No other information is available. • Peninsula Regent, 1 Baldwin Avenue (T0608100390): This facility, located approximately 1,750 feet west-northwest of the Site, lists a release of gasoline to water reported in February 1987. In a report dated February 10, 1987, Harding Lawson Associates states that a petroleum odor was detected from excavation activities associated with building construction in January 1987. A gasoline service station previously operated at the property and it is believed that USTs were removed when the station ceased operations. Soil samples collected from the excavations detected concentrations of TPH as gasoline and groundwater samples detected concentrations of benzene and xylenes. CSMHSA issued a closure letter dated March 23, 2000 confirming the completion of site investigation and corrective action for the USTs formerly located at the facility. The closure summary indicates approximately 2,000 cubic yards of soil were removed from the facility in January 1987. No other details of cleanup activities are included. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 3/23/2000.

Based on the case closure status of these facilities, these facilities are not considered RECs for the Site.

5.13 Historical Documentation Review

5.13.1 Historical Aerial Photograph Review
As part of this Phase I ESA, an aerial photograph review was conducted to help evaluate past uses of the Site, as well as adjoining properties. The ERIS Aerial Photographs provided Geosyntec with aerial photographs dated 1930, 1941, 1946, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1974, 1982, 1987, 1993, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016. A copy of the aerial photographs package obtained from ERIS is included as Appendix D to this report. The following sections describe conditions at the Site and surrounding areas over time based on aerial photograph interpretations and observations.
609 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 16 May 2, 2019

5.13.1.1 Site
From 1930, the Site appeared to be used for commercial and/or residential purposes. Several buildings and trees can be observed at the Site, including the gas station in the north corner at East 4th Avenue and South B Street.

By 1956, one large building and two gas stations are observed on the Site, one in the north corner and the second one in the south corner at East 5th Avenue and South B Street. By 1968, both gas stations appear to have been replaced with parking lots. The Site appears unchanged through 1993.

By 2005, the Site appears to have one large building occupying the majority of the Site. The building is assumed to be the current building at the Site. The Site appears to be relatively unchanged between 2005 and 2016, representing the current Site conditions at the time of the Site reconnaissance.

5.13.1.2 Surrounding Areas
From 1930, the surrounding area appeared to be commercial and residential with developed roads. The area southwest of the Site appears vegetated with grass and trees. A park appears to be located southwest of the Site. A creek appears to the north of the Site. A rail line is observed to run from northwest to southeast adjacent to the Site.

By 1941, the area south of the Site appears further developed with residential housing. The area north of the Site appears unchanged. The surrounding area in the 1947 aerial imagery appears unchanged.

By 1956, the surrounding area appears fully developed. The road and highway network are observed to be further developed. The neighboring parcel located directly northeast to the Site appears developed with additional structures, appearing to be used for commercial purposes. The 1960 aerial imagery is of poor quality and the surrounding area appears unchanged.

By 1968 and 1974, the area surrounding the Site appears to be developed with multi-story buildings for commercial and residential use. The appearance of these buildings can be observed in the surrounding area west of the Site.

From 1974 to 2016, the surrounding area appears mainly unchanged. Various surrounding buildings appear to have changed or undergone construction. No new buildings or significant changes to the surrounding area were observed from 1974 to 2016.

5.13.2 Historical Topographic Map Review
A historical topographic map review was conducted to evaluate past uses of the Site, as well as adjoining properties. The ERIS Historical Topographic Map Report provided Geosyntec with topographic maps (and target quadrangle) dated 1896, 1899, 1915, 1939, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, 1997, and 2015. A copy of the topographic map package is included as Appendix E to this report. The following sections describe conditions at the Site and surrounding areas over time based on topographic map interpretations and observations. 610 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 17 May 2, 2019

5.13.2.1 Site
From 1896 to 1915, the Site was depicted as developed land, with a few structures within the Site. During this period, the Site appears to remain unchanged.

The 1939, 1947, 1949, 1956, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1993, 1997, and 2015 topographic maps do not appear to contain building detail within the Site area. Since the topographic maps do not contain details on the Site, the conditions of the Site cannot be observed and concluded.

5.13.2.2 Surrounding Areas
In 1896, the area surrounding the Site appeared to be slightly developed with a basic local road network and small residential/commercial structures in the vicinity, primarily centered adjacent to the regional rail line. The rail line runs northwest to southeast adjacent to the Site. The City of Burlingame is depicted approximately 1.5 miles to the northwest of the Site and marshland approximately 0.75 mile to the northeast from the Site, which is within the City of San Mateo. A creek is observed approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest of the Site.

By 1939, United States Highway 101 (US-101) appears within 0.5 mile of the Site, to the northeast, running northwest to southeast. To the north, the marshland adjacent to the San Francisco Bay shoreline appears to have been filled in and developed, with roads extending throughout. Several schools and churches appear developed to the northwest of the Site. The rail line appears to be located to the east of the Site. The area approximately 1 mile southwest of the Site appears further developed with residential housing and a local road network.

By 1947, a station appears to the northeast of the Site. A hospital is located northwest of the Site.

The local gridded road network within the city of San Mateo has been developed further along the San Francisco Bay. Approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Site, the area around Coyote Point has been developed further with buildings, a yacht harbor, and a municipal golf course. A toll road has been constructed to connect to the US-101. Approximately 1.25 miles from the Site, the Bay Meadows Airport and Bay Meadows Race Track is identified. The 1949 topographic map remains relatively unchanged.

By 1956, the exit to the City of San Mateo from US-101 has been upgraded to a clover-leaf structure, with more development shown along the expanded highway. The local road network has expanded further east and south of the Site. The College of San Mateo Campus has been further developed with additional buildings. A substation appears to the south of Cayote Point Yacht Harbor. The Bay Meadows Airport appears to have been developed into the County Fairgrounds.

By 1968, the California Route 92 (CA-92) has been expanded to the south of the Site. More development appears to have occurred along CA-92. The 1973 topographic map remains relatively unchanged.

By 1980, further development is shown along CA-92 and to the north of the Site, within 1.75 miles.

By 1993, the station to the east of the Site no longer appears on the topographic map. The vicinity remains relatively unchanged through 2015. No new buildings or significant changes to 611 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 18 May 2, 2019
the surrounding area were observed from 1993 to 2015; however, those topographic maps exclude building details.

5.13.3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Review
A review of Sanborn® fire insurance maps was conducted to evaluate past uses of the Site and the adjacent area. The ERIS Fire Insurance Map Research Results provided Geosyntec with maps dated 1888, 1891, 1897, 1901, 1908, 1920, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1961, and 1969. A copy of the insurance map package is included in Appendix F to this report. The following sections describe conditions at the Site and the surrounding areas over time based on fire insurance map interpretations and observations.

5.13.3.1 Site
In 1888 and 1891, there appears to be several structures within the Site including five residential dwellings and four sheds.

In 1897, only one shed remains on the Site and it appears there is an outhouse. By 1901, there is one additional residential dwelling and additional structures on the Site. In 1908, the Site appears relatively unchanged. In 1920, one residential unit is no longer present on the Site.

In 1950, one residential unit is left at the Site and two gasoline service stations appear, one in the north corner at East 4th Avenue and South B Street and one in the south corner at East 5th Avenue and South B Street. In 1953, a parking lot and reinforced concrete steel yard appear to the west of the two gasoline service stations. In 1956, there are no residential units left at the Site. In 1969, the gasoline service station in the south corner at East 5th Avenue and South B Street has been replaced by a parking lot.

