580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Errata
ERRATA
for the
580 Dubuque Avenue Project
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
State Clearinghouse Number: 2022010277
PURPOSE OF THIS ERRATA SHEET
This errata sheet is intended to be appended to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration IS/ MND) for the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue Project project).
The revisions in this document are not substantial revisions” that could trigger recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under CEQA Guidelines sections 15073.5 and 15074.1. No new significant effects are identified, no new mitigation measures are added and revisions to the mitigation measures would result in measures that are equivalent or more effective, the significance of identified impacts remains unchanged, and all impacts are either below significance levels or reduced to that level through application of identified mitigation.
REVISIONS TO THE IS/MND
The following are minor text changes, additions, or modifications made to the IS/ MND.
A page number from the IS/ MND and explanation of each revision is included in italics preceding each revision.
Existing and revised IS/ MND text is indented. Deletions are noted by strikethrough; additions are underlined.
the purpose of and process for review by DTSC.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 which outlines requirements for redevelopment of the site to facilitate the assessment and remediation of the Site. A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail the required remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction upon determining that all response actions have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Response Plan.
Errata 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND
Pages 3, 18, and 49: DTSC requested the following changes to the characterization of contamination at the site in the project description, summary table, and impact discussion on these pages respectively.
The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of the project as further discussed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Hazardous Site Impact: The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal and mitigation of impacted soil is proposed as part of project construction activities and would be performed per requirements of the regulatory agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, as outlined in Haz
1.
Soils: The primary contaminants of concern in site soils were mainly low levels of metals, including antimony, arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The lead and copper concentrations at some locations may qualify those soils as hazardous waste Class 1 and Class 2). Additional soil contaminants were sampled that exceeded residential but not commercial screening levels including petroleum hydrocarbons fuels). Given the proposed non residential development planned for the site, these are not further specified here. Arsenic and asbestos were detected in the soil at levels consistent with background levels in natural soils in the area.
under the Groundwater bullet point on this page.
Soil Vapor: One of four groundwater samples detected benzene at a level that exceeded the direct exposure screening level for vapor intrusion. Additional vapor testing was determined not to be necessary because of the depth of excavation and the waterproofing to be done would effectively mitigate any potential for impacts from vapor intrusion.
location.
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A CLRRA Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 Docket No. HSA FY19/ 20 013), which outlines requirements for remediation of the site pursuant to CLRRA see Attachment C).
Pages 50 and 18: DTSC has specified the requirement for air monitoring in the Response Plan, as also specified in revisions to Mitigation Measure Haz 1. These same revisions are made in the both the impact discussion and summary table on the two pages indicated. 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Errata
Mitigation Measure
Haz 1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion
1. Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility lines. During excavation activities, air monitoring and dust control measures will be implemented. The soil management objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and/ or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all as implemented pursuant to the DTSC approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will establish and maintain required health and safety procedures to control worker and public exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily limited to the elements listed below.
2. Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be implemented through implementation of engineering controls, to control generation of dust and resulting off site migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust control measures will include:
Community air monitoring.
Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
informed by the comments from the San Francisco International Airport SFO).
Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights below critical aeronautical surfaces, which are between 182.67 and 223.63 approximately 810 and 850 feet above mean sea level.
Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration FAA) identifies obstruction evaluation surfaces at the site at heights between 182.67 and 223.63 feet above mean sea level. Penetrations above this level for construction equipment and/ or permanent structures) are not necessarily considered hazards to air navigation, and higher structures but could be modified permitted through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration FAA). 19 Factoring in the height of the site, the applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach maximum heights of 173.5 feet above mean sea level, all of which would be below consistent with the ALUCP and the lowest FAA height limits at the site of 182.67 feet. The project appears to be consistent with height limitation identified in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 if it is determined that any temporary construction equipment or permanent structures would rise above the FAA obstruction evaluation surfaces. As noted in the project description, the project is subject to Airport Land Use Commission consistency review to and would ensure that the project complies with regulatory requirements for air hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Response to Comments Memo
LAMPHIER GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A 601 OAKLAND, CA 94619
LAMPHIER-GREGORY
MEMO
TO: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
FROM: Rebecca Auld, Vice President
Lamphier Gregory, Inc
SUBJECT: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project IS/ MND Review and Discussion of Comments DATE: March 2, 2022
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMO
This memo provides a brief discussion of comments received in response to the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration IS/ MND”) for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project project”). Though the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA”) does not require a lead agency to formally respond to written comments received on an IS/ MND, this memorandum is being provided by the IS/ MND preparer to demonstrate that the comments do not present substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental impact, or that the IS/ MND should be revised and recirculated for public review.
A separate errata sheet has also been prepared to address minor corrections and clarifications informed by the comments received as noted in the response to comments below and included in the conclusions in this document. The errata sheet will be appended to the IS/ MND.
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the letters have not raised any issues that would require recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073. 5 and 15074. 1 of the CEQA Guidelines as no new significant effects were identified, no new mitigation measures were added and proposed revisions to the mitigation measures would result in measures that are equivalent or more effective, the significance of identified impacts remains unchanged, and all impacts are either below significance levels or reduced to that level through application of identified mitigation. 3/2/22 PAGE 2 of 3
LAMPHIER GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A 601 OAKLAND, CA 94619
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The comment period ran from January 19, 2022 through February 17, 2022. Four comment letters were received during the comment period, as listed below.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Headquarters: Lance Salisbury, Senior Environmental Scientist, email sent January 25, 2022
San Francisco International Airport Letter: John Bergener, Airport Planning Director, dated February 10, 2022
California Department of Transportation Letter: Mark Leong, District Branch Chief, dated February 16, 2022
Department of Toxic Substances Control: Nathan Unangst, Engineering Geologist, email sent February 17, 2022
DISCUSSION OF COMMENT LETTERS
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Headquarters This letter was a notification that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDFW) Habitat Conservation Planning Branch i.e., CDFW Headquarters) no longer needs to receive CEQA notices or documents. The IS/ MND notice had also been routed to the Bay Delta Region Region 3) office as indicated.
This is not a comment on the environmental analysis and does not require recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
San Francisco International Airport
This letter confirms and clarifies the regulations specific to this site in regards to its proximity to the San Francisco International Airport SFO) and the need for ALUC/ FAA approvals.
The letter agrees with conclusions in the IS/ MND related to airport noise and hazards discussed on IS/ MND pages 52 and 63). Clarifications to the approval process and allowable heights have been added to the errata sheet.
This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact conclusions. The comments in this letter, this response, and the related errata do not require recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
California Department of Transportation
This letter confirms and expands upon the methodology and conclusions from the IS/ MND related to vehicle miles traveled VMT) discussed on IS/ MND page 69).
This letter also clarifies procedures in the event Caltrans permits/ approvals are required for work or encroachment in the Caltrans right of way not anticipated), and the lead agency’ s role in off site mitigations not anticipated). The project will follow applicable requirements and procedures. 3/2/22 PAGE 3 of 3
LAMPHIER GREGORY 4100 REDWOOD ROAD, STE 20A 601 OAKLAND, CA 94619 The letter makes suggestions to further minimize the potential for conflict between vehicles and bicyclists pedestrians at the below grade parking exit. These suggestions, which do not concern the adequacy of the environmental analysis, have been provided to City staff and the applicant for consideration of inclusion.
This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures or changed impact conclusions. The comments in this letter and this response do not require recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under section 15073. 5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
This letter provides clarifications and revisions to the hazardous materials discussion and mitigation measures IS/ MND pages 48 through 53) consistent with DTSC’ s ongoing coordination as the regulatory agency for remediation of the site. These have been added to the errata sheet. Revisions to the mitigation measures result in measures that are equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and these revisions would not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.
The letter requests that copies of the two covenants mentioned on page 3 of the IS/ MND be provided to DTSC. These have been provided to DTSC by the applicant.
The letter requests clarification of the approximate number of trucks needed to remove the contaminated soil. As detailed fully in Attachment A of the IS/ MND, the following assumptions were made regarding excavation:
Soil Remediation: 76,016 cubic yards exported 9,502 truck trips Grading/ Excavation: 58,000 cubic yards exported 7,250 truck trips The above assumptions were used throughout the analysis in the IS/ MND. This comment letter has also been provided to the applicant.
This information does not result in new significant impacts or mitigation measures, or changed impact conclusions. The comments in this letter, this response, and the related errata do not require recirculation of the IS/ MND or preparation of an environmental impact report under sections 15073.5 and 15074.1 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Comment Letters Received
From: Wildlife CEQA < CEQA@wildlife. ca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 3:06 PM
To: Espiritu, Christopher < Christopher. Espiritu@ssf. net> Subject: CEQA Public Notice - CDFW Contact
Hello Christopher,
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is reaching out to CEQA lead agencies to inform you that the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch ( i.e., CDFW Headquarters) no longer needs to receive CEQA notices or documents ( attached). Unless there is a statewide CEQA action, CEQA notices need to be submitted to one of our CDFW Regional Offices. In the case of projects located in the City of South San Francisco, only our Bay Delta Region ( Region 3) office needs to receive your CEQA documents and notices going forward. https:// wildlife. ca.gov/Regions/ 3 When submitting your CEQA public notices or documents to the State Clearinghouse ( i.e., through the CEQAnet Web Portal), please identify the correct CDFW Regional Office and do not include CDFW Headquarters on the Notice of Completion Transmittal Form ( NOC).
Again, please discontinue sending CEQA documents or notices to CDFW Headquarters ( 1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814; P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244- 2090; or HCPB@wildlife. ca.gov). Removing CDFW Headquarters will assist us greatly by reducing duplicate notices received by HQ and Regional offices.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.
NOTE – THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED TO BE A COMMENT ON ANY INDIVIDUAL CEQA PROJECT ( I.E., NOT A CEQA COMMENT LETTER).
Kindly,
Lance Salisbury
Senior Environmental Scientist ( Supervisor)
Environmental Review and Permitting Program - Sacramento February 10, 2022
TRANSMITTED VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL
christopher. espiritu@ssf. net
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, California 94080
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments: 580 Dubuque Project San Francisco International Airport ( SFO or the Airport) staff have reviewed the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND) for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project ( the Proposed Project), located in the City of South San Francisco. We appreciate this opportunity to provide comments on the IS/ MND.
The Proposed Project is located at 580 Dubuque Avenue ( Assessor’ s Parcel Number 015- 021- 998), at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, north of the Grand Avenue overpass as it intersects with US Highway 101, in the City of South San Francisco. The Proposed Project would construct a new 290, 000- square- foot, eight- story, office/ research and development building and structured parking four stories below grade. Site improvements would include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Ground floor amenities would include a fitness center, conference space, and a café with an adjacent outdoor terrace. The maximum height of the Proposed Project would be 155 feet above ground level.
The Proposed Project site is inside Airport Influence Area B as defined by the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport ( SFO ALUCP). The Proposed Project site would be located outside the 65 decibel ( dBA) Community Noise Equivalent Level CNEL) contour and the Safety compatibility zones, and therefore would appear to be consistent with the Noise and Safety Compatibility policies adopted in the SFO ALUCP.
As described in Exhibit IV-17 of the ALUCP ( see Attachment), the critical aeronautical surfaces at the Proposed Project location is at an elevation of between approximately 810 and 850 feet above mean sea level AMSL) as defined from the origin of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ( NAVD88). Given that the ground elevation at the Proposed Project site is around 18.5 feet AMSL ( NAVD88), the heights of the buildings, as currently defined ( as 155 feet above ground level), would be below the critical aeronautical surfaces and the Proposed Project would be compatible with the Airspace Compatibility Policies of the SFO ALUCP, subject to the issuance of a Determination of No Hazard from the Federal Aviation Administration see below) for any proposed structures, and determinations from the City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County as the designated Airport Land Use Commission.
We note that in the Initial Study Checklist for the Proposed Project, the height limitations described in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section are not characterized accurately. The section states: “ Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights between 182. 67 and 223. 63 feet above mean sea level, but could be modified through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA).” The “ maximum heights” described in the previous sentence are FAA obstruction evaluation surfaces described in 14 Code of DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D Christopher Espiritu, City of South San Francisco
February 10, 2022
Federal Regulations Part 77 Section 19, of which penetrations are considered obstructions, but not necessarily considered hazards to air navigation, and higher structures could be permissible through consultation with the FAA. The development at the Proposed Project site is limited by the SFO ALUCP’ s critical aeronautical surfaces which range between 810 to 850 feet AMSL ( NAVD88). Thus, the Proposed Project appears to be consistent with both height limitations ( FAA and ALUCP critical aeronautical surface) identified in the SFO ALUCP, pending an FAA determination of no hazard.
This determination does not negate the requirement for the Proposed Project sponsor to undergo Federal Aviation Administration review as described in 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77 for both ( 1) the permanent structures and ( 2) any temporary cranes or other equipment taller than the permanent buildings which would be required to construct those structures.
Due to the proximity of the Proposed Project to the Airport and certain procedures from Runway 10L- 28R, Airspace Protection Policies ( AP- 1 through AP- 4) from the SFO ALUCP is enclosed as reminders of incompatible site characteristics, especially as it pertains to solar panels building materials/ features that reflect and create bright lights/ glare.
The Airport appreciates your consideration of these comments. If I can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at ( 650) 821- 6678 or at nupur. sinha@flysfo. com.
Sincerely,
Nupur Sinha
Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs
San Francisco International Airport
P.O. Box 8097
San Francisco, California 94128
Attachment
cc: Susy Kalkin, ALUC
Audrey Park, SFO Environmental Affairs Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport IV-34] Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies
and associated with human disease of varying severity.
b. Biosafety Level 3 practices, safety equipment, and facility design and construction are applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents with a potential for respiratory transmission, and which may cause serious and potentially lethal infection. c. Biosafety Level 4 practices, safety equipment, and facility design and construction are applicable for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of life-threatening disease, which may be transmitted via the aerosol route and for which there is no available vaccine or therapy.
4.5 Airspace Protection
The compatibility of proposed land uses with respect to airspace protection shall be evaluated in accordance with the policies set forth in this section. These policies are established with a twofold purpose:
1. To protect the public health, safety, and welfare by minimizing the public’ s exposure to potential safety hazards that could be created through the construction of tall structures.
2. To protect the public interest in providing for the orderly development of SFO by ensuring that new development in the Airport environs avoids compromising the airspace in the Airport vicinity. This avoids the degradation in the safety, utility, efficiency, and air service capability of the Airport that could be caused by the attendant need to raise visibility minimums, increase minimum rates of climb, or cancel, restrict, or redesign flight procedures.
4.5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGARDING TALL STRUCTURES
14 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, governs the FAA’ s review of proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and provides for FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction. Appendix F describes the FAA airspace review process and the extent of FAA authority related to airspace protection.
4.5.2 PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTIFICATION PROCESS
Federal regulations require any person proposing to build a new structure or alter an existing structure with a height that would exceed the elevations described in CFR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.9, to prepare an FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, and submit the notice to the FAA. The regulations apply to buildings and other structures or portions of structures, such as mechanical equipment, flag poles, and other projections that may exceed the aforementioned elevations.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY OCTOBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [ IV-35]
Exhibit IV-10 depicts the approximate elevations at which the 14 CFR Part 77 notification requirements would be triggered; see Exhibit IV-11 for a close- up view of the northern half and Exhibit IV-12 for a close- up view of the southern half of the area. These exhibits are provided for informational purposes only. Official determinations of the areas and elevations within which the federal notification requirements apply are subject to the authority of the FAA.
The FAA is empowered to require the filing of notices for proposed construction based on considerations other than height. For example, in some areas of complex airspace and high air traffic volumes, the FAA may be concerned about the potential for new construction of any height to interfere with electronic navigation aids. In these areas, the FAA will want to review all proposed construction projects.
The FAA has developed an on-line tool for project sponsors to use in determining whether they are required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. Sponsors of proposed projects are urged to refer to this website to determine whether they are required to file Form 7460- 1 with the FAA:
https:// oeaaa. faa.gov/ oeaaa/ external/ gisTools/ gisAction. jsp?action= showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm
4.5.3 AIRSPACE MAPPING
Part 77, Subpart C, establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including approach zones, conical zones, transitional zones, and horizontal zones known as “ imaginary surfaces.” Exhibit IV-13 depicts the Part 77 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces at SFO. The imaginary surfaces rise from the primary surface, which is at ground level immediately around the runways. The surfaces rise gradually along the approach slopes associated with each runway end and somewhat more steeply off the sides of the runways. The FAA considers any objects penetrating these surfaces, whether buildings, trees or vehicles travelling on roads and railroads, as obstructions to air navigation.
Obstructions may occur without compromising safe air navigation, but they must be marked, lighted, and noted on aeronautical publications to ensure that pilots can see and avoid them.
Close- up views of the north and south sides of the Part 77 surfaces are provided in Exhibit IV-14 and Exhibit IV-15, respectively. Additionally, Exhibit IV-16 provides an illustration of the outer approach and transitional surfaces located on the southeast side of the Part 77 surfaces.
Together with its tenant airlines, SFO has undertaken a mapping effort to illustrate the critical aeronautical surfaces that protect the airspace required for multiple types of flight procedures such as those typically factored into FAA aeronautical studies, as shown on Exhibit IV-17 and Exhibit IV-18. These aeronautical surfaces include those established in accordance with FAA Order 8260.3B, U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures ( TERPS), and a surface representing the airspace required for One-Engine Inoperative ( OEI) departures from Runway 28L ( to the west through the San Bruno Gap).16 The exhibits depict the lowest elevations from the combination of the OEI procedure surface and all TERPS surfaces. The surfaces are defined with Required Obstacle Clearance ( ROC) criteria to ensure safe separation of aircraft using the procedures from the underlying obstacles. Any proposed structures penetrating these surfaces are likely to receive Determinations of Hazard ( DOH) from the FAA through the 7460- 1 aeronautical study process. These surfaces indicate the maximum height at which structures can be considered compatible with Airport operations.
16 See Appendix F, Section F.3.2 for a discussion of one- engine inoperative procedures.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D 280
380
280
280
101
101
101
101
1 35
82 82
1 1
82 ROLLINS
RD
HILLSID
E
BL
V
D
E
3RDAVE RBACALIFORNIA
D
Y
S
H
ORE
BLVD
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
MIS
S
I
O
N
R
D
87TH ST
AIRPORTBLV D
C
ALLA
NBLVDGRAND AV
EMILLER
AVESOUTHGATE
AVE TROUSDALE DRS H A R
P
P
ARK
RDSNEATH LNPARK
WY
C
RESPI
DRFLEE
T WO O D DR M U R C H
I
S
O N D RSULLIVAN
AVEST FRANCIS
VBLVDJOHN DALY B L
D
RALSTON DAVEHEL
E
N
RARROYO
DRS
A
IR
PORTBLVDSKYL
I
NE
BO
U
LEVARD
GENEV
A
A
V
E
N
HU MB
O
L
D
T
S
T
FASSLER
AVE HBAYS
O
R
E
HWYTILTON
AVEN
A
M
P
HLE
TT
BLV
DN
MCDONNELL
RDSTAT
E
HIG
H
WAY
3 5
HU
N
TI N
GT
O
N
A
V
E
LINDA
MAR
B
LVD HICKEY
BLVDSHA
W
RDADELINE
DRE
4TH
AVETE
R
R
A
N
OV
A
B
LVDHILLSIDE DRLINDEN AVELO M
ITA AVES SPRUCE
AVES
ERRA
M
ONTE
BLVDCHESTNUT
AVEN
D
E AL
W A
RE
S
T
BELLEVU
E
A
V
E
EGRAND
AVE
S
N
O
R
F
O
L
K
S
THOLLY AVECARMELITA
AVES
LINDEN AVEAVEUTAH
LO
Y
O
L
A
D
R
RAY
DRD
WIGHTRDOCCIDENTAL AVENS
A N M A T E
O D RCR E S
T
M
O
O
R
D
R
JENEVEIN
AVEMADISON AVESISTERAVEMILLBRAE
C I
T
IE S B L
V
D
C
R
Y
S
T
A
L SPRINGS RDW S AN
B
R
UNO
AVES
E
B
AS
TAI
ND
RALTA
ME
SA
DR
LERIDA
WYPARK
PLAZA
DRPARK
BL
V
DJ
UNI
P
E
RO
SE
RRA
B
L
VDALICAN
T
E
D
R
MA
G
N IOL
AA
V
ESAN
MATEO
AVEBROADWAYHOFFMAN
STRICHMOND DRSEVILLE DRMONTEREY RD
RI
D
G
EW
O
O
D
D
R
EASTON
DREARL
AVE
SA
N
A
NT
ON
IOA RVESHA
O
N
A
V
ELARKSPUR
D
RGA
T E
WAY DR EL C RITOE R
AVECH ATEAU
DRWESTLAKE
AVE
BELLA
VISTA
DRLITTLEFIELD AVEC R
O KC
E
ARV
EMARKET
ST
AVE LINCOLN OAKS
DR
EL
MCIAN
O R
AELODDSTAD
UBLVDH N
T
D
DRSTATE RHI SUMMIT GHWAY DREUCALYPTUS 35WAVEHELEN SAN
VBR EEL UCAMINO NREALS O NAEATH
LLNMA IGANAOV
AVEPacificaPacifica EHILLSIDE Daly BLVDE CityDaly 3RD City Bruno San BrisbaneBrisbane BrunoSan San
MateoSan Francisco Mateo ColmaColma HillsboroughHillsborough South San FranciscoSouth San MillbraeMillbrae BurlingameBurlingame San FranciscoSan
San
Foster CityFoster City BroadmoorBroadmoor MontaraMontara Park
Pedro Valley County ParkSan Pedro Valley County
Park
San Bruno Mt State & Cnty ParkSan Bruno Mt State & Cnty National
Golden Gate National Rec AreaGolden Gate
Park
Rec Area McNee Ranch State ParkMcNee Ranch State
San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake 1. This map
isintended for informational and conceptualplanning purposes, generally representing the aeronauticalsurfaces SFO) considered most critical by San FranciscoInternational Airport ( should
and its constituent airlines. It doesnot represent actual survey data, nor itbeused as thesole
source of information regarding compatibility with airspaceclearance requirements inthe development of data for an FAAForm 7460-1, Notice doesof Proposed Construction or Alteration. SFO
not certify its accuracy, information, or title to
theproperties of
contained inthis plan. SFO does make anywarrants
any kind, express or implied, infact or by
law, such
withrespect to boundaries, easements, restrictions, claims, overlaps, or other encumbrances affecting s
properties. 2. This map does not replace the FAA'
AAA)
obstruction evaluation / airport airspace analysis (OE/ are
review process. Proposingconstruction at elevations and heights that map,
lower
a)
than thecritical aeronautical surfaces shown onthis
the
does notrelieve the construction sponsor of
does
obligation tofile an FAAForm 7460-1, and (b)
not ensure that theproposal will
beacceptable
FAA,
tothe
SFO, air
carriers, or
San
other agencies orstakeholders. SFO, Mateo County, and local authoritieshaving jurisdiction reserve therigt tore- assess, review, andseek modifications to projects that
may
be
consistent
with thiscritical
aeronautical surfaces
map but
thatthrough the FAAOE/AAA
process are found tohave
unexpected impacts tothesafety or efficiency
of SFO. Notes: operations at
Exhibit
IV17CRITICAL AERONAUTICAL
SURFACES--
NORTHWEST UseSIDE Comprehensive Airport Land
Planfor the Environs of San Francisco International AirportC/ CAGCity/ County Association
ofMunicipalGovernmentsof San Mateo County, California
Boundary Road
Freeway
Railroad Airport Property BART Station
CALTRAIN
Station Regional Park
or Recreation Area Sources: San Francisco International Airport, JacobsConsultancy, and Planning Technology Inc., 2009 00.510.25 Miles NORTH Ground level(Terrain)Elevation of critical
aeronautical surfaces,
feetAbove
Mean
Sea
Level ( AMSL), North
AmericanVertical
Datum
of
1988 (
NAVD88)
100 Height of
Critical Aeronautical
Surfaces, Feet
AboveGround Level (
AGL)LEGEND Elevation
ofterrain, feet AMSL Criticalaeronauticalsurfaces AIRPORTMean sea level THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [ IV-55]
Exhibit IV-19, which is provided for information purposes only, depicts a profile view of the lowest critical airspace surfaces along the extended centerline of Runway 10L-28R – the TERPS Obstacle Departure Procedure ( ODP) surface, representing standard all-engines departures, and the approximate OEI surface developed by SFO through independent study in consultation with the airlines serving SFO. The exhibit also shows the terrain elevation beneath the airspace surfaces and various aircraft approach and departure profiles, based on varying operating assumptions. The exhibit illustrates a fundamental principle related to the design of airspace protection surfaces. The surfaces are always designed below the actual aircraft flight profile which they are designed to protect, thus providing a margin of safety.
Note that the ODP climb profile is above the ODP airspace surface, and the OEI climb profile is above the OEI airspace surface.
4.5.4 AIRSPACE PROTECTION POLICIES
The following airspace protection policies ( AP) shall apply to the ALUCP.
AP-1 COMPLIANCE WITH 14 CFR PART 77, SUBPART B, NOTICE OF PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION OR ALTERATION
AP-1.1 Local Government Responsibility to Notify Project Sponsors Local governments should notify sponsors of proposed projects at the earliest opportunity to file Form 7460- 1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for any proposed project that would exceed the FAA notification heights, as shown approximately on Exhibit IV-10. Under Federal law, it is the responsibility of the project sponsor to comply with all notification and other requirements described in 14 CFR Part 77. This requirement applies independent of this ALUCP.
AP-1.2 FAA Aeronautical Study Findings Required Before Processing Development Application
The sponsor of a proposed project that would exceed the FAA notification heights, as shown approximately on Exhibit IV-10, shall present to the local government permitting agency with his or her application for a development permit, a copy of the findings of the FAA’ s aeronautical study, or evidence demonstrating that he or she is exempt from having to file an FAA Form 7460-1. It is the responsibility of the local agency to consider the FAA determination study findings as part of its review and decision on the proposed project.
AP-2 COMPLIANCE WITH FINDINGS OF FAA AERONAUTICAL STUDIES Project sponsors shall be required to comply with the findings of FAA aeronautical studies with respect to any recommended alterations in the building design and height and any recommended marking and lighting of their structures for their proposed projects to be deemed consistent with this ALUCP.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies [ IV-59]
AP-3 MAXIMUM COMPATIBLE BUILDING HEIGHT
In order to be deemed consistent with the ALUCP, the maximum height of a new building must be the lower of (1) the height shown on the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map ( Exhibits IV-17 and IV-18), or 2) the maximum height determined not to be a “ hazard to air navigation” by the FAA in an aeronautical study prepared pursuant to the filing of Form 7460- 1.
For the vast majority of parcels, the height limits established in local zoning ordinances are lower than the critical airspace surfaces. In those cases, the zoning district height regulations will control. Compliance with the zoning district height and the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map, however, does not relieve the construction sponsor of the obligation to file a FAA Form 7460- 1 Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, if required, and to comply with the determinations resulting from the FAA’ s aeronautical study.
For a project to be consistent with this ALUCP, no local agency development permits shall be issued for any proposed structure that would penetrate the aeronautical surfaces shown on Exhibits IV-17 and IV-18 or the construction of which has not received a Determination of No Hazard from the FAA, or which would cause the FAA to increase the minimum visibility requirements for any instrument approach or departure procedure at the Airport.
AP-4 OTHER FLIGHT HAZARDS ARE INCOMPATIBLE
Proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at the Airport or in flight are incompatible in Area B of the Airport Influence Area. They may be permitted only if the uses are consistent with FAA rules and regulations. Proof of consistency with FAA rules and regulations and with any performance standards cited below must be provided to the Airport Land Use Commission ( C/CAG Board) by the sponsor of the proposed land use action.
Specific characteristics that may create hazards to aircraft in flight and which are incompatible include:
a) Sources of glare, such as highly reflective buildings or building features, or bright lights, including search lights or laser displays, which would interfere with the vision of pilots making approaches to the Airport.
b) Distracting lights that that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to the Airport for airport identification lighting, runway edge lighting, runway end identification lighting, or runway approach lighting.
c) Sources of dust, smoke, or water vapor that may impair the vision of pilots making approaches to the Airport.
d) Sources of electrical interference with aircraft or air traffic control communications or navigation equipment, including radar.
e) Land uses that, as a regular byproduct of their operations, produce thermal plumes with the potential to rise high enough and at sufficient velocities to interfere with the control of aircraft in DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D THE CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY NOVEMBER 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport IV-60] Airport/Land Use Compatibility Policies
flight. Upward velocities of 4.3 meters ( 14.1 feet) per second at altitudes above 200 feet above the ground shall be considered as potentially interfering with the control of aircraft in flight. 17 f) Any use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife, particularly large flocks of birds, that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports, FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200- 33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, and any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars. Exceptions to this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other environmental mitigation projects required by ordinance, statute, court order, or Record of Decision issued by a federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act.
4.5.5 iALP AIRSPACE TOOL
In consultation with C/CAG, SFO developed the iALP Airspace Tool, a web- based, interactive tool to evaluate the relationship of proposed buildings with the Airport’ s critical airspace surfaces. The iALP Airspace Tool is designed to assist planners, developers, and other interested persons with the implementation of the airspace protection policies of the SFO ALUCP. The tool helps users determine: ( 1) the maximum allowable building height at a given site, and/or (2) whether a building penetrates a critical airspace surface, and by how much, given the proposed building height.
A more detailed description of the iALP Airspace Tool and a tutorial explaining how to use it is presented in Appendix J. Use of this tool, however, does not relieve a project sponsor of the duty to comply with all federal regulations, including the obligation to file Form 7460- 1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA. 17 This is a threshold established by the California Energy Commission in its review of power plant licensing applications. See Blythe Solar Power Project:
Supplemental Staff Assessment, Part 2,. CEC- 700- 2010- 004- REV1- SUP- PT2, July 2010. California Energy Commission. Docket Number 09-AFC- 6, p.
25. This criterion is based on guidance established by the Australian Government Civil Aviation Authority ( Advisory Circular AC 139- 05(0), June 2004). The FAA’ s Airport Obstructions Standards Committee ( AOSC) is studying this matter but has not yet issued specific guidance.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 4FA317F7- 257D-4A6E-8326-B06EB5BB244D Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS– 10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623- 0660
www.dot.ca.gov
February 16, 2022 SCH #: 2022010277
GTS #: 04-SM-2022- 00417
GTS ID: 25373
Co/ Rt/ Pm: SM/ 101/ 22.19
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Re: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Mitigated Negative Declaration ( MND) Dear Christopher Espiritu:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’ s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the January 2022 IS/ MND.
Project Understanding
The project proposes the construction and operation of a new 295,000 square foot, 8 story, office/ research and development ( R& D) building and structured parking 4 stories below grade, with approximately 350 parking spaces. Project site improvements would also include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Other amenities would include a fitness center, conference space, and a café with an adjacent outdoor terrace. The project site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan ( DSASP). The project is located adjacent to the United States Route ( US)- 101/ Grand Avenue interchange and South San Francisco Caltrain station in South San Francisco.
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
February 16, 2022
Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Travel Demand Analysis
With the enactment of Senate Bill ( SB) 743, Caltrans is focused on maximizing efficient development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies, and multimodal improvements. For more information on how Caltrans assesses Transportation Impact Studies, please review Caltrans’ Transportation Impact Study Guide ( link).
