Exhibit A - 121 East Grand Avenue IS/MND — South San Francisco City Council, September 14, 2022 (part 2 of 6)

Geocon does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering and mitigation. If corrosion sensitive improvements are planned, it is recommended that a corrosion engineer be retained to evaluate corrosion test results and incorporate the necessary precautions to avoid premature corrosion of buried metal pipes and concrete structures in direct contact with the soils.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐63 Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 includes additional assurances regarding soil corrosivity by requiring this to be addressed in the updated geotechnical report. Soil corrosivity is considered less than significant with implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1.
e) Capability of Soils to Support Septic Tanks
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it involved construction of septic systems in soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.

The Project does not propose to build any new septic tank or alternate waste disposal systems. The Project site would be connected to the city’s wastewater system. The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
The presence of paleontological resources is very low to low as identified in Section V Cultural Resources. The Project Sponsor has proposed the mitigations identified in the BASIN report and this environmental analysis restates the mitigation measures as Cultural 1.A.1 and 1.B.1.

Geology and Soils Finding:
(1) No active or potentially active faults are known to pass directly beneath the site. The Project would result in no impact from exposing people or structures to danger from surface rupture of a known earthquake fault.
(2) Geology and Soils Impact 1: In absence of an updated geotechnical report and peer review by the City, there could be an impact with respect to severe groundshaking, expansive soils, liquefaction and ground failure.

Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: An updated geotechnical report(s) shall be provided to the City for peer review prior to any issuance of building, grading, grubbing or tree removal permits. The updated report(s) shall address the revised Project description and include all design measures requisite to be compliant with the California Building Code. The updated report(s) shall include at a minimum, structural design and construction specifications, including but not limited to, undergrounding of utilities addressing any construction requirements for corrosive soils, grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications, and soil compaction requirements and design. The report(s) shall be peer reviewed by the City’s consultant and revised accordingly until determined complete. (3) The City’s building code was updated in 2021 (City Ordinance 1628-2021). The maximum seismic protections identified to date are implemented through the provisions of the Title 15 of the City’s Municipal Code, (Building Code), which was updated in 2021 (City Ordinance 1628-2021). These measures are implemented through the building permit process and coupled with an updated geotechnical review would reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
(4) Assuming relatively uniform mat foundation pressures, Geocon estimates differential settlement under dead plus live load conditions would be ¼ inch or less across a horizontal distance of 50 ft. In light of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1, the Project would result CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐64 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST in a less than significant impact associated with liquifiable soils as design measures identified in the geotechnical studies and building code would reduce impacts to less than significant.
(5) Erosion control measures during site preparation, grading, construction and a period of time until landscaping takes hold, are required as a matter of law and as a result off site erosion impacts are considered to be less than significant. The landscape plan proposes measures to reduce off site erosion to less than significant. The City’s review and approval process ensures sustainable measures are incorporated into construction and as-built environments. Off-site erosion is considered less than significant. (6) The site contains loose undocumented fill to 12 ft bgl, Bay Mud, a highly plastic soil, to 15 ft bgl and medium to stiff and sandy clays to 93 ft bgl. The depth of cut and removal of soils would occur up to 40 ft below grade. Some but not all expansive soils would be removed. If not engineered properly the Project could result in a significant impact with respect to expansive soils. Implementation of Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
(7) Geocon conducted soil testing for minimum resistivity of utilities buried in normal portland cement, to resist corrosion from phenyl groups (benzene, tripenylmethane) (pH), chloride, and water-soluble sulfur monoxide (SO), an inorganic compound only found in a dilute gas phase. Failure of cement encased structures or utilities resulting from corrosion could result in site instability. All categories were found to be under significance thresholds. Geologic instability relating to soil corrosion would be less than significant based upon the findings identified in Geology and Soils Table 3. Geocon recommends the Project Sponsor retain a corrosion engineer to conduct additional study and identify design parameters should corrosion sensitive improvements be considered (Geocon March 2021, p 6). (8) The Project would have no impact on soils due to septic systems as the Project would be connected to the City’s wastewater system and not a septic tank. (9) The presence of paleontological resources is very low to low as identified in Section 3, Chapter V Cultural Resources. The Project Sponsor has proposed the mitigations identified in the BASIN report and this environmental analysis restates the mitigation measures as Cul 1.A.1 and 1.B.1.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐65 VIII. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?

INTRODUCTION
This section is based on the Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment (AQ/GHG Assessment) prepared for the Project by ECORP Consulting Inc. (2022), found in Appendix A of this Initial Study. This AQ/GHG Assessment was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the rules, regulations, and guidelines of BAAQMD. This section presents existing conditions, pertinent GHG emissions standards and regulations, estimated GHG emissions attributable to the Project, and an analysis of the Project’s consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plans (2014 and 2022).

SETTING
The following includes pertinent environmental and regulatory setting information. Additional setting information can be found in the AQ/GHG Assessment.

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

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

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride; however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐66 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together.