5.13.3.2 Surrounding Areas
In 1888, the area surrounding the Site appeared to be slightly developed with commercial and residential properties. The 1888 fire insurance map appears partially incomplete for the area south of 5th Avenue. Directly northwest of the Site is a church and a school. A railroad station/tracks are located directly northeast of the Site. In the general vicinity of the Site are saloons, restaurants, hotels, a library, a plumbing business, lumber yards, wood and coal yard, and a grocery store. The general vicinity remains unchanged through 1891.

The 1901 fire insurance map appears partially incomplete for the area south of 5th Avenue. In 1901, the general vicinity appears consistent with 1888 and 1891, with the exception of a light and power company located northeast to the Site and a drug store to the northwest.

The 1908 fire insurance map provides imagery for the area south of 5th Avenue; in the vicinity are residential units, private grounds, a skating rink, and a planing mill. The 1920 fire insurance map is poor quality and therefore inconclusive.

In 1950, the general vicinity appears to have been built up further with various residential (apartment buildings) and commercial properties. The neighboring building on the southeastern corner of South B Street and 4th Avenue is an auto service shop. The general vicinity includes a theatre, bowling alley, auto parking, auto sales and service shop, the Pacific Greyhound Stage Depot, a bank, post office, paint shop, and police station. 612 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 19 May 2, 2019
In 1953, the property adjacent to the Site on the east is occupied by a paint, glass, and wallpaper company. To the north of the Site, auto parking is located along 4th Avenue. The general vicinity otherwise appears unchanged.

In 1956, the area directly west of the Site along San Mateo Drive is further developed with commercial properties, inclusive of a parking lot. The general vicinity otherwise appears unchanged. No additional developments or significant changes to the surrounding area were observed from 1956 to 1969; however, some of the building details are obscured from view during those years.

5.13.4 City Directory Review
Historical City Directory listings were obtained from ERIS for the Site and adjoining properties.

Directories were available and reviewed for the years 1936 through 2018, non-inclusive.

Directories were available for the target street East 4th Avenue and East 5th Avenue as described below. A copy of ERIS’s City Directory Report is included as Appendix G to this report.

5.13.4.1 Site
Geosyntec reviewed the City Directory listings for the Site:
• 1936: Davis Glen; and McNamara Bessie.
• 1939: Eldredge C A; and Bauer Lester.
• 1942: Eldredge.
• 1949-77: No listings.
• 1982: Henn Ralph W.
• 1987-96: No listings.
• 2001-12: Draeger’s Supermarket; and Viognier Restaurant. • 2018: Draeger’s Supermarket; USA Doors Gates Services; and Viognier Restaurant.

It appears the ERIS City Directory listings do not include all historical listings and addresses for the Site. According to the Closure Report for Draeger’s (EKI, 1996), the Site land use history detailed in the City Directory includes:
400 South B Street (northeast corner)
• CalPet Services Station (1927).
• Andy’s Service Station (1932, 1941).
• Pattison and Sollers Service Station (1947).
• Ray’s Texaco Service (1956, 1961, 1966).
• Mattner Gulf Service (1971).
• Beneficial Finance Co. (1977).
613 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 20 May 2, 2019
446 South B Street (southeast corner)
• Anderson’s Shell Service (1956, 1961, 1966).
200 East 4th Avenue
• Levy Brothers Department Store (1956, 1961, 1966, 1971, 1977). 204 East 4th Avenue
• Residence (1932, 1941).

5.13.4.2 Surrounding Areas
Several nearby addresses were identified in the City Directory from approximately 1936 through 2018, non-inclusive.

Listings indicated surrounding areas are occupied for residential and commercial use. Listings included the following businesses: schools, realty, banks, offices, tailors, salons, barbers, clothing stores, grocers, and general markets; fast food, cafes, and restaurants; carpet store, vacuum cleaner store, laundry, and shoe store/repair; and employment agencies, city agencies, contractors, travel agencies, and telecommunications. Only addresses with businesses that have operated for an extended period and may have handled hazardous materials products were noted below:
137 East 4th Avenue
• 2012-2018: Instyle Salon (salon).
165 East 4th Avenue
• 1996-2006: CA Beauty Center (beauty school).
211 East 4th Avenue
• 1949-1950: Casey Auto Repair.
213 East 4th Avenue
• 1949-1950: Bayer Auto Electric.
215 East 4th Avenue
• 1991: Cleaner Mark DC (cleaners).
• 1942: SM Motor Sales.
153 East 5th Avenue
• 1970: Robert and Suzanne Hairstyles (hair salon).
• 1977-1991: Hair Design Perry (hair salon).
614 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 21 May 2, 2019
• 1953-2006: 5th Avenue Hair Design (hair salon).
• 2012-2018: Renew Salon (salon).
155 East 5th Avenue
• 2006-2012: Face and Body Studio (spa).
• 2018: Le Juin Day Spa and Clinic (spa).
300 East 5th Avenue
• 2012: AAA Vacuum and Sewing (appliance service and repair). 308 East 5th Avenue
• 1961: Gold Star Laundry (laundry).

In general, review of the historical city directories for nearby properties confirmed the findings of the environmental records review and historical documentation review. The information provided in the City Directory report did not reveal additional information pertaining to potential environmental conditions at the Site.
615 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 22 May 2, 2019

6. SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Ms. Danielle Kerper of Geosyntec performed a reconnaissance of the Site on April 8, 2019 to assess the environmental conditions on and around the Site. The property owner, Mr. Richard Draeger, provided access and accompanied Ms. Kerper during the Site reconnaissance.

As part of the Site reconnaissance, Geosyntec looked for evidence of the presence of hazardous substances used, stored, or discarded at and near the Site. Moreover, Geosyntec surveyed the Site for areas of disturbed or discolored soil, suspect equipment that may contain hazardous substances, areas of distressed vegetation, wastewater discharge areas, storage tanks/septic systems, waste management/disposal areas, lagoons, pits, sumps, surface water management areas, stained surfaces, etc.

A summary of the Site reconnaissance is provided in Table 2 below, and locations of pertinent findings are depicted in Figure 2. Photographs of pertinent findings and Site features observed during the reconnaissance are provided in Appendix H.

Table 2: Summary of Site Reconnaissance
Feature or Condition Description
General Site Setting
Current and Former Property
Usage
200-222 East 4th Avenue is currently zoned for commercial use. The current Site building was constructed in 1996-1997 and is used as a grocery retail store and restaurant. The Site was previously occupied by two gasoline stations and a department store as described in Section 3.7.

Onsite Structures The Site building occupies the majority of the Site with a paved parking area located on the western portion of the Site. The building consists of two stories with a mezzanine and subterranean parking garage. The building is approximately 65,608 ft2
. The subterranean parking garage is
approximately 47,365 ft2
, the ground floor is approximately 35,400 ft2, the
mezzanine is approximately 860 ft2
, and the second floor is approximately
29,348 ft2
. As built-drawings provided by Lane are included in
Appendix A.

Roads and Parking Areas 200-222 East 4th Avenue is accessed via on-street parking along East 4th Avenue, South B Street, and East 5th Avenue. The western portion of the Site includes designated paved parking spaces, as well as parking along South Ellsworth Avenue. Parking is also provided in the subterranean parking garage of the building. The building is surrounded by various hardscape including brick and concrete. There are vegetated spaces and trees located along all sides of the building.

Potable Water Supply Potable water is supplied to the Site by the California Water Service, the local water provider for San Mateo.