The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’ s ( OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the IS/ MND, this project is found to have a less than significant VMT impact, therefore working towards meeting the State’ s VMT reduction goals.
Bike/ Ped Impacts
In addition to the proposed stop signs, Caltrans suggests the applicant consider low posted speed limits, improved sight distance, speed humps, a posted stop or yield sign, or audible warnings for exiting vehicles to minimize conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/ bicyclists at the below- grade parking exit.
Utilities
Any utilities that are proposed, moved or modified within Caltrans’ Right- of-Way ( ROW) shall be discussed. If utilities are impacted by the project, provide site plans that show the location of existing and/ or proposed utilities. These modifications require a Caltrans- issued encroachment permit.
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network STN). The project’ s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto Caltrans’ ROW requires a Caltrans- issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
February 16, 2022
Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating Caltrans’ ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped ( include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement ( MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document ( DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/ or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to D4Permits@dot. ca.gov.
Please note that Caltrans is in the process of implementing an online, automated, and milestone- based Caltrans Encroachment Permit System ( CEPS) to replace the current permit application submittal process with a fully electronic system, including online payments. The new system is expected to be available during 2022. To obtain information about the most current encroachment permit process and to download the permit application, please visit https:// dot.ca.gov/ programs/ trafficoperations/ ep/ applications.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, or for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email LDR- D4@dot. ca.gov.
Sincerely,
MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development Review
c: State Clearinghouse
From: Unangst, Nathan@DTSC < Nathan. Unangst@dtsc. ca.gov> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Espiritu, Christopher < Christopher. Espiritu@ssf. net> Cc: Walsh, Kimberly@DTSC < Kimberly. Walsh@dtsc. ca.gov>; Hill, Candace@DTSC < Candace. Hill@dtsc. ca.gov>
Subject: 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration - DTSC Comments
Hello Chris,
The Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) reviewed the 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND)(State Clearinghouse Number 2022010277). DTSC submits the following comments on the IS/MND:
1. Project Information, Project Entitlements, page 2. The DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 2 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes):
a. “ The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 which outlines requirements for redevelopment of the site to facilitate the assessment and remediation of the Site. A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail the required remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction upon determining that all response actions have been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved Response Plan.
2. Project Information, Project Location and Existing Uses, Page 3; Mitigated Negative Declaration, Potentially Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation, Page 18, and 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page 49. The text in these sections state that the main contamination of concern is “low levels of lead and other metals in the soil”. Cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc are present at the site with concentrations greater than their Class I hazardous waste criteria. Please revise the text to remove the term low levels”.
3. Project Information, Project Location and Existing Uses, Page 3. The text states that there are two currently applicable covenants in place for the property. DTSC requests that copies of these two covenants be provided for the Department’ s future reference.
4. 3. Air Quality, pages 28-34, 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pages 45-47, and 17. Transportation, c) Traffic Hazards, pages 70-71. To date, the estimate in the Draft Response Plan for the Site is that approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil will be removed. Did the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation Sections include an analysis of the approximate number of truck trips required to remove the contaminated soil?
5. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page
49. The text on page 49 discusses the known contamination in soil and groundwater at the Site.
However, the text does not discuss the known contamination in soil vapor. DTSC requests that the text be revised to include a bullet point discussing the known soil vapor impacts.
Additionally, the docket number for the CLRRA Agreement presented on page 49 is incorrect.
The correct number is HSA-FY19/ 20-013.
6. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, b,d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release, page
49. DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 49 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes):
a. “ A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC pursuant to CLRRA prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail remediation activities. The applicant anticipates this will include excavation and proper handling and disposal of contaminated site soils as part of project development, then appropriate mitigation of any remaining materials. At this date, the Draft Response Plan is undergoing review by DTSC and approximately 11,000 cubic yards of soil has been proposed for excavation and offsite disposal.”
7. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Mitigation Measure Haz-1, page 50. DTSC requests the following edits to the text on page 49 (bolded, italicized, and underlined text denotes requested changes):
a. “ During excavation activities, air monitoring and dust control measures will be implemented.”
b. “ Dust control measures will include: Community air monitoring.” If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (510) 540-3760 or via email at Nathan. Unangst@dtsc. ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Nathan Unangst ( he/ him/ his)
Engineering Geologist
Site Mitigation and Restoration Program
510-540-3760
Nathan. Unangst@dtsc. ca.gov
Department of Toxic Substances Control
700 Heinz Avenue, Berkeley, California 94710- 2721
California Environmental Protection Agency
Initial Study/ MND
INITIAL STUDY
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
580 DUBUQUE AVENUE PROJECT
Lead Agency:
City of South San Francisco
Economic & Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
JANUARY 2022
Prepared By:
Lamphier- Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Rd, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
Introduction to this Document 1
Public Review 1
Project Information..........................................................................................................................1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Lead Agency Determination 22
Initial Study Checklist 23
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 23
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 23
Aesthetics 24
Agricultural and Forest Resources 27
Air Quality 28
Biological Resources 35
Cultural Resources 38
Energy 40
Geology and Soils 41
Greenhouse Gas Emissions 45
Hazards and Hazardous Materials 48
Hydrology and Water Quality 54
Land Use and Planning 59
Mineral Resources 61
Noise 52
Population and Housing 64
Public Services 65
Recreation 66
Transportation 67
Tribal Cultural Resources 72
Utilities and Service Systems 73
Wildfire 76
Mandatory Findings of Significance 77
Document Preparers 78
Sources 78
ii
page
TABLES
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction 30 Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations 32 Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 46
FIGURES
Figure 1: Project Location 7
Figure 2: Visual Model 8
Figure 3: Site Plan 9
Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan 10
Figure 5: Building Sections 11
Figure 6: Elevation, West 12
Figure 7: Elevation, North 13
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Attachment B: Cultural Records Search, Native American Heritage Commission Response Attachment C: California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act CLRRA) Agreement Attachment D: Transportation Analysis
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 1
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCUMENT
This document serves as the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 580 Dubuque Avenue project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA; Public Resources Code Sections 15000 et seq.).
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15070), a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be prepared to meet the requirements of CEQA review when the Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental effects, but revisions in the project and/ or incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the project as revised may have significant effect on the environment.
This document is organized in three sections as follows:
Introduction and Project Information. This section introduces the document and presents the project description including location, setting, and specifics of the lead agency and contacts.
Mitigated Negative Declaration. This section lists the impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and proposes findings that would allow adoption of this document as the CEQA review document for the proposed project.
Initial Study Checklist. This section discusses the CEQA environmental topics and checklist questions and identifies the potential for impacts and proposed mitigation measures to avoid these impacts.
Full project application materials are available for review upon request from the Planning Department at City of South San Francisco see contact info below).
PUBLIC REVIEW
This Initial Study will be circulated for a 30 day public review period. Comments may be submitted in writing by email or regular mail to the following address:
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: 650 877 8535
Email: Christopher. Espiritu@ssf. net
PROJECT INFORMATION
All figures for the project information are included together on pages 7 through 13.
PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
Development of the project would require the following approvals from the City of South San Francisco:
General Plan Amendment land use map and text amendments), East of 101 Area Plan Amendment, Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Amendment land use map and text amendments), Zoning Map
Amendments, Conditional Use Permits Parking Reduction, Floor Area Ratio Increase), Design Review, and a Transportation Demand Management Plan.
Because the project is located in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan area, the project would be subject to Airport Land Use Commission consistency review.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control DTSC) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020, which outlines requirements for redevelopment of the site. A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail remediation activities. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are completed at the site to their satisfaction.
The project is required to comply with Municipal Regional Permit requirements related to stormwater pollution prevention.
LEAD AGENCY
City of South San Francisco
Economic Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CONTACT PERSON
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic Community Development Department
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: 650 877 8535
Email: Christopher. Espiritu@ssf. net
PROJECT SPONSOR
South City Ventures, LLC
Contact: Marin Gertler, VP of Development, IQHQ
674 Via De La Valle Suite 206, Solana Beach, CA 92075
Phone: 1 858 779 1111
PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING USES
The 1.89 acre project site Assessor’ s Parcel Number 015 021 998) is located in the City of South San Francisco, California at the southern end of Dubuque Avenue, north of the Grand Avenue overpass as it intersects with U.S. 101. It is bordered by Dubuque Avenue and the U.S. 101 highway on the west, the Caltrain right of way and South San Francisco Caltrain station property on the east and south, and development and parking on the 720 Dubuque Avenue parcel to the north. Figure 1 shows the project location.
The project site is located adjacent to the Caltrain station and within walking distance of the downtown area approximately 0.25 miles away), which offers an array of multi family residential, dining, and retail activities centered along Grand Avenue. SamTrans provides bus service on the west side of U.S. 101, 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 3
with bus stops located approximately 0.25 miles from the project site, and commute. org provides shuttle service from the Caltrain station to/from the BART and WETA ferry station.
The site is within the boundaries of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan DSASP). However, it was not specifically contemplated for development in the DSASP as it was in use as part of the Caltrain station property at the time, prior to the station relocation and upgrade. The site is also within the boundaries of the current East of 101 Area Plan 1994) and South San Francisco General Plan 1999); however these plans will be superseded by the General Plan 2040 update currently underway. The applicant has been coordinating with the City related to the General Plan update efforts and the project is intended to be consistent with the General Plan 2040 update.
As a part of the Caltrain station relocation and upgrade, the project site was recently used for construction staging. All former site improvements have been previously removed from the site and the project site is currently vacant and fenced.
The site is relatively level, with varying elevations above mean sea level of approximately 17 to 17.5 feet.
The depth to groundwater is approximately 7 feet below ground surface and the groundwater flow direction is to the southeast, generally toward the San Francisco Bay.
The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal of impacted soil is proposed as part of the project as further discussed in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
There are currently two applicable covenants in place: a Covenant Restricting Residential Use, which specifies that the lot cannot be developed to include residential, lodging, hospitals, child and elderly care facilities, schools, or recreational uses, and a Railroad Proximity Covenant, acknowledging that there are significant rail yard operations at adjacent sites that result in noise, vibrations, emissions, and other disturbances.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION / ZONING
Current General Plan 1999) Designation: Business Commercial Proposed General Plan 1999) Designation: Transit Office/ R& D Core Preliminary General Plan 2040 Designation: East of 101 Transit Core1 Current Zoning: Freeway Commercial FC)
Proposed Zoning: Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Transit Office/ R& D Core TO/ RD) Subdistrict
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is located proximate to multiple transportation infrastructure elements, including the Caltrain station property to the east and south, raised Grand Avenue overpass to the south, and U.S. 101 to the west. The only adjacent non transportation infrastructure use is the adjacent property to the north at 720 Dubuque Avenue, which includes a restaurant, parking lots, and a large vacant warehouse building formerly Lowes). The project site is at the western edge of the East of 101 area, which is a large 1 As identified in the Preferred Land Use Scenario PLUS) under consideration by the City as of December 2021.
employment area including industrial, office, research and development, and commercial uses. To the west, across Dubuque Avenue is U.S. 101, with commercial and multi family residential uses fronting along Airport Boulevard on the other side of the freeway and residential neighborhoods beyond.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview and Building Massing
The proposed project would involve construction of a new approximately 295,000 square foot,28 story, office research and development R& D) building with a maximum height of approximately 155 feet from the ground surface approximate elevation of 18.5 feet above mean sea level) to the highest rooftop element. Project site improvements would also include sidewalks, landscaping, and lighting along Dubuque Avenue. Ground floor amenities would include a fitness center, conference space and a café with an adjacent outdoor terrace near the building’ s entry lobby. The applicant is targeting life science tenants and designing for an employment density of 1 employee per 350 gross square feet. At this rate, 842 employees would be anticipated.
According to the project application, the project design is intended to bring high quality architectural design and significant public realm improvements to reimagine the project site and the surrounding area as a destination accessible by foot, bicycle, or public transit… T]he building’ s aim is to act as a landmark structure signifying the strength of biotechnology development in the area and reclamation of a postindustrial landscape.”
The building would be recessed at ground level, with stepped massing that pushes the building mass towards the eastern property line of the site. The ground floor would include full height storefront windows to showcase amenities a fitness center, conference space, and a café space) with an adjacent outdoor terrace that will create public gathering spaces along the building' s northwesterly facing entry lobby. A two story podium level above the entrance would scale down the mass at the pedestrian entrance and above that level the massing steps and shifts to create a terrace space on level 4. There would also be two notched terraces at the top levels. The building’ s façade would be a mix of glass, glazing, and solid metal panels. Perforated fins would be used for further visual interest.
The project is designed to achieve LEED Gold Certification, exceeding the baseline requirements of the California Green Building Code. Additionally, the project will include a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan to achieve 40%3alternative mode use.
Access Parking
The project site is accessible by automobile, train, and bus, and would include on site facilities for pedestrians and bikes.
Rail: The project site is located immediately adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, part of a regional rail corridor that provides connectivity between San Francisco and Gilroy. The project site is also located approximately 1.8 and 2.5 miles from the San Bruno and South San Francisco BART Stations respectively, which are served by BART’ s Red and Yellow Lines. 2 All references to square footage, height, and distance are approximate unless otherwise noted. 3 Note that while a 40% reduction is proposed, this analysis conservatively analyzed a lower 35% reduction. A 40% reduction would result in fewer trips and related potential for impacts and is fully covered by this analysis. 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 5
Bus: The project site is located approximately 0.3 miles from the Airport/ East Grand Ave SamTrans bus stop and approximately 0.4 miles from the Airport/ Baden bus stop, serviced by the 292 and 397 bus lines. It is also located within 0.5 miles of the Linden Ave/ Miller Ave bus stop, serviced by the 130 and 141 bus lines.
Automobile/ Truck: Project site access is provided via a shared driveway with the Caltrain station from Dubuque Avenue along the western edge of the project site, with drop offs at the northern portion of the site and vehicular access to the parking garage and truck access) at the southern side.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian and bicycle access to the project site is currently limited.
There are no existing pedestrian sidewalks or bike lanes along the shared driveway. The applicant would coordinate with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board JPB), which operates Caltrain and currently owns the parcels to the south and east of the project site, to provide pedestrian access between the project site and the Caltrain station.
Structured parking would be provided in 4 stories below grade, with approximately 350 parking spaces to serve the office/ R& D tenant. No parking is required under City of South San Francisco Municipal Code for the café use based on its size.
The project includes installation of stop signs and directional signage at internal intersections and at the shared driveway intersection with Dubuque Avenue as shown on project plans.
Utilities
The project site is located within existing utility service areas and utilities are generally available in surrounding roadways and properties. See section 19: Utilities and Service Systems for additional discussion of utilities.) In addition to on site improvements and connections to utility lines along Dubuque Avenue, off site utility improvements are proposed as a part of the project as follows:
The project proposes to improve the existing Cal Water main in Dubuque Avenue including upsizing approximately 1,000 linear feet of the current 6 inch and 8 inch ductile iron water main within Dubuque Avenue to 12 inch ductile iron pipe. Cal Water would provide the design for the upsizing project and would perform all of the off site work up to the proposed meter.
The nearest publicly owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by the city, is located on the private parcel to the north of the project. The project would construct a 6 inch sanitary sewer line within an existing easement on the neighboring property.
The project would require coordination with Pacific Gas and Electric PG& E) to extend power from the pole approximately 100 feet north of the project site on Dubuque Avenue or to install a new joint pole at the project site frontage. The project would also require coordination with PG& E for an extension of the high pressure main for natural gas, as the nearest gas distribution main is located approximately 230 feet north of the project frontage. Although the project will include a stubbed connection to the natural gas main, it is designed to operate with 100% electric energy.
Construction
Project construction activities are anticipated to span approximately 2 years with a target start in early 2022 or later. 4Site preparation and foundation work would run approximately the first 9 months, followed by building construction over about 12 months and finishing/ paving/ landscaping over about 3 months. A total of about 325 workers are anticipated to be onsite throughout the construction process.
Once leased, tenant improvements would follow to the interior of the building and are likely to take an additional approximately 3 months or more. The building is expected to be operational as early as mid 2024.
The project would involve removal of contaminated soil and excavation for subsurface parking extending to depths of up to about 60 feet below ground surface. Construction dewatering would be necessary during excavation as further discussed in Section 7: Geology and soils and Section 10:
Hydrology and Water Quality.
4 While this analysis was performed with an assumption of a construction start in early 2022, if construction is initiated later, impacts would be the same or lessened due to increasing emissions controls) from those analyzed here.
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND
Figure 5: Building Sections
Source: Project Plan Set, dated July 16, 2021
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 15
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION, LOCATION, AND SETTING
This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 580 Dubuque Avenue project. See the Introduction and Project Information section of this document for details of the project.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following is a list of potential project impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study Checklist section of this document for a more detailed discussion.
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Air Quality, Construction Emissions: Construction of the project would result in emissions and fugitive dust. While the project emissions would be below threshold levels, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD) considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction period thresholds.
Mitigation Measure
Air 1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The project shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”:
i) All exposed surfaces e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning method would achieve the same standard of air pollution prevention and also reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
AdministrativeDraft
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’ s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’ s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Biological Impact: Trees in the vicinity of the project site could host the nests of common birds that are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Wildlife Code, so the following mitigation would be applicable to ensure no significant impacts occur with respect to these species during nesting.
Mitigation Measure
Bio 1: Pre Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Initiation of construction activities during the avian nesting season February 15 through September 15) shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting season cannot be avoided, pre construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/ or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the project area shall be conducted within 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, a 100 foot buffer area shall be established around the nest in which no construction activity takes place. The buffer width may be modified upon recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity based upon published protocols and/ or guidelines from the U.S. or California Fish and Wildlife Services USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/ or CDFW.
The biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with monitoring by the biologist and stoppage of work in that area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season.
Cultural Resources Impact: There are no known cultural resources at the site. However, given the moderate to high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and proposed disturbance of native soils which also have the potential to contain paleontological resources, mitigation measures Cul 1 through Cul 4 shall be implemented to address the potential for unexpected discovery of such resources.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 17
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures
Cul 1: Sampling and/ or Monitoring Plan. Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified archaeologist shall draft project specific recommendations for sampling and/ or monitoring for subsurface paleontological, archaeological, and/ or tribal resources during excavation as determined necessary based on cords searches and previous studies of the site. Next steps could include additional exploration prior to construction, monitoring of site disturbance by a qualified professional, or no additional action other than that specified in Cul 2, Cul 3, and Cul 4. The plan and supporting reasoning shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval and the applicant shall be responsible for implementing the plan and any follow up actions determined to be necessary.
Cul 2: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program WEAP).
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of paleontological, archaeological, and/ or tribal artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils.
Cul 3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant, and specific measures are implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Cul 4: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and, if the remains are Native American, in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Geological Impact: The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The project site includes undocumented fill. Construction activities require substantial excavation and dewatering. To mitigate the potential for damage to structures or people, Mitigation Measure Geo 1 shall be implemented.
AdministrativeDraft
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure
Geo 1: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Hazardous Site Impact: The site is impacted by contamination from historic and adjacent uses, mostly due to historic railroad use of the site and undocumented fill. The main contamination of concern is mainly low levels of lead and other metals in the soil. Removal and mitigation of impacted soil is proposed as part of project construction activities and would be performed per requirements of the regulatory agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, as outlined in Haz 1.
Mitigation Measure
Haz 1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion. The applicant shall coordinate with DTSC to implement a Response Plan pursuant to the previously approved CLRRA Agreement Docket No HSA FY19/ 20 013) to appropriately mitigate soil contamination. Evidence of plan approval by DTSC shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of earth moving at the site and a Certificate of Completion or other no further action documentation) shall be submitted prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. While details will be coordinated with DTSC, the following components are anticipated to be included in the Response Plan:
1. Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility lines. During excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented. The soil management objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and/ or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all implemented pursuant to the DTSC approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will establish and maintain required health and safety procedures to control worker and public exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily limited to the elements listed below.
2. Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be implemented through engineering controls, to control generation of dust and resulting off site migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust control measures will include:
Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
Watering uncovered ground surface at the site to prevent visible dust from becoming air borne.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 19
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Misting or spraying of soil as required during excavation and loading.
Placement of gravel and/ or rubble plates on unpaved site access roads as feasible.
Covering of trucks hauling contaminated soil from the site with a tarpaulin or other cover.
Reducing to as low as feasible the soil drop from an excavator’ s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks.
Deployment of windbreaks as necessary.
Posting on site vehicle speed limits.
Street sweeping of public streets as required when soils are visible.
Termination of excavation and loading activities if winds exceed 15 mph.
Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.
3. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on site construction workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan prepared by a certified industrial hygienist representing the contractor. The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to provide field personnel with an understanding of the potential chemical and physical hazards, protection of any off site receptors, procedures for entering the project site, health and safety procedures, and emergency response to hazards should they occur. All project personnel shall undergo the identified health and safety training, and read and adhere to the procedures established in the Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the Health and Safety Plan shall be kept on site during field activities and reviewed and updated as necessary.
The Health and Safety Plan will describe the specific personal hygiene and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure to constituents in the soil and groundwater.
4. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop if necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and safety plan.
5. Groundwater Management. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans, however, per analytic results of groundwater sampling, it is anticipated the groundwater from the site will be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment. While not anticipated to be included as a required element of the Response Plan, any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the event of the presence of regulated levels of contamination, measures will be taken to comply with applicable AdministrativeDraft
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
requirements.
6. Contingency Plans for Unknown/ Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage tanks and associated product lines, sumps, and/ or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/ or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/ or stains.
Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and cover with plastic sheets.
Notify the site safety officer and site superintendent.
Have an appropriate professional conduct a site inspection and determine appropriate follow up actions, which would include appropriate handling and removal of the identified hazard.
Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on site to work with the affected materials as required by applicable requirements.
Traffic Hazard Impact: Under existing conditions, the curved alignment of Dubuque Avenue combined with the existing fence/ retaining wall impacts the visibility of northbound traffic for drivers exiting onto Dubuque Avenue from the shared project and Caltrain station parking lot driveway.
Additionally, signs attached to the fence and vegetation at the corner of the property to the north obstruct sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared project and Caltrain driveway under existing conditions. Because the proposed project would add traffic to the existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue, the project would exacerbate an existing traffic hazard, resulting in a potentially significant safety impact. Implementation of the safety improvements identified in Mitigation Measure Trans 1 would result in adequate sight distance at this intersection.
Mitigation Measure
Trans 1: Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements. The applicant shall coordinate the following safety improvements for the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain project driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway. a) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph.
b) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the fence along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the project site to improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic.
Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent properties as reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance obstructions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain project driveway as follows:
c) Coordinate with Caltrain to relocate or reduce the height of the existing AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 21
Potential Impact Mitigation Measures
Caltrain Station Parking” sign located on the south side of the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.
d) Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing signs from the fence and vegetation from the corner of their property to provide adequate sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.
Tribal Cultural Resources Impact: There are no recorded tribal cultural resources at the site.
However, given the moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources, mitigation measures Cul 1 through Cul 4, above, shall be implemented to address the potential for unexpected discovery of such resources.
Mitigation Measures
Cul 1 through Cul 4, detailed above.
AdministrativeDraft
LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this evaluation, it can be concluded that:
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures to reduce these impacts will be required of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 23
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
Environmental factors that may be affected by the project are listed alphabetically below. Factors marked with an X” were determined to be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a potentially significant impact as indicated by the Checklist on the following pages.
Unmarked factors were determined to not be significantly affected by the project, based on discussion provided in the Checklist, including the application of mitigation measures.
Aesthetics Agricultural/ Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/ Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/ Hazardous Material Hydrology/ Water Quality Land Use/ Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/ Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/ Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance There are no impacts that would remain significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Checklist portion of the Initial Study begins below, with explanations of each CEQA issue topic. Four outcomes are possible, as explained below.
1. A no impact” response indicates that no action that would have an adverse effect on the environment would occur due to the project.
2. A less than significant” response indicates that while there may be potential for an environmental impact, there are standard procedures or regulations in place, or other features of the project as proposed, which would limit the extent of this impact to a level of less than significant.”
3. Responses that indicate that the impact of the project would be less than significant with mitigation” indicate that mitigation measures, identified in the subsequent discussion, will be required as a condition of project approval in order to effectively reduce potential project related environmental effects to a level of less than significant.”
4. A potentially significant impact” response indicates that further analysis is required to determine the extent of the potential impact and identify any appropriate mitigation. If any topics are indicated with a potentially significant impact,” these topics would need to be analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report.
AdministrativeDraft
1. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impacta)Have asubstantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within astate scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views ofthe site and its surroundings? Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.)Ifthe project is in an urbanized
area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?d)Create anew source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Under CEQA Section 21099(d),Aesthetic…impacts ofaresidential, mixed use residential, or employment center project onaninfill site located
within atransit priority area shall notbeconsidered significant impacts on the environment.”Accordingly, aesthetics is nolonger considered in determining ifaproject has the potential toresult in significant environmental effects for projects that meet all three ofthe following criteria: 1. The project isin a transit priority area.CEQA Section 21099(a)(7)defines a transit priority area”as an area within one half mile of an existing or planned major transit stop.Amajor transit stop”isdefined in CEQA Section 21064.3 asarail transit station,aferry terminal served by either abus orrail transit service,orthe intersection of two or more major bus routes with afrequency of service interval of
15 minutes orless during the a.m.and p.m.peak commute periods.2. The project ison an infill site.
CEQA Section 21099(a)(4)defines aninfill site” as either 1)alot within an urban area that was previously developed; or 2)a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the site perimeter adjoins or isseparated by only an
improved public right of way from)parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.
3. The project isresidential, mixed use residential, or an employment center. CEQA Section 21099( a)(1)defines an employment center”as a project situated on property zoned for commercial uses with afloor area
ratio ofnoless than 0.75 and located within atransit priority area. The proposed project meets all three of the above criteria because the project1)is inatransit priority area due to the location adjacent to the SouthSan Francisco Caltrain rail)Station;5 2)is
on an infill site 5 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 25
that has been previously developed and is fully adjoined by urban uses and public rights of way within South San Francisco; and 3) is an employment center with a projected FAR of 3.19. Thus, this section does not consider aesthetics, including the aesthetic impacts of light and glare, in determining the significance of project impacts under CEQA.
Nevertheless, the City recognizes that the public and decision makers may be interested in information about the aesthetic effects of a proposed project; therefore, the information contained in this section related to aesthetics, light, and glare is provided solely for informational purposes and is not used to determine the significance of environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. a) Scenic Vistas
The project vicinity is predominantly developed with business park and industrial uses and is not considered a scenic resource or vista in any vicinity plans. The East of 101 Area Plan Policy 5.3) states that a design goal of development in the Plan Area should be to Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.” 6CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of scenic vistas, taking into consideration whether the view is from a location at which people gather specifically to enjoy views and the environmental context i.e., if the area is a natural area or a developed urban area).
While views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain are considered scenic vistas for purposes of this analysis, there are no designated public viewing locations in the vicinity of the project. Views from public roadways are discussed below to indicate the potential for changed views from public locations.
Views toward the Bay to the east of the project site) and San Bruno Mountain to the northwest of the project site) from area roadways that would cross the site are already substantially blocked at road level by existing area development, topography, and landscaping.
While areas of the adjacent development could experience some blockage of views of the Bay or San Bruno Mountain, these are not public viewing locations where people gather specifically to enjoy views. Obstruction of private views is not considered a significant environmental impact under CEQA.
As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact with respect to aesthetics. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would not be significant.
b) Scenic Highways
U.S. 101 is not a designated or eligible State Scenic Highway corridor in the vicinity of the project nor are there any scenic corridors identified in the area. 7 The project would not be visible from a
designated or eligible State Scenic Highway. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact in this regard. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would not be significant. 6 East of 101 Area Plan, July 1994, p. 13
7 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:
https:// dot. ca. gov/ programs/ design/ lap landscape architecture and community livability/ lap liv i scenic highways AdministrativeDraft
c) Visual Character
As a project located in an urbanized area, the applicable criteria would have been whether the project would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The project is seeking a Zoning Map amendment to allow for office/ R& D as part of the Transit Office/ R& D Core TO/ RD) subdistrict rather than the uses currently allowed regional serving retail uses, commercial lodging, visitor services and similar uses that benefit from proximity to the U.S 101). The project is generally consistent with the visual character of other office/ R& D development in the vicinity. Other than those discussed elsewhere in this section, there are no other policies or regulations specific to scenic character that would be applicable to the project site.
As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact with respect to aesthetics. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would not be significant. Additionally, the City will review the proposed design as part of the approval process, which can include considerations beyond those strictly environmental focused.
d) Light and Glare
Sources of light and glare in the project vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service areas and surface parking lots, pedestrian lighting, and city street lights. Light and glare is also associated with vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the area. The existing level and sources of light and glare are typical of those in a developed urban commercial/ industrial setting.
Residential uses and natural areas are particularly sensitive to light and glare impacts. The project is located in a commercial and industrial area with no immediately adjacent residential uses or natural areas and has lighting consistent with that existing in the area. As a standard condition of project approval, new lighting would be required to conform to the City’s standards that limit the amount of light that can spill over to other properties through the use of downcast lighting fixtures.
The project would result in development and lighting treatments typical of the existing commercial and industrial urban settings and consistent with lighting standards to minimize lighting on adjacent areas and would therefore not result in new sources of substantial adverse light or glare. As noted above, this topic is being discussed as an informational item only because the CEQA Guidelines have determined this type of project would not have a significant impact with respect to aesthetics. This informational discussion agrees with the statutory conclusion that the project impact would not be significant.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 27
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model 1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’ s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant tothe
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, tonon agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract?c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section 51104( g))?d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non agricultural use or
conversion offorest land tonon forest use?ae)Agriculture and Forestry Resources The project site is located in adeveloped urban area adjacent toahighway. No part of the site is zoned for,mapped as,or currently being used for agricultural or forestry purposesoris subject tothe Williamson Act.8 There would
be
no impact to agricultural and forestry resources asaresult of this project.8City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco AdministrativeDraft
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?b)Violate any
air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? b)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region isnon attainment under an applicable federal
or state ambient air quality standard? c)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d)Result in other
emissions such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting asubstantial number of people? This section utilizes information from the Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this analysis by Illingworth Rodkin, Inc.and
dated November 19,2021, included in full as Attachment A.a) Air Quality Plan Projects within South San Francisco are subject totheBay Area CleanAir Plan,first adopted bythe Bay AreaAir Quality Management District BAAQMD) in association with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association ofBay Area Governments) in 1991 to meet state requirements and those ofthe Federal Clean Air Act.The plan is meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the ozone standards, but also includes other elements related to particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. The latest update to the plan,adopted in April 2017, isthe Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan.
BAAQMD recommends analyzing aproject’sconsistency with current air quality plan primary goals and control measures.The impact would bepresumed significantfthe project would conflict with or obstruct attainment of the primary goals orimplementation ofthe control measures. The primary goals of theBay
Area 2017 Clean Air Plan are:Attain all state and national air quality standards
Eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities incancer health risk from toxic air contaminants Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030,and 80percent below 1990 levels by 2050 This standard is addressed in Section 8:Greenhouse Gas Emissions.)The project would be required to comply with all applicable rules and regulations related to emissions and health risk AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 29
contaminants see items b d below) or otherwise conflict with the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Many of the Clean Air Plan’ s control measures are targeted to area wide improvements, large stationary source reductions, or large employers and these are not applicable to the proposed project. However, the project would be consistent with all rules and regulations related to construction activities and the proposed development would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency Energy Control Measure EN1 and Water Control Measure WR2) and recycling and green waste requirements Waste Management Control Measures WA3 and WA4). Additionally, the project does not conflict with applicable control measures aimed at improving access/ connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians Transportation Control Measure TR9) or any other control measures.