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to AB 32, CARB adopted a Scoping Plan in December 2008, which outlined measures to meet the 2020 GHG reduction goals. California exceeded the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2017.

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

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐67 Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include § 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030.

Senate Bill X1-2
SB X1-2 expanded the RPS by establishing that 20 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2013, and 33 percent by December 31, 2020, and in subsequent years be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources.

Senate Bill 350
SB 350 further expanded the RPS by establishing that 50 percent of the total electricity sold to retail customers in California per year by December 31, 2030, be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources. In addition, SB 350 includes the goal to double the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas final end uses (such as heating, cooling, lighting, or class of energy uses on which an energy efficiency program is focused) of retail customers through energy conservation and efficiency.

Senate Bill 100 of 2018
In 2018, SB 100 was signed codifying a goal of 60 percent renewable procurement by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045.

California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the state’s Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. CEC updates the California Energy Code every 3 years with more stringent design requirements for reduced energy consumption, which results in the generation of fewer GHG emissions.

The 2022 California Energy Code was adopted by the CEC on August 11, 2021 and will apply to projects constructed after January 1, 2023. The 2022 Energy Code focuses on four key areas in new construction and businesses: (1) encouraging electric heat pump technology and use, (2) establishing electric ready requirements when natural gas is installed, (3) expanding solar system and battery storage standards, and (4) strengthening ventilation standards to improve indoor air quality. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those in the California Energy Code.

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) is part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations. CALGreen is the first-in-the-nation mandatory green building standards code, developed in an effort to meet the goals of California’s landmark initiative AB 32, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

CALGreen includes a waste diversion mandate, which requires that at least 65 percent of construction materials generated during new construction or demolition projects are diverted from landfills.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐68 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

BAY AREA AIR QUALITY DISTRICT (BAAQMD)
2017 BAAQMD Clean Air Plan
In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, whose primary goals are to protect public health and to protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and complies with state air quality planning requirements, as codified in the California Health and Safety Code (although the 2017 plan was delayed beyond the three-year update requirement of the code). State law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors and to reduce the transport of O3 precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 measures to address reduction of several pollutants: O3 precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHGs. Other measures focus on a single type of pollutant: super GHGs such as methane and black carbon that consists of harmful fine particles that affect public health. These control strategies are grouped into the following categories:
 Stationary Source Measures
 Transportation Control Measures
 Energy Control Measures
 Building Control Measures
 Agricultural Control Measures
 Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
 Waste Management Control Measures
 Water Control Measures
 Super GHG Control Measures
CITY
Chapter 15.60.030 Diversion and Requirements, South San Francisco Municipal Code, Demolition Debris Ordinance
The City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance requires that at least 65 percent of non-inert waste materials and 100 percent of inert waste materials are diverted from landfills through recycling and salvage.
2014 Climate Action Plan
The City Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2014, includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the City’s GHG emissions, in compliance with AB 32. GHG reduction strategies identified in the 2014 CAP include a development checklist to identify applicable plan measures for discretionary projects. The City’s 2014 CAP was adopted with the purpose of reducing GHGs community-wide to achieve a reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020. The 2014 CAP identifies GHG reduction measures to reduce GHG emissions within the City. Strategies include implementation of transportation demand management plans, expanding active transportation alternatives, maximizing energy efficiency in the built environment, developing a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials, and reducing water demand. The City’s 2014 CAP was adopted with the intention of supporting AB 32 while also protecting the unique resource of the community through goals, policies, and strategies that can be built on for future GHG reduction.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐69 2022 Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco is currently updating the original 2014 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change. The 2014 CAP set an emissions target for 2020 and this updated 2022 CAP would extend the horizon year to 2040 while also setting a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, consistent with State targets. The 2022 CAP update outlines how the City of South San Francisco will create new policies, programs, and services that will support the community in taking strong action to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City implemented many policies and programs identified in the 2014 CAP, the City experienced steady economic and population growth over that time period. By updating its existing CAP, the City of South San Francisco reaffirms its commitment to leading the way to a more sustainable future. The City has set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts. The 2022 CAP identifies 62 actions to achieve the GHG reduction targets and has reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32), 80 percent reduction by 2040 and carbon net neutrality by 2045.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing a GHG assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a) state that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

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

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

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

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐70 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Per CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

The BAAQMD recently approved Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (April 2022). The BAAQMD developed these thresholds of significance based on typical residential and commercial land use projects.

As such, these thresholds may not be appropriate for other types of projects that do not fit into the mold of a typical residential or commercial project. A lead agency does not necessarily need to use a threshold of significance if the analysis and justifications that were used to develop the threshold do not reflect the particular circumstances of the project under review. Accordingly, a lead agency should not use these thresholds if it is faced with a unique or unusual project for which the analyses supporting the thresholds as described in Justification Report do not squarely apply. In such cases, the lead agency should develop an alternative approach that would be more appropriate for the particular project before it, considering all of the facts and circumstances of the project on a case-by-case basis.

The 2014 CAP is the most recent adopted City document addressing GHG emissions. While this document was intended to reduce Citywide GHG emissions consistent