Sewage Disposal or Septic
Systems
Sewage disposal is to the City of San Mateo sanitary sewer at the Site.

Interior and Exterior Observations
Underground Storage Tanks No USTs were observed to be present at the Site.

Aboveground Storage Tanks
(ASTs)
No ASTs were observed to be present at the Site. However, the backup generator contains a diesel tank within the generator. No staining was observed around the backup generator.
616 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 23 May 2, 2019
Feature or Condition Description
Odors No odors were detected at the Site.

Hazardous Substances or
Petroleum Products
Various small quantities of chemicals were observed in the subterranean parking garage, on the ground floor in the food preparation areas, in the loading dock area, and on the second floor. Chemicals were stored in open shelving units and cabinets. No staining was observed on the floor around the shelving units. Observed chemicals included janitorial supplies consisting of thinners (Klean Strip®, Sunny Side®, JASCO®), sealants (Flex Seal®, Henry Roof Leak Patch®, Through the Roof®), oils (WD40®), wood finishes/stains (Min-Wax Pre-Strain®, Dura Seal Polyurethane®, Tung Oil Finish®, Bruce Wood Cleaner®, Arbor Coat®), lubricants (Tri-Low Lubricant®), cleaners (Bravo Heavy Duty Low Odor Stripper®, Ultra High Speed Floor Finish®, Liquid Silver Pre-Soak®, Wrights Copper Cream®, Plain Mean Cleaner®, Sani-Blue®, Stero Clor®, Wiz®, Sani-Clean 2®, Magic Rinse SC®, Aqua Clear®, Neutral Floor Cleaner®, Goo Gone®) soaps, detergents, and paints.

Boxes of refrigerant (National Refrigerant 507®) were observed next to the refrigeration system on the second floor. Tanks observed in the system contain reserve refrigerant for times of high demand.

A back up emergency generator is present in the southwestern corner of the subterranean parking garage. The generator contains an aboveground diesel fuel tank used to power the generator. Universal waste (batteries and light bulbs) and hazardous waste are stored in designated areas in the loading dock near the compactors. A below-grade grease interceptor is located in the southeastern corner of the loading dock. Mr. Draeger indicated the grease interceptor collects grease from the kitchens located in the grocery store and restaurant and that it is pumped out monthly (Photographs 3, 4, 12, and 13, Appendix A).

Drums and Containers (>5
gallons)
There were no drums and containers greater than 5 gallons in volume observed at the Site.

Unidentified
Substances/Containers
There were no unidentified substances or containers observed during the Site walk.

Transformers A public utility-owned transformer is located on the western side of the building next to the ramp down to the parking garage. No labels regarding PCB content or staining at the base of the transformer was observed (Photograph 8, Appendix A).

Pools of Liquids No pools of liquid were observed at the Site.

Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons (onsite
and adjoining)
Stormwater from the loading dock area and parking garage ramp drain to a below-grade sand/oil separator and sump pump in the parking garage. The sand/oil separator is used to filter stormwater prior to discharge to the storm drain system. According to the as-built drawings, the sump pump lifts the water to a storm drain at the ground floor.

Stained Soil or Pavement Stained concrete was observed in multiple locations of the subterranean parking garage. The majority of the stains in the parking garage appear to be from oil drips from parked cars. White crust and staining on the walls of the basement appear to be associated with moisture. One stain on the ground in the parking garage appeared to be from releases during fire sprinkler system testing. (Photographs 15 and 16, Appendix A).

Stressed Vegetation No stressed vegetation was observed at the Site.

Solid Waste Solid waste is stored in the loading dock.
617 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 24 May 2, 2019
Feature or Condition Description
Wastewater or Storm Water
Discharge
There were many floor drains observed throughout the building, including all food preparation areas, the restrooms, and the loading dock. According to Mr. Draeger, all floor drains discharge to the municipal sewer. The grease interceptor is also connected to the municipal sewer.

The trench drains outside of both loading dock doors and at the base of the ramp to the subterranean parking garage direct stormwater to a below-grade sand/oil separator and sump pump in the parking garage. The sand/oil separator is used to filter stormwater prior to discharge to the storm drain system. According to Mr. Draeger, the sand/oil separator has not been pumped out. According to the as-built drawings, the sump pump lifts the water to a storm drain at the ground floor (Photographs 5, 9, 10, and 11, Appendix A).

Additionally, the parking area on the western portion of the Site is graded to drain stormwater into three storm drains, which reportedly direct stormwater to the municipal stormwater collection system. There are also municipal storm drains along East 5th Avenue and South B Street (Photograph 7, Appendix A).

Wells No wells were observed at the Site.
618 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 25 May 2, 2019

7. INTERVIEWS

7.1 Interview with Owner
Mr. Richard Draeger, the property owner for 200-222 East 4th Avenue, completed a Phase 1 Site Assessment Questionnaire for the property (Appendix I). In the Questionnaire, Mr. Draeger indicated that there are household cleaners on the sales floor, but no other industrial areas or hazardous materials and hazardous waste storage areas. Mr. Draeger indicated there is a grease interceptor that is pumped out monthly, an emergency generator powered by diesel, and floor drains in the food preparation areas. Mr. Draeger indicated that Recology provides solid waste and recycling pickup, including cardboard, paper, and aluminum. Mr. Draeger indicated that Phase I and Phase II ESAs were previously performed for the Site.

During the in-person interview, Mr. Draeger also described the presence of a sump pump in the subterranean parking garage for pumping stormwater to the storm drain system.

7.2 Interview with Occupant
Mr. Richard Draeger is the property owner and owns the grocery store on the Site.

7.3 Interview with Local Government Officials
Based on the information obtained via online regulatory databases, including GeoTracker and EnviroStor, interviews with local government officials were not deemed necessary, and therefore, none were conducted.

7.4 Interview with Others
No other individuals were interviewed as part of this effort. 619 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 26 May 2, 2019

8. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
We have performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of the Standard of the Site located at 200-222 East 4th Avenue in San Mateo, California. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 8.5, Data Gaps, of this report.

8.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions
The findings revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the Site, with the exception of the following:
• Potential Groundwater Impacts from Offsite Sources: A search by ERIS of environmental facilities within the recommended ASTM search radius of the Site resulted in the identification of offsite facilities that either have operations that use chlorinated solvents or have open remediation cases for chlorinated solvents (primarily PCE and its breakdown products) in the vicinity of the Site. This facility includes New A-1 Cleaners at 17 East 4th Avenue. This facility is located approximately 965 feet to the southwest of the Site. Review of documents indicates that dry-cleaning operations using PCE were conducted at this facility from approximately 1987 to 2008 and that PCE was detected in soil and groundwater during an investigation conducted near this facility. These findings suggest that this facility represents a potential source for PCE contamination in the neighborhood.