The project, therefore, would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan and have a less than significant impact in this regard.
b) Air Quality Standards/ Criteria Pollutants
Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies for specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation and include ozone precursors including nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gasses NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide CO), and suspended particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5). The Bay Area is considered attainment” for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is considered nonattainment” for State standards for ozone and particulate matter.
Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’ s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’ s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. 9
BAAQMD updated its Guidelines for air quality analysis in coordination with adoption of new thresholds of significance on June 2, 2010.10 The most recent version of the Guidelines is dated May 2017.
Project related air quality impacts fall into two categories: short term impacts that would occur during construction of the project and long term impacts due to project operation. BAAQMD’ s adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction or operation of 54 pounds per day or operational emissions of 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10.
Construction and operational emissions for the project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model CalEEMod”) version 2020.4.0. Project details were entered into the model including the proposed land uses, Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions, 9 BAAQMD, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 2 1. 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release http:// www. baaqmd. gov/~/ media/ Files/ Communications% 20and% 20Outreach/ Publications/ News% 20Releases/ 2010/ ceqa_ 10 0602.ashx
AdministrativeDraft
Peninsula Clean Energy carbon intensity factors, demolition/ earthwork volumes, and construction schedule. Model defaults were otherwise used. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 EMFAC2021) model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks. The CalEEMod results and EMFAC inputs are included in Attachment A.
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would involve excavation, site preparation, building erection, paving, and finishing and landscaping. Although these construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both nuisance and health related air quality impacts.
BAAQMD’ s adopted thresholds are average daily emissions during construction of 54 pounds per day of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM10.
The results from emissions modeling for project construction are summarized in Table 1 and included in full in Attachment A).
Table 1: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction Pounds per Day) Description
Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter PM10)*
Fine Particulate
Matter PM2.5)
Maximum Average Daily
Emissions
16.67 24.91 1.23 1.03
BAAQMD Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Applies to exhaust emissions only
Source: Illingworth Rodkin 2021, Table 4 in Attachment A.
Construction period emissions levels are below BAAQMD thresholds presented in Table 1. However, BAAQMD considers dust generated by grading and construction activities to be a significant impact associated with project development if uncontrolled and recommends implementation of construction mitigation measures to reduce construction related emissions and dust for all projects, regardless of comparison to their construction period thresholds. These basic measures are included in Mitigation Measure Air 1, below and would further reduce construction period criteria pollutant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Air 1: Basic Construction Management Practices. The project applicant owner sponsor shall demonstrate proposed compliance with all applicable regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of demolition, building or grading permits, including implementation of the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures”:
i) All exposed surfaces e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ii) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.
iii) All visible mud or dirt track out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, unless the City AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 31
Engineer determines that an alternative cleaning method would achieve the same standard of air pollution prevention and also reduce the potential for stormwater pollution.
iv) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. v) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
vi) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
vii) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’ s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
viii) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. Bay Area Air Quality Management District’ s 24 hour general air pollution complaint phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Air 1, the impact related to construction period criteria pollutant impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Because construction period emissions would not exceed applicable significance thresholds, additional construction mitigation measures would not be required to mitigate impacts.
Operational Emissions
Emissions from operation of the project, including mobile sources e.g. employee vehicle trips) and stationary sources e.g. emergency generators), could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in the region. These air pollutants include ROG and NOx that affect ozone levels and to some degree particulate levels), PM10, and PM2.5.
BAAQMD’ s adopted thresholds are emissions during operations of 54 pounds per day or 10 tons per year of NOx, ROG or PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day or 15 tons per year of PM10.
Results of operational emissions modeling are included in full in Attachment A and summarized in Table 2, below.
As shown in Table 2 below, the project’ s operational emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds and the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from operational criteria pollutant emissions.
AdministrativeDraft
Table 2: Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations Pounds per Day for Daily, Tons per Year for Annual)
Description
Reactive
Organic Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter PM2.5)
Project Emissions, Daily 12.81 8.74 7.80 2.18
BAAQMD Daily
Significance Thresholds
54 54 82 54
Exceeds Daily Threshold? No No No No
Project Emissions, Annual 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40
BAAQMD Annual
Significance Thresholds
10 10 15 10
Exceeds Annual Threshold? No No No No
Source: CalEEMod results included as Attachment A. Average daily emissions were calculated by converting from tons per year to pounds/ days.
As vehicular emissions have improved over the years, carbon monoxide hotspots have become less of a concern. BAAQMD presents traffic based criteria as screening criteria for carbon monoxide impacts, as follows. 11 The project would implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan per South San Francisco Municipal Code to reduce project trips. The project is therefore consistent with the Congestion Management Plan CMP) of the San Mateo City/ County Association of Governments C/ CAG), which is the first threshold. The other two screening thresholds are whether the project would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/ or horizontal mixing is substantially limited such as a tunnel or underground parking garage). These hourly traffic volumes are very high and much higher than those in the vicinity. For example, Grand Avenue is one of the highest volume roadways in the vicinity, which carries less than 35,000 vehicles per day under existing conditions.
Spread over a day, that would be substantially less than 44,000 vehicles per hour and the project would only generate up to 222 peak hour trips see section 17: Transportation). The project’ s underground parking garage would serve only project vehicles with expected parking for 350 vehicles, which is again substantially fewer than the threshold of 24,000 vehicles per hour.
Therefore, conditions in and around the project would be well below screening levels and the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from CO emissions.
The project is below significance thresholds established by BAAQMD and meets localized CO screening criteria. As a result, the project would have a less than significant impact on regional air quality during the operational period.
c) Sensitive Receptors
A toxic air contaminant TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. In the Bay Area, a number of urban or industrialized communities exist where the exposure to TACs is relatively high compared to other communities. 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, p. 3 2, 3 3.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 33
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is not in an impacted community. 12 Substantial sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as freeways and high volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project would not involve any of these uses. However, construction activity that uses traditional diesel powered equipment results in the emission of diesel particulate matter including fine particulate matter, which is considered a toxic air contaminant and potential health risk. The generation of these emissions would be temporary and confined to the construction period.
Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, can be particularly sensitive to air pollution. With respect to air pollutants, examples of sensitive receptors include health care facilities, retirement homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. The project itself is not considered a sensitive receptor. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi family residences approximately 350 feet to the west on the other side of U.S. 101. These sensitive receptors are within 1,000 feet from the proposed project, which is the screening distance recommended by BAAQMD. A community health risk assessment was performed as included in full in Attachment A and summarized below.
BAAQMD’ s adopted thresholds for the purpose of assessing impacts of a proposed project on exposure of sensitive receptors to risks and hazards, are a project specific cancer risk exceeding 10 in one million, a non cancer risk exceeds a Hazard Index of 1.0 or cumulative risk of 100 in one million or a Hazard Index of 10.0 respectively is exceeded), and/ or the annual average PM2.5 concentration would exceed 0.3 µg/ m3 or 0.8 µg/ m3 cumulatively). Examples of sensitive receptors are places where people live, play or convalesce and include schools, hospitals, residential areas and recreation facilities.
A construction period Community Health Risk Assessment was performed included in Attachment A), which used the recommended EPA dispersion model AERMOD to determine the potential health risks related to diesel exhaust from construction equipment.
Based on this modeling, for the maximally exposed individual, the increased 30 year inhalation cancer risk from construction activities would be 8.4 in 1 million compared to a threshold of 10.0 in 1 million), the maximum chronic hazard index would be 0.01 compared to a threshold of 1.00) and the annual average PM2.5 concentration would be 0.06 µg/ m3 compared to the threshold of 0.30 µg/ m3). Construction period project health risks to off site sensitive receptors would not exceed threshold levels.
Operational health risks from the project would include project traffic and the proposed diesel emergency generator. For the maximally exposed individual, the increased 30 year inhalation cancer risk from operational activities would be 0.47 in 1 million compared to a threshold of 10 in 1 million), the maximum chronic hazard index would be 0.01 compared to a threshold of 1) and the annual average PM2.5 concentration would be 0.01 µg/ m3 compared to the threshold of 0.30 µg/ m3). Operational period project health risks to off site sensitive receptors would not exceed threshold levels.
Cumulative sources of health risk in the area also include area construction, high volume roadways, and stationary sources such as diesel generators, boilers, auto body shops, and gas stations. For the 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Figure 5 1.
AdministrativeDraft
maximum exposed individual, the total combined cumulative inhalation cancer risk would be 48.09 in 1 million compared to a threshold of 100 in 1 million), the maximum chronic hazard index would be 0.14 compared to a threshold of 10) and the annual average PM2.5 concentration would be 0.73 µg/ m3 compared to the threshold of 0.80 µg/ m3). Cumulative health risks to off site sensitive receptors would not exceed threshold levels.
Exposure risks for the maximally exposed individual are below threshold levels; therefore, the impact related to exposure to sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant.
d) Other Emissions
Odors from construction activities are associated with construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Odors emitted from construction activities would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable much beyond a project site’ s boundaries. The proposed office/ R& D use is consistent with the type of development in the East of 101 area and is not a use type considered by BAAQMD to be a source of substantial objectionable odors.13 Therefore, the potential for objectionable odor impacts to adversely affect a substantial number of people is less than significant.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, Table 3 3.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 35
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified asacandidate, sensitive, or special status species in local orregional plans, policies, or regulations, orby the California Department ofFish and Game orU.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands including,but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such asatree preservation policy or ordinance? f)Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other
approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan?a)Special Status Species and Habitat The project site is maintained asavacant site,surrounded by urbanized uses,that has recently been used asaconstruction staging area for Caltrain improvements and can generally be described as an unpaved dirt lot with little to no vegetation. While no trees are planted onthe project site,there isa row oftrees on the adjoining property, adjacent tothe property line to the north.
Consistency with the City’sTree Preservation Ordinance is discussed under topic e”below.)Special status species are unlikely tooccur inthe project vicinity due to its highly disturbed and urbanized nature.Plant and animal species that may occur insuch areas would be common species associated with urban, developed, and ruderal conditions throughout the San Francisco Bay area.
The project site does not include structures ortrees that could host bat roosts. Other than the potential for nesting birds discussed below, the only areas with the potential for significant biological resources inthe DSASP area are
along
Colma Creek and the Bay fringe, neither of which describe the project site.14 14 City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco AdministrativeDraft
Special status and non status nesting birds have the potential to nest in trees, shrubs, herbaceous vegetation, and on bare ground and man made structures within and adjacent to the project site.
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Fish and Game Code of California protect bird species year round, as well as their eggs and nests during the nesting season. The list of migratory birds includes almost every native bird in the United States. While there are no trees or structures on the site, project construction activities have the potential to impact nests in nearby areas if construction is initiated during the breeding bird season). Indirect visual and acoustic disturbance from construction to off site nesting birds in adjacent areas has the potential to result in nest abandonment, which is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Bio 1: Pre Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Initiation of construction activities during the avian nesting season February 15 through September 15) shall be avoided to the extent feasible. If construction initiation during the nesting season cannot be avoided, pre construction surveys for nesting birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/ or Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the project area shall be conducted within 14 days prior to initiation of construction activities. If active nests are found, a 100 foot buffer area shall be established around the nest in which no construction activity takes place. The buffer width may be modified upon recommendations of a qualified biologist regarding the appropriate buffer in consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of construction activity based upon published protocols and/ or guidelines from the U.S. or California Fish and Wildlife Services USFWS, CDFW) or through consultation with USFWS and/ or CDFW. The biologist may also determine that construction activities can be allowed within a buffer area with monitoring by the biologist and stoppage of work in that area if adverse effects to the nests are observed. The buffer shall be maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and left the nest. These surveys would remain valid as long as construction activity is consistently occurring in a given area and would be completed again if there is a lapse in construction activities of more than 14 consecutive days during the nesting season.
With implementation of mitigation measure Bio 1, which requires avoidance of nesting season or a nesting survey and buffers from any nests as appropriate, the impact related to special status and non status bird species would be less than significant with mitigation. b, c) Riparian Habitat and Wetlands
No wetlands, riparian habitats, or other sensitive habitats are present at the site.15, 16 Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to riparian habitats and wetlands. d) Wildlife Corridors or Nursery Sites
The project site is surrounded by roadways and other developed areas and does not connect undeveloped areas or otherwise have the potential to act as a substantial wildlife corridor or 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper. Available at https:// www. fws. gov/ wetlands/ data/ mapper. html. Accessed November 2021. 16 City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report SCH no. 2013102001), p. 5 1.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 37
nursery site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to wildlife nursery sites or movement.
e) Local Policies and Ordinances
No tree removal is proposed with the project as there are no trees on site. There is a row of trees on the adjoining property at the northern property line of the project site, however, the proposed structure is set back about 94 feet from that property line, so sub floor building excavation and building construction is unlikely have the potential to impact those trees. The applicant is required to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the City’s Municipal Code) if determined applicable for protection of the trees at the property line.
The project would have a less than significant impact regarding conflicts with local policies and ordinances, including tree preservation.
f) Conservation Plans
There are no habitat conservation plans applicable to the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to conservation plans.
AdministrativeDraft
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Cause asubstantial adverse change
in the significance ofahistorical resource pursuant to Public Resources Section 15064.5?b)Cause asubstantial adverse change
in the significance ofan archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Section
15064. 5?c)
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?a) Historic Resources Arecords search was performed bythe Northwest Information Center Attachment B),which indicated that the project site is located adjacent to,and may contain part of,one historic structure,the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform. However, the site is currently vacant and does not contain this historic age structure. It was removed by the Joint Powers Board prior to the initiation ofthis project. There isnopotential to impact historic resources, thus the project
would have no impact on historic resources.b,c)Archaeological Resources and Human Remains The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center indicated that while there are no recorded cultural resources present inthe project area,there isa moderate to high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American and historic period archaeological resources based on the characteristics ofthe site and history of the region.A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed for the project and indicated there are no recorded sacred lands present inthe vicinity of the site see Attachment B).While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area, notice was sent to the provided listofseven local tribes on October 29,2021,perrecommendation of
the Native American Heritage Commission see Attachment B).No requests for consultation were received. Although previous studies included field surveys ofthe project site,significant excavation and below grade levels areproposed,which will disturb previously undisturbed soils well below the field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation extending 48 to 60 feet below the surface inthe area ofthe parking garage.
Given the moderately high potential for unrecorded archeological resources and Native American resources,
the following mitigation measures Cul1,through Cul 4 shallbe implemented. Mitigation Measures Cul1:Sampling and/or Monitoring Plan.Prior to ground disturbance,a qualified archaeologist shall draft project specific recommendations for sampling and/ or monitoring for subsurface paleontological, archaeological, and/ortribal resources during excavation as determined necessary based on cords searches and previous studies of the site. Next AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 39
qualified professional, or no additional action other than that specified in Cul 2, Cul 3, and Cul 4. The plan and supporting reasoning shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco for approval and the applicant shall be responsible for implementing the plan and any follow up actions determined to be necessary.
Cul 2: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a WEAP training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to construction and ground disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of paleontological, archaeological, and/ or tribal artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any personnel with the potential to be involved in activities that could disturb native soils.
Cul 3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological, archaeological, or tribal resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional, who shall be retained by the project applicant, and specific measures are implemented by the project applicant to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083. 2 and 21084. 1 of the California Public Resources Code.
Cul 4: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, the project applicant shall cease or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery is ceased until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner, which evaluation shall be arranged by the project applicant, and appropriate action taken by the project applicant in accordance with section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and, if the remains are Native American, in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures Cul 1, Cul 2, Cul 3, and Cul 4 would reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of unidentified cultural resources at the project site to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
AdministrativeDraft
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Result in potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b)Conflict
with or obstruct
astate or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? a,b)Energy The threshold of significance related toenergy use is whether the project would result in wasteful, inefficient,or unnecessary consumption of energy resources or conflict with or obstruct state or local plans forrenewable energy or energy efficiency. The project would use energy in various ways, including directly topower the building,heating and cooling, and also to power vehicles. Construction and routine operation and maintenance also consume energy.Additionally, there isindirect energy consumption related to the production and distribution of energy and other utilities and transportation and disposal of waste. That being said, there isnoquantified threshold for energy consumption against which to compare aquantified amount of energy use.Rather,
the threshold hinges on whether the energy consumption would be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. As detailed in section 17:Transportation, as an infill project located adjacent to the Caltrain station aregional rail system), the project is considered to result inlow levels of vehicle travel relative to regional averages and would help meet regional efforts to reduce vehicle travel and therefore related vehicular consumption offuel energy.This would be supported through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan toreduce employee trips,which is proposed to meet and exceed City transportation demand reduction code requirements. As detailed in Section 3:Air Quality and Section 8:Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project is also consistent with regional and local climate actions plans,ascurrently applicable.The project incorporates energy and energy related efficiency measures meeting all applicable requirements, including water and waste efficiency. The project would be required to comply with all standards ofTitle 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the California Green Building Standards Code CALGREEN),as applicable, aimed atthe incorporation ofenergy conserving design and construction, and would exceed these requirements through achieving LEED Gold Certification. While representing achange from the former train related use,the project isconsistent with the type ofoffice/ R&D
development inthe area and allowed under the proposed land use designation and zoning. Therefore, although the project would incrementally increase energy consumption,twould not result ina significant impact related toenergy consumption in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner or otherwise conflict
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 41
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture ofaknown earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence
of aknown fault?Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv)Landslides? b)Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable asaresult of the project, and
potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18 1B of
the
Uniform Building Code 1994),creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?f)
Directly orindirectly destroy aunique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?This section utilizes information from the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the applicant by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, dated November 15, 2021, and the Draft Dewatering Assessment also prepared by Langan and dated
May 7,2021,
both of which are available as part of project application materials. a)Seismic Hazards The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward Faults. The closest fault traces are located approximately 3.2miles from the project site.The project site isnot within an Alquist Priolo Seismic Hazard Zone,and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the site.Therefore, the project has no impact related to rupture along a fault.Similarly, the project site is generally flat and isnot located proximate
AdministrativeDraft
However, the San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region, and the site is likely to encounter strong seismic ground shaking during the lifetime of the project, which can result in seismic related ground failure depending on the characteristics of the site and development.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined the potential geological hazards based on site soils to include the potential for seismic hazards, including liquefaction induced settlement and seismic densification and the presence of loose, undocumented fill. Geotechnical considerations include the need to provide adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of shoring to support the basement excavation, and construction considerations, as summarized below.
The project site is not within a mapped liquefaction hazard zone, but the project’ s Geotechnical Investigation assessed the potential for liquefaction given the characteristics of the site soils. While there are some liquefaction susceptible soils at the site, these are entirely within the depth of proposed excavation and would therefore be removed from under the proposed building and would not be represent a liquefaction risk to the proposed project. The same is true of near surface fill consisting of loose to medium dense fill subject to cyclic densification and settlement during a seismic event these would also be removed from the footprint during excavation. If any at grade portions of the building are necessary, these could be supported with deep foundations as appropriate to address these concerns. Outside the building basement footprint, seismic settlement of up to 3 inches could occur, which would require appropriate design of utilities and pavements.
The Geotechnical Report concluded that the potential seismic hazards can be addressed through appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design level geotechnical recommendations and structural plans as specified in mitigation measure Geo 1.
Mitigation Measure
Geo 1: Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo 1 would reduce the potential impact of seismic hazards including seismic ground shaking and liquefaction to a level of less than significant with mitigation. b) Soil Erosion
Construction activities, particularly grading and site preparation, can result in erosion and loss of topsoil. While the project site is already generally flat, due to proposed soil remediation measures to address contamination, approximately 5 to 9 feet of soil would be removed across 60% of the site with disposal of the contaminated soil off site. The project also proposes substantial additional excavation for up to 4 floors of subsurface parking. While intentional removal of soil from the site would not be considered erosion, the disturbance of the site could result in the potential for unintended erosion.
The project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit Order 2009 0009 DWQ Construction General Permit), administered by the State Water Resources Control Board SWRCB). Coverage under the AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 43
NPDES Permit would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) and various site specific best management practices BMPs) to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the NPDES permit and BMPs during demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing, concrete washouts, and inlet protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with South San Francisco Municipal Code SSFMC”) Section 15.56.030, which would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging which may increase flood damage.
Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans. With the implementation of a SWPPP and Erosion Control Plan to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and loss of topsoil during and following construction which are required under existing regulations and therefore not needed to be implemented as mitigation the soil erosion impacts of the project would be less than significant.
c, d) Unstable or Expansive Soil
As discussed under topic a” above, the soils at the project site and in the surrounding areas contain loose, undocumented fill requiring geotechnical considerations related to the need to provide adequate bearing for the building loads, design and installation of shoring to support the basement excavation, and construction considerations. Characteristics of site soils would largely be addressed through the proposed excavation, which would remove unstable soils in the building basement footprint.
The Geotechnical Investigation determined the project site to be at low risk for lateral spreading due to its flat nature and the absence of any nearby steep slopes. The Geotechnical Investigation did not identify the potential for expansive soils at the site.
The project would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which could result in on and off site subsidence or collapse if not handled appropriately. To minimize the need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using a 3.3 foot thick continuous deep soil mixing DSM) wall for temporary excavation support. Because DSM walls are continuous, they act to temporarily cut off groundwater infiltration through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. When combined with tiebacks and/ or internal bracing as proposed, DSM walls can also result in greater lateral support to prevent caving or deformations due to pressures from nearby soils and structures. Langan performed a series of groundwater drawdown simulations to address potential conditions that could be encountered during excavation and in all cases, the potential for settlement would be 1.2 inches or less at 25 feet from the excavation and declining farther from the site.
The Langan reports conclude that the potential geological hazards related to unstable or expansive soil, including off site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering, can be addressed through appropriate design and construction, which would occur as part of the design level geotechnical recommendations and structural plans as specified in mitigation measure Geo 1.
Mitigation Measure Geo 1 requiring compliance with geotechnical investigation construction methodologies would also reduce the potential impact related to unstable or expansive soil or collapse.
Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo 1 would reduce the potential impact of unstable or expansive soil AdministrativeDraft
hazards including off site subsidence or collapse due to excavation and dewatering to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
e) Septic Tanks
The project would not include the use of septic tanks and associated disposal facilities. Therefore, the project would have no impact in this regard.
f) Unique Geologic Feature or Paleontological Resource
The project site is a relatively level infill site and does not contain unique geologic features.
The area east of Highway 101 is underlain by deposits of Bay mud, which have some sensitivity for paleontological vertebrates, though there are no known paleontological resources in the vicinity of the project site.17, 18
The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and the site is underlain by about 7 to 9 feet of fill; however, the excavation for the parking garage would dig to a depth of up to about 60 feet, which is likely to encounter native soils that have not been previously disturbed. Therefore, the project has a potential to encounter paleontological resources, which would be addressed through the following measures.
Mitigation Measures Cul 1, Cul 2, Cul 3, and Cul 4 would also reduce the potential impact related to unknown paleontological resources.
Implementation of mitigation measures Cul 1, Cul 2, Cul 3, and Cul 4 would reduce the impacts associated with possible disturbance of previously unidentified paleontological resources to less than significant with mitigation.
17 South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
18 University of California Museum of Paleontology UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal, http:// ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ accessed November 2021).
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 45
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have asignificant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy orregulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? This section utilizes information from the Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for this analysis by Illingworth Rodkin,Inc.and
dated November 19,2021,included in full as Attachment A.a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions BAAQMD has determined that greenhouse gas GHG)emissions and global climate change represent cumulative impacts. Construction and operation of the proposed project would be additional sources of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption offuel fortransportation and energy usage on an ongoing basis. The threshold of significance for operational GHGs isan efficiency threshold of 4. 6 metric tons CO2e per service population residents and employees) per year.Ifa project is too small to meet the efficiency threshold, an overall emissions threshold of1,100 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent CO2e)per year may be used instead. Because this isnot a small project, the efficiency threshold will be used forthis analysis.State Assembly Bill 32 AB 32)required California state and local governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The BAAQMD thresholds were based on those 2020 targets. State Senate Bill 32 SB 32)was subsequently adopted to require that there be afurther reduction in GHG emissions to 40%below the 1990 levels by 2030. BAAQMD has not yet updated its thresholds to address future target reductions past 2020. While not yet adopted by BAAQMD, the additional 40%reduction by 2030 identified inSB 32 equates toa
2030 efficiency standard of 2.8metric tons CO2e per year per service population. BAAQMD hasnot proposed a separate threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions, though recommends quantification and a determination regarding significance in relation to meeting AB32 and now SB 32)goals.Standard practice is to divide the construction emissions by40 years an average building life)and add that tothe operational emissions. The project’ s GHG emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, as discussed in section 3:Air Quality.Asummary ofthe results are included in Table 3 onthe next page and the CalEEMod inputand output can be found in Attachment A and as detailed,the emissions quantification incorporated project details, some
of which serve toreduce GHG emissions including Transportation Demand Management Plan trip reductions.As shown in Table 3,GHG emissions would be below BAAQMD’s efficiency threshold based on 2020 reductions and also the projected 2030 efficiency threshold. Therefore, AdministrativeDraft
Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Description metric tons CO2e per year
Project Emissions, Operational 1,976
Project Emissions, Construction
averaged over 40 years)
42 Project Emissions, Total 2,018
Project Service Population employees) 842
Project Emissions, Total
per Service Population)
2.4 BAAQMD Project Service Population
Significance Threshold 2020
4.6 Exceeds 2020 Threshold? No
Projected Service Population
Significance Threshold 2030
2.8 Exceeds 2030 Threshold? No
Source: Illingworth Rodkin 2021, from Table 9 and surrounding text in Attachment A.
Notes: CO2e is carbon dioxide equivalent units, the standard measure of total greenhouse gasses.
Project emissions are reported for the intended operational year of 2025. Operation in later years, such as 2030, would have lower emissions due to anticipated vehicular emissions controls.
Service Population was calculated at approximately 350 square feet per employee as the target employment density for the project.
b) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans
The City adopted a GHG reduction plan in 2014, known as the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan SSF CAP”). This plan estimated community wide GHG emissions of 548,600 metric tons CO2e in 2005 and a target reduction of 15% below the 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Because the SSF CAP only demonstrates consistency with the AB 32 near term reduction target for 2020, it is not a qualified” CAP available for CEQA streamlining for projects after 2020 and was therefore not used in place of emissions quantification under this Section 8(a) above. However, until an updated CAP is adopted, the current SSF CAP’ s measures and development requirements still apply to projects constructed and operated after 2020. Therefore, this analysis evaluates the proposed project’ s consistency with applicable measures and development requirements in the SSF CAP.
Many of the SSF CAP’ s reduction measures are targeted to city wide strategies that are not directly applicable to the proposed project. The project includes bicycle facilities and has pedestrian connections to the South San Francisco Caltrain station and would participate in a Transportation Demand Management Plan contributing to SSF CAP Measures 1.1 through 1.3). The project includes tree plantings SSF CAP Measure 3.4), would meet current standards of energy and water efficiency SSF CAP Measures 3.1 and 6.1), and occupants would participate in recycling for waste reduction SSF CAP Measure 5.1). A discussion of the project’ s consistency with the Clean Air Plan is included in Section 3: Air Quality.
Additionally, GHG emissions associated with the proposed project were analyzed per the BAAQMD Guidelines against thresholds based on 2020 target reductions and projected 2030 target AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 47
reductions. BAAQMD’ s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state wide regulations and plans, such as the Assembly Bill 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and the low carbon fuel standard. Systemic changes will be required at the state level to achieve California’ s future post 2020) GHG reduction goals. Regulations, such as future amendments to the low carbon fuel standard, updates to the state’ s Title 24 standards, and implementation of the state’ s Short Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, including forthcoming regulations for composting and organics diversion, will be necessary to attain the magnitude of reductions required for the state’ s goals. The project would be required to comply with applicable operational regulations or be directly affected by the outcomes e.g., vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive because of statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewables Portfolio Standards). Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the project would not conflict with any other state level regulations pertaining to GHGs in the post 2020 era. Additionally, as detailed under this Section 8(a) above, project emissions would not exceed threshold levels, including projected 2030 threshold levels consistent with adopted state reduction targets.
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact in relation to consistency with GHG reduction plans.
AdministrativeDraft
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create asignificant hazard to the public orthe environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?d)Be located on a site which isincluded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuanto Government Code Section 65962. 5 and,as a result, would it create asignificant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such aplan has not been adopted, within two miles ofapublic airport or public use airport, would the project
result inasafety hazard for people residing or working
inthe project area?f)Impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?g)Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, toasignificant riskofloss,injury or death involving wildland fires?This section utilizes information from the Environmental Site Assessment and Site Characterization Report prepared for the applicant by AllWest Environmental, dated March 23,2017 and February 23,2018 respectively,and the draft Soil and Groundwater Management Plan prepared by Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.,dated January 15,2021,which are available as part of project application materials.There have been no
substantial changes to the site related to Hazardous Materials since preparation ofthese reports.This section also reliesoninformation from the January 2020 California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act CLRRA) Agreement between the applicant and
DTSC, Docket No.HSA FY19/20
013, included as AttachmentCto this document. a)Routine Use of Hazardous Materials It islikely that equipment used atthe site during construction activities could utilize substances considered byregulatory bodies as hazardous, such as diesel fuel and gasoline. However, all construction activities would berequired toconform with Title 49 ofthe Code of Federal
Regulations, US Department of Transportation, State of California, and local laws,ordinances and procedures.
While specific tenants have not yet been identified,any commercial uses would involve household hazardous waste such as cleaners. R&D laboratories additionally are likely tohandle materials AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 49
Health Division enforces regulations pertaining to safe handling and proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent or reduce the potential for injury to health and the environment. Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for developing and enforcing workplace safety standards and ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of hazardous materials.
With compliance with applicable regulations, project construction and operations are not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials less than significant). b, d) Hazardous Materials Site and Accidental Release
The site is listed as a Voluntary Cleanup hazardous materials site for past contamination related to historic use of the site by Union Pacific Railroad from approximately the 1940s and ceasing by the early 1990s DTSC’ s Envirostor Site Code: 202240).
Contamination at historic railroad sites can come from hazardous materials used in the construction of railroad tracks and associated structures; materials storage; chemicals that may have been used for dust suppression and weed control along the rail lines including pesticides, herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons; and toxic preservatives that were used on the wooden rail ties.
Additionally, the project site contains undocumented fill, which can contain contaminants from wherever the fill was sourced from.
Due to the known potential for contamination at the site, various tests of the groundwater and soils have been performed at the site over the years, with the following conclusions:
Soils: The primary contaminants of concern in site soils were mainly low levels of metals, including antimony, arsenic, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The lead and copper concentrations at some locations may qualify those soils as hazardous waste Class 1 and Class 2). Additional soil contaminants were sampled that exceeded residential but not commercial screening levels including petroleum hydrocarbons fuels). Given the proposed non residential development planned for the site, these are not further specified here. Arsenic and asbestos were detected in the soil at levels consistent with background levels in natural soils in the area.
Groundwater: No contaminants were detected in the groundwater above commercial screening levels for groundwater not used as a drinking water resource or for aquatic habitat. Limited groundwater samples at the site identified benzene above residential but not commercial direct exposure screening levels, so this is not further discussed for the proposed non residential project. Some metals were detected at levels exceeding thresholds for aquatic habitats, but it was determined these standards would not be applicable to the site given the distance from the site to the nearest aquatic habitat along Colma Creek so they are not further discussed.
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control) is the lead regulatory agency for remediation of the project site. A CLRRA Agreement was executed between the applicant and DTSC on January 23, 2020 Docket No. HSA 013), which outlines requirements for remediation of the site pursuant to CLRRA see Attachment C). A Response Plan is required to be approved by DTSC pursuant to CLRRA prior to the start of construction activities at the site, which will detail remediation activities. The applicant anticipates this will include excavation and proper handling and disposal of contaminated site soils as part of project development, then appropriate mitigation of any remaining materials. A Certificate of Completion would be issued by DTSC once actions are completed at the site pursuant to CLRRA. While these actions are required per coordination with the regulatory agency, DTSC, the following mitigation measure Haz 1 shall be implemented to ensure appropriate tracking of actions by the City.
AdministrativeDraft
Mitigation Measure
Haz 1: Response Plan Implementation and Completion. The applicant shall coordinate with DTSC to implement a Response Plan pursuant to the previously approved CLRRA Agreement Docket No. HSA FY19/ 20 013) to appropriately mitigate soil contamination.
Evidence of plan approval by DTSC shall be submitted to the City prior to initiation of earth moving at the site and a Certificate of Completion or other no further action documentation) shall be submitted prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits. While details will be coordinated with DTSC, the following components are anticipated to be included in the Response Plan:
1. Soil Management. The proposed construction activities will disturb soil during the excavation, site grading, construction of new foundations, and installation of utility lines. During excavation activities, dust control measures will be implemented. The soil management objectives for the site are to control exposure of potentially hazardous constituents in soil to construction workers, nearby residents and/ or pedestrians, and future users of the site, all as implemented pursuant to the DTSC approved plan. The components of the Response Plan will establish and maintain required health and safety procedures to control worker and public exposure to site contaminants during construction including but not necessarily limited to the elements listed below.
2. Dust Control. During handling of potentially contaminated soils, an enhanced dust control plan with provisions to protect construction workers and the public will be implemented through implementation of engineering controls, to control generation of dust and resulting off site migration of contaminants in site soil. Dust control measures will include:
Covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheeting.
Watering uncovered ground surface at the site to prevent visible dust from becoming air borne.
Misting or spraying of soil as required during excavation and loading.
Placement of gravel and/ or rubble plates on unpaved site access roads as feasible.
Covering of trucks hauling contaminated soil from the site with a tarpaulin or other cover.
Reducing to as low as feasible the soil drop from an excavator’ s bucket onto soil piles or into transport trucks.
Deployment of windbreaks as necessary.
Posting on site vehicle speed limits.
Street sweeping of public streets as required when soils are visible.
Termination of excavation and loading activities if winds exceed 15 mph.
Addition of soil stabilizers and other responses as needed.
3. Health and Safety Plan. The potential health risk to on site construction workers and the public will be minimized by developing and implementing a comprehensive Health and Safety Plan prepared by a certified industrial hygienist representing the contractor. The purpose of the Health and Safety Plan is to provide field personnel AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 51
with an understanding of the potential chemical and physical hazards, protection of any off site receptors, procedures for entering the project site, health and safety procedures, and emergency response to hazards should they occur. All project personnel shall undergo the identified health and safety training, and read and adhere to the procedures established in the Health and Safety Plan. A copy of the Health and Safety Plan shall be kept on site during field activities and reviewed and updated as necessary.
The Health and Safety Plan will describe the specific personal hygiene and monitoring equipment that will be used during construction to protect and verify the health and safety of the construction workers and the general public from exposure to constituents in the soil and groundwater.
4. Health and Safety Officer. A site health and safety officer identified in the Health and Safety Plan will be on site at all times during excavation activities to ensure that all health and safety measures are maintained. The health and safety officer will have authority to direct and stop if necessary) all construction activities in order to ensure compliance with the health and safety plan.
5. Groundwater Management. Construction dewatering is anticipated based on development plans, however, per analytic results of groundwater sampling, it is anticipated the groundwater from the site will be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment. While not anticipated to be included as a required element of the Response Plan, any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the event of the presence of regulated levels of contamination, measures will be taken to comply with applicable requirements.
6. Contingency Plans for Unknown/ Unexpected Conditions. The following tasks shall be implemented during excavation activities if unanticipated hazardous materials are encountered. Such materials may include unaccounted for underground storage tanks and associated product lines, sumps, and/ or vaults, former monitoring wells, and/ or soil with significant petroleum hydrocarbon odors and/ or stains.
Stop work in the area where the suspect material is encountered and cover with plastic sheets.
Notify the site safety officer and site superintendent.
Have an appropriate professional conduct a site inspection and determine appropriate follow up actions, which would include appropriate handling and removal of the identified hazard.
Review the existing health and safety plan for revisions, if necessary, and have appropriately trained personnel on site to work with the affected materials as required by applicable requirements.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure Haz 1 would reduce the impacts associated with upset or accidental release related to a hazardous materials site to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
AdministrativeDraft
Routine use of hazardous materials as a part of construction activities and operations are discussed under this Section 9(a) above.
c) Hazardous Materials Near Schools
No school is located within one quarter mile of the project site. No hazardous materials with the potential for release during operation would be handled on or emitted from the site. Construction activities are discussed above. Therefore, the project would have no impact with respect to hazardous materials near schools.
e, f) Airport Hazards
The closest airport is the San Francisco International Airport SFO), approximately 2 miles from the project site. The project site is within the boundary of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP) and as such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to development at the project site. Most of the East of 101 Area, including the project site, is located outside of the ALUCP designated Safety Compatibility zone that would have restricted types of uses, so the main applicable restrictions are height limitations. Development on the project site is limited to maximum heights between 182.67 and 223.63 feet above mean sea level, but could be modified through consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration FAA). 19 Factoring in the height of the site, the applicant estimates that the proposed project would reach maximum heights of 173.5 feet above mean sea level, all of which would be below the lowest FAA height limit at the site of 182.67 feet. The project appears to be consistent with height limitation identified in the ALUCP. Notification and consultation with the FAA would be required under CFR part 77.9 and would ensure that the project complies with regulatory requirements for air hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
g) Emergency Response Plan
The project would not include any changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the site or surrounding area. The proposed project would be designed to comply with the California Fire Code and the City Fire Marshal’ s code requirements that require on site access for emergency vehicles, a standard condition for any new project approval.
No substantial obstruction in public rights of way has been proposed with the project’ s construction activities. Any construction activities can result in temporary intermittent roadway obstructions, but these would be handled through standard procedures with the City, such as approval of encroachment permits, to ensure adequate clearance is maintained.
Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations and standard procedures, the impact with respect to impairment or interference with an Emergency Response or Evacuation Plan would be less than significant.
h) Wildland Fire
The project site is a highly developed industrial/ commercial area, and no wildlands are intermixed within this urban area. The closest wildlands area is San Bruno Mountain County Park located over 19 Interpreted through coordination with FAA on project plans, consistent with: City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, including Exhibit IV 14. Available at:
http:// ccag. ca. gov/ wp content/ uploads/ 2014/ 10/ Consolidated_ CCAG_ ALUCP_ November 20121. pdf AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 53
3,000 feet away, which is considered to have moderate to high not very high) fire hazard. The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks of any nature, would not substantially impair an adopted emergency evacuation plan or emergency response plan, and is not located in or near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. 20, 21 The project is not susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires and there would be no impact in this regard.
20 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available:
https:// osfm.fire.ca.gov/ divisions/ wildfire planning engineering/ wildland hazards building codes/ fire hazard severity zones m aps/.
21 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008, available at:
https:// osfm.fire.ca.gov/ media/ 6800/ fhszl_map41.pdf.
AdministrativeDraft
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b)Substantially decrease groundwater supplies orinterfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course ofastream
or river,or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i)result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site;ii)substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site; iii)create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or d)In
flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones,risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?e)Conflict with
or obstruct implementation ofa water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?This section utilizes information from the Draft Dewatering Assessment prepared by Langan and dated May7,2021, which
is available
aspart of the project application materials.a)Water Quality and Discharge Construction Period Construction activities have the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through debris and oil/grease carried inrunoff, which could result in pollutants and siltation entering stormwater runoff and downstream receiving waters ifnot properly managed. The project would berequired toobtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit General Construction Permit)issued by theState Water Resources Control Board. Coverage under this permit requires preparation of
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWPPP) for review and approval by the City.22Ata minimum, the SWPPP would include adescription of construction a
materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a listof pollutants likely to contact stormwater; list of provisions to eliminate orreduce discharge of materials tostormwater; best management practices BMPs);and aninspection and monitoring program. Furthermore, the County ofSan Mateo’sWater Pollution Prevention Program would require theproject site toimplement BMPs during project construction toreduce pollution carried by stormwater such as keeping
sediment on site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 55
management of construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 14.04.180 would also be implemented during project construction. Per standard City procedures, compliance with SWPPP requirements and BMPs would be verified during the construction permitting process.
As discussed in more detail in Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities, which would need to then be discharged. To minimize the need for dewatering, the project is proposing shoring using continuous deep soil mixing DSM) walls for temporary excavation support, which act to temporarily cut off groundwater infiltration through the sides of the excavation, resulting in the need for less dewatering. As discussed in more detail in Section 9: Hazards and Hazardous Materials, no contaminants were detected in the groundwater above commercial screening levels for groundwater not used as a drinking water resource or for aquatic habitat. Per the analytic results of the groundwater sampling, it is anticipated the groundwater from site dewatering will be able to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system with no additional treatment to meet water quality and discharge requirements. Any construction dewatering must adhere to a discharge permit obtained from the South San Francisco Department of Public Works Water Quality Control Division, Environmental Compliance Program or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In the event of the presence of unexpected levels of contamination, the groundwater will be pumped into appropriate containers and samples obtained for chemical analyses and appropriate treatment prior to disposal.
Mitigation Measures Geo 1 and Haz 1 would require construction techniques to minimize necessary dewatering and appropriate handling of dewatering and would also reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge.
Compliance with a design level Geotechnical Investigation and Structural Design Plans, as required by Mitigation Measure Geo 1 and implementation of groundwater management as required by Mitigation Measure Haz 1 would reduce the potential impact related to water quality and discharge to a level of less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Period
Project operations have the potential to result in sources of stormwater pollutants such as oil, grease, and debris to stormwater drainage flowing over roadways and other impermeable surfaces and entering the city’s stormwater system, served by the City of South San Francisco’ s Public Works Department, Maintenance Division. The project site drains to an existing storm drain system that outfalls to a tidally influenced channel that is connected to the San Francisco Bay. With the proposed improvements, runoff from the rooftop and parking areas would be retained and treated via bio retention basins and flow through planters.
Federal Clean Water Act regulations require municipalities to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDES) permits which outline programs and activities to control surface stormwater pollution. Municipalities, such as the City of South San Francisco, must eliminate or reduce non point" pollution, consisting of all types of substances generated as a result of urbanization e.g. pesticides, fertilizers, automobile fluids, sewage, litter, etc.), to the maximum extent practicable” as required by Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(3)(iii)). Clean Water Act Section 402(p) and USEPA regulations 40 CFR 122.26) specify a municipal program of best management practices” to control stormwater pollutants. Best Management Practices BMP) refers to any kind of procedure or device designed to minimize the quantity of pollutants that enter the storm drain system. To comply with these regulations, each incorporated city and town in San Mateo County AdministrativeDraft
joined with the County of San Mateo to form the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program SMCWPPP) in applying for a regional NPDES permit, which includes Provision C.3. 23 The C.3 requirements are intended to protect water quality by minimizing pollutants in runoff, and to prevent downstream erosion by: designing the project site to minimize imperviousness, detain runoff, and infiltrate runoff where feasible; treating runoff prior to discharge from the site; ensuring runoff does not exceed pre project peaks and durations; and maintaining treatment facilities.
Project applicants must prepare and implement a Stormwater Control Plan containing treatment and source control measures that meet the maximum extent practicable” standard as specified in the NPDES permit and the SMCWPPP C.3 Guidebook. Project applicants must also prepare a Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan and execute agreements to ensure the stormwater treatment and flow control facilities are maintained in perpetuity.
Through project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances, and County of San Mateo’ s guidelines, the project would not result in significant impacts on water quality and would not result in a violation of water quality standards. Impacts would be less than significant with respect to water quality and discharge. b) Groundwater Recharge and Supplies
The project is located on a designated urban area within the Westside groundwater basin.24 The California Water Service Cal Water) supplies water to the City of South San Francisco and would serve the project site. Cal Water’ s Urban Water Management Plan UWMP) anticipates future growth in the region. The majority of the water supply to the Cal Water South San Francisco District i.e., approximately 80 percent from 2005 2019) is treated water purchased from the City and County of San Francisco’ s Regional Water System RWS), which is operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SFPUC) and originates largely 85%) from the Hetch Hetchy watershed surface water). Groundwater makes up approximately 20 percent of the water supply for the South San Francisco District, which comes from the Westside Basin”, which underlies the South San Francisco District. The Basin is currently categorized by the California Department of Water Resources as a very low priority basin and as such, the Basin is not subject to the requirements of the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act though the Basin has been actively managed for years, including the establishment of pumping limitations. 25 The site is currently undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces. The project would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface 78% of the site). The project would construct new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch basins, storm drain pipe, bio retention areas, and flow through planters to capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. The proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow discharge pattern.
As discussed in more detail in Section 7: Geology and Soils, project construction activities would require substantial excavation and related dewatering activities. Per the Draft Dewatering Assessment, dewatering of up to approximately 6.4 million gallons could be required for project 23 Regional Water Board, 2007, Order No. R2 2007 0027, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921. 24 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan Basin Plan), November 2019.
25 California Water Service Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District., available at: https:// www.calwater.com/ docs/ uwmp2020/ SSF_ 2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 57
construction, which the study concludes would result in the formation of a cone of depression outside the site boundaries within the upper aquifer that would recover over a period of time estimated to be about 900 days to full recovery after dewatering activities cease. Because groundwater at the site is not used for drinking water or for aquatic habitat and draw down from dewatering activities would be temporary, this would not be considered a significant impact on groundwater supplies.
As discussed under Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with stormwater drainage requirements, including bio retention/ treatment areas to address both quality and volumes of runoff and is consistent with expected use of the site in basin planning. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, and would have a less than significant impact related to groundwater.
Because groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is not used as a drinking water source and is derived from the Bay, the potential to deplete groundwater supplies is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.
c) Drainage Pattern Alteration
The site is currently undeveloped and therefore consists entirely of pervious surfaces across the
1.9 acre site. The project would result in approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface 78% of the site).
There is an existing storm drainpipe on the project site owned and maintained by Caltrans, located within an existing 5 foot wide stormwater easement. The project is not proposing any alterations to the existing storm drainpipe. The proposed building is located outside of the existing stormwater easement. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement low impact development stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using concrete lined flow through planters to manage stormwater on the project site. An on site storm drain detention system will be provided to limit flows into the public storm drain system to pre project conditions, in accordance with City requirements.
As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, through compliance with applicable regulations, runoff from site would be the same or reduced from that existing and would not cause erosion, siltation, pollution, or flooding and as discussed above, changes to on site conditions would meet applicable requirements and would not exceed capacity of the stormwater drainage system or result in on or off site flooding. Project impacts related to alteration of drainage patterns would be less than significant.
d) Inundation
The project site is approximately 1 to 1.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 5 miles from the Pacific Ocean, and according to state hazard mapping is not located in a tsunami hazard area.
26 The nearest body of water that could experience seiche water level oscillations in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water) is the San Francisco Bay located approximately 1 mile northeast and 1.5 miles east of the project site. A seiche would not experience run up higher than a tsunami 26 California Geological Survey, 2021, Tsunami Hazard Area Map, San Mateo County, available at:
https:// www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/ tsunami/ maps.
AdministrativeDraft
and as discussed above, the site is not located in a tsunami hazard area and is therefore not in an area at risk for seiche inundation either. No other large bodies of water with the potential to inundate the project site by a seiche are located near the site.
The project is not located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA) Flood Zone and is therefore not at substantial risk of flooding from 100 year or more common storms. 27 Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation by a tsunami, seiche, or flooding and the project impact in this regard would be less than significant.
e) Implementation of Plans
As discussed under this Section 10(a) above, the project would comply with applicable requirements under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, County of San Mateo’ s Water Pollution Prevention Program, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPDES), which are intended to implement relevant laws and plans related to water quality.
As discussed under this Section 10(b) above, the local groundwater basin is not required to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The project would not otherwise conflict with Cal Water’ s Urban Water Management Plan or groundwater management and the project impact with respect to implementation of plans would be less than significant. 27 Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA), effective 4/5/2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map FIRM), Map Number 06081C0042F, available at https:// www.fema.gov/ flood maps.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 59
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant
With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Physically divide an established community? b)Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, orregulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?a) Physical Division ofa Community The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by developed parcels and infrastructure. While currently vacant, the site isadevelopment parcel and does not actasaconnection point for other parcels. The project would notinvolve any physical changes that would have the potential to divide anestablished community and there
would therefore be no impact inthis regard.b) Conflict with Land Use PlanAn environmental impact could occur when aproject conflicts with apolicy or regulation intended toavoid orreduce an environmental impact.The following discussion does not replace or preclude aconsistency assessment for
project approval considerations, which take into account more than potential impacts tothe environment. The site is currently designated Business Commercial under the existing General Plan and zoned for Freeway Commercial FC)use,under which R&Dand office uses are not principally permitted. The project would seek aGeneral Plan amendment to Transit Office/R&D Core and arezoning to Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District; Transit Office/ R&D Core Subdistrict. The site is within the boundaries of the DSASP. However, it was not specifically indicated for development inthe DSASP as it was in use as partof the Caltrain station property atthe time, prior to the station relocation and upgrade. While the proposed project would require a Conditional Use Permit for Parking/ Loading Reduction, and Incentive Based FAR Bonus,these are allowable development standard approvals under the City’s planning process and would therefore not be considered conflicts with the zoning. The site isalso within the boundaries of the East of 101 Area Plan 1994),and the project seeks an amendment to remove the site from that plan. The South San Francisco General Plan 1999)and East of101 Area Plan 1994)are intended tobe replaced bythe General Plan 2040 update that iscurrently underway. The applicant has been coordinating with the City related tothe General Plan update efforts and the project is intended to be consistent with the General Plan 2040 update, which is expected todesignate the site as partofthe East of 101 Transit Core.The proposed project currently conforms tothe updated height, density and use controls under the General Plan 2040 Preferred AdministrativeDraft
Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact with regard to land use plan conflicts under the existing General Plan, DSASP, East of 101 Area Plan, and zoning map, each as amended, and under the General Plan 2040 and related planning documents as currently proposed in the City’s Preferred Land Use Alternative.
AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 61
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Result in the loss of availability ofaknown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?b)Result in the loss of availability ofalocally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated ona
local general plan,specific plan orother land use plan?a,b)Mineral Resources The site contains noknown mineral resources and has not been delineated asalocally important mineral recovery site on any
land
use plan. 29 The project would have no impact related to mineral resources. 29U.S.Geological Survey, Mineral Resources Data System: U.S.
AdministrativeDraft
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable
standards of other agencies? b)Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) For aproject located within the vicinity ofaprivate airstrip or an airport land use plan or,where such aplan has not been adopted, within two miles ofapublic airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
inthe project area toexcessive noise levels?ab)Excessive Noise or Vibration Noise and vibrations from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration ofnoise generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise sensitive timesofthe day early morning, evening, or nighttime hours),the construction occurs inareas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses,orwhen construction involves particularly noisy techniques, such as driven piles.
The closest noise sensitive receptors tothe project site are the multi family residences approximately 350 feet tothe west on the other side ofU.S.101.The South San Francisco Noise Ordinance Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal Code, Section 8.32.050)restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:
00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00PM on Saturdays, and 10:
00AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation of any individual piece of equipment to 90 dBA at 25 feet or at the property line.The project isnot anticipated torequire pile driving and the project’sconstruction activities would comply with the Noise Ordinance. With compliance with Noise Ordinance requirements, temporary construction period noise and vibration impacts are considered less than significant.
Operationally, the project itself would notbe considered asource of substantial vibration though futureR& Dtenants could bevibration sensitive. While not an impact under CEQA, the applicant completed an independent analysis of the vibrations of the nearby trainsonthe project design and found that
the design of the building could adequately mitigate any problems fortarget future users.Operation ofan office/ R&Duse would not be considered a noise sensitive receptor and does not produce substantial levels of off site vibration or noise.Rooftop equipment would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance, would beshielded as appropriate, and in any case, would not have the potential to generate noise levels above those oftheU.S.101 at receptors across the highway AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 63
with at least a doubling of traffic volumes on roadways adjacent to areas with noise sensitive uses that are already at or above acceptable noise conditions. The project is located proximate to U.S. 101 and would not require substantial trips to pass by noise sensitive uses other than on high volume roadways such as U.S. 101, which carries substantially more than the volume of project traffic under existing conditions and would therefore not experience a doubling in volume with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, noise and vibration impacts from operation of the project would be less than significant.
c) Airport Noise
The closest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport, approximately 2 miles to the south. The project site is within the boundary of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP), but is not within the area substantially impacted by airplane flyover noise i.e., the Community Noise Equivalent Level 70 Noise Contours). 30 Impacts related to excessive aircraft noise exposure would be less than significant.
30 City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available at:
http:// ccag. ca. gov/ wp content/ uploads/ 2014/ 10/ Consolidated_ CCAG_ ALUCP_ November 20121. pdf AdministrativeDraft
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impacta)Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses)orindirectly for example, through extension of roadsor other infrastructure)?b)Displace
substantial numbersofexisting
people or housing, necessitating theconstruction of replacement housing elsewhere? a)Substantial Population Growth While neither housing nor population are directly created asaresult of this project,employment opportunities can indirectly increase population and the demand for housing. The applicant projects anemployment density of350 gross square footage per employee. Based on this,the project is estimated tointroduce 842 new jobs to the City of South San Francisco. The current South San Francisco General Plan was released in 1999 and does not have relevant employee estimates and the updated General Plan,while being prepared during the preparation of this document, is not yet
available, though is expected to show consistency with the proposed project atthis site.Plan Bay Area 2050 is the current regional long range plan charting the course for the future of the nine county San Francisco Bay Area.PlanBay Area 2050 focuses on four key issues the economy, the environment, housing and transportation. Plan Bay Area 2050 estimates atotal addition of1,403, 000 total jobs totheBay Area between 2015 and 2050.The project’s addition of 842 employees would increase jobs inthe City and region incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the entire Bay Area, the addition of842 jobs would not be substantial or unplanned.
The location ofan employment center adjacent toregional transit Caltrain)would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 goals toreduce vehicle travel while meeting area demand for growth.
Therefore,
the project impact with respect to
indirect population growth would beless than significant. b)Displacement of Housing or People There is currently no housing or people at the site that would be displaced by the AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 65
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services?
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
With Mitigation
Less Than
Significant Impact No Impact
a) Fire protection b)
Police protection c) Schoolsd) Parks e) Other public facilities a e)Public Services The proposed project is located on adeveloped site within the City of South San Francisco that is within the public services area,which includes South San Francisco Fire Department Station 62located 0.9 miles away from the project site,and the South San Francisco Police Department located 1 mile away.The project would not directly add population, and an office/R&Duse would notbe anticipated tosubstantially increase utilization ofpublic services, such that new or physically altered facilities would be required.The minimal increases in demand for services expected with the worker population and potential indirect population growth see section 14:Population and Housing), would be offset through payment of development fees and annual taxes,aportion of which go toward ongoing provision of and improvements
AdministrativeDraft
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur orbe accelerated. b)Include recreational facilities orrequire the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. ab)Recreation The project proposes onsite open space inthe form oflandscaped areas and outdoor seating areas.The construction of onsite amenities has been included in the analysis inthis document and would not result in significant impacts tothe environment.The
project would not otherwise construct or cause to be constructed parks orrecreational facilities. Some employees at the site could use area facilities, including the nearby Jack Drago Park approximately0.3 miles tothe southeast).All development that does not include qualifying publicly accessible parks and recreation amenities isrequired to pay in lieu fees tothe City,which helps fund City facilities and programs. The use of public recreational facilities would not beanticipated toincrease substantially due touse by project employees such that physical deterioration would occur or construction or expansion AdministrativeDraft
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 67
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Conflict with aprogram,
plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b)Would
the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064. 3, subdivision b)?c)Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
e. g.,sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) orincompatible usese.g.,farm equipment)?d)Result in inadequate emergency services? This section utilizes information from the Transportation Analysis prepared for this analysis by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc.,included infull as Attachment D.a)Circulation System Plans and Facilities The Transportation
Analysis assessed pedestrian, bicycle,and transit access and circulation and consistency with applicable regulations. Pedestrians:
Sidewalks and crosswalks are provided on most streets in the immediate vicinity ofthe proposed project.Sidewalks exist along the east side of Dubuque Avenue,onGrand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. As partofthe South San Francisco Caltrain Reconstruction Project that iscurrently inprogress,anunderpass is being constructed that would provide a direct connection for pedestrians and bicyclists between areas to the west and east ofthe Caltrain tracks. This underpass would also provide a connection tothe new Caltrain station platform.As the project islocated adjacent tothe Caltrain station,the new Caltrain station platform and underpass would provide an alternative pedestrian connection
between the project, downtown destinations, and areas tothe east of the Caltrain tracks.
Asignificant impact would occur if theproposed project conflicted with applicable or adopted policies, plansor programs related topedestrian facilities or otherwise decreased the performance or safetyof pedestrian facilities.The South San Francisco General Plan requires project applicants to provide sidewalks and street treesaspart of frontage improvements for new development. The project would provide aclear walkway between the existing sidewalk on Dubuque Avenue and the main building entrance on the north side of the building.A pedestrian walkway with landscaping and lighting would be constructed along the western edge of the property along the access road that would run parallel to Dubuque Avenue. The project will coordinate with Caltrain/ Joint Powers Board who currently own the parcels to the south and eastofthe project site toprovide pedestrian access between the project site and the Caltrain station. Therefore, theproject AdministrativeDraft
Bicyclists: Bicycle access to the project site is currently limited as there are no existing bike lanes on Dubuque Avenue. In the vicinity of the project, Class II bike lanes are located on Airport Boulevard north of Miller Avenue), along Poletti Way, Gateway Boulevard between E Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard), along Sister Cities Boulevard, and along Oyster Point Boulevard east of Gateway Boulevard).
An impact to bicyclists would occur if the proposed project disrupted existing bicycle facilities or conflicted with or created inconsistencies with adopted bicycle system plans, guidelines, and policies. According to the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan, Class III Bicycle Routes are proposed along Dubuque Avenue between E Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. Class III Bicycle Routes are recommended on roadways frequently used by bicyclists that do not have the necessary right of way ROW) for installing bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes are identified by either signs or shared lane markings and they typically have a shared wide outside lane for vehicles and bicycles.
Because additional ROW from the project site is not necessary to implement the planned bicycle facility along Dubuque Avenue, the project would not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities. Therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities would be less than significant.
Transit: Existing transit service to the study area is provided by Caltrain, San Mateo County Transit District SamTrans), Bay Area Rapid Transit BART), Water Emergency Transit WETA), and commuter shuttles. The project site is located adjacent to the Caltrain station. Since the project is located adjacent to the Caltrain station, it is expected to generate trips via transit services. According to state CEQA guidelines, the addition of new transit riders should not be treated as an adverse impact because such development also improves regional flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Additionally, the currently underway Caltrain station improvement project at the adjacent station has been planned to accommodate increases in ridership. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on transit facilities and services.
A TDM program is required for the proposed project to meet the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and has been proposed to include a vehicle trip reduction rate reduction of 40 percent. TDM program measures further promote alternative modes, including pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, and transit options.
The project’ s preliminary TDM program is available as part of the project application. The TDM program outlines the targeted 40% reduction, program and service measures, planning and design measures, monitoring, reporting, and assurance of success of the plan. The following measures are provided as part of the project’ s TDM program:
Direct Route to Transit
Bicycle Parking, long and short term
On site Amenities
Carpool/ Vanpool Parking
Carpool/ Vanpool RideMatch
Reimbursing Travel Expenses
Guaranteed Ride Home Program
Transportation Coordinator and Kiosk
Carpool/ Vanpool Incentives
Showers and Clothes Lockers
Shuttle Program
Transportation Management
Association
Reduced Parking
Pedestrian Connections
Commuter Benefit Options
Passenger Loading Zone
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 69
Roadways: Per Senate Bill 743 discussed under this Section 17(b) below, auto delay, level of service LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion are no longer considered as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA. The following discussion is provided for informational purposes and is based on the Local Traffic Operations Report prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., which is available as part of the project application.
The proposed project would generate an average of 2,159 new daily trips, with 222 new trips during the AM peak hour and 220 new trips during the PM peak hour. These trip rates factor in a reduction of 35%31 due to the location and implementation of a TDM program. The Local Traffic Operations Report concluded that with implementation of improvements included in the City’ s Transportation Improvement Fee Program, the project would not cause any study intersections or freeway segments to degrade from acceptable operations to unacceptable operations. The project would be responsible for paying the Citywide Transportation Fee to contribute toward this fee program.
While some intersections freeway segments operate at conditions considered unacceptable under existing and/ or cumulative conditions, the project’ s contribution to those intersections would be less than 2%of the total traffic through the intersection. b) Vehicle Miles Traveled
Senate Bill SB) 743 changes CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, level of service LOS), and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan). The changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present vehicles miles traveled VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts.
The City of South San Francisco provides VMT screening criteria for development projects. The criteria are based on the type of project, characteristics, and/ or location. If a project meets the City’s screening criteria, the project is determined to result in less than significant impacts, and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. The City’s policy states that projects within 0.5 miles of an existing or planned high quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have no impact on VMT. However, this presumption would not apply if the project FAR is less than 0.75, includes parking that is higher than required by the City, is inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, or replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of market rate units. The project site is directly adjacent to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The project is proposing an FAR of 3.19, and is seeking a parking reduction to provide fewer than the Municipal Code required number of vehicle parking spaces. The project is also consistent with the land use zoning that is proposed under the City’s 2040 General Plan Update and would develop a vacant site.
Therefore, a detailed VMT analysis is not required and the impact with respect to VMT would be less than significant. Additionally, South San Francisco Municipal Code requires preparation and implementation of a TDM program. As discussed above, the applicant’ s preliminary TDM program includes a targeted vehicle trip reduction rate reduction of 40 percent. Successful implementation of TDM program measures could serve to further reduce project VMT. 31 Note that while a 40%reduction is proposed, this analysis conservatively analyzed a lower 35%reduction. A 40%reduction would result in fewer trips and related potential for impacts and is fully covered by this analysis.
c) Traffic Hazards
The Transportation Analysis evaluated the sight distance at each project driveway and the proximity of the accesses to adjacent intersections. Vehicles would access the project site from an existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue that would also provide access to the Caltrain station parking lot.