CSMHSA requested voluntary soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the facility to determine if the facility released PCE to soil and groundwater. It does not appear the facility has prepared a work plan to conduct soil and groundwater sampling since no other information is available on GeoTracker as of the date of preparation of this Phase I ESA. Based on the lack of information regarding contamination in the subsurface at this property and the location hydraulically upgradient of the Site, the facility may impact the subsurface at the Site and is considered a REC for the Site.
• Vapor Encroachment Conditions at the Site: Based on review of files for Wardrobe Cleaners/Park’s Wardrobe Cleaners at 333/335/344 East 4th Avenue, located approximately 200 feet to the northeast of the Site, soil and groundwater sampling at the facility identified detections of PCE and its breakdown products at concentrations above the ESLs. CSMHSA requested a work plan to evaluate the VOC concentrations in groundwater, soil, and soil vapor. On March 29, 2019, CSS Environmental Services issued a work plan to collect and analyze soil vapor and groundwater samples at Wardrobe Cleaners. This facility is located downgradient to the Site with respect to groundwater flow direction; however, there is a potential that vapors from the VOCs associated with this facility may migrate and potentially pose a vapor encroachment condition at the Site. Based on the open status of the facility and distance from the Site, there is potential for the releases from this facility to have impacted the subsurface at the Site; therefore, this facility is considered a REC for the Site.
620 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 27 May 2, 2019

8.2 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
The findings revealed no evidence of HRECs in connection with the property, with the exception of the following:
• Soil Impacts from Past Operations: USTs and hydraulic lifts associated with two former gasoline service stations at the Site were removed in the last 1980s and 1990s.

Petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil was encountered and removed during excavation for the below-grade parking structure for the current building in 1996.

Confirmation sampling indicated that no petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in soil and no petroleum hydrocarbons or VOCs were identified in groundwater following excavation of affected soils. A closure letter issued by the SMCEHS indicates that the Site investigation for impacted soils from past operations at the Site is complete and that no further investigation and/or remediation based on the results of the excavation activities and confirmation sampling. Based on available information and current land use, SMCEHS concluded that no further action related to soils is required. Based on the information reviewed regarding the past operations at the Site, Geosyntec considers these past operations an HREC.

8.3 Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
This assessment did not identify any CRECs in connection with the Site.

8.4 De Minimis Conditions
Based on current and historical activities at the Site and in the vicinity of the Site, de minimis conditions were identified. De minimis conditions are environmental conditions which generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not RECs. De minimis conditions identified to date in relation to the Site are described below:
• Multiple locations were observed with surficial oil staining on the concrete in the subterranean parking garage of the building. It appears this staining originates from parked cars. Therefore this represents a de minimis condition for the Site.

8.5 Data Gaps
In accordance with the Standard, this section documents data gaps in the information obtained and reviewed as part of this Phase I ESA and discusses the associated significance. A data gap is defined in the Standard as being “… a lack of or inability to obtain information required by this practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information.” No data gaps have been identified.

8.6 Exceptions and Deviations
In performance of this Phase I ESA, Geosyntec has not identified potential exceptions or deviations from the Standard of practice except where noted. 621 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 28 May 2, 2019

8.7 Signature by Environmental Professionals
I declare, that to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR.

I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Site. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

Signed by: Kimberly Brandt, P.G., C.Hg.

Senior Geologist

8.8 Qualifications
This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed by Ms. Danielle Kerper, P.G. and Ms. Kimberly Brandt, P.G., C.Hg. Ms. Brandt is an Environmental Professional as defined by the Standard.
622 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 29 May 2, 2019

9. NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
In accordance with Geosyntec’s scope of work for this project, “non-scope considerations,” as defined in the Standard were not evaluated. These are environmental issues including asbestoscontaining building materials, biological agents, cultural and historic resources, ecological resources, endangered species, health and safety, industrial hygiene, lead-based paint, lead in drinking water, mold, radon, regulatory compliance, and wetlands that are beyond the scope of a traditional Phase I ESA.
623 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA 30 May 2, 2019

10. REFERENCES
ASTM International. 2013. Standard E1527 13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process.

Antea Group. 2018. Third Quarter 2017 Semi-Annual Monitoring Report, 76 Service Station No. 6390, 402 South Delaware Street, Santa Mateo, California. 12 January.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database. Website:
http://www.EnviroStor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board GeoTracker Database. Website:
http://GeoTracker.swrcb.ca.gov/map/.

County of San Mateo Health Service Agency Environmental Health Services Division (CSMHSA). 1997. Case Closure of Non-LUFT/Surface Soils Site Located at 200 E. 4th Street, San Mateo, California. 12 March.

Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 – Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin. 27 February.

Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS). 2018. Database Report, 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California. Order No. 20190327219.

ERIS. 2019a. Database Report – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 29 March.

ERIS. 2019b. Physical Setting Report – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 27 March.

ERIS. 2019c. Historical Aerial Report – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 29 March.

ERIS. 2019d. Topographic Map Research Results – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 27 March.

ERIS. 2019e. Fire Insurance Map Research Results – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 27 March.

ERIS. 2019f. Historical Directory Report – 200-222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California; Order Number 20190327219. 1 April.

Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI). 1996. Closure Report for Property Located at 200 East Fourth Avenue in San Mateo, California (EKI940067.02). 27 June.

EKI. 1998. Phase I Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment Update for Property Located at 222 East Fourth Avenue, San Mateo, California. December.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2019. Environmental Screening Levels. January.

United States Geological Society (USGS). 2015. Quadrangle: San Mateo, California. 624 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA
TABLES
625 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 1 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Draeger’s Market (Site)
Draeger’s Supermarkets, Inc.

AFC Sushi @ Draegers
222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo,
CA 94401
1/102-109
2/110-112 --

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO
CUPA

FINDS/FRS
HAZNET

RCRA NON GEN

DELISTED
COUNTY
LUST
Numerous violations from the County of San Mateo Health Services Agency (CSMHSA) for documentation and labeling requirements.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000383296).

The Site is listed in the HAZNET database under Generator EPA ID CAC001108152 for producing 2.0045 tons of polychlorinated biphenyls and material containing PCBs in 1996. The source of the PCBs is likely the hydraulic lift associated with former operations at the Site. No other information is available.

Two gasoline service stations operated at the Site, one as early as 1929 at the north corner (East 4th Avenue and South B Street) and one at the east corner (South B Street and East 5th Avenue) by 1950. The Levi Brothers leased the Site in 1951, built a department store, and operated the business until 1985. By 1969, the service station in the east corner at South B Street and East 5th Avenue had been replaced by a parking lot. By 1985, the service station in the north corner at East 4th Avenue and South B Street had been replaced by a paved parking lot. USTs associated with the former gasoline service station at the north corner of the Site (East 4th Avenue and South B Street) were removed in 1988. Soil sampling indicated a low concentration of TRPH at 60 mg/kg in the area of the excavation. Approximately 335 tons of soil associated with UST removal activities was excavated. In 1993, one hydraulic lift associated with the former gasoline service station at the east corner of the Site (East 5th Avenue and South B Street) was removed. TPH concentrations were detected in soil around the excavation and approximately 20 cubic yards were removed. Sampling performed at the Site in 1994 indicated petroleum hydrocarbon impacts in soil and groundwater, as well as a detection of lead in one groundwater sample. EKI performed a Phase II ESA in 1995. Results from sampling activities indicated low concentrations of unidentified petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and water samples.
626 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 2 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Draeger’s Market (Site)
Draeger’s Supermarkets, Inc.

AFC Sushi @ Draegers
222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo,
CA 94401
1/102-109
2/110-112 --

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO
CUPA

FINDS/FRS
HAZNET

RCRA NON GEN

DELISTED
COUNTY
LUST
In 1996, the Levy Brothers Department Store was demolished, and construction began on the Draeger’s Market building. Soil impacted by petroleum hydrocarbons were encountered in the north corner of the Site (East 4th Avenue and South B Street) during excavation for the below-grade parking structure. Impacted soil was excavated and confirmation sampling did not identify the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons that would warrant further investigative or remedial action. In addition, no petroleum hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds were identified in groundwater at the Site.