Visitor drop offs would occur at the entry plaza located at the northwest corner of the project site.
Parking access would be provided along the south end of the building. According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue is 30 mph. There is no existing on street parking located on the entire length of Dubuque Avenue in either direction. The project would not construct any new driveways on Dubuque Avenue. The project proposes to install stop signs at each intersecting point for new internal driveways as well as for vehicles exiting the shared driveway at the intersection with Dubuque Avenue see Figure 3).
A project traffic hazard safety impact is considered significant if the proposed project would provide inadequate design features that present safety concerns within the project site or on the adjacent streets.
Field observations showed that the existing curved alignment of Dubuque Avenue combined with the existing fence/ retaining wall impacts the visibility of northbound traffic for drivers exiting onto Dubuque Avenue from the shared project and Caltrain station parking lot driveway. Additionally, signs attached to the fence and vegetation at the corner of the property to the north obstruct sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared project and Caltrain driveway under existing conditions. Because the proposed project would add traffic to the existing driveway on Dubuque Avenue, the project would exacerbate and existing traffic hazard and result in a potentially significant safety impact. Mitigation Measure Trans 1, below, would improve the safety at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain/ project driveway.
Mitigation Measure
Trans 1: Shared Dubuque Avenue Driveway Safety Improvements. The applicant shall coordinate the following safety improvements for the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain project driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.
a) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to decrease the speed limit on Dubuque Avenue to 25 mph.
b) The applicant shall coordinate with the City to reduce the height of the fence along the retaining wall on Dubuque Avenue to the south of the project site to improve visibility of approaching northbound traffic.
Additionally, the applicant shall coordinate with the City and adjacent properties as reasonably feasible to address existing sight distance obstructions at the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and the shared Caltrain project driveway as follows:
c) Coordinate with Caltrain to relocate or reduce the height of the existing Caltrain Station Parking” sign on the south side of the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway to provide adequate sight distance between northbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway. 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 71
d) Coordinate with the property owner to the north to clear obstructing signs from the fence and vegetation from the corner of their property to provide adequate sight distance between southbound Dubuque Avenue traffic and vehicles exiting the shared Dubuque Avenue driveway.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure Trans 1, the shared Caltrain/ project Dubuque Avenue driveway would have adequate sight distance and the project impact related to traffic hazards would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Emergency Access
The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the city streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties along Dubuque Avenue. The existing site access roadway along the western property boundary would accommodate emergency vehicles. The project would have no impact with regard to inadequate emergency access.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Cause asubstantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,
or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:i)Listed or eligible for listing inthe California Register of Historical Resources, orin a local register
of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1( k),or ii)Aresource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision c)of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision c)of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,the lead
agency shall consider the
significance ofthe resource to aCalifornia Native American tribe.a)Tribal Cultural Resources A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File was completed forthe project and indicated there are no known sacred lands present inthe vicinity of the site see Attachment B).
While no tribes have requested consultation for projects in this area,notice was sent to thelist of seven local tribes provided bythe Native American Heritage Commission see AttachmentB)on October 29,2021.No requests for consultation were received.
The records search performed by the Northwest Information Center indicated that there is amoderate to high potential for the inadvertent discovery of previously unrecorded Native American resources based onthe characteristics ofthe site and history ofthe region see Attachment B).Although previous studies included field survey ofthe project site,significant excavation and below grade levels are proposed, which will disturb previously undisturbed native soils well below the field survey levels. Construction activities associated with the project would include excavation extending up toapproximately 60 feet below the surface in the area of the parking garage. Mitigation Measures Cul1, Cul2,Cul3,and Cul4would require proper handling of
any
discoveries and would also reduce the potential impact related to unknown tribal cultural resources. Compliance with the protection procedures specified in Mitigation Measures Cul1,Cul2,Cul3,and Cul4 would require that ifany previously unknown tribal cultural resources and/or human remains are discovered, these would be handled
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 73
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, or wastewater treatment
or storm water drainage, electric power,natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction orrelocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?b)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?c)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that ithas adequate capacity to
serve the project’ s projected demand in addition to the provider’ s existing commitments? d) Generate solid waste in excess of State orlocal standards, or in excess ofthe
capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?e)Comply with
federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related tosolid waste?a b,c)Water,Stormwater, Wastewater, and Other Utilities Water As discussed in Section 10:Hydrology and Water Quality, the Cityof South San Francisco’ sEast of 101 Area is served by Cal Water through acombination of local groundwater and water purchased from SFPUC’ s Hetch Hetchy System. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan UWMP),which plans for provision of water, anticipates future growth inthe region that includes the project, as allowed under existing land use and zoning designation. The project is not required to prepare aseparate Water Supply Assessment under Senate Bill 610 because the project is not one of the listed uses and is projected tohave less than 1,000 employees and can instead rely
upon the planning within the current UWMP, which indicates available supply for area development. Statewide regulations and other factors can impact the water system reliability.Of note,the Water Quality Control Plan forthe San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Estuary Bay Delta Plan Amendment, adopted December 2018,Resolution No.2018 0059)requires the release of30 50percent ofthe unimpaired flow”on the three San Joaquin River tributaries from February through June inevery year type to maintain the health of the Bay Delta ecosystem. Ifimplemented with no additional measures supply inplace toaddress the shortfall, this could impact the ability to meet the projected water demand inthe UWMP during multiple dry years. However, implementation ofthe Bay Delta Plan Amendment is uncertain atthis time for multiple reasons, including numerous legal challenges inboth state and federal courts, lackofimplementation responsibility, current lack of the identified agreement between stakeholder agencies. In the meantime, the SFPUC and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BAWSCA)of which the SFPUC isa member agency are
updated regularly to reflect changes in regulations, projected demands, and water conservation and supply reliability measures.
The project includes water infrastructure improvements to upsize approximately 1,000 linear feet of 6 inch and 8 inch ductile iron water main within Dubuque Avenue to 12 inch ductile iron pipe. This improvement is a part of the proposed project and has been included in this analysis. Cal Water would provide the design for the upsizing project and would perform all of the off site work up to the proposed meter. The project proposes separate domestic service, fire service, irrigation service systems, and onsite water improvements, consisting of an 8 inch water main that would loop around the building.
Impacts with respect to water would be less than significant. 32, 33, 34 Wastewater
The wastewater collection system that serves the project site is owned and operated by the City of South San Francisco. There is currently no existing sanitary sewer system on the project site. The nearest publicly owned sewer system, which is owned and maintained by the City, is located on the private parcel to the north of the project. The project would construct a 6 inch sanitary sewer line within an existing easement on the neighboring property. The impact related to required wastewater capacity would be less than significant.
Stormwater
As discussed in Section 10: Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed drainage system would maintain the existing flow discharge pattern and connect to the existing storm drain system operated and maintained by the City of South San Francisco. There is an existing storm drainpipe on site owned and maintained by Caltrans, located within an existing 5 foot wide stormwater easement. The project does not propose any alterations to the existing storm drainpipe. The proposed building is located outside of the existing stormwater easement. In compliance with City requirements, the project would implement low impact development stormwater management best practices to minimize runoff and encourage stormwater infiltration, including using concrete lined flow through planters to manage stormwater on the project site. As development on a currently vacant site, the project would result in an increase of approximately 1.5 acres of impervious surface 78% of the site) and would construct a new above and below ground drainage system that includes catch basins, storm drainpipe, bio retention areas, and flow through planters to capture, treat, and discharge runoff from the entire site. Impacts with respect to stormwater would be less than significant.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
As discussed in section 6: Energy, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the project would not require the construction of new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban area already served by those utilities. The project would require coordination with Pacific Gas and 32 California State Water Board, amended plan adopted December 12, 2021, Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/ Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Estuary, available at: https:// www. waterboards. ca. gov/ plans_ policies/ docs/ 2018wqcp. pdf 33 BAWSCA, Water Reliability webpage, available at: https:// bawsca. org/ water/ reliability 34 California Water Service Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan: South San Francisco District., available at: https:// www.calwater.com/ docs/ uwmp2020/ SSF_ 2020_UWMP_FINAL.pdf. 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 75
Electric PG& E) to extend power from the pole approximately 100 feet north of the project site on Dubuque Avenue or to install a new joint pole at the project site frontage. Although the project is designed to operate with 100% electric energy as of commencement of operations, it will include a stubbed natural gas connection for flexibility. Accordingly, the project would also require coordination with PG& E for an extension of the high pressure main for natural gas, as the nearest gas distribution main is located approximately 230 feet north of the project frontage. As an infill site in applicable service areas, the project impacts with respect to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications would be less than significant.
d, e) Solid Waste and Solid Waste Reduction
South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. SSFSC) manages all trash and recycling services in South San Francisco. SSFSC collects, receives, processes, and recycles or transfers for landfill disposal) over 250,000 tons of waste a year.
35 Of all solid waste generated, approximately 84 percent is sent to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill Ox Mountain) in Half Moon Bay, California. The Corinda Los Trancos Landfill Ox Mountain) accepts up to 3,598 tons per day and is anticipated to have available capacity until 2034. 36
The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Handling of debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to SSFMC Section 8.16 coordination with Scavengers Company; and SSFMC Section 15.22.030 diversion of at least 65 percent of construction or demolition waste.
The project would generate approximately 12.66 tons of waste per year, or approximately 0.03 tons per day. The estimate is conservative as it does not factor in any recycling or waste diversion programs. The 0.03 tons of solid waste generated daily by the project would represent less than
0.001 percent of the permitted landfill throughput. 37
The City of South San Francisco is required to meet the statewide waste diversion goal of 50 percent set by AB 939. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the SSFMC, and the City’s recycling program.
Impacts related to solid waste and waste facilities would be less than significant. 35 South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. website, About Us”, available at: https:// ssfscavenger. com/ about us/, accessed August 2021.
36 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CalRecycle), 2019, SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill Ox Mtn) 41 AA 002), https:// www2. calrecycle. ca. gov/ SolidWaste/ SiteActivity/ Details/ 1561? siteID= 3223, accessed August 2021.
37 Solid waste estimated from CalEEMod default values in Attachment A.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact a)Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?b)Due toslope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,and thereby expose project occupants to,pollutant concentrations from a wildfire orthe uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? c)Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d)Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, asaresultofrunoff,
post fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ad)Wildfire Risk and Emergency Response The project site is located within anurbanized area oftheCityof South San
Francisco and is surrounded by existing industrial/ commercial development and infrastructure. Neither the project site northe City of South San Francisco isidentified as
being within astate responsibility area ora very high fire hazard
severity
zone.38,39 The proposed project would have no impact related to wildfire. 38 California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. 2007.San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones inState Responsibility Aarea. Available: https://osfm.fire. ca.
gov/
divisions/ wildfire planning engineering/ wildland hazards building codes/ fire hazard severity zones maps/.39 Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones inLocal Responsibility Area,November 580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 77
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impacta)Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number orrestrict the range ofarare or
endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project
have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of aproject are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c)Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly? a)Environmental Quality.With the implementation of mitigation measures Bio 1to protect nesting birds during construction and Cul1through Cul4to address the potential discovery of currently unknown cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resources atthe site,the project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species, cause afish or wildlife population todrop below self sustaining levels,orthreaten toeliminate aplant oranimal community. The project would not impact rare or endangered wildlife species, or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history or prehistory.b)Cumulative Impacts.The project would not result in adverse impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, including effects for which project level mitigation were identified toreduce impacts to less than significant levels.All potential effects of the project were assessed inthecontext of area development, including specifically assessment of emissions impacts analyzed against cumulative thresholds pertheAir District recommendations. Project specific impacts would beless than significant with implementation of mitigation measures identified inthis document, including mitigation measureAir1to address construction period dust and emissions, and would not result inconsiderable contribution tosignificant cumulative impacts.c)Adverse Effects on Human Beings.The project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directlyorindirectly. Mitigation Measures Air1,Geo 1,Haz1,and Trans 1 would minimize thepotential for safety impacts related to construction period emissions, disturbance of site contaminants, appropriate techniques for safety during excavation and dewatering and building construction, and adequate sight distance at the driveway connection to Dubuque Avenue. Therefore,
DOCUMENT PREPARERS
Lamphier Gregory, Inc.
Primary Report Preparers)
Rebecca Auld, Vice President
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A 601
Oakland, CA 94619
510 535 6690
Illingworth Rodkin, Inc.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis)
James A. Reyff, Principal
429 E. Cotati Ave
Cotati, CA 94931
415 309 2814
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transportation Analysis)
Trisha Dudala, P.E.
Senior Associate
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925.225.1439
City of South San Francisco
This document was prepared in consultation with City of South San Francisco staff, including Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner.
SOURCES
1. AllWest Environmental, March 23, 2017, Environmental Site Assessment.
2. AllWest Environmental, February 23, 2018, Site Characterization Report.
3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, May 2017, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, June 2, 2010, News Release http:// www.baaqmd. gov/~/ media/ Files/ Communications% 20and%20Outreach/ Publications/ News% 20Releases/ 2010/ ceqa_100602. ashx
5. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2007, San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Areas, available at
https:// osfm. fire.ca.gov/ divisions/ wildfire planning engineering/ wildland hazards building codes/ fir e hazard severity zones maps/.
6. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resource Assessment Program, November 24, 2008, San Mateo County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, available at: https:// osfm.fire.ca.gov/ media/ 6800/ fhszl_map41. pdf.
7. California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Mapping System, available at:
https:// dot.ca.gov/ programs/ design/ lap landscape architecture and community livability/ lap liv i s cenic highways
8. California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region, San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan Basin Plan), November 2019.
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study/ MND Page 79
9. California Water Service Cal Water), adopted June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan:
South San Francisco District.
10. City/ County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, November 2012, Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport.
11. City of South San Francisco, 1994, East of 101 Area Plan.
12. City of South San Francisco, 1999, General Plan.
13. City of South San Francisco prepared by Atkins, October 2014, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report SCH no. 2013102001).
14. DTSC and South City Ventures LLC, California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act CLRRA) Agreement, January 2020, Docket No. HSA FY19/ 20 013.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA), April 2019, Flood Insurance Rate Map FIRM), Map Number 06081C0042F.
16. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, November 12, 2020, Preliminary Geotechnical Site Assessment.
17. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, May 7, 2021, Draft Dewatering Assessment.
18. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, August 2, 2021, Preliminary Geotechnical Site Assessment Supplemental Discussion.
19. Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, January 15, 2021, Draft Soil and Groundwater Management Plan
20. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2021, Transit Priority Areas, accessed at:
https:// www.arcgis. com/ home/ item.html?id=370de9dc4d65402d992a769bf6ac8ef5
21. University of California Museum of Paleontology UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen search portal, http:// ucmpdb. berkeley. edu/.
Appendices
IS/MND
Appendices
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT A
to the
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
580 DUBUQUE AVENUE
AIR QUALITY & GREENHOUSE
GAS ASSESSMENT
South San Francisco, California
November 19, 2021
Prepared for:
Rebecca Auld
Senior Planner
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, CA 94606
Prepared by:
Zachary Palm
Casey Divine &
James Reyff
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
707) 794-0400
I&R Project#: 21-029
1 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to address air quality, community health risk, and greenhouse gas GHG) impacts associated with the proposed lab/office building construction located at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. The air quality impacts and GHG emissions from this project would be associated with construction of the new buildings, trips generated by the operation of the project, and operation of an emergency generator. Air pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the project were predicted using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential project health risk impacts ( including construction and operation) and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant ( TAC) sources affecting the nearby and proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 BAAQMD recommends using a 1,000-foot screening radius around the project site for purposes of identifying community health risk from existing sources of TACs.
Project Description
The approximately 1.89-acre project site is currently undeveloped. The project proposes to construct a 295,000 square- foot lab/office building along with a 350 space, below grade parking garage and a 0.5-acre public park. Construction is assumed in this assessment to begin in February 2022 and be completed by May 2024.
Setting
The project is located in San Mateo County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Air Pollutants of Concern
High ozone levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high ozone levels. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’ s attempts to reduce ozone levels. The highest ozone levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources. High ozone levels aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.
Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. Particulate matter is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less ( PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region- wide ( or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter levels 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. 2 aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality ( e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (usually because they cause cancer) and include, but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations ( e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source ( e.g., diesel particulate matter [ DPM] near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about threequarters of the cancer risk from TACs ( based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. The most recent Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015.2 See Attachment 1 for a detailed description of the community risk modeling methodology used in this assessment.
Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools. For cancer risk assessments, children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are in the multi-family residences to the northwest opposite U.S. Highway 101. Additional sensitive receptors can be found at further distances to the west and southwest of the project site.
This project would not introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) to the area. 2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) sets nationwide emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road ( highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non- road ( off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards. California also has the ability to set motor vehicle emission standards and standards for fuel used in California, as long as they are the same or more stringent than the Federal standards.
In the past decade the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and non-road heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of nitrogen oxides, or NOX, and particulate matter ( PM10 and PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified diesel particulate matter as a probable carcinogen.
Implementation of the heavy- duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce PM and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy- duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy- duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.3
In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The new standards reduced the amount of sulfur allowed by 97 percent for highway diesel fuel ( from 500 parts per million by weight [ppmw] to 15 ppmw), and by 99 percent for off-highway diesel fuel from about 3,000 ppmw to 15 ppmw). The low sulfur highway fuel (15 ppmw sulfur), also called ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), is currently required for use by all vehicles in the U.S.
All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.
State Regulations
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.4In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been 3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 4 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 4 approved and adopted, including the federal on-road and non-road diesel engine emission standards for new engines, as well as adoption of regulations for low sulfur fuel in California.
CARB has adopted and implemented a number of regulations for stationary and mobile sources to reduce emissions of DPM. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavy- duty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. CARB regulations require on-road diesel trucks to be retrofitted with particulate matter controls or replaced to meet 2010 or later engine standards that have much lower DPM and PM2.5 emissions.
This regulation will substantially reduce these emissions between 2013 and 2023. While new trucks and buses will meet strict federal standards, this measure is intended to accelerate the rate at which the fleet either turns over so there are more cleaner vehicles on the road, or is retrofitted to meet similar standards. With this regulation, older, more polluting trucks would be removed from the roads sooner.
CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from inuse ( existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles ( e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel- powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower ( hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce particulate matter and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet ( replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleetaveraged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with stringent federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD)
BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600- square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County.
BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized.
BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. 5 The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement 5 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community- health/community- health-protection- program/ communityair-risk-evaluation-care-program , accessed 2/18/2021. 5 and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.
Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD defines overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool ( CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall CalEnviroScreen score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract. 6The project site and it’s environs are not within a CARE area but are within a BAAQMD overburdened area as identified by CalEnviroScreen (version 4.0), where the overall score is at the 75th to 85th percentile within 1,000 feet of the project site.
The BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines7 were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements including thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They also include assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. Attachment 1 includes detailed community risk modeling methodology.
BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
Combustion equipment associated with the proposed project that includes new diesel engines to power generators and possibly new natural gas-fired boilers would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions. Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators, operation of the boilers for space and water heating and some minor emissions from cooling towers. Certain emission sources would be subject to BAAQMD Regulations and Rules. The District’s rules and regulations that may apply to the project include:
Regulation 2 – Permits
Rule 2-1: General Requirements
Rule 2-2: New Source Review
Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Rule 6-3: Wood-Burning Devices
Regulation 9 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants
Rule 9-1: Sulfur Dioxide
Rule 9-7: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters Rule 9-8: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities- pdf.pdf?la=en , accessed 10/1/2021.
7 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 6 Permits
Rule 2-1-301 requires that any person installing, modifying, or replacing any equipment, the use of which may reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC).
Rule 2-1-302 requires that written authorization from the BAAQMD in the form of a Permit to Operate ( PTO) be secured before any such equipment is used or operated.
Rule 2-1 lists sources that are exempt from permitting. At the proposed facility, the diesel fuel storage tanks are expected to be exempt from permitting.
New Source Review
Rule 2-2, New Source Review ( NSR), applies to all new and modified sources or facilities that are subject to the requirements of Rule 2-1-301. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of such sources and to provide mechanisms by which no net increase in emissions will result.
Rule 2-2-301 requires that an applicant for an ATC or PTO apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions and has emissions of precursor organic compounds, non- precursor organic compounds, NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO of 10.0 pounds or more per highest day. Based on the estimated emissions from the proposed project, BACT will be required for NOx emissions from the diesel- fueled generator engines.
Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxic Control Measure
The BAAQMD administers the CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) for Stationary Diesel engines (section 93115, title 17 CA Code of Regulations). The project’s stationary sources will be new stationary emergency stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 hp.
These limits vary based on maximum engine power. All engines are limited to PM emission rates of 0.15 g/hp-hour, regardless of size. This ACTM limits engine operation 50 hours per year for routine testing and maintenance.
Offsets
Rule 2-2-302 require that offsets be provided for a new or modified source that emits more than 10 tons per year of NOx or precursor organic compounds. It is not expected that emissions of any pollutant will exceed the offset thresholds. Thus, is not expected that offsets for the proposed project would be required.
Prohibitory Rules
Regulation 6 pertains to particulate matter and visible emissions. Although the engines will be fueled with diesel, they will be modern, low emission engines. Thus, the engines are expected to comply with Regulation 6.
7 Rule 6-3 applies to emissions from wood- burning devices. Effective November 1, 2016, no person or builder shall install a wood-burning device in a new building construction. Project plans do not depict fireplaces.
Rule 9-1 applies to sulfur dioxide. The engines will use ultra- low sulfur diesel fuel ( less than 15 ppm sulfur) and will not be a significant source of sulfur dioxide emissions and are expected to comply with the requirements of Rule 9-1.
Rule 9-7 limits the emissions of NOx CO from industrial, institutional and commercial boilers, steam generators and process heaters. This regulation typically applies to boilers with a heat rating of 2 million British Thermal Units ( BTU) per hour
Rule 9-8 prescribes NOx and CO emission limits for stationary internal combustion engines. Since the proposed engines will be used with emergency standby generators, Regulation 9-8-110 exempts the engines from the requirements of this Rule, except for the recordkeeping requirements 9-8-530) and limitations on hours of operation for reliability-related operation (maintenance and testing). The engines will not operate more than 50 hours per year, which will satisfy the requirements of 9-8-111.
BACT for Diesel Generator Engines
Since the generators will be used exclusively for emergency use during involuntary loss of power, the BACT levels listed for IC compression engines in the BAAQMD BACT Guidelines would apply. These are provided for two separate size ranges of diesel engines:
I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition > 50hp and < 1.000hp: BAAQMD applies BACT 2 emission limits based on the ATCM for stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 brake-horsepower ( BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr). The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.15 g/hp-hr per CARB’s ACTM.
I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition <999hp: BAAQMD applies specific BACT emission limits for stationary emergency standby diesel engines equal or larger than 1,000 brakehorsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges from 0.5 g/hp-hr. The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.02 g/hp-hr. POC (i.e., ROG) limits are 0.14 g/hp-hr.
South San Francisco General Plan 1999
The South San Francisco General Plan 1999 includes guiding and implementing policies to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and greenhouse gases. While the city is in the process of updating its general plan, the version passed in 1999 is still the most recent version. The following guiding and implementing policies are applicable to the proposed project:
8 GUIDING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7.3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible.
7.3-G-2 Mitigate the community of South San Francisco’ s impact on climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance.
7.3-G-3 Reduce energy use in the built environment.
7.3-G-4 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
7.3-G-5 Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles.
7.3-G-6 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7.3-1-1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PM-10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by State and federal statutes.
7.3-1-2 Use the City’s development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality and GHG emissions.
7.3-1-3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines.
7.3-1-4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves.
7.3-1-5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones.
7.3-1-6 Periodically update the inventory of community-wide GHG emissions and evaluate appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets, consistent with current State objectives, statewide guidance, and regulations.
9 7.3-1-7 Adopt and implement the City of South San Francisco’ s CAP, which will identify a GHG emissions reduction target and measures and actions to achieve the reduction target.
7.3-1-8 Evaluate and regularly report to City Council, or its designee, on the implementation status of the CAP and update the CAP as necessary should the City find that adopted strategies are not achieving anticipated reductions, or to otherwise incorporate new opportunities.
7.3-1-9 Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high-density housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit infrastructure.
Significance Thresholds
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA and these significance thresholds were contained in the District’ s 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD believed air pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. The thresholds were challenged through a series of court challenges and were mostly upheld.
BAAQMD updated the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines in 2017 to include the latest significance thresholds that were used in this analysis are summarized in Table 1. Community risks are considered significant if they exceed these levels.
10 Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions (lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance
or other Best Management
Practices
None
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources Within
1,000-foot Zone of
Influence
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all
sources within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per one million Hazard Index 1.0 10.0
Incremental annual PM2.5 0.3µg/ m3 0.8µg/ m3
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use Projects –
direct and indirect
emissions
Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
OR
1,100 metric tons annually or 4.6 metric tons per capita (for 2020) * Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers ( µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. BAAQMD does not have arecommended post-2020 GHG threshold.
11 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the Federal Clean AirAct and the California Clean AirAct. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the California Clean Air Act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both State and Federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3, PM2.5 and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants ( ROG and NOx), PM10, and PM2.5 and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.
Construction Period Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 was used to estimate emissions from on-site construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions.
The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod. The CARB EMission FACtors 2021 ( EMFAC2021) model was used to predict emissions from construction traffic, which includes worker travel, vendor trucks, and haul trucks.8 The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 2 and EMFAC2021 vehicle emissions modeling outputs are included in Attachment 3.
CalEEMod Modeling
Land Use Inputs
The proposed project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs
Project Land Uses Size Units Square
Feet (sf) Acreage
Research & Development 295 1,000 sqft 295,000
1.89 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 350 Parking Space 156,399 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.5 Acre 21,780
City Park 0.5 Acre 21,780
Construction Inputs
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off8 See CARB’ s EMFAC2021 Emissions Inventory at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. 12 site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build- out scenario, including equipment list and schedule, were provided by the applicant. The applicant also provided other information such as hauling quantities, asphalt trips, and concrete trips.
The CalEEMod construction information included the schedule for each phase. Within each phase, the quantity of equipment to be used along with the average hours per day and total number of workdays was set to the CalEEMod default for each phase. The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be February 2022 and would be built out over a period of approximately 28 months, or 582 construction workdays. The earliest year of full operation was assumed to be 2025.
Construction Truck Traffic Emissions
Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips that were computed based on the estimate of demolition material to be exported, soil material imported and/ or exported to the site, and the estimate of cement and asphalt truck trips. Demolition was modeled to remove 112 tons of pavement. The modeling assumed 134,016 cy of soil hauling of material for import and export. There would be import of 200 cy of asphalt. CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. The total trips for those were computed by multiplying the daily trip rate by the number of days in that phase. Haul trips for demolition and grading were estimated from the provided demolition and grading volumes by assuming each truck could carry 10 tons per load. The number of cement deliveries were provided for the project and converted to total one-way trips, assuming two trips per delivery. Asphalt trucks were assumed to carry 10 cy per delivered load, or 40 truckloads.
The latest version of the CalEEMod model is based on the older version of the CARB EMFAC2017 motor vehicle emission factor model. This model has been superseded by the EMFAC2021 model; however, CalEEMod has not been updated to include EMFAC2021.
Therefore, the construction traffic information was combined with EMFAC2021 motor vehicle emissions factors. EMFAC2021 provides aggregate emission rates in grams per mile for each vehicle type. The vehicle mix for this study was based on CalEEMod default assumptions, where worker trips are assumed to be comprised of light-duty autos (EMFAC category LDA) and light duty trucks ( EMFAC category LDT1and LDT2). Vendor trips are comprised of delivery and large trucks ( EMFAC category MHDT and HHDT) and haul trips, including cement trucks, are comprised of large trucks ( EMFAC category HHDT). Travel distances are based on CalEEMod default lengths, which are 10.8 miles for worker travel, 7.3 miles for vendor trips and 20 miles for hauling ( soil import/ export). Each trip was assumed to include an idle time of 5 minutes. Emissions associated with vehicle starts were also included. On road emissions in San Mateo County for 2022 - 2024 were used in these calculations. Table 3 provides the traffic inputs that were combined with the EMFAC2021 emission database to compute vehicle emissions. 13 Table 3. Construction Traffic Data Used for EMFAC2021 Model Runs CalEEMod Run/Land
Uses and Construction
Phase
Trips by Trip Type
Notes
Total
Worker1
Total
Vendor1
Total
Haul2
Vehicle mix1
50% LDA
25% LDT1
25% LDT2
50% MHDT
50% HHDT 100% HHDT
Trip Length (miles) 10.8 7.3 20.0
CalEEMod default distance
with 5-min truck idle time.
Demolition 40 - 11
112 ton pavement
demolition. CalEEMod
default worker trips.
Site Preparation 40 - - CalEEMod default worker
trips.
Soldier
Piles/Micropiles 4,300 1,950 - CalEEMod default workerand vendor trips.
Dewatering 17,612 - - CalEEMod default worker
trips.
Trenching/Foundation 700 - - CalEEMod default worker
trips.
Soil Remediation 240 - 9,502
76,016-cy soil export.
CalEEMod default worker
trips.
Grading 720 - 7,250
58,000-cy soil export.
CalEEMod default worker
trips.
Building Construction 24,080 10,920 - CalEEMod default worker and vendor trips.
Building Interior 4,624 - - CalEEMod default worker
trips
Paving/Landscaping 585 - 40 200-cy asphalt. CalEEMod
default worker trips.
Notes: 1 Based on 2022 - 2024 EMFAC2021 light-duty vehicle fleet mix for San Mateo County. 2 Includes demolition and grading trips estimated by CalEEMod based on amount of material to be removed.
Asphalt trips estimated based on data provided by the applicant.
Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions
Average daily emissions were annualized for each year of construction by dividing the annual construction emissions by the number of active construction workdays that year. Table 4 shows the annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 4, predicted annualized project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during any year of construction.
14 Table 4. Construction Period Emissions
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Per Year (Tons)
2022 1.06 2.90 0.14 0.12
2023 2.18 1.92 0.10 0.07
2024 0.42 0.32 0.02 0.01
Average Daily Construction Emissions Per Year (pounds/ day) 2022 (233 construction workdays) 9.13 24.91 1.23 1.03
2023 (261 construction workdays) 16.67 14.72 0.73 0.57
2024 (89 construction workdays) 9.41 7.28 0.38 0.21
BAAQMD Thresholds ( pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less- than- significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would implement BAAQMD-recommended best management practices.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction.
During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects:
1. All exposed surfaces ( e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
3. All visible mud or dirt track- out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour ( mph).
5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
15 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [ CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
7. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’ s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Effectiveness of Recommended Measure AQ-1
The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic control measures for reducing fugitive particulate matter that are contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future employees and operation of the emergency generator. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products ( classified as consumer products) are typical emissions from these types of uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build- out.
CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
The project land uses were input to CalEEMod as described above for the construction period modeling.
Model Year
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased- in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest year of full operation would be 2025 if construction begins in 2022. Emissions associated with build- out later than 2025 would be lower.
Traffic Information
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Project-specific traffic 16 trip generation estimates were provided for this assessment. 9The project would produce approximately 2,159 net daily trips when considering the TDM Plan Reduction adjustments applied in the traffic analysis. The daily trip generation was calculated using the size of the project and the adjusted total automobile trips. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used.
EMFAC2021 Adjustment
The vehicle emission factors and fleet mix used in CalEEMod are based on EMFAC2017, which is an older CARB emission inventory for on road and off road mobile sources. Since the release of CalEEMod Version 2020. 4.0, new emission factors have been produced by CARB.
EMFAC2021 became available for use in January 2021. It includes the latest data on California’s car and truck fleets and travel activity. The CalEEMod vehicle emission factors and fleet mix were updated with the emission rates and fleet mix from EMFAC2021, which were adjusted with the CARB EMFAC off-model adjustment factors. On road emission rates from 2022 San Mateo County were used ( See Attachment 3). More details about the updates in emissions calculation methodologies and data are available in the EMFAC2021 Technical Support Document. 10 Energy
GHG emissions modeling includes those indirect emissions from electricity consumption. The model has a default rate of 0 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity produced, which is based on Peninsula Clean Energy’ s 2019 emissions rate. There would be no natural gas usage as the City prohibits natural gas usage from new developments.
Project Generator
The project would include a diesel-fired emergency generator to provide 2,800-kilowatts (kW). It is assumed the generator would be powered by a 3,750 horsepower (hp) engine. This generator would be tested periodically and power the buildings in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generator would be operated primarily for testing and maintenance purposes. CARB and BAAQMD requirements limit these engine operations to 50 hours each per year of non-emergency operation. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour. The engine would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Additionally, the generator would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC EngineCompression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. Based on the size of the proposed generator ( greater than 1,000- hp), these include emission limits similar to U.S. EPA Tier 4 engines. The generator’ s emissions, including BACT engine requirements, were modeled using CalEEMod.
9 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 10 See CARB 2021: https:// ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ mobile- source- emissions- inventory/ roaddocumentation/msei-modeling-tools-emfac 17 Other Inputs
Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation use were applied to the project. Water/ wastewater use were changed to 100% aerobic conditions to represent wastewater treatment plant conditions since the project site would not send wastewater to septic tanks or facultative lagoons.
Existing Uses
The existing site is undeveloped, so an existing use CalEEMod run was not created.
Summary of Computed Operational Period Emissions
Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod. The daily emissions were calculated assuming 365 days of operation. Table 5 shows average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Table 5 also shows how emissions are affected when current traffic from Petaluma customers at other Home Depot stores are included in the modeling.
Table 5. Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2025 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Total (lbs./day) 12.81 8.74 7.80 2.18
BAAQMD Thresholds (lbs./day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation.
Impact AIR-2: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction ( i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (i.e., mobile sources).
Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would include the installation of an emergency generator powered by a diesel engine. Traffic generated by the project would consist of mostly light-duty gasolinepowered vehicles, which would produce TAC and air pollutant emissions.
Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and 18 localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of the existing sources of TAC was also assessed in terms of the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution.
Community Risk Methodology for Construction and Operation Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks.
The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation sources. These sources include on-site construction activity, construction truck hauling, and increased traffic from the project. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30- year exposure period was used, per BAAQMD guidance,11 with the sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during this timeframe.
The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike, the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. The project maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’ s construction and operation.
The methodology for computing community risks impacts is contained in Attachment 1. This involved the calculation of TAC and PM2.5 emissions, dispersion modeling of these emissions, and computations of cancer risk and non-cancer health effects.
Modeled Sensitive Receptors
Receptors for this assessment included locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time (i.e., chronic exposures). This includes the existing residences to the northwest, west, and southwest of the site, as shown in Figure 1. Residential receptors are assumed to include all receptor groups ( i.e., third trimester, infants, children, and adults) with almost continuous exposure to project emissions.
Community Health Risk from the Project
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. These exhaust emissions pose health risks for sensitive receptors such as surrounding residents. The primary community risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Diesel exhaust poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.
12 This assessment included dispersion modeling to
predict the offsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer health effects could be evaluated.
11 BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines. December 2016.
12 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 19 Construction Emissions
The CalEEMod model and EMFAC2021 emissions provided total annual PM10 exhaust emissions assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from onroad vehicles, with total emissions from all construction stages as 0.18 tons ( 363 pounds). The onroad emissions are a result of haul truck travel during grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that these emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site. Fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions were calculated by CalEEMod as 0.09 tons (189 pounds) for the overall construction period.
Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects. 13 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions.
Construction Sources
To represent the construction equipment exhaust emissions, an area source emission release height of 20 feet ( 6 meters) was used for the area sources. 14 The release height incorporates both the physical release height from the construction equipment (i.e., the height of the exhaust pipe) and plume rise after it leaves the exhaust pipe. Plume rise is due to both the high temperature of the exhaust and the high velocity of the exhaust gas. It should be noted that when modeling an area source, plume rise is not calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model as it would do for a point source ( exhaust stack). Therefore, the release height from an area source used to represent emissions from sources with plume rise, such as construction equipment, should be based on the height the exhaust plume is expected to achieve, not just the height of the top of the exhaust pipe.
For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and unloading ( rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the point( s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site.
Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May.
14 California Air Resource Board, 2007. Proposed Regulation for In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicles, Appendix D:
Health Risk Methodology. April. Web: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/ordiesl07.htm 20 AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data
The modeling used a five- year data set ( 2013 - 2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport was used with the AERMOD model. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., when the majority of construction activity is expected to occur according to the applicant. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2022- 2024 period were calculated using the model. DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors. Receptor heights of 5 feet ( 1.5 meters), 15 feet ( 4.5 meters), and 25 feet ( 7.6 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first, second, and third floor of nearby single and multi-family residences. 15
Summary of Construction Community Risk Impacts
The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters as recommended by BAAQMD ( see Attachment 1). Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated and identified. Age- sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Third trimester, infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period.
The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation refence exposure level of 5 µg/ m3.
The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors (as shown in Figure 1) to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEI). Results of this assessment indicated that the construction MEI was located on the third floor (25 feet above ground) of a multi-family residential complex west of the project site. Table 6 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the construction MEI. Attachment 4 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the construction area source modeling and the cancer risk calculations. 15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 21 Figure 1. Locations of Project Construction Site, Project Traffic, Project Generator, Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact
Community Risks from Project Operation – Traffic and Stationary Sources Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources ( i.e., traffic) and stationary sources (i.e., generator). While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors.
Project Operational Traffic
An analysis was conducted of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 from local roadways increase in traffic due to the project. The project would generate 2,159 net daily trips.16 Most of these trips would be from light-duty, gasoline vehicles ( i.e., passenger cars). To address the added community risks, the impact from this traffic was assessed using the CT-EMFAC 2017 emissions model, AERMOD dispersion model and cancer risk calculations following BAAQMD methodology described in Attachment 1. Figure 1 shows the modeled roadway segment. 16 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 22 Traffic Emissions
This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 roadway emissions in the project area using the Caltrans version of the EMFAC2017 emission model, known as CTEMFAC2017. 17 CT-EMFAC2017 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds ( e.g., TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM2.5. All PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just the PM2.5 fraction from diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types ( i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear and from re-entrained roadway dust were included in these emissions. DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2017 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region ( San Mateo County), type of road ( major/ collector), truck percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County ( 3.13 percent),18 traffic mix assigned by CTEMFAC2017 for the county, year of analysis ( 2025 – project operational year), and season annual).
Project operation was assumed to begin in 2025 or thereafter. To calculate the increased cancer risk from increased traffic volumes due to the project traffic, the community risks were adjusted for exposure duration to account for the MEI being exposed to construction for the first 3 years of the 30- year analysis period. The exposure duration from roadway traffic was adjusted for 27 years of exposure ( 2025-2051). To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the exposure period for calculating increased cancer risks from project traffic, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2025. Year 2025 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions, since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular diesel truck emissions will decrease in the future.
Traffic Dispersion Modeling Inputs
A conservative analysis was conducted based on project driveway locations where all project traffic emissions from on- and near- site travel were assumed to be entirely along Dubuque Avenue.
The project’ s trip generation provided by the traffic consultant of 2,159 net daily trips was used to assess project traffic impacts. 19 The average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,20 which were then applied to the trip volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for the roadways. For all hours of the day, the average speed of 30 mph on Dubuque Avenue was assumed for all vehicles based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway.
17 Note that Caltrans has not yet updated their version of EMFAC to incorporate EMFAC2021 emission rates for traffic modeling studies.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 19 Hexagon Transportation Consultants. 2021. Trip Generation Estimates for an Office/ Research & Development Center at 580 Dubuque Avenue in South San Francisco, California. July 30. 20 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’ s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2021 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information.
23 Dispersion Modeling
Operational traffic roadway travel emissions were modeled with the AERMOD model using a series of adjacent volume sources along a line (line volume sources) to represent traffic emissions on the roadway segment where all of the project traffic would occur. Five years (2013-2017) of hourly meteorological data from the San Francisco International Airport prepared for use with the AERMOD model by the BAAQMD, were used for the modeling. TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2025 were calculated by the model at the same sensitive receptor locations with the same receptor heights of 25 feet (7.6 meter) used for the construction health risk modeling at the MEI location.
Figure 1 shows the project roadway segments modeled and maximum receptor location used in the modeling. Table 6 lists the project roadway risks and hazards at the location of the MEI. The emission rates and roadway calculations used in the project impact analysis are shown in Attachment 4.
Project Operational Stand-By Diesel Generator
The project proposes to include a diesel-fired emergency generator along the northeast corner of the project site. Site plans show a designated area in that corner of the project site for the generator.
Therefore, it was assumed that the generator’ s emissions would be released 10 feet above the ground. This generator would be 2,800- kW powered by a 3,750- HP diesel engine.
Operation of a diesel generator would be a source of TAC emissions. The generator would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes, with a maximum of 50 hours per year of nonemergency operation under normal conditions. During testing periods, the engine would typically be run for less than one hour under light engine loads. The generator engines would be required to meet EPA emission standards and consume commercially available low sulfur diesel fuel.
Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC EngineCompression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. Based on the size of the proposed generator, these include emission limits similar to U.S.
EPA Tier 4 engines. The emissions from the operation of the generators were calculated using the CalEEMod model.
The generator would be subject to CARB’ s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure ATCM) and require permits from the BAAQMD, since it will be equipped with a diesel engine larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to these generators that would limit DPM emissions. As part of the BAAQMD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics ( BACT) and pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be prepared by BAAQMD. Depending on results, BAAQMD would set limits for DPM emissions ( e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality community risk impact.
24 To obtain an estimate of potential cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the emergency generator, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to calculate the maximum annual DPM concentration at off-site sensitive receptor locations. The same receptors, breathing heights, and BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the generator model. Stack parameters for modeling the generator were either based on project-specific generator parameters (i.e., engine size) or based on BAAQMD default parameters ( exhaust gas flowrate, stack height, exhaust gas temperature, and stack diameter) for stand-by diesel generators if that project-specific information were not available. 21 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year).
To calculate the increased cancer risk from the generator at the MEI, the exposure duration was adjusted for 27 years of exposure for the maximum receptor. Table 6 lists the community risks from stand-by diesel generator at the location of the MEI. The emissions and health risk calculations for the proposed generators are included in Attachment 4.
Community Risks of all Project TAC Sources at Project MEI The cumulative risk impacts from a project are the combination of construction and operation sources. These sources include on-site construction activity, project generator, and increased traffic from the project. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk to the increased cancer risk for the project operational conditions for the roadway, generator, and operational traffic at the MEI.
For this project, the sensitive receptor identified in Figure 1 as the construction MEI is also the project MEI. Sensitive receptors could be present at this site for up to 30 years. At this location, the MEI would be exposed to 3 years of construction cancer risks and 27 years of operational includes traffic, stand-by generator) cancer risks. The cancer risks from construction and operation of the project were summed together. Unlike, the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI risks are not additive but based on an annual maximum risk for the entirety of the project.
Project risk impacts are shown in Table 6. The unmitigated maximum cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentration, and HI from construction and operational activities at the project MEI location would not exceed the BAAQMD single-source significance thresholds. 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Department, 2012. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document, BAAQMD, December. Web:
https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Appeal_Response_References/2012_1201_BAAQMD.pdf 25 Table 6. Project Health Risk Impacts at the Off-site MEI Source Cancer Risk
per million)
Annual PM2.5
µg/ m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction ( Years 0 -3) Unmitigated 8.41 (infant) 0.06 < 0.01 Project Generator ( 2,800kW, 3,750hp diesel-fired emergency generator, 50 hours/year operation) ( Years 4 – 30) 0.43 < 0.01 < 0.01 Project Traffic (1/2-mile on-site distance) ( Years 4 – 30) 0.04 < 0.01 < 0.01 Total Project (Construction + Operation Years 0-30) Unmitigated 8.88 (infant) 0.06 < 0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No
26 Cumulative Community Risks of all TAC Sources at the Offsite Project MEI Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD.
Areview of the project area and based on provided traffic information indicated that two roadways, Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue, within the influence area would have traffic exceeding 10,000 vehicles per day. A review of BAAQMD’s stationary source geographic information systems ( GIS) map tool identified eleven stationary sources with the potential to affect the project site and MEI. Figure 2 shows the project area included within the influence area and the location of the MEI. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment
5. Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources 27 Highways & Railways – U.S. Highway 101, CalTrain Zone 1 The project MEI is approximately 150 feet west of U.S. Highway 101 and approximately 600 feet northwest of CalTrain Zone 1. Screening data reported by BAAQMD for highways and railways were incorporated into this analysis. BAAQMD provided raster files with cancer risk and PM2.5 values for all highways/freeways, roadways (ADT > 30,000), and rail lines within the Bay Area.
The risk values shown in the raster files were modeled in AERMOD in 20x20- meter grid cells.
The files incorporate AADT for the highway using EMFAC2014 data for fleet mix and include the OEHHA 2015 factor. These raster files were used to screen Highway 101 and CalTrain Zone 1 risks and hazards upon the MEI. The freeway and railway screening level impacts are listed in Table 7 and included in Attachment 5. Note that the cancer risk value is not adjusted for age sensitivity or exposure duration. It is conservatively higher than adjusted cancer risk values.
Refined modeling of the highway and railway would have resulted in even lower risk values. Note that BAAQMD has found that non-cancer hazards were found to be minimal, so an HI value is not included.
Local Roadways – Airport Boulevard & Grand Avenue
A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue was conducted. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic volume and mix of vehicle types on the roadway near the project site and using an atmospheric dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed based on the modeled exposures. Attachment 1 includes a description of how community risk impacts, including cancer risk are computed.
Emission Rates
The development of roadway emissions for traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue was done in the same manner as the project roadway emissions above using CT-EMFAC2017. Inputs to the model include region (San Mateo County), type of road (major/collector), truck percentage for non-state highways in San Mateo County ( 3.13 percent),22 traffic mix assigned by CTEMFAC2017 for the county, year of analysis (2022 – construction start year), and season (annual).
To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the 30-year exposure period used for calculating the increased cancer risks for sensitive receptors at the MEI and project site, the CT-EMFAC2017 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2022 (project construction year).
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CT-EMFAC2017. Year 2022 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the time period that cancer risks are evaluated since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular diesel truck emissions, will decrease in the future.
22 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 28 The average daily traffic ( ADT) for Airport Boulevard was calculated based on traffic data provided in the City of South San Francisco’ s Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. 23 The estimated ADT on Airport Boulevard was 27,092 vehicles, and 34,134 vehicles on Grand Avenue. Average hourly traffic distributions for San Mateo County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model, 24 which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for the roadway. An average travel speed of 35 miles per hour ( mph) on both roadways was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway.
Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the EPA AERMOD air quality dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis. 25 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from traffic on Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue within 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated. Vehicle traffic on the roadways was modeled using a series of adjacent volume sources along a line (line volume sources); with line segments used for each travel direction on both roadways. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous dispersion modeling were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations. Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations for 2022 from traffic on both roadways were calculated using the model.
Concentrations were calculated at the project MEIs with receptor heights of 25 feet ( 7.6 meters) to represent the breathing heights of residents in the single-family homes.
Figure 2 shows the roadway segments modeled and residential receptor locations used in the modeling. Table 7 lists the risks and hazards from the roadway. The emission rates and roadway calculations used in the analysis are shown in Attachment 5.
BAAQMD Permitted Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2018 GIS website,26 which identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments to account for new OEHHA guidance. Eleven sources were identified using this tool, seven generators, two auto body coating operations, and two gas dispensing facilities.
The screening level risks and hazards provided by BAAQMD for the stationary source was adjusted for distance using BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Gasoline Dispending Facilities. Community risk impacts from the stationary source upon the MEI are reported in Table 7.
23City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report, December, 2014. https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/6706/636483482120330000. 24 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’ s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2014 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information.
25 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 26 BAAQMD,
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2387ae674013413f987b1071715daa65 29 Summary of Cumulative Health Risk Impact at Construction MEI Table 7 reports both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by construction ( i.e., the MEI). The project would not have an exceedance with respect to community risk caused by project construction activities since the maximum unmitigated cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and HI do not exceed the BAAQMD single or cumulative-source threshold.
Table 7. Impacts from Combined Sources at Project MEI
Source Cancer Risk
per million)
Annual PM2.5
µg/ m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction & Operation Unmitigated 8.88 (infant) 0.06 < 0.01 Highway 101 BAAQMD Raster 21.09 0.44 -
CalTrain Zone 1 BAAQMD Raster 11.70 0.02 -
Airport Boulevard, ADT 27,092 1.65 0.08 < 0.01
Grand Avenue, ADT 34,134 0.62 0.04 < 0.01
Boston Properties (Facility ID #24795, Generators, Boilers), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.81 0.01 < 0.01
Boston Properties (Facility ID #24795, Generators, Boilers), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01
Genentech, Inc. (Facility ID #16024, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.11 < 0.01 < 0.01
Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc (Facility ID #17649, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.37 < 0.01 < 0.01
Lowe’ s HIW Inc (Facility ID #18401, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.38 < 0.01 < 0.01
MacroGenics West, Inc (Facility ID #19179, Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 1.58 < 0.01 < 0.01
NOD Auto Body Shop Inc (Facility ID #20215, Auto Body
Coating Operation), MEI at 100 feet - - < 0.01
Biotech Gateway – HCP c/o CBRE (Facility ID #20236,
Generators), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.07 < 0.01 < 0.01
Unocal #1020 – Grand Martco Inc (Facility ID #109214, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 730 feet 0.61 < 0.01 < 0.01 Flyers #411 (Facilty ID #110786, Gas Dispensing Facility), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.15 < 0.01 < 0.01
A&K Supreme Auto (Facility ID #201062, Gas Dispensing
Facility), MEI at 200 feet - - < 0.01
Combined Sources Unmitigated < 48.09 < 0.73 < 0.14
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No
30 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’ s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane ( CH4), nitrous oxide ( N2O), hydrofluorocarbons ( HFCs), perfluorocarbons PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’ s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
CO2, CH4, and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion.
N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops.
CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices ( e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
Chlorofluorocarbons ( CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents but their production has been stopped by international treaty.
HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling.
PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing.
Each GHG has its own potency and effect upon the earth’ s energy balance. This is expressed in terms of a global warming potential ( GWP), with CO2 being assigned a value of 1 and sulfur hexafluoride being several orders of magnitude stronger. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its GWP and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents ( CO2e).
An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently affecting changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
Recent Regulatory Actions for GHG Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 – California GHG Reduction Targets Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 to set GHG emission reduction targets for California. The three targets established by this EO are as follows:
1) reduce California’ s GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, ( 2) reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and ( 3) reduce California’ s GHG emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
31 Assembly Bill 32 – California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006) Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, codified the State’ s GHG emissions target by directing CARB to reduce the State’ s global warming emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 was signed and passed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. Since that time, the CARB, CEC, California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC), and Building Standards Commission have all been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, which has a target of reducing GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels.
A Scoping Plan for AB 32 was adopted by CARB in December 2008. It contains the State’ s main strategies to reduce GHGs from business- as- usual emissions projected in 2020 back down to 1990 levels. Business-as-usual ( BAU) is the projected emissions in 2020, including increases in emissions caused by growth, without any GHG reduction measures. The Scoping Plan has a range of GHG reduction actions, including direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non- monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market- based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.
As directed by AB 32, CARB has also approved a statewide GHG emissions limit. On December 6, 2007, CARB staff resolved an amount of 427 million metric tons ( MMT) of CO2e as the total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit. The limit is a cumulative statewide limit, not a sector- or facility- specific limit. CARB updated the future 2020 BAU annual emissions forecast, in light of the economic downturn, to 545 MMT of CO2e. Two GHG emissions reduction measures currently enacted that were not previously included in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory were included, further reducing the baseline inventory to 507 MMT of CO2e. Thus, an estimated reduction of 80 MMT of CO2e is necessary to reduce statewide emissions to meet the AB 32 target by 2020.
Executive Order B-30-15 & Senate Bill 32 GHG Reduction Targets – 2030 GHG Reduction Target In April 2015, Governor Brown signed EO B-30-15, which extended the goals of AB 32, setting a greenhouse gas emissions target at 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. On September 8, 2016, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 32, which legislatively established the GHG reduction target of 40 percent of 1990 levels by 2030. In November 2017, CARB issued California’ s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. 27 While the State is on track to exceed the AB 32 scoping plan 2020 targets, this plan is an update to reflect the enacted SB 32 reduction target.
SB 32 was passed in 2016, which codified a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. CARB is currently working on a second update to the Scoping Plan to reflect the 2030 target set by Executive Order B-30-15 and codified by SB 32. The proposed Scoping Plan Update was published on January 20, 2017 as directed by SB 32 companion legislation AB 197. The mid-term 2030 target is considered critical by CARB on the path to obtaining an even 27 California Air Resource Board, 2017. California’ s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’ s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Targets. November. Web:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf 32 deeper GHG emissions target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, as directed in Executive Order S-3-05. The Scoping Plan outlines the suite of policy measures, regulations, planning efforts, and investments in clean technologies and infrastructure, providing a blueprint to continue driving down GHG emissions and obtain the statewide goals.
The new Scoping Plan establishes a strategy that will reduce GHG emissions in California to meet the 2030 target ( note that the AB 32 Scoping Plan only addressed 2020 targets and a long- term goal). Key features of this plan are:
Cap and Trade program places a firm limit on 80 percent of the State’ s emissions; Achieving a 50-percent Renewable Portfolio Standard by 2030 ( currently at about 29 percent statewide);
Increase energy efficiency in existing buildings;
Develop fuels with an 18-percent reduction in carbon intensity; Develop more high-density, transit-oriented housing;
Develop walkable and bikeable communities;
Greatly increase the number of electric vehicles on the road and reduce oil demand in half; Increase zero- emissions transit so that 100 percent of new buses are zero emissions; Reduce freight- related emissions by transitioning to zero emissions where feasible and near-zero emissions with renewable fuels everywhere else; and Reduce “ super pollutants” by reducing methane and hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs by 40 percent.
In the updated Scoping Plan, CARB recommends statewide targets of no more than 6 metric tons MT) CO2e per capita ( statewide) by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons CO2e per capita by 2050. The statewide per capita targets account for all emissions sectors in the State, statewide population forecasts, and the statewide reductions necessary to achieve the 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer-term State emissions reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Executive Order B-55-18 – Carbon Neutrality
In 2018, a new statewide goal was established to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. CARB and other relevant state agencies are tasked with establishing sequestration targets and create policies/programs that would meet this goal.
Senate Bill 375 – California's Regional Transportation and Land Use Planning Efforts (2008) California enacted legislation (SB 375) to expand the efforts of AB 32 by controlling indirect GHG emissions caused by urban sprawl. SB 375 provides incentives for local governments and applicants to implement new conscientiously planned growth patterns. This includes incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities.
The legislation also allows applicants to bypass certain environmental reviews under CEQA ifthey build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. Development of more alternative transportation options that would reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, along with 33 traffic congestion, would be encouraged. SB 375 enhances CARB’ s ability to reach the AB 32 goals by directing the agency in developing regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from the transportation sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB works with the metropolitan planning organizations ( e.g. Association of Bay Area Governments [ ABAG] and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [ MTC]) to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and demonstrate the region's ability to attain its GHG reduction targets. A similar process is used to reduce transportation emissions of ozone precursor pollutants in the Bay Area.
Senate Bill 350 - Renewable Portfolio Standards
In September 2015, the California Legislature passed SB 350, which increases the states Renewables Portfolio Standard ( RPS) for content of electrical generation from the 33 percent target for 2020 to a 50 percent renewables target by 2030.
Senate Bill 100 – Current Renewable Portfolio Standards In September 2018, SB 100 was signed by Governor Brown to revise California’ s RPS program goals, furthering California’ s focus on using renewable energy and carbon- free power sources for its energy needs. The bill would require all California utilities to supply a specific percentage of their retail sales from renewable resources by certain target years. By December 31, 2024, 44 percent of the retails sales would need to be from renewable energy sources, by December 31, 2026 the target would be 40 percent, by December 31, 2017 the target would be 52 percent, and by December 31, 2030 the target would be 60 percent. By December 31, 2045, all California utilities would be required to supply retail electricity that is 100 percent carbon- free and sourced from eligible renewable energy resource to all California end- use customers.
California Building Standards Code – Title 24 Part 11 & Part 6 The California Green Building Standards Code ( CALGreen Code) is part of the California Building Standards Code under Title 24, Part 11.28 The CALGreen Code encourages sustainable construction standards that involve planning/design, energy efficiency, water efficiency resource efficiency, and environmental quality. These green building standard codes are mandatory statewide and are applicable to residential and non-residential developments. The most recent CALGreen Code (2019 California Building Standard Code) was effective as of January 1, 2020.
The California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) is under Title 24, Part 6 and is overseen by the California Energy Commission (CEC). This code includes design requirements to conserve energy in new residential and non-residential developments, while being cost effective for homeowners. This Energy Code is enforced and verified by cities during the planning and building permit process. The current energy efficiency standards (2019 Energy Code) replaced the 2016 Energy Code as of January 1,2020. Under the 2019 standards, single-family homes are predicted to be 53 percent more efficient than homes built under the 2016 standard due more stringent energy-efficiency standards and mandatory installation of solar photovoltaic 28 See: https:// www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Resources/ Page-Content/Building-Standards- Commission- Resources- ListFolder/CALGreen#:~:text=CALGreen%20is%20the%20first%2Din,to%201990%20levels%20by%202020. 34 systems. For nonresidential developments, it is predicted that these buildings will use 30 percent less energy due to lightening upgrades.29
Federal and Statewide GHG Emissions
The U.S. EPA reported that in 2018, total gross nationwide GHG emissions were 6,676.6 million metric tons ( MMT) carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO2e). 30 These emissions were lower than peak levels of 7,416 MMT that were emitted in 2007. CARB updates the statewide GHG emission inventory on an annual basis where the latest inventory includes 2000 through 2017 emissions. 31 In 2017, GHG emissions from statewide emitting activities were 424 MMT. The 2017 emissions have decreased by 14 percent since peak levels in 2004 and are 7 MMT below the 1990 emissions level and the State’ s 2020 GHG limit. Per capita GHG emissions in California have dropped from a 2001 peak of 14.1 MT per person to 10.7 MT per person in 2017. The most recent Bay Area emission inventory was computed for the year 2011.32 The Bay Area GHG emission were 87 MMT. As a point of comparison, statewide emissions were about 444 MMT in 2011 South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
The purpose of the City of South San Francisco’ s Climate Action Plan ( CAP) is to demonstrate the City of South San Francisco’ s commitment to reduce GHG emissions while protecting the unique resources of the community. The CAP is intended to build upon existing environmental preservation, public health, and energy-saving efforts. The CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. On February 13, 2014, the City adopted the CAP which follows both the State and BAAQMD CEQA guidelines of reaching a target reduction of 15% below baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020. However, the CAP does not have a specific metric ton GHG threshold for project-level construction or operation. For each project, City staff monitor the implementation of the CAP using a Development Review Checklist (Appendix E of the CAP). The checklist is provided as Attachment 6.
BAAQMD GHG Significance Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not use quantified thresholds for projects that are in a jurisdiction with a qualified GHG reductions plan (i.e., a Climate Action Plan). The plan has to address emissions associated with the period that the project would operate (e.g., beyond year 2020). For quantified emissions, the guidelines recommended a GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons (MT) per capita. These thresholds were developed based on meeting 29 See: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf 30 United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2018. April. Web: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020- main-text.pdf
31 CARB. 2019. 2019 Edition, California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory: 2000 – 2017. Web:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-17.pdf 32 BAAQMD. 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases Base Year 2011. January.
Web: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/emission-inventory/by2011_ghgsummary.pdf accessed Nov. 26, 2019.
35 the 2020 GHG targets set in the scoping plan that addressed AB 32. Development of the project would occur beyond 2020, so a threshold that addresses a future target is appropriate.
Although BAAQMD has not published a quantified threshold for 2030 yet, this assessment uses a bright- line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/ year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The 2030 bright-line threshold is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/ year threshold.
Evidence published by the State indicates the AB 32 goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels was met prior to 2020. Current State plans are to further reduce emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Assuming statewide emissions are at 1990 levels or lower in 2020, it would be logical to reduce the BAAQMD-recommended threshold for meeting the AB 32 threshold by 40% to develop a threshold for 2030.
Impact GHG- 1: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the shortterm from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.
Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the City’ s Climate Action Plan.
CalEEMod Modeling
CalEEMod was used to predict GHG emissions from operation of the site assuming full build- out of the project. The project land use types and size and other project-specific information were input to the model, as described above within the operational period emissions. CalEEMod output is included in Attachment 2.
Service Population Emissions
The project service population is based on the number of employees and is estimated based on 350 square feet per employee. For this project, 350 square feet per employee results in a service population of 842 employees.
Trip Generation Rates
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Therefore, the projectspecific daily trip generation rate for the project was provided by the applicant.33 Saturday and Sunday trip rates were assumed to be the weekday rate adjusted by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used. 33 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., Attachment: 580 Dubuque Avenue Trip generation Memo 073021.pdf 36 Construction GHG Emissions
GHG emissions associated with construction were computed at 1,662 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction.
BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable.
Operational GHG Emissions
The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully-developed site under the proposed project.
The applicant provided annual electricity usage, water usage, and solid waste information. This information was included in the operational CalEEMod model run. As shown in Table 9, net annual GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 1,976 metric tons (MT) of CO2e in 2025 and 1,880 MT of CO2e in 2030. The service population emission for the year 2024 and 2030 are predicted to be 2.35 and 2.23 MT/CO2e/ year/ service population, respectively.
The project is subject to the City of South San Francisco’ s CAP to meet AB 32 requirements. The implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG- 1, which requires the project to use the CAP checklist, would demonstrate the project’ s consistency with the City’s CAP.
Table 9. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category Proposed Project
in 2025
Proposed Project
in2030
Area 0.01 0.01
Energy Consumption 389.09 389.09
Mobile 1,377,99 1,281.99
Solid Waste Generation 11.30 11.30
Water Usage3 197.44 197.44
Total 1,975.82 1,879.82
Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/ year 660 MT CO2e/ year Exceeds bright-line threshold? Yes Yes
Service Population Emissions (MT CO2e/year/service
population 2.35 2.23
Exceeds service population threshold? No No
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: South San Francisco’ s CAP Appendix E New Development Checklist or other qualified GHG program in effect, shall be submitted along with any application for the project, demonstrating compliance with all mandatory requirements of the South San Francisco’ s CAP Appendix E New Development Checklist, except where an item is not applicable or where a suitable substitution is provided.