CSMHSA issued a closure letter in 1997 stating that the site investigation for the impacted surface soils from past operations at the site is complete. Based on available information, including current land use, no further action related to the surface soils is required.

Based on the information reviewed regarding the past operations at the Site, the impacts from past operations are considered an HREC.
1X B Street Partnership
400 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94063
3/112-113 14.19ft North HIST MANIFEST
HAZNET
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Talbots Cyclery of San Mateo Inc
dba Talbot’s Cyclery
415 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94401
4/114 30.73ft NNE FINDS/FRS

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000422172). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Beiser Survivor Trust dated Feb 17,
2010, Bruce Beiser, Trustee
401 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94401
5/115 31.66ft North HAZNET No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Talbots
445 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94401
6/116 32.27ft NE HAZNET No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Lorenzo Frescat
225 E 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
7/118 53.44ft NNW HAZNET No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Mark J Cleaner DC
215 E 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
9/121 55.30ft WNW HAZNET

HIST MANIFEST
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
627 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 3 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Wheel Works #122149
Wheel Works #8216
Howard Tire
521 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94401
10/122-128 116.27ft ESE

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO LOP

RCRA NON GEN
Numerous violations issued from CSMHSA are included in the ERIS report, but none related to spilled material.

A leaking UST is noted with case type indicated as soil only. The status is listed as Case Closed and no other information is available.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000365225).

Based on listed contamination only in soil and closure status, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC. 628 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 4 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Wardrobe Cleaners
Park’s Wardrobe Cleaners
344 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
333 E 4th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
335 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
333 and 335 East 4th Avenue
11/129
12/130
14/131-137
21/148
121.09ft NNE
130.39ft NNE
219.16ft NNE
296.34ft NNE

ENVIROSTOR

EMISSIONS

DRYCLEANERS
FED

DRYCLEANERS

RCRA NON GEN

CLEANUP SITES
Dry cleaning operations at this property (Envirostor ID 41720094) began in 1995. The facility currently located at 335 E. 4th Avenue, but was located at 333 E 4th Avenue sometime prior to 1995. Dry cleaning operations included daily PCE use according to a DTSC facility screening form dated 15 September 2003. No major violations or reports of releases or spills have been reported for this facility. According to a memo dated 15 April 2005, the facility owner indicated that dry cleaning operations occurred offsite and that no hazardous substances were stored or generated onsite. DTSC issued a No Action Determination in April 2005 on the basis that the likelihood of release at this property based on past uses is minimal. However, the GeoTracker listing (ID T10000009149) indicates that PCE detected in groundwater downgradient of this facility at a fuel leak case led to an investigation of dry cleaning facilities. According to the Regulatory Activities section, CSMHSA requested a work plan to assess soil and groundwater to determine if solvent releases at the cleaners was responsible for the solvents in the groundwater of the surrounding neighborhood. According to a letter dated 14 July 2016 by CSS Environmental Services, Inc., the results of voluntary soil and groundwater sampling at the property indicated a mix of VOCs at the property, including PCE and PCE breakdown products at very low concentrations. A signed Remedial Action Agreement dated 11 October 2018 states that a discharge of PCE appears to have occurred at the property. A letter dated 4 February 2019 from CSMHSA requests a workplan to evaluate the VOC concentrations in groundwater, soil, and soil vapor to be submitted. The property is listed as OPEN - SITE ASSESSMENT AS OF 10/4/2018.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000292758).

This facility is located cross-gradient to the Site with respect to groundwater flow direction; however, the facility may potentially pose a vapor intrusion risk to the Site.

Based on the open status of the facility and distance from the Site, there is potential for this listing to have impacted the subsurface at the Site, therefore, this facility is considered a REC for the Site.

Taqueria Los Primos
376 Ellsworth, San Mateo, CA
94401
13/131 137.86ft West SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Pizza My Heart San Mateo
140 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
15/138
18/142
235.46ft WSW
268.26ft WSW

SANMATEO
CUPA

CERS HAZ
Numerous violations issued from CSMHSA, but none related to spilled material. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC. 629 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 5 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Gramercy on the Park Condos
555 Laurel Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
16/139 259.22ft South EMISSIONS No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Union Pacific Property
5th Avenue and S. Railroad Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
17/141 263.56ft ENE CLEANUP SITES
This facility (GeoTracker ID T10000009003) is currently used as a storage yard for lumber and construction debris. A Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Assessment Report dated 17 July 1997 by Subsurface Consultants, Inc. states that due to historical facility use at the property and the presence of an adjacent electrical substation since the 1950s, soil and groundwater sampling was conducted in June 1997. Sampling results from the upper two feet of soil at the property indicate relatively low concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. Groundwater was not found to be impacted.

The status of the property is listed as INFORMATIONAL ITEM AS OF 7/25/1997 Based on minimal extent of petroleum hydrocarbon impacts to the soil only, there is low potential for this property to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

Public Chargers
311 S Ellsworth Avenue, San Mateo,
CA 94401
19/147 278.12ft
WNW ALT FUELS No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Howard Tire
521 B, San Mateo, CA 94402 20/147 294.61ft ESE LUST
Howard Tire (T0608100272): The potential media of concern listed for this facility is soil. Listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 4/20/1990. No other information available on GeoTracker.

Based on listed contamination only in soil and closure status, there is low potential for this property to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

PG&E: Beresford Substation
South Claremont Street, Southeast of
East 5th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
22/149 305.76ft ENE CERS HAZ
In 2017 a release of PCB-oil occurred. PG&E excavated the PCB-oil impacted soil and on 18 September 2017, a soil confirmation sample was from the excavation. The PCB concentration in the soil sample was18.6 parts per million (ppm). CSMHSA reviewed the data from PG&E cleanup.

Based on the confirmation sample results, there is a low potential for this property to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

Gyu Kaku
329 Ellsworth, San Mateo, CA
94402
23/153 305.79ft WNW SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
630 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 6 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Downtown Central Parking Garage
315 Ellsworth, San Mateo, CA
94403
24/153 348.66ft WNW SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

San Mateo Artistic Iron Works
317 6th Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
25/154-157 392.87ft ESE

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO
CUPA
Numerous violations issued from CSMHSA, but none related to spilled material. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

European Car Care
316 6th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 26/158-163 407.35ft ESE

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
Numerous violations issued from CSMHSA, but none related to spilled material. As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000354407). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Kelly Moore Paint Co
Good Year Tire Store, Former
Kelly Moore Paint Co, Inc.
616 South B Street, San Mateo, CA
94401
27/164-168
40/188
409.51ft SE
540.9ft SE

CERS HAZ

DELISTED
COUNTY

RCRA NON GEN
LUST
This facility (GeoTracker ID T0608166129) lists a release of Stoddard solvent/mineral spirits/distillates to soil. Excavation began in 1992. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 6/24/1998. No other information is available.

There are numerous violations listed from CSMHSA for documentation requirements.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000333634).