37 Impact GHG- 2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The proposed project would not conflict or otherwise interfere with the statewide GHG reduction measures identified in CARB’ s Scoping Plan nor would the project conflict with SB 100 goals. 38 Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 is the methodology used to compute community risk impacts, including the methods to compute lifetime cancer risk from exposure to project emissions.
Attachment 2 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction and operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions. The operational outputs for 2030 uses are also included in this attachment. Also included are any modeling assumptions.
Attachment 3 includes the EMFAC2021 emissions modeling. The input files for these calculations are voluminous and are available upon request in digital format.
Attachment 4 is the construction health risk assessment. This includes the summary of the dispersion modeling and the cancer risk calculations for construction. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for this assessment, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format
Attachment 5 includes the cumulative community risk calculations, modeling results, and health risk calculations from sources affecting the construction MEI and project site receptors.
Attachment 6 includes the checklist from the City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan.
Attachment 1: Health Risk Calculation Methodology
A health risk assessment ( HRA) for exposure to Toxic Air Contaminates ( TACs) requires the application of a risk characterization model to the results from the air dispersion model to estimate potential health risk at each sensitive receptor location. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) and California Air Resources Board CARB) develop recommended methods for conducting health risk assessments. The most recent OEHHA risk assessment guidelines were published in February of 2015. 34 These guidelines incorporate substantial changes designed to provide for enhanced protection of children, as required by State law, compared to previous published risk assessment guidelines. CARB has provided additional guidance on implementing OEHHA’s recommended methods.35 This HRA used the 2015 OEHHA risk assessment guidelines and CARB guidance. The BAAQMD has adopted recommended procedures for applying the newest OEHHA guidelines as part of Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants. 36 Exposure parameters from the OEHHA guidelines and the recent BAAQMD HRA Guidelines were used in this evaluation.
Cancer Risk
Potential increased cancer risk from inhalation of TACs is calculated based on the TAC concentration over the period of exposure, inhalation dose, the TAC cancer potency factor, and an age sensitivity factor to reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and children to cancer causing TACs. The inhalation dose depends on a person’ s breathing rate, exposure time and frequency and duration of exposure. These parameters vary depending on the age, or age range, of the persons being exposed and whether the exposure is considered to occur at a residential location or other sensitive receptor location.
The current OEHHA guidance recommends that cancer risk be calculated by age groups to account for different breathing rates and sensitivity to TACs. Specifically, they recommend evaluating risks for the third trimester of pregnancy to age zero, ages zero to less than two (infant exposure), ages two to less than 16 ( child exposure), and ages 16 to 70 ( adult exposure). Age sensitivity factors ( ASFs) associated with the different types of exposure are an ASF of 10 for the third trimester and infant exposures, an ASF of 3 for a child exposure, and an ASF of 1 for an adult exposure. Also associated with each exposure type are different breathing rates, expressed as liters per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-day) or liters per kilogram of body weight per 8-hour period for the case of worker or school child exposures. As recommended by the BAAQMD for residential exposures, 95th percentile breathing rates are used for the third trimester and infant exposures, and 80th percentile breathing rates for child and adult exposures. For children at schools and daycare facilities, BAAQMD recommends using the 95th percentile 8-hour breathing rates.
Additionally, CARB and the BAAQMD recommend the use of a residential exposure duration of 34 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
February.
35 CARB, 2015. Risk Management Guidance for Stationary Sources of Air Toxics. July 23. 36BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment ( HRA) Guidelines. December 2016. 30 years for sources with long- term emissions ( e.g., roadways). For workers, assumed to be adults, a 25-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD. For school children a 9-year exposure period is recommended by the BAAQMD.
Under previous OEHHA and BAAQMD HRA guidance, residential receptors are assumed to be at their home 24 hours a day, or 100 percent of the time. In the 2015 Risk Assessment Guidance, OEHHA includes adjustments to exposure duration to account for the fraction of time at home FAH), which can be less than 100 percent of the time, based on updated population and activity statistics. The FAH factors are age- specific and are: 0.85 for third trimester of pregnancy to less than 2 years old, 0.72 for ages 2 to less than 16 years, and 0.73 for ages 16 to 70 years. Use of the FAH factors is allowed by the BAAQMD if there are no schools in the project vicinity have a cancer risk of one in a million or greater assuming 100 percent exposure (FAH = 1.0).
Functionally, cancer risk is calculated using the following parameters and formulas:
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF x ED/AT x FAH x 106 Where:
CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day)-1
ASF = Agesensitivity factor forspecified agegroup
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averagingtime for lifetime cancer risk ( years)
FAH = Fractionf time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR* x A x (EF/365) x 10-6
Where:
Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
8HrBR = 8-hour breathing rate (L/kg body weight-8 hours) A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency (days/year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
The health risk parameters used in this evaluation are summarized as follows:
Exposure Type Infant Child Adult
Parameter Age Range 3rd
Trimester
0<2 2 < 16 16 - 30
DPM Cancer Potency Factor (mg/kg-day)-1 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 80th Percentile Rate 273 758 572 261 Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) 95th Percentile Rate 361 1,090 745 335 8-hour Breathing Rate (L/kg-8 hours) 95th Percentile Rate - 1,200 520 240 Inhalation Absorption Factor 1 1 1 1
Averaging Time (years) 70 70 70 70
Exposure Duration ( years) 0.25 2 14 14*
Exposure Frequency ( days/year) 350 350 350 350*
Age
Fraction
An
Sensitivity
8-hour
of Time
breathing
Factor
at Home (
rate (
FAH)
8HrBR) is used for worker and school
0.85-
10 child
1.0 exposures.
0.85-
10 1.0 0.72-
3 1.0 0.73*
1 Non- Cancer Hazards
Non- cancer health risk is usually determined by comparing the predicted level of exposure to a chemical to the level of exposure that is not expected to cause any adverse effects ( reference exposure level), even to the most susceptible people. Potential non- cancer health hazards from TAC exposure are expressed in terms of a hazard index ( HI), which is the ratio of the TAC concentration to a reference exposure level ( REL). OEHHA has defined acceptable concentration levels for contaminants that pose non-cancer health hazards. TAC concentrations below the REL are not expected to cause adverse health impacts, even for sensitive individuals. The total HI is calculated as the sum of the HIs for each TAC evaluated and the total HI is compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds to determine whether a significant non- cancer health impact from a project would occur.
Typically, for residential projects located near roadways with substantial TAC emissions, the primary TAC of concern with non- cancer health effects is diesel particulate matter ( DPM). For DPM, the chronic inhalation REL is 5 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3).
Annual PM2.5 Concentrations
While not a TAC, fine particulate matter ( PM2.5) has been identified by the BAAQMD as a pollutant with potential non- cancer health effects that should be included when evaluating potential community health impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The thresholds of significance for PM2.5 ( project level and cumulative) are in terms of an increase in the annual average concentration. When considering PM2.5 impacts, the contribution from all sources of PM2.5 emissions should be included. For projects with potential impacts from nearby local roadways, the PM2.5 impacts should include those from vehicle exhaust emissions, PM2.5 generated from vehicle tire and brake wear, and fugitive emissions from re-suspended dust on the roads.
Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs
Air Quality/ Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: 580 Dubuque R&D
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 0 Dwelling Units 1.89 total project acres disturbed 0 s.f. residential Pile Driving - YES FOR SHORING ACTIVITIES & MICROPILES AT BOTTOM OF PARKING 0 s.f. retail
273, 971 s.f. office/ commercial - R& D
Project include on-site GENERATOR during project - YES GENERATOR DURING AS
BACKUP POWER
0 s.f. other, specify: IF YES ( if BOTH separate values) --> 156, 399 s.f. parking garage 350 spaces
Kilowatts/ Horsepower: 2800kW
0 s.f. parking structure 0 spaces
Fuel Type: DIESEL
Construction Hours 7 am to 3:30 pm
Location in project ( Plans Desired if Available):
LOCATION AT GRADE ELEVATION
DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/ DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.
Hours per
day
HP
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date: 2/10/2022 Total phase: 5 Overall Import/ Export Volumes End Date: 2/16/2022
1 Concrete/ Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 5 8 2365 Demolition Volume 1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 5 8 2402 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 0 Rubber- Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 5 8 0 ( or total tons to be hauled) 1 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 97 0.37 8 5 8 1436 _?_ square feet or Other Equipment?_?_ Hauling volume ( tons)
Any pavement demolished and hauled - 112TONS
Site Preparation Start Date: 4/22/2022 Total phase: 4
End Date: 4/27/2022
1 Graders 187 0.41 8 4 8 2453
1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 4 8 3162
2 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 97 0.37 8 4 8 2297
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date: 5/27/2022 Total phase: 48 End Date: 8/2/2022 Soil Hauling Volume
2 Excavators 158 0.38 8 48 8 46111 Export volume = 58,000 cubic yard 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 48 8 29441 Import volume = 0 cubic yards 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 48 8 37939
0 Concrete/ Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 48 8 0
2 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 97 0.37 8 48 8 27564
Other Equipment?
Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 4/28/2022 Total phase: 140 End Date: 11/9/2022
1 Tractor/ Loader/ Backhoe 97 0.37 6 140 6 30148
1 Excavators 158 0.38 6 140 6 50434
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date: 7/14/2023 Total phase: 140 Cement Trucks - NONE FOR EXTERIOR End Date: 1/25/2024
1 Cranes 231 0.29 10 140 10 93786 ELECTRIC
1 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 140 8 19936 DIESEL
0 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 140 8 0 TEMPORARY POWER LINES 0 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 97 0.37 7 140 7 0
1 Welders 46 0.45 8 140 8 23184
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/ Architectural Coating Start Date: 8/10/2023 Total phase: 136 End Date: 2/15/2024
1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 8 136 8 40735
2 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 8 136 8 41823
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date: 3/4/2024 Total phase: 45
Start Date: 5/3/2024
1 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 8 2 0.4 81
1 Pavers 130 0.42 8 2 0.4 874
1 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 8 2 0.4 760
1 Rollers 80 0.38 8 40 7.1 9728
1 Tractors/ Loaders/ Backhoes 97 0.37 8 40 7.1 11485
Other Equipment?
Additional Phases - Soil Remediation Start Date: 5/27/2022 Total phase: 48 Start Date: 8/2/2022
1 Soil Remdiation - Excavators 158 0.38 8 48 8 23055 EXPORT - 76, 016 cu. yards clean and Class I Class II. IMPORT - 0 cu. yards 1 Soil Remdiation - Tractor/ Loader/ Backhoe 97 0.37 8 48 8 13782 0 0
0 0
0 0
Additional Phases - Soldier Piles/ Micropiles Start Date: 4/22/2022 Total phase: 25 Start Date: 5/26/2022
1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Crane 231 0.29 10 25 10 16748 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Drill Rig 221 0.50 10 25 10 27625 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Forklift 89 0.20 10 25 10 4450 1 Shoring Soldier Piles/Micropiles - Temporary Generator for Dewatering 84 0.74 24 540 518. 4 805594 Temp Generator for 18Months 24hrs/ day 0 0
0 0
0 0
Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab.
Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate
Modify horsepower or load factor, as appropriate
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Asphalt - 200 CUYD
Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2. 5 Exhaust CO2e
Year MT
2022 1.02 2.22 0.11 0.11 388.97
2023 2.13 1.25 0.06 0.06 259. 55
2024 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.00 21.93
2022 0.04 0.68 0.03 0.01 401.07
2023 0.04 0.67 0.04 0.01 442. 94
2024 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.00 147. 67
2022 1.06 2.90 0.14 0.12 790.04
2023 2.18 1.92 0.10 0.07 702. 49
2024 0.42 0.32 0.02 0.01 169. 60
Tons 3.66 5.15 0.26 0.21 1662. 13
Pounds/ Workdays
2022 9.13 24.91 1.23 1.03 233
2023 16.67 14.72 0.73 0.57 261
2024 9.41 7.28 0.38 0.21 89
Threshold lbs/ day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Pounds 35.21 46.92 2.34 1.82 0.00
Average 12.55 17.66 0.88 0.70 0.00 583.00
Threshold lbs/ day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Tons/ year 2.34 1.60 1.42 0.40
Threshold Tons/ year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Pounds Per Day 12.81 8.74 7.80 2.18
Threshold lbs/ day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Category
Project Existing Project 2030 Existing
Area 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00
Energy 389. 09 0.00 389. 09 0.00
Mobile 1377. 99 0.00 1281. 99 0.00
Waste 11.30 0.00 11.30 0.00
Water 197.44 0.00 197.44 0.00
TOTAL 1975. 82 0.00 1879. 82 0.00
Net GHG Emissions 1975. 82 1879. 82
Service Population 842.00
Per Capita Emissions 2.35 2.23
Average Daily Emissions
EMFAC
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Emissions by Year
Workdays
CO2e
Tons
Total Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Construction Criteria Air Pollutants
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Existing Use Emissions
Total Construction Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Attachment 3: EMFAC2021 Calculations
FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.448243 0.043109 0.27536 0.157817 0.028829 0.00633 0.008743 0.002558 0.00231 0.000743 0.0235 0.000418 0.00204 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input
FleetMixLandUseSubType LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
0.392609 0.040642 0.308969 0.177896 0.031644 0.007414 0.008262 0.002362 0.002204 0.000645 0.024811 0.000394 0.002146 CalEEMod EMFAC2021 Fleet Mix Input
Attachment 4: Project Construction Emissions and Health Risk Calculations
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
DPM Emissions and Modeling Emission Rates - Unmitigated DPM
Modeled Emission
Construction DPM Area DPMEmissions Area Rate
Year Activity ( ton/ year) Source ( lb/yr) ( lb/hr) ( g/ s) m2)( g/s/m2) 2022 Construction 0.1130 CON_ DPM 226. 0 0.07285 9.18E- 03 7,647 1.20E- 06 2023 Construction 0.0627 CON_ DPM 125. 5 0.04045 5.10E- 03 7,647 6.66E- 07 2024 Construction 0.0057 CON_ DPM 11.3 0.00366 4.61E- 04 7,647 6.03E- 08 Total 0.1814 362. 8 0.1170 0.0147
Construction Hours
hr/ day = 8.5 ( 7am - 3:30pm)
days/ yr = 365
hours/ year = 3102. 5
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
PM2.5 Fugitive Dust Emissions for Modeling - Unmitigated PM2. 5
Modeled Emission
Construction Area PM2. 5 Emissions Area Rate
Year Activity Source ( ton/year) ( lb/yr) ( lb/hr) ( g/ s) m2) g/s/m 2 2022 Construction CON_ FUG 0.0920 184. 1 0.05933 7.48E- 03 7,647 9.78E- 07 2023 Construction CON_ FUG 0.0018 3.7 0.00118 1.49E- 04 7,647 1.95E- 08 2024 Construction CON_ FUG 0.0006 1.2 0.00040 5.07E- 05 7,647 6.63E- 09 Total 0.0945 189.0 0.0609 0.0077
Construction Hours
hr/ day = 8.5 ( 7am - 3:30pm)
days/ yr = 365
hours/ year = 3102. 5
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
Construction Health Impact Summary
Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Without Mitigation
Maximum Concentrations Maximum
Exhaust Fugitive Hazard Annual PM2.5
Emissions PM10/ DPM PM2. 5 Index Concentration
Year ( g/m
3 )( g/m3) Infant/ Child Adult (-) ( g/m3)
2022 0.0311 0.0256 5.53 0.09 0.01 0.06
2023 0.0173 0.0005 2.84 0.05 0.00 0.02
2024 0.0016 0.0002 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total -- 8.41 0.14 -
Maximum 0.0311 0.0256 - - 0.01 0.06
Cancer Risk
per million)
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2. 5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 7.6 meter receptor height Cancer Risk ( per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF xED/ AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor ( mg/ kg- day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home ( unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/ 365) x 10-
6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight- day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/ Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/ Child - Exposure Information Infant/ Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year ( years) Age Year Annual Factor ( per million) Year Annual Factor ( per million) Index PM2. 5 PM2. 5 0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0311 10 0.42 2022 0.0311 - -
1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0311 10 5.11 2022 0.0311 1 0.09 0.006 0.026 0.06 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0173 10 2.84 2023 0.0173 1 0.05 0.003 0.001 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0016 3 0.04 2024 0.0016 1 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16- 17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17- 18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18- 19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19- 20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20- 21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21- 22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22- 23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23- 24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24- 25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25- 26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26- 27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27- 28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28- 29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29- 30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 8.41 0.14
Third trimester of pregnancy
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2. 5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 4.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk ( per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF xED/ AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor ( mg/ kg- day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home ( unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/ 365) x 10-
6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight- day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/ Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/ Child - Exposure Information Infant/ Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year ( years) Age Year Annual Factor ( per million) Year Annual Factor ( per million) Index PM2. 5 PM2. 5 0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0219 10 0.30 2022 0.0219 - -
1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0219 10 3.60 2022 0.0219 1 0.06 0.004 0.020 0.04 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0122 10 2.00 2023 0.0122 1 0.03 0.002 0.000 0.01 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0011 3 0.03 2024 0.0011 1 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16- 17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17- 18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18- 19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19- 20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20- 21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21- 22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22- 23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23- 24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24- 25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25- 26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26- 27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27- 28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28- 29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29- 30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 5.93 0.10
Third trimester of pregnancy
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Construction Impacts - Without Mitigation Maximum DPM Cancer Risk and PM2. 5 Calculations From Constructio n Impacts at Off-Site MEI Location - 1.5 meter receptor height Cancer Risk ( per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose x ASF xED/ AT x FAH x 1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor ( mg/ kg- day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home ( unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR x A x (EF/ 365) x 10-
6 Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight- day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Values
Infant/ Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00 1.10E+ 00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/ Child - Exposure Information Infant/ Child Adult - Exposure Information Adult Exposure Age Cancer Modeled Age Cancer Maximum
Exposure Duration DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk DPM Conc ( ug/ m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year ( years) Age Year Annual Factor ( per million) Year Annual Factor ( per million) Index PM2. 5 PM2. 5 0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0266 10 0.36 2022 0.0266 - -
1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0266 10 4.37 2022 0.0266 1 0.08 0.01 0.025 0.05 2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0148 10 2.42 2023 0.0148 1 0.04 0.00 0.000 0.02 3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0013 3 0.03 2024 0.0013 1 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
5 1 4 - 5 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
6 1 5 - 6 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
7 1 6 - 7 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
8 1 7 - 8 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
9 1 8 - 9 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
10 1 9 - 10 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
11 1 10 - 11 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
12 1 11 - 12 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
13 1 12 - 13 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
14 1 13 - 14 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
15 1 14 - 15 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
16 1 15 - 16 0.0000 3 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
17 1 16- 17 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
18 1 17- 18 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
19 1 18- 19 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
20 1 19- 20 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
21 1 20- 21 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
22 1 21- 22 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
23 1 22- 23 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
24 1 23- 24 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
25 1 24- 25 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
26 1 25- 26 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
27 1 26- 27 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
28 1 27- 28 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
29 1 28- 29 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
30 1 29- 30 0.0000 1 0.00 0.0000 1 0.00
Total Increased Cancer Risk 7.18 0.12
Third trimester of pregnancy
Attachment 5: Community Risk Modeling Information and Calculations 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA
Standby Emergency Generator Impacts
Off site Sensitive Receptors
MEI Location 7.6 meter receptor height
DPM Emissions per Generator
Max Daily Annual
Source Type lb/day) lb/year)
2,800 kW, 3,750 hp Generator 0.124 45.40
CalEEMod DPM Emissions 2.27E 02 tons/ year
Model AERMOD
Source Diesel Generator Engine
Source Type Point
Meteorological Data 2013 2017 San Francisco International Airport Generator Engine Size hp) 3750
Stack Height ft) 10.00
Stack Diameter ft)** 0.60
Exhaust Gas Flowrate CFM)* 2527. 73
Stack Exit Velocity ft/sec)** 149.00
Exhaust Temperature F)** 872.00
Emissions Rate lb/ hr) 0.005183
AERMOD default
BAAQMD default generator parameters
DPM Emission Rates
Modeling Information
Point Source Stack Parameters
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Cancer Risks from Project Operation Project Emergency Generator
Impacts at Off-Site Receptors- 7.6m MEI Receptor Heights Impact at Project MEI (27-year Exposure)
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF xED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/ kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration (years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair x DBR xA x (EF/ 365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
CPF = 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00 1.10E+00
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Infant/Child - Exposure Information Infant/Child
Exposure Age Cancer
Exposure Duration DPM Conc (ug/m3) Sensitivity Risk Hazard Fugitive Total Year ( years) Age Year Annual Factor ( per million) Index PM2.5 PM2.5 0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 2022 0.0000 10 0.000
1 1 0 - 1 2022 0.0000 10 0.000
2 1 1 - 2 2023 0.0000 10 0.000
3 1 2 - 3 2024 0.0000 3 0.000
4 1 3 - 4 2025 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
5 1 4 - 5 2026 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
6 1 5 - 6 2027 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
7 1 6 - 7 2028 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
8 1 7 - 8 2029 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
9 1 8 - 9 2030 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
10 1 9 - 10 2031 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
11 1 10 - 11 2032 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
12 1 11 - 12 2033 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
13 1 12 - 13 2034 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
14 1 13 - 14 2035 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
15 1 14 - 15 2036 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
16 1 15 - 16 2037 0.0011 3 0.029 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
17 1 16-17 2038 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
18 1 17-18 2039 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
19 1 18-19 2040 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
20 1 19-20 2041 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
21 1 20-21 2042 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
22 1 21-22 2043 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
23 1 22-23 2044 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
24 1 23-24 2045 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
25 1 24-25 2046 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
26 1 25-26 2047 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
27 1 26-27 2048 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
28 1 27-28 2049 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
29 1 28-29 2050 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
30 1 29-30 2051 0.0011 1 0.003 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012
Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.43 Max 0.00023 0.0001 0.0012 Third trimester of pregnancy
CT-EMFAC2017 Emissions Factors
Traffic Emissions and Health Risk Calculations
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_ NB_ AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705. 7 0.44 13. 3 43. 7 3.4 35 13, 546 DPM_ SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700. 1 0.44 13.3 43.7 3.4 35 13,546 Total 27, 092
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.00050
Emisson Factors from CT- EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and DPM Emissions - DPM_ NB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 3.85% 522 3.20E-05 9 6.74% 913 5.59E-05 17 6.40% 868 5.32E-05 2 3.18% 431 2.64E-05 10 8.25% 1117 6.84E-05 18 4.10% 555 3.40E-05 3 2.35% 318 1.95E-05 11 6.24% 845 5.18E-05 19 2.38% 323 1.98E-05 4 1.01% 136 8.34E- 06 12 7.41% 1004 6.15E- 05 20 1.21% 164 1.01E- 05 5 1.01% 136 8.34E- 06 13 6.74% 913 5.59E- 05 21 3.05% 414 2.54E- 05 6 2.18% 295 1.81E- 05 14 6.57% 890 5.45E- 05 22 5.06% 686 4.20E- 05 7 4.73% 641 3.93E-05 15 5.90% 799 4.90E-05 23 3.35% 454 2.78E-05 8 3.39% 459 2.81E-05 16 4.23% 573 3.51E-05 24 0.67% 91 5.56E-06 Total 13,546
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and DPM Emissions - DPM_ SB_ AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.85% 522 3.17E-05 9 6.74% 913 5.55E-05 17 6.40% 868 5.27E-05 2 3.18% 431 2.62E-05 10 8.25% 1117 6.79E-05 18 4.10% 555 3.37E-05 3 2.35% 318 1.93E-05 11 6.24% 845 5.14E-05 19 2.38% 323 1.96E-05 4 1.01% 136 8.27E-06 12 7.41% 1004 6.10E-05 20 1.21% 164 9.98E-06 5 1.01% 136 8.27E- 06 13 6.74% 913 5.55E- 05 21 3.05% 414 2.51E- 05 6 2.18% 295 1.79E- 05 14 6.57% 890 5.41E- 05 22 5.06% 686 4.17E- 05 7 4.73% 641 3.89E-05 15 5.90% 799 4.86E-05 23 3.35% 454 2.76E-05 8 3.39% 459 2.79E-05 16 4.23% 573 3.48E-05 24 0.67% 91 5.52E-06 Total 13,546
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Averag e
Vehicles
per Day
PM2. 5_ NB_ AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705. 7 0.44 13. 3 44 1.3 35 13, 546 PM2. 5_ SB_ AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700. 1 0.44 13. 3 44 1.3 35 13, 546 Total 27, 092
Emission Factors - PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.001702
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2. 5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 151 3.14E-05 9 7.12% 964 2.00E-04 17 7.43% 1006 2.09E-04 2 0.41% 56 1.16E-05 10 4.38% 593 1.23E-04 18 8.24% 1116 2.31E-04 3 0.38% 51 1.05E-05 11 4.65% 629 1.30E-04 19 5.72% 775 1.61E-04 4 0.17% 23 4.85E-06 12 5.89% 798 1.65E-04 20 4.30% 583 1.21E-04 5 0.45% 61 1.27E-05 13 6.17% 836 1.73E-04 21 3.26% 441 9.14E-05 6 0.85% 115 2.39E-05 14 6.05% 819 1.70E-04 22 3.31% 449 9.30E-05 7 3.73% 506 1.05E-04 15 7.05% 956 1.98E-04 23 2.49% 337 6.98E-05 8 7.77% 1052 2.18E-04 16 7.19% 974 2.02E-04 24 1.87% 254 5.26E-05 Total 13,546
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and PM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 151 3.12E-05 9 7.12% 964 1.98E-04 17 7.43% 1006 2.07E-04 2 0.41% 56 1.15E-05 10 4.38% 593 1.22E-04 18 8.24% 1116 2.29E-04 3 0.38% 51 1.05E-05 11 4.65% 629 1.29E-04 19 5.72% 775 1.59E-04 4 0.17% 23 4.81E-06 12 5.89% 798 1.64E-04 20 4.30% 583 1.20E-04 5 0.45% 61 1.26E-05 13 6.17% 836 1.72E-04 21 3.26% 441 9.07E-05 6 0.85% 115 2.37E-05 14 6.05% 819 1.69E-04 22 3.31% 449 9.22E-05 7 3.73% 506 1.04E-04 15 7.05% 956 1.97E-04 23 2.49% 337 6.93E-05 8 7.77% 1052 2.16E-04 16 7.19% 974 2.00E-04 24 1.87% 254 5.22E-05 Total 13,546
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705.7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 TEXH_SB_AIR
Airport Blvd
Southbound SB 2 700.1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546
Total 27,092
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
SpeedCategory 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03831
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 151 7.07E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.50E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.70E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.62E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.77E-03 18 8.24% 1116 5.21E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.37E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.94E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.62E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.09E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.72E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.72E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.87E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.90E-03 21 3.26% 441 2.06E-03 6 0.85% 115 5.38E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.82E-03 22 3.31% 449 2.09E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.36E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.46E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.57E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.91E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.54E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.18E-03 Total 13,546
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 151 7.01E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.46E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.66E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.60E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.74E-03 18 8.24% 1116 5.16E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.36E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.91E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.59E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.08E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.69E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.70E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.84E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.87E-03 21 3.26% 441 2.04E-03 6 0.85% 115 5.33E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.79E-03 22 3.31% 449 2.08E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.34E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.42E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.56E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.87E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.51E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.17E-03 Total 13,546
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_ NB_AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705. 7 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 TEVAP_ SB_AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700. 1 0.44 13.3 44 1.3 35 13,546 Total 27,092
Emission Factors - PM2. 5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour ( g/ hour) 1.24545
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile ( g/VMT) 0.03558
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_ NB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 151 6.56E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.18E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.36E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.43E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.57E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.84E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.21E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.73E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.36E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.01E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.46E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.53E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.66E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.62E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.91E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.99E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.55E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.94E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.19E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.14E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.46E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.56E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.22E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.10E-03 Total 13,546
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 151 6.51E-04 9 7.12% 964 4.15E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.33E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.41E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.55E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.80E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.19E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.71E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.33E-03 4 0.17% 23 1.01E-04 12 5.89% 798 3.43E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.51E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.64E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.60E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.90E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.95E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.52E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.93E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.18E-03 15 7.05% 956 4.11E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.45E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.52E-03 16 7.19% 974 4.19E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.09E-03 Total 13,546
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Airport Blvd
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_ NB_ AIR Airport Blvd Northbound NB 2 705. 7 0.44 13. 3 44 1.3 35 13, 546 FUG_ SB_ AIR Airport Blvd Southbound SB 2 700. 1 0.44 13. 3 44 1.3 35 13, 546 Total 27,092
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01680
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01482
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03367 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 151 6.21E-04 9 7.12% 964 3.95E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.13E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.30E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.43E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.58E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.09E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.58E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.18E-03 4 0.17% 23 9.59E-05 12 5.89% 798 3.27E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.39E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.52E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.43E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.81E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.72E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.36E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.84E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.07E-03 15 7.05% 956 3.92E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.38E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.31E-03 16 7.19% 974 3.99E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.04E-03 Total 13,546
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andFugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_AIR Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 151 6.16E-04 9 7.12% 964 3.92E-03 17 7.43% 1006 4.09E-03 2 0.41% 56 2.28E-04 10 4.38% 593 2.41E-03 18 8.24% 1116 4.54E-03 3 0.38% 51 2.07E-04 11 4.65% 629 2.56E-03 19 5.72% 775 3.15E-03 4 0.17% 23 9.52E-05 12 5.89% 798 3.25E-03 20 4.30% 583 2.37E-03 5 0.45% 61 2.50E-04 13 6.17% 836 3.40E-03 21 3.26% 441 1.79E-03 6 0.85% 115 4.69E-04 14 6.05% 819 3.33E-03 22 3.31% 449 1.82E-03 7 3.73% 506 2.06E-03 15 7.05% 956 3.89E-03 23 2.49% 337 1.37E-03 8 7.77% 1052 4.28E-03 16 7.19% 974 3.96E-03 24 1.87% 254 1.03E-03 Total 13,546
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_ EB_GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 55.7 3.4 35 17,067 DPM_ WB_ GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665. 5 0.41 17.0 55.7 3.4 35 17,067 Total 34, 134
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.00050
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes andDPMEmissions - DPM_EB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/ s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 3.85% 658 3.75E- 05 9 6.74% 1150 6.56E- 05 17 6.40% 1093 6.23E- 05 2 3.18% 543 3.10E-05 10 8.25% 1408 8.02E-05 18 4.10% 700 3.99E-05 3 2.35% 400 2.28E-05 11 6.24% 1064 6.07E-05 19 2.38% 407 2.32E-05 4 1.01% 172 9.78E-06 12 7.41% 1265 7.21E-05 20 1.21% 207 1.18E-05 5 1.01% 172 9.78E-06 13 6.74% 1150 6.56E-05 21 3.05% 521 2.97E-05 6 2.18% 372 2.12E-05 14 6.57% 1122 6.40E-05 22 5.06% 864 4.93E-05 7 4.73% 807 4.60E-05 15 5.90% 1007 5.74E-05 23 3.35% 572 3.26E-05 8 3.39% 578 3.30E-05 16 4.23% 721 4.11E-05 24 0.67% 114 6.52E-06 Total 17,067
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andDPMEmissions - DPM_WB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.85% 658 3.80E- 05 9 6.74% 1150 6.65E- 05 17 6.40% 1093 6.32E- 05 2 3.18% 543 3.14E- 05 10 8.25% 1408 8.13E- 05 18 4.10% 700 4.04E- 05 3 2.35% 400 2.31E-05 11 6.24% 1064 6.15E-05 19 2.38% 407 2.35E-05 4 1.01% 172 9.91E-06 12 7.41% 1265 7.31E-05 20 1.21% 207 1.20E-05 5 1.01% 172 9.91E-06 13 6.74% 1150 6.65E-05 21 3.05% 521 3.01E-05 6 2.18% 372 2.15E-05 14 6.57% 1122 6.48E-05 22 5.06% 864 4.99E-05 7 4.73% 807 4.66E-05 15 5.90% 1007 5.82E-05 23 3.35% 572 3.30E-05 8 3.39% 578 3.34E-05 16 4.23% 721 4.17E-05 24 0.67% 114 6.61E-06 Total 17,067
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Averag e
Vehicles
per Day
PM2. 5_ EB_ GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656. 7 0.41 17. 0 56 1.3 35 17, 067 PM2. 5_ WB_ GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665. 5 0.41 17. 0 56 1.3 35 17, 067 Total 34, 134
Emission Factors - PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.001702
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2. 5 Emissions - PM2.5_EB_ GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 191 3.68E-05 9 7.12% 1215 2.34E-04 17 7.43% 1268 2.45E-04 2 0.41% 71 1.36E-05 10 4.38% 747 1.44E-04 18 8.24% 1406 2.71E-04 3 0.38% 64 1.24E-05 11 4.65% 793 1.53E-04 19 5.72% 977 1.88E-04 4 0.17% 29 5.69E-06 12 5.89% 1005 1.94E-04 20 4.30% 735 1.42E-04 5 0.45% 77 1.49E-05 13 6.17% 1054 2.03E-04 21 3.26% 556 1.07E-04 6 0.85% 145 2.80E-05 14 6.05% 1032 1.99E-04 22 3.31% 565 1.09E-04 7 3.73% 637 1.23E-04 15 7.05% 1204 2.32E-04 23 2.49% 424 8.19E-05 8 7.77% 1325 2.56E-04 16 7.19% 1227 2.37E-04 24 1.87% 320 6.17E-05 Total 17,067
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andPM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_WB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 191 3.73E-05 9 7.12% 1215 2.38E-04 17 7.43% 1268 2.48E-04 2 0.41% 71 1.38E-05 10 4.38% 747 1.46E-04 18 8.24% 1406 2.75E-04 3 0.38% 64 1.25E-05 11 4.65% 793 1.55E-04 19 5.72% 977 1.91E-04 4 0.17% 29 5.76E-06 12 5.89% 1005 1.96E-04 20 4.30% 735 1.44E-04 5 0.45% 77 1.51E-05 13 6.17% 1054 2.06E-04 21 3.26% 556 1.09E-04 6 0.85% 145 2.84E-05 14 6.05% 1032 2.02E-04 22 3.31% 565 1.10E-04 7 3.73% 637 1.25E-04 15 7.05% 1204 2.35E-04 23 2.49% 424 8.30E-05 8 7.77% 1325 2.59E-04 16 7.19% 1227 2.40E-04 24 1.87% 320 6.25E-05 Total 17,067
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_EB_GND
Grand Avenue
Eastbound EB 3 656.7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067
TEXH_WB_GND
Grand Avenue
Westbound WB 3 665.5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067
Total 34,134
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
SpeedCategory 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03831
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_EB _GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 191 8.29E-04 9 7.12% 1215 5.28E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.51E-03 2 0.41% 71 3.07E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.24E-03 18 8.24% 1406 6.10E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.78E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.44E-03 19 5.72% 977 4.24E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.28E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.36E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.19E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.36E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.57E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.41E-03 6 0.85% 145 6.30E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.48E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.45E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.77E-03 15 7.05% 1204 5.23E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.84E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.76E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.33E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.39E-03 Total 17,067
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_WB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 191 8.40E-04 9 7.12% 1215 5.35E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.58E-03 2 0.41% 71 3.11E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.29E-03 18 8.24% 1406 6.19E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.82E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.49E-03 19 5.72% 977 4.30E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.30E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.42E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.23E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.40E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.64E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.44E-03 6 0.85% 145 6.39E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.54E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.49E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.80E-03 15 7.05% 1204 5.30E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.87E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.83E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.40E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.41E-03 Total 17,067
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_ EB_ GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656. 7 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 TEVAP_ WB_ GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665. 5 0.41 17.0 56 1.3 35 17,067 Total 34,134
Emission Factors - PM2. 5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour ( g/ hour) 1.24545
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile ( g/VMT) 0.03558
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_ EB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 191 7.70E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.90E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.11E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.85E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.01E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.67E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.59E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.20E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.94E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.19E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.05E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.96E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.12E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.25E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.24E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.85E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.16E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.28E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.57E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.86E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.71E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.35E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.95E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.29E-03 Total 17,067
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andTOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_WB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 191 7.80E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.97E-03 17 7.43% 1268 5.18E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.89E-04 10 4.38% 747 3.05E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.75E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.62E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.24E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.99E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.20E-04 12 5.89% 1005 4.11E-03 20 4.30% 735 3.00E-03 5 0.45% 77 3.16E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.31E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.27E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.93E-04 14 6.05% 1032 4.22E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.31E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.61E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.92E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.73E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.42E-03 16 7.19% 1227 5.01E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.31E-03 Total 17,067
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Cumulative Operation - Grand Avenue
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2022
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_ EB_ GND Grand Avenue Eastbound EB 3 656. 7 0.41 17. 0 56 1.3 35 17, 067 FUG_ WB_ GND Grand Avenue Westbound WB 3 665. 5 0.41 17. 0 56 1.3 35 17, 067 Total 34,134
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 35
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01680
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01482
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03367 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_EB_ GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 191 7.28E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.64E-03 17 7.43% 1268 4.84E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.70E-04 10 4.38% 747 2.85E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.36E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.45E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.03E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.73E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.12E-04 12 5.89% 1005 3.84E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.80E-03 5 0.45% 77 2.95E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.02E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.12E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.54E-04 14 6.05% 1032 3.94E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.16E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.43E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.59E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.62E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.06E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.68E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.22E-03 Total 17,067
2022 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andFugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_WB_GND Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 191 7.38E-04 9 7.12% 1215 4.70E-03 17 7.43% 1268 4.90E-03 2 0.41% 71 2.74E-04 10 4.38% 747 2.89E-03 18 8.24% 1406 5.44E-03 3 0.38% 64 2.48E-04 11 4.65% 793 3.07E-03 19 5.72% 977 3.78E-03 4 0.17% 29 1.14E-04 12 5.89% 1005 3.89E-03 20 4.30% 735 2.84E-03 5 0.45% 77 2.99E-04 13 6.17% 1054 4.07E-03 21 3.26% 556 2.15E-03 6 0.85% 145 5.61E-04 14 6.05% 1032 3.99E-03 22 3.31% 565 2.19E-03 7 3.73% 637 2.46E-03 15 7.05% 1204 4.66E-03 23 2.49% 424 1.64E-03 8 7.77% 1325 5.13E-03 16 7.19% 1227 4.74E-03 24 1.87% 320 1.24E-03 Total 17,067
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors ( 1 Location - 7.6 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2022
Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 7.6 Meters
Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013- 2017 Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013- 2017 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854
Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013- 2017 0.0847 0.0806 0.0041
Concentration (g/m3)*
PM2. 5 Concentration ( g/m3)*
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors ( 1 Location - 7.6 meter receptor height) Emission Year 2022
Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 7.6 Meters
Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013- 2017 Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013- 2017 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399
Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2.5 Fugitive PM2.5 Vehicle PM2.5
2013- 2017 0.0396 0.0377 0.0019
Concentration (g/m3)*
PM2. 5 Concentration ( g/m3)*
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Airport Blvd Traffic CancerRisk Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF x ED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/ kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x (EF/ 365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors ( mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6. 28E- 03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3. 70E- 04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Expos ure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year ( years) Age
0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.023 0.007 0.0004 0.03 Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.274 0.086 0.0047 0.36 0.0003 0.08 0.08 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.274 0.086 0.0047 0.36 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.043 0.014 0.0007 0.06 17 1 16- 17 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 18 1 17- 18 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 19 1 18-19 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 20 1 19-20 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 21 1 20-21 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 22 1 21-22 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 23 1 22-23 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 24 1 23-24 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 25 1 24-25 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 26 1 25-26 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 27 1 26- 27 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 28 1 27- 28 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 29 1 28-29 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 30 1 29-30 1 0.0017 0.0917 0.0854 0.005 0.002 0.0001 0.01 Total Increased Cancer Risk 1.24 0.389 0.021 1.65
Third trimester of pregnancy
2026
2027
2028
2029
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information
2025
Maximum
2022
2022
2023
2024
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
Concentration ( ug/m3) Cancer Risk (per million)
2030
2043
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2031
2050
2051
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic CancerRisk Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF x ED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/ kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x (EF/ 365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors ( mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6. 28E- 03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3. 70E- 04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Expos ure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year ( years) Age
0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.008 0.003 0.0002 0.01 Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.095 0.040 0.0022 0.14 0.0001 0.04 0.04 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.095 0.040 0.0022 0.14 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.015 0.006 0.0003 0.02 17 1 16- 17 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17- 18 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26- 27 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27- 28 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0006 0.0429 0.0399 0.002 0.001 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.43 0.182 0.010 0.62
Third trimester of pregnancy
2050
2051
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2030
2043
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2031
Maximum
2022
2022
2023
2024
2025
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
2026
2027
2028
2029
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information Concentration ( ug/ m3) Cancer Risk ( per million) 580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
DPM Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and DPM Emissions Year = 2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
DPM_ NB_DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 31.7 3.4 30 2,159
DPM_ SB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 216. 5 0.13 9.7 31. 7 3.4 30 2,159
Total 4,318
Emission Factors
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.00024
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes andDPMEmissions - DPM_NB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/ s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 3.85% 83 7.13E- 07 9 6.74% 146 1.25E- 06 17 6.40% 138 1.18E- 06 2 3.18% 69 5.89E-07 10 8.25% 178 1.53E-06 18 4.10% 88 7.58E-07 3 2.35% 51 4.34E-07 11 6.24% 135 1.15E-06 19 2.38% 51 4.41E-07 4 1.01% 22 1.86E-07 12 7.41% 160 1.37E-06 20 1.21% 26 2.24E-07 5 1.01% 22 1.86E-07 13 6.74% 146 1.25E-06 21 3.05% 66 5.65E-07 6 2.18% 47 4.03E-07 14 6.57% 142 1.22E-06 22 5.06% 109 9.37E-07 7 4.73% 102 8.75E-07 15 5.90% 127 1.09E-06 23 3.35% 72 6.20E-07 8 3.39% 73 6.27E-07 16 4.23% 91 7.82E-07 24 0.67% 14 1.24E-07 Total 2,159
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andDPMEmissions - DPM_SB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 3.85% 83 7.43E- 07 9 6.74% 146 1.30E- 06 17 6.40% 138 1.23E- 06 2 3.18% 69 6.14E- 07 10 8.25% 178 1.59E- 06 18 4.10% 88 7.90E- 07 3 2.35% 51 4.52E-07 11 6.24% 135 1.20E-06 19 2.38% 51 4.60E-07 4 1.01% 22 1.94E-07 12 7.41% 160 1.43E-06 20 1.21% 26 2.34E-07 5 1.01% 22 1.94E-07 13 6.74% 146 1.30E-06 21 3.05% 66 5.89E-07 6 2.18% 47 4.20E-07 14 6.57% 142 1.27E-06 22 5.06% 109 9.77E-07 7 4.73% 102 9.12E-07 15 5.90% 127 1.14E-06 23 3.35% 72 6.46E-07 8 3.39% 73 6.54E-07 16 4.23% 91 8.15E-07 24 0.67% 14 1.29E-07 Total 2,159
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Averag e
Vehicles
per Day
PM2. 5_NB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 207. 7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
PM2. 5_ SB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 216. 5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
Total 4,318
Emission Factors - PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle ( g/VMT) 0.001533
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and PM2. 5 Emissions - PM2.5_NB_ DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 24 1.33E-06 9 7.12% 154 8.45E-06 17 7.43% 160 8.82E-06 2 0.41% 9 4.92E-07 10 4.38% 95 5.19E-06 18 8.24% 178 9.77E-06 3 0.38% 8 4.46E-07 11 4.65% 100 5.51E-06 19 5.72% 124 6.79E-06 4 0.17% 4 2.05E-07 12 5.89% 127 6.99E-06 20 4.30% 93 5.11E-06 5 0.45% 10 5.38E-07 13 6.17% 133 7.32E-06 21 3.26% 70 3.86E-06 6 0.85% 18 1.01E-06 14 6.05% 131 7.18E-06 22 3.31% 71 3.93E-06 7 3.73% 81 4.43E-06 15 7.05% 152 8.37E-06 23 2.49% 54 2.95E-06 8 7.77% 168 9.22E-06 16 7.19% 155 8.53E-06 24 1.87% 40 2.22E-06 Total 2,159
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andPM2.5 Emissions - PM2.5_SB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 24 1.38E-06 9 7.12% 154 8.80E-06 17 7.43% 160 9.19E-06 2 0.41% 9 5.13E-07 10 4.38% 95 5.41E-06 18 8.24% 178 1.02E-05 3 0.38% 8 4.65E-07 11 4.65% 100 5.75E-06 19 5.72% 124 7.08E-06 4 0.17% 4 2.14E-07 12 5.89% 127 7.28E-06 20 4.30% 93 5.32E-06 5 0.45% 10 5.61E-07 13 6.17% 133 7.64E-06 21 3.26% 70 4.03E-06 6 0.85% 18 1.05E-06 14 6.05% 131 7.48E-06 22 3.31% 71 4.10E-06 7 3.73% 81 4.62E-06 15 7.05% 152 8.72E-06 23 2.49% 54 3.08E-06 8 7.77% 168 9.61E-06 16 7.19% 155 8.89E-06 24 1.87% 40 2.32E-06 Total 2,159
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
TOG Exhaust Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Exhaust Emissions Year = 2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEXH_NB_DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 207.7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
TEXH_SB_DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 216.5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
Total 4,318
Emission Factors - TOG Exhaust
SpeedCategory 1234
Travel Speed (mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.04138
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Exhaust Emissions - TEXH_NB _DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 24 3.58E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.28E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.38E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.33E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.40E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.64E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.20E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.49E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.83E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.53E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.89E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.38E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.45E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.98E-04 21 3.26% 70 1.04E-04 6 0.85% 18 2.72E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.94E-04 22 3.31% 71 1.06E-04 7 3.73% 81 1.20E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.26E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.96E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.49E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.30E-04 24 1.87% 40 6.00E-05 Total 2,159
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction and TOG Exhaust Emiss ions - TEXH_SB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 24 3.73E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.38E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.48E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.38E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.46E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.75E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.25E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.55E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.91E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.76E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.97E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.44E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.51E-05 13 6.17% 133 2.06E-04 21 3.26% 70 1.09E-04 6 0.85% 18 2.84E-05 14 6.05% 131 2.02E-04 22 3.31% 71 1.11E-04 7 3.73% 81 1.25E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.35E-04 23 2.49% 54 8.30E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.59E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.40E-04 24 1.87% 40 6.25E-05 Total 2,159
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
TOG Evaporative Emissions Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and TOG Evaporative Emissions Year = 2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Height
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
TEVAP_ NB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 207. 7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
TEVAP_ SB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 216. 5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
Total 4,318
Emission Factors - PM2. 5 - Evaporative TOG
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 30
Emissions per Vehicle per Hour ( g/ hour) 1.11204
Emissions per Vehicle per Mile ( g/VMT) 0.03707
Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and TOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_ NB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 24 3.21E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.04E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.13E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.19E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.26E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.36E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.08E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.33E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.64E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.95E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.69E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.23E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.30E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.77E-04 21 3.26% 70 9.34E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.44E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.74E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.50E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.07E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.02E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.13E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.23E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.06E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.38E-05 Total 2,159
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andTOG Evaporative Emissions - TEVAP_SB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 24 3.34E-05 9 7.12% 154 2.13E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.22E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.24E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.31E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.46E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.12E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.39E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.71E-04 4 0.17% 4 5.16E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.76E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.29E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.36E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.85E-04 21 3.26% 70 9.73E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.54E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.81E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.90E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.12E-04 15 7.05% 152 2.11E-04 23 2.49% 54 7.44E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.32E-04 16 7.19% 155 2.15E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.60E-05 Total 2,159
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Off-Site Residential Project Trips - Dubuque Ave
Fugitive Road PM2.5 Modeling - Roadway Links, Traffic Volumes, and Fugitive Road PM2.5 Emissions Year = 2025
Road Link Description Direction
No.
Lanes
Link
Length
m)
Link
Length
mi)
Link
Width
m)
Link
Width
ft)
Release
Hei ght
m)
Average
Speed
mph)
Average
Vehicles
per Day
FUG_ NB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Northbound NB 1 207. 7 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
FUG_ SB_ DBQ
Dubuque Avenue
Southbound SB 1 216. 5 0.13 9.7 32 1.3 30 2,159
Total 4,318
Emission Factors - Fugitive PM2. 5
Speed Category 1234
Travel Speed ( mph) 30
Tire Wear - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.00205
Brake Wear - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01681
Road Dust - Emissions per Vehicle ( g/ VMT) 0.01496
otal Fugitive PM2.5 - Emissions per Vehicle (g/VMT) 0.03382 Emisson Factors from CT-EMFAC2017
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes and Fugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_NB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/s
1 1.12% 24 2.93E-05 9 7.12% 154 1.86E-04 17 7.43% 160 1.94E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.08E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.15E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.16E-04 3 0.38% 8 9.83E-06 11 4.65% 100 1.22E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.50E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.52E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.54E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.13E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.19E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.62E-04 21 3.26% 70 8.52E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.23E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.58E-04 22 3.31% 71 8.67E-05 7 3.73% 81 9.77E-05 15 7.05% 152 1.85E-04 23 2.49% 54 6.51E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.03E-04 16 7.19% 155 1.88E-04 24 1.87% 40 4.90E-05 Total 2,159
2025 Hourly Traffic Volumes Per Direction andFugitive PM2.5 Emissions - FUG_SB_DBQ Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile Hour
Per
Hour VPH g/mile
1 1.12% 24 3.05E-05 9 7.12% 154 1.94E-04 17 7.43% 160 2.03E-04 2 0.41% 9 1.13E-05 10 4.38% 95 1.19E-04 18 8.24% 178 2.25E-04 3 0.38% 8 1.02E-05 11 4.65% 100 1.27E-04 19 5.72% 124 1.56E-04 4 0.17% 4 4.71E-06 12 5.89% 127 1.61E-04 20 4.30% 93 1.17E-04 5 0.45% 10 1.24E-05 13 6.17% 133 1.68E-04 21 3.26% 70 8.88E-05 6 0.85% 18 2.32E-05 14 6.05% 131 1.65E-04 22 3.31% 71 9.03E-05 7 3.73% 81 1.02E-04 15 7.05% 152 1.92E-04 23 2.49% 54 6.78E-05 8 7.77% 168 2.12E-04 16 7.19% 155 1.96E-04 24 1.87% 40 5.11E-05 Total 2,159
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Dubuque Avenue Traffic - TACs & PM2.5 - Project Trips AERMOD Risk Modeling Parameters and Maximum Concentrations at Construction Residential MEI Receptors ( 1 Location - 7.6 meterreceptorheight) Emiss ion Year 2025
Receptor Information Construction Residential MEI receptor Number of Receptors 1
Receptor Height 7.6 Meters
Receptor Distances At Construction Residential MEI locations Meteorological Conditions
BAAQMD San Francisco International Airport M 2013-2017
Land Use Classification Urban
Wind Speed Variable
Wind Direction Variable
Construction Residential MEI Cancer Risk Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years DPM Exhaust TOG Evaporative TOG
2013- 2017 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041
Construction Residential MEI PM2.5 Maximum Concentrations Meteorological
Data Years Total PM2. 5 Fugitive PM2. 5 Vehicle PM2. 5
2013-2017 0.0039 0.0037 0.0002
Concentration ( g/m3)*
PM2.5 Concentration (g/m3)*
580 Dubuque Ave, South San Francisco, CA - Grand Avenue Traffic CancerRisk - Project Trips Impacts at Construction Residential MEI - 7.6 meter receptor height 30 Year Residential Exposure
Cancer Risk Calculation Method
Cancer Risk (per million) = CPF x Inhalation Dose xASF x ED/AT x FAH x1.0E6 Where: CPF = Cancer potency factor (mg/ kg-day)-1
ASF = Age sensitivity factor for specified age group
ED = Exposure duration ( years)
AT = Averaging time for lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = Fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Inhalation Dose = Cair xDBR xA x (EF/ 365) x 10-6
Where: Cair = concentration in air (g/m3)
DBR = daily breathing rate (L/kg body weight-day)
A = Inhalation absorption factor
EF = Exposure frequency ( days/ year)
10-6 = Conversion factor
Cancer Potency Factors ( mg/kg-day)-1
CPF
1.10E+00
Vehicle TOG Exhaust 6. 28E- 03
Vehicle TOG Evaporative 3. 70E- 04
Values
Infant/Child Adult
Age --> 3rd Trimester 0 - 2 2 - 16 16 - 30
Parameter
ASF = 10 10 3 1
DBR* = 361 1090 572 261
A = 1 1 1 1
EF = 350 350 350 350
AT = 70 70 70 70
FAH = 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73
95th percentile breathing rates for infants and 80th percentile for children and adults Construction Cancer Risk by Year - Maximum Impact Receptor Location Expos ure
Exposure Duration DPM
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG DPM
Year ( years) Age
0 0.25 - 0.25 - 0* 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Hazard
Index
Fugitive
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
1 1 0 - 1 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.01 0.0000 0.00 0.00 2 1 1 - 2 10 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.005 0.004 0.0002 0.01 3 1 2 - 3 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 4 1 3 - 4 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 5 1 4 - 5 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 6 1 5 - 6 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 7 1 6 - 7 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 8 1 7 - 8 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 9 1 8 - 9 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 10 1 9 - 10 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 11 1 10 - 11 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 12 1 11 - 12 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 13 1 12 - 13 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 14 1 13 - 14 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 15 1 14 - 15 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 16 1 15 - 16 3 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.001 0.001 0.0000 0.00 17 1 16- 17 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 18 1 17- 18 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 19 1 18-19 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 20 1 19-20 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 21 1 20-21 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 22 1 21-22 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 23 1 22-23 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 24 1 23-24 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 25 1 24-25 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 26 1 25-26 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 27 1 26- 27 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 28 1 27- 28 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 29 1 28-29 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 30 1 29-30 1 0.0000 0.0045 0.0041 0.000 0.000 0.0000 0.00 Total Increased Cancer Risk 0.02 0.019 0.001 0.04
Third trimester of pregnancy
TAC
DPM
Maximum - Exposure Information Concentration ( ug/ m3) Cancer Risk ( per million) 2034
Maximum
2025
2025
2026
2027
2028
TOTAL
Year
Age
Sensitivity
Factor
Exhaust
TOG
Evaporative
TOG
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2046
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2053
2054
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
Stationary Source Risk & Hazards Screening Report
Area of Interest ( AOI) Information
Area : 4,829,628.73 ft²
Oct 27 2021 13:00:04 Eastern Daylight Time
Firefox https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=238... 1 of 2 10/27/2021, 1:01 PM
Summary
Name Count Area( ft²) Length( ft)
Permitted Facilities 2018 11 N/A N/A
Permitted Facilities 2018
FACID Name Address City St
1 14009 Boston Properties 651 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 2 15916 Boston Properties 611 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 3 16024 Genentech, Inc 611 Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA 4 17649 Alexandria Real Estate
Equities, Inc Gateway Boulevard South San Francisco CA
5 18401 Lowe's HIW Inc 720 Dubuque Avenue South San Francisco CA 6 19179 MacroGenics West, Inc One Corporate Drive South San FranciscoCA 7 20215 NOD Auto Body Shop
Inc 110 Lux Ave South San Francisco CA
8 20236 Biotech Gateway - HCP
c/o CBRE 2 Corporate Drive South San Francisco CA
9 109214 Unocal # 1020 -- Grand
Martco Inc 221 Airport Blvd South San Francisco CA
10 110786 Flyers # 411 190 E Grand Ave South San Francisco CA 11 201062 A&K Supreme Auto 510 CYPRESS AVE #
512 S SAN FRAN CA
Zip County Cancer Hazard PM_ 25 Type Count
1 94080 San Mateo 20.250 0.030 0.330 Contact
BAAQMD 1
2 94080 San Mateo 1.770 0.000 0.000 Contact
BAAQMD 1
3 94080 San Mateo 2.730 0.010 0.000 Generators 1
4 94080 San Mateo 9.310 0.010 0.010 Generators 1
5 94080 San Mateo 9.470 0.000 0.010 Generators 1
6 94080 San Mateo 39.610 0.020 0.050 Generators 1
7 94080 San Mateo 0.000 0.000 0.000 Contact
BAAQMD 1
8 94080 San Mateo 1.660 0.000 0.000 Generators 1
9 94080 San Mateo 24.520 0.110 0.000 Gas Dispensing
Facility 1
10 94080 San Mateo 10.030 0.040 0.000 Gas Dispensing
Facility 1
11 94080 Santa Clara 0.000 0.000 0.000 Contact
BAAQMD 1
Note: The estimated risk and hazard impacts from these sources would be expected to be substantially lower when site specific Health Risk Screening Assessments are conducted.
The screening level map is not recommended for evaluating sensitive land uses such as schools, senior centers, day cares, and health facilities.
Copyright 2018 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Firefox https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=238... 2 of 2 10/27/2021, 1:01 PM
Attachment 6: City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Checklist
CULTURAL RECORDS SEARCH, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE
COMMISSION RESPONSE
ATTACHMENT B
to the
580 Dubuque Avenue Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration August 22, 2021 NWICFileNo.: 21-0249
Rebecca Auld
Lamphier- Gregory, Inc.
4100 Redwood Road, STE 20A - #601
Oakland, CA 94619
Re: Record search results for the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue Project in the City of South San Francisco, CA.
Dear Ms. Rebecca Auld:
Per your request received by our office on the 12th of August, 2021, a rapid response records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo County.
Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.
As per information received by this office, the 1.89- acre project site was formerly used for industrial purposes but is currently vacant. The site includes Assessor’s Parcel Number 015-021-998. The project proposes to construct approximately 295,000 square feet of research & development/office space adjacent to the recently relocated South San Francisco Caltrain station. The project will involve excavation for subsurface parking and removal of contaminated soil extending to depths of about 48 to 60 feet below ground surface.
Review of this information indicates that there have been five cultural resource studies that in total cover approximately 100% of the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area see enclosed report listing). This 580 Dubuque Avenue project area contains no recorded archaeological resources. The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area, 2 21 0249
although there is one recorded property adjacent to the project area on Dubuque Avenue, the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform (OTIS # 521430). This resource has a status code of 6Y, meaning this property was determined ineligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process, Not evaluated for the California Register or local listing. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show no recorded buildings or structures within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area.
At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area were speakers of the Ramaytush language, part of the Costanoan/Ohlone language family (Levy 1978: 485). There are Native American resources in the general area of the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area referenced in the ethnographic literature Levy 1976, Nelson 1909). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Urebure tribe, whose territory was located "in the San Bruno Creek area just south of San Bruno Mountain on the San Francisco Peninsula. (Milliken 1995: 258-9).
Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of San Mateo County have been found in areas marginal to the San Francisco Bay shore and inland in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The 580 Dubuque Avenue project area is located west of Point San Bruno, approximately 40 meters west of the historic San Francisco Bay shore margins. Given the similarity of these environmental factors and the ethnographic sensitivity of the area, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area.
Review of historical literature and maps indicated the possibility of historic-period activity within the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. Early San Mateo County maps indicated the project area was located within the South San Francisco Land and Improvements Co., Abattoire (Bromfield 1894). In addition, the 1915 San Mateo USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle indicated a portion of railroad spur within and adjacent to the project area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area.
3 21 0249
The 1956 photo revised 1980 San Francisco South USGS 7.5-minute depicts a railroad spur within and adjacent to the 580 Dubuque Avenue project area. If present, this unrecorded structure meets the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There is a moderate to high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a moderate to high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in the project area. Although previous studies included field survey of the project area, the 580 Dubuque Avenue project will involve excavation for subsurface parking and removal of contaminated soil extending to depths of about 48 to 60 feet below ground surface. Therefore, we recommend a qualified archaeologist conduct further archival and field study to identify possible buried cultural resources, and provided project specific recommendations. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, hand auger sampling, shovel test units, or geoarchaeological analyses as well as other common methods used to identify the presence of archaeological resources. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
2) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710.
3) The proposed 580 Dubuque Avenue project area is located adjacent to, and may contain a portion of one recorded structure, the South San Francisco Freight Spur and Loading Platform (OTIS # 521430), with a status code of 6Y, that is included in the OHP BERD. Therefore, prior to commencement of project activities, it is recommended that this resource be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of San Mateo County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org.
4 21 0249
4) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.
5) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 6) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351 Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public. Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State 5 21 0249
Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.
Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455.
Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher
6 21 0249
LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:
Brabb, Earl E., Fred A. Taylor, and George P. Miller
1982 Geologic, Scenic, and Historic Points of Interest in San Mateo County, California.
Miscellaneous Investigations Series, Map I-1257-B, 1:62,500. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Bromfield, Davenport
1894 Official Map of San Mateo County, California
General Land Office
1858, 1864 Survey Plat for Rancho Buri Buri, Township 3 South/Range 5 West.
Heizer, Robert F., editor
1974 Local History Studies, Vol. 18., “The Costanoan Indians.” California History Center, DeAnza College, Cupertino, CA.
Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA.
Nelson, N.C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4):309-356. Berkeley.
Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York, 1964)
7 21 0249
Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.
San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board
1984 San Mateo County: Its History and Heritage. Second Edition. Division of Planning and Development Department of Environmental Management.
State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2020 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through March 3, 2020). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.
Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review.
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year AffiliationAuthor( s) Title
NWIC File # 21-0249 580 Dubuque Avenue Project
S-029657 2002 Archaeological Inventory for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative in San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Group, Inc.
Wendy J. Nelson,
Tammara Norton, Larry
Chiea, and Reinhard
Pribish
OHP PRN -
FTA021021A;
Voided - S-37863;
Voided - S-42672;
Voided - S-43525
S-029657a 2002 Finding of No Adverse Effect, Caltrain
Electrification Program, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Rand F. Herbert
S-029657b 2002 Historic Property Survey for the Proposed Caltrain Electrification Program, San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara
Counties, California
Parsons; JRP Historical
Consulting Services; Far
Western Anthropological
Research Group, Inc.
S-029657c 2002 FTA021021A; Caltrain Electrification
Program, San Francisco, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara Counties
Office of Historic
Preservation
Knox Mellon
S-029657d 2003 Final Finding of Effect Amendment, Caltrain Electrification Project, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, California
JRP Historical Consulting
Services
Meta Bunse