Based on the closure status there is low potential for this property to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

Aaron Brother #221
Aaron Brothers #0221
180 3rd Avenue, San Mateo, CA
94401
29/170 421.20ft WNW

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000407516). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Walgreens #3296
Walgreens 3296
191 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
30/171-176 430.61ft WNW

CERS HAZ

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA CESQG
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000324266). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Ritz Camera
150 3rd, San Mateo, CA 94402 33/182 466.75ft WNW SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Ken Griffin Auto
612 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94402 35/185 470.24ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
631 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 7 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
The Stratford
601 Laurel Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
37/186 491.26ft SSE

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000413475). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Pacific Performance
608 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94401 38/187 496.06ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Stallings Painting
628 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94402 39/187 508.63ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Lazertouch Inc
44 E Fourth Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
47/200 629.40ft WSW RCRA SQG
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAD983672270). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Rubio’s Restaurants Inc. Store 265
38 E 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 50/204 648.36ft WSE DELISTED HAZ No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Deiters German Car Repair Inc
309 7th, San Mateo, CA 94401 52/205 655.02ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Peninsula Automotive Clinic
Bacey Automotive
317 7th, San Mateo, CA 94401
53/205-206 657.01ft ESE

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000371515). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Palm Avenue Motors Auto Repair
Bch Automotive
Doctor Wrench
Palm Ave Motors Auto Repair
308 7th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
54/207-208 666.40ft SE

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000239830). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Callendar Associates
311 7th, San Mateo, CA 94401 55/209 668.09ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Haag N Haag
Kaffeehaus
92 3rd, San Mateo, CA 94401
60/215 697.64ft West SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
632 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 8 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Lesley Towers LLC
Park Towers
700 Laurel, San Mateo, CA 94401
63/217 731.63ft SSE SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Grape & Grain
227 San Mateo, San Mateo, CA
94401
64/217 731.91ft WNW SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
007 Motorsport
704 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94401 66/218 765.01ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Autotech Motor Service
601 S Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
72/227 776.56ft East RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000045411). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Mbz Solutions
615 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
79/232 806.92ft East SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Autotronics
New Look Auto Body
C3 Car Fix
New Look Auto Body & Paint
609 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
80/233-239 809.49ft East

SANMATEO
CUPA

EMISSIONS

RCRA SQG
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAD982336786). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Tong Lee Auto Service
708 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94402 82/244 814.13ft SE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Chong Qing Ren Jia
Pierre’s Express Chang Chinese
211 San Mateo, San Mateo, CA
94401
83/244-245 814.47ft WNW SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Auto Tech Motor Services
601 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
86/246 826.30ft East SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Rubio’s Restaurant Inc. Store 265
38 4th, San Mateo, CA 94401 89/247 835.72ft SW SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
633 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 9 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Eurasian Auto Repair
As Auto Service
Commercial Property
635 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
91/249
95/263-264
854.06ft East
880.98ft East

RCRA NON GEN

SANMATEO
CUPA
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000334760). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Precision Auto Care
639 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
94/262 871.37ft East RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000379201). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Sibbys Cupcakery
716 Railroad, San Mateo, CA 94401 96/264 897.08ft ESE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Draper University
44 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 97/264 897.24ft WSW EMISSIONS No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Izmirian Roofing & Sheet Metal
207 S Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94401
99/287 915.24ft North

SANMATEO
CUPA

SANMATEO LOP
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Eurocraft Auto Body LLC
Eurocraft Autobody
Hansons Technology
649 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
102/288-
293
105/305
922.22ft East
934.31ft East

EMISSIONS

RCRA NON GEN

SANMATEO
CUPA
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000271737). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
634 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 10 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Retail Buildings
33-43 East 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
103/294
112/312
924.41ft WSW
965.20ft WSW

CLEANUP SITES

DELISTED
COUNTY
This facility (GeoTracker ID SL0608122639) lists a release of PCE to soil reported in December 2005. The Environmental Case Closure Summary Report by RRM dated 11 May 2006 stated that two dry cleaners operated at the location from approximately 1954 to 1991. Soil samples collected from borings in December 1995 contained detectable concentrations of PCE ranging from 0.0015 to 0.018 mg/kg. Acetone was also found in the soil samples. Groundwater samples collected from borings installed in January 2006 contained detectable concentrations of PCE, TCE, and cis-1,2-DCE at maximum concentrations of 7.1, 25, and 76 µg/L, respectively. RRM concluded that the primary sources of PCE, TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and acetone were the former dry cleaning operations. Operations ceased in 1991 and all dry cleaning equipment has been removed from the facility. Analytical data for soil and groundwater samples collected from the facility indicate that the spill volume and spill duration was relatively small and groundwater flow rates are relatively low. The low concentrations of PCE indicate that significant degradation of PCE has already occurred. CSMHSA issued a closure letter and summary on 18 May 2007 confirming completion of facility investigation and remedial action activities for the release of PCE at the facility and indicated that the water quality objectives of the SFBRWQCB have been satisfied but an unknown quantity of residual VOC-impacted soil and/or groundwater remain in the subsurface.

The County must be notified should excavation or development of the property be proposed that may encounter impacted soil and/or groundwater. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 5/18/2007.

Based on the closure status, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

C3 Auto Inc
Be-2 Auto Service Inc
Prestige Autoworks
315 8th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
106/306-
307 937.03ft SE

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000408591). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

A Auto Service
Aps Enterprises, Inc
A’s Auto
635–639 S Claremont St, San Mateo,
CA 94402
107/308 940.66ft East

SANMATEO
CUPA

CLEANUP SITES
A’s Auto facility is listed in GeoTracker (ID T10000008978) with a release of waste oil to groundwater and soil in June 1997. According to the following facility history: Waste oil UST was closed in place in December 1988 and soil samples were not collected. In 1997, soil and groundwater samples were collected onsite. UST removed July 1997 and impacted soil removed to approximately 8 ft below ground surface. Facility listed as INFORMATIONAL ITEM AS OF 6/1/2016.

Based on removal of impacted soil, the distance and cross gradient (with respect to groundwater flow) direction from Site, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC. 635 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 11 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Blue Ribbon Cleaners
37 East Third Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
22 2nd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
110/310
166/481-
487
943.08ft WSW
1184.25ft West

DRYCLEANERS

RCRA SQG

SANMATEO
CUPA

DRYCLEANERS

EMISSIONS
FED

DRYCLEANERS

RCRA SQG
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with these facilities (EPA IDs CAD981621493 and CA0000381822).

Based on the lack of documented spills and distance from the Site, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

Peninsula Pump & Equipment Inc
Hansons Mercedes Technology
Hawkins Co
The Hawkins Co
Peninsula Pump & Equipment
713 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
111/311-
312
134/391-
397
948.91ft East
1034.01ft East

SANMATEO
CUPA

EMISSIONS

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with these facilities (EPA IDs CAL000395643 and CAL000362872).

Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

A-1 Cleaners
New A-1 Cleaners
A 1 Cleaners
17 East 4th Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
114/329
115/330-
340
966.41ft WSW
966.91ft WSW

CLEANUP SITES

DRYCLEANERS

EMISSIONS
FED

DRYCLEANERS

RCRA NON GEN

RCRA SQG
ERIS report notes that the facility is under investigation. A letter dated 26 July 2016 from CSMHSA on GeoTracker (ID T10000009380) states that investigation of a nearby gasoline release (402 South Delaware Street) has sufficient information to indicate the source of PCE and breakdown products discovered in soil and groundwater samples may have originated at this facility, located upgradient from the gasoline release case location. Two additional dry cleaners located downgradient of this facility have concentrations of PCE and breakdown products detected in groundwater. Several utilities nearby could act as a preferential pathway for contaminant migration. Historical review indicates that dry cleaning operations using PCE were conducted at this facility from approximately 1987 to 2008. These findings suggest that this facility represents a potential source for PCE contamination in the neighborhood. CSMHSA requested voluntary soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the facility to determine if the facility released PCE to soil and groundwater. It does not appear the facility has prepared a work plan to conduct soil and groundwater sampling since no other information is available.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000229704).

Based on the lack of information regarding contamination in the subsurface at this property and the location hydraulically-upgradient of the Site, the property may impact the subsurface at the Site and is considered a REC.
636 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 12 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
126-2nd Avenue LLC
126 2nd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 117/342 975.79ft West RCRA NON GEN As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAC002973741). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Carl’s Dry Cleaners
Twinkle Cleaners
Carl’s Cleaners
Carl’s Cleaner
Carl’s Fine Dry Cleaning
Twinkle Cleaner
801 South B St, San Mateo, CA
94401
118/343-
352
121/362
975.94ft SE
988.54ft SE

DELISTED
COUNTY

DRYCLEANERS

EMISSIONS
FED

DRYCLEANERS

RCRANON GEN

RCRA SQG

CLEANUP SITES
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000342697).

This dry cleaning facility (GeoTracker ID T1000011323) lists a release of PCE to groundwater discovered in March 2007. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by John Carver Consulting dated 27 May 2014 states that since original construction in the late 1940s, the two story building at the facility has been a restaurant, office, and dry cleaning business. Two soil samples collected below the slab of the building in 2002 resulted in non-detect concentrations for VOCs. Groundwater samples collected approximately 100 feet east of the property in 2007 detected PCE at a maximum concentration of 500 µg/L. In an email dated 21 February 2018, CSMHSA determines that the soil sample collection and analysis from 2002 did not evaluate all pathways where PCE can be released to the environment and the groundwater samples collected in 2007 were from borings rather than monitoring wells. The facility’s consultant submitted a rebuttal in March 2018 and the County responded via a letter the same month indicating that the facility will need to undergo remedial action. An email correspondence dated 18 April 2018 from CSMHSA indicates the case is being transferred to DTSC for corrective action oversight. The facility is listed as OPEN - SITE ASSESSMENT AS OF 2/20/2018.

This facility is located cross gradient with respect to groundwater flow direction and unlikely to impact the Site. Therefore, this facility is not considered a REC for the Site.

Alfredos Auto Repair Shop
B 2 Autobody Repair
B-2 Auto Body
The Garage
Alfredo Auto Repair
316 8th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
119/354-
360
138/402
978.54ft ESE
1054.44ft ESE

SANMATEO
CUPA

EMISSIONS

SANMATEO LOP

RCRA NON GEN
LUST
The Garage (T0608100540): This facility lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in March 1992. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 6/2/1998. No other information is available.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000388448).

Based on closure status and distance to the Site, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC. 637 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 13 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Atlas Electric Co Inc
Atlas Electric Co. Inc.
811 So “B Street Ninth Ave, San
Mateo, CA 94401
123/364
145/426
998.24ft SE
1087.11ft SE
HHSS

HIST TANK
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Hillsdale Transmission
San Mateo Transmission #022814
San Mateo Transmission Ctr
707 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
124/364-
365
127/371
999.98ft East
1011.32ft East

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000284136). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Aragon Veterinary Clinic
819 S B St, San Mateo, CA 94401 129/373 1016.08ft SE RCRA NON GEN As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000257829). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Spectrum Photo
18 3rd, San Mateo, CA 94401 141/411 1063.42ft
WSW

SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Worldpac 9738 San Mateo
733 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
142/412 1070.75ft East SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Vitalant Ca Peninsula
48 2nd, San Mateo, CA 94401 144/425 1077.99ft West SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
638 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 14 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Chevron 9-0312
2 East 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA
94401
147/428 1092.97ft

WSW LUST
This facility (GeoTracker ID T0608100123) lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in May 1984 (most likely this should be May 1986). A leak was detected in the 10,000-gallon gasoline UST in May 1986. Hydrocarbons were detected in soil samples collected in April 1988 in the vicinity of the USTs. Benzene was detected in groundwater samples during the same sampling event. The groundwater plume was further delineated in November 1988 and free product was observed. A soil vapor extraction (SVE) system was installed and operated between April 1992 and May 1993.

Free product was periodically hand-bailed between 1990 and 1997 for a total removal of 33 pounds. The former Chevron service station was demolished in 1996, when four fuel USTs (three 10,000-gallon gasoline and one 10,000-gallon diesel), one waste oil UST (1,000-gallon capacity), and two hoists were removed. Approximately 700 cubic yards of soil was excavated, according to the Cambria Corrective Action Plan dated 11 January 2000. Cambria concluded that the hydrocarbon-affected soil in the vadose zone has been adequately assessed, is limited in extent, and does not exceed 100 mg/kg TPH. Cambria proposed to monitor the dissolved-phase hydrocarbon concentrations at the facility for three years. On 13 August 2004, Cambria requested case closure on behalf of ChevronTexaco based on conditions meeting the SFBRWQCB definition of a low-risk fuel facility. The groundwater monitoring wells onsite were destroyed in December 2004 and January 2005. CSMHSA issued a closure letter summary dated 24 January 2005 confirming completion of facility investigation and corrective action for the USTs formerly located at this facility. The summary indicates that contaminated soil and groundwater remain in the subsurface at the facility and the County must be notified if development which may impact soil or groundwater occurs in the future. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 1/24/2005.

Based on the closure status, localized petroleum hydrocarbon impacts, and distance to the Site, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.
639 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 15 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
A & A Beacon
El Camino & Third Corporation
John Lang’s 3rd Ave Service
A & A Beacon
Former A and A Beacon Station
221 S El Camino Real, San Mateo,
CA 94401
155/448-
457
170/513-
514
1149.74ft
WSW
1215.98ft
WSW
DEED
LUST

EMISSIONS
HHSS

HIST TANK

SANMATEO LOP

RCRA SQG
This facility (GeoTracker ID T0608100514) lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in October 1992. According to the facility history, the facility was a gasoline service station from 1920 until 1992. In October 1992 three gasoline USTs (5,000, 7,500, and 10,000 gallons) and one 275 gallon waste oil UST were removed. The tanks were found to have leaked and approximately impacted soil and groundwater beneath the facility. An SVE system operated between June 1995 and December 1996 and a hydrogen peroxide solution was injected into the subsurface to oxidize the fuel. A dual phase extraction (DPE) system was installed in 2003 and soil vapor and groundwater were extracted from November 2003 until February 2004. CSMHSA issued a case closure letter dated 4 February 2015 confirming the completion of a facility investigation and corrective action for the USTs formerly located at the facility. Although facility closure was granted, a small amount of petroleum hydrocarbon-affected soil and groundwater may exist near the former USTs. Most of the lead-affected soil was discovered at the facility which was excavated and removed from the facility. A UST was discovered at the facility in June 2016 during grading activities. The UST was removed, and chemically impacted soil was excavated. The facility is listed as COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF 2/4/2015.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAR000183079).

Based on cleanup efforts related to petroleum hydrocarbon impacts, localized impacts of lead in soil, and the case closure status, this property has low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.

Curusis Investments Ltd
Westlake Realty Group
520 El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA
94402
158/468-
469 1159.59ft SW

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAC002978292). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Romel 400 Secr, LLC
Glenborough Realty Trust Inc
Glenborough 400 Ecr Llc
Café 400
Glenborough Realty Trust
400 S El Camino Real, San Mateo,
CA 94402
159/470-
473 1165.62ft SW

SANMATEO
CUPA

EMISSIONS
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
640 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 16 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
All Car Auto Painting & Body
Repair
817 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
161/477 1176.73ft ESE RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000407364). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Randy Pagan
706 S Delaware, San Mateo, CA
94402
162/478 1176.96ft East RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAC002978953). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

El Camino & 3rd Corp
UST Site
221 El Camino Real, San Mateo, CA
94402
164/480 1180.09ft
WSW

SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Westlake DMD, LLC
520 S El Camino Real, Suite 700,
San Mateo, CA 94401
165/480 1182.10ft SW RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAC002975959). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Residence
219 9th, San Mateo, CA 94402 171/515 1218.41ft SE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Mitchell Bros
311 9th, San Mateo, CA 94401 174/525 1229.96ft SE SANMATEO CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

All Car Auto Painting & Body
Repair (San Mateo)
817 Claremont, San Mateo, CA
94402
175/526 1230.74ft ESE SANMATEO
CUPA
No violations or indications of historical spills. Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

Big E Automotive
310 9th Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401
182/538-
539 1254.28ft SE

SANMATEO
CUPA

RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000218767). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.

San Mateo Tire and Brake
829 S Claremont St, San Mateo, CA
94402
183/540 1255.14ft ESE RCRA NON GEN
As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CAL000257039). Based on this information, the property is not considered a REC.
641 of 1252
Table 1: Summary of Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Site (Upgradient or Cross-Gradient) 17 Site Name and Address
ERIS
Map ID/
Page No.

Distance
and
Direction
Databases Summary
Mobil 10-FTX/BP #11197
Unocal 76
Atlantic Richfield Company C/O
Stantec
Atlantic Richfield Company C/O
Mobil Service Station
Mobil 10-FTXBP #11197
Tosco Northwest Co No 11197
230 S El Camino Real, San Mateo,
CA 94401
188/568
191/568
194/581-
584
1282.58ft
WSW
1297.29ft
WSW
1310.12ft
WSW
UST

DELISTED HAZ

EMISSIONS
HHSS

HIST TANK

SANMATEO LOP

RCRA SQG
This facility (GeoTracker ID T0608100338) lists a release of gasoline to groundwater reported in December 1989. Since 1989, multiple phases of investigation and remediation have been conducted at the facility. Affected soil was excavated and a DPE system operated from 2009 to 2013. To assess potential soil vapor risks, soil vapor sampling was conducted. Based on the results of the investigations and remedial activities conducted at the facility, CSMHSA issued a case closure memorandum dated 31 October 2018 stating that the facility satisfies the closure criteria stipulated in the SWRCB’s Low-Threat Petroleum Closure Policy. CSMHSA issued a letter dated 7 February 2019 stating that staff are recommending case closure for the petroleum release at the facility. The facility is listed as OPEN- ELIGIBLE FOR CLOSURE AS OF 8/30/2018.

As of December 2018, there are no Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement (violation) records associated with this facility (EPA ID CA0001037803).

Based on the recommendation of case closure, localized petroleum hydrocarbon impacts, and distance from the Site, this property has a low potential to have impacted the subsurface at the Site and is not considered a REC.
642 of 1252
Draft Phase I ESA

FIGURES
643 of 1252
P:\CAD_GIS\Projects\Prometheus_WR2671\MXDs\Figure 1 Site Location Map.mxd 4/15/2019 8:42:45 AM 200 East 4th Avenue,
San Mateo, California
Site Location Map
Figure
1 WR2671-01 April 2019
Legend
Site Location
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap,
INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China
(Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User
Community
San Jose Metro Area
Oakland San Francisco
Sacramento
Concord Stockton
Fremont
Vallejo
Napa
San Rafael
Lodi
Santa Rosa
Santa Cruz
Salinas
Antioch
Fairfield
Livermore
Gilroy
Union City
Vacaville
C a l i f ornia
Site Location
644 of 1252
P:\CAD_GIS\Projects\Prometheus_WR2671\MXDs\San Mateo\Figure 2 Site Layout Map.mxd 4/16/2019 7:26:29 AM 200 East 4th Avenue,
San Mateo, California
Site Layout Map
0 10 20 40
Feet
Figure
2 WR2671-01 April 2019
Legend
Storm Drain
Trench Drain
Grease Interceptor (Parking
Garage)
Loading Dock
Recycling, Hazardous Waste, and
Solid Waste Storage
Sand/Oil Interceptor and Sump
Pump (Parking Garage)
Approximate Site Boundary
Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS
Loading Dock
Recycling, Hazardous Waste,
and Solid Waste Storage
Gas Connection
Sand/Oil Interceptor and
Sump Pump (Parking Garage)
South Ellsworth Ave.

East 4th Ave.

Transformer/
Electrical Connection
Water Connection
Grease Interceptor
(Parking Garage)
Diesel Emergency Generator
(Parking Garage)
Fire Hydrant
East 5th Ave.

South B Street
645 of 1252
P:\CAD_GIS\Projects\Prometheus_WR2671\MXDs\San Mateo\Figure 3 Documented Facilities Map.mxd 5/2/2019 7:13:17 AM 200 East 4th Avenue,
San Mateo, California
Facilities with Documented or
Potential Releases of Chemicals to Soil
and Groundwater within 0.25 Miles
0 40 80 160
Feet
Figure
3 WR2671-01 May 2019
Legend
Approximate Site Boundary
Service Layer Credits: © 2019 Microsoft Corporation © 2019 DigitalGlobe ©CNES (2019) Distribution Airbus DS
Blue Ribbon Cleaners,
(37 East 3rd Ave and 22 2nd Avenue)
Assumed Groundwater Flow Direction
Sunrise Cleaners
(233 Baldwin Avenue)
R NU IT Cleaners
(200 East 2nd Avenue)
Wardrobe Cleaners
335 East 4th Avenue
New A-1 Cleaners
(17 East 4th Avenue)
646 of 1252
1371 OAKLAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 – WALNUT CREEK, CA
July 7, 2021
Mr. Marcus Gilmore
Lane Partners
644 Menlo Ave, 2nd Floor
Menlo Park, California 94025

Subject: Pre-Construction Site Investigation Report
222 East 4th Avenue, San Mateo, California
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

RMD Environmental Solutions, Inc., (RMD) has prepared this Pre-Construction Site Investigation Report (Investigation Report) describing recent investigation activities for the property located at 222 East 4th Avenue in San Mateo California (the Site; Figure 1). A proposal by RMD dated February 17, 2021 outlined the soil and groundwater investigation presented in this Investigation Report. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA; May 2, 2019, Geosyntec Consultants) indicated potential soil vapor or groundwater impacts from offsite drycleaner sources. In addition, the ESA documented a historical REC related to a former gasoline service station at the Site. This soil and groundwater investigation was designed based on discussions with Lane Partners to assess Site conditions before redevelopment of the Site begins.

The Site background, investigation objectives, scope of work, and results are provided in the sections below.

SITE BACKGROUND
The Subject Property consists of four parcels totaling approximately 1.1 acres north of East Fifth Avenue and west of South B Street in San Mateo, California. The Subject Property is currently developed with a Draeger’s Market, with a one-level subsurface parking garage. Redevelopment plans consist of demolition of the existing structure and construction of a 5-story, mixed use (office, residential, and retail) building with 2 levels of below-grade parking. The footprint of the planned structure will encompass the entire property boundary. A Phase I ESA dated May 2, 2019 was provided to RMD for consideration in development of our sampling plan. The Phase I included asbuilt drawings of the current structure. During our review of the Phase I, drawings, and general knowledge of the area, RMD noted the following observations:
647 of 1252
Mr. Gilmore
July 7, 2021

Page 2 of 9 ends

San Mateo City CouncilDecember 1, 2022

San Mateo City Council
December 1, 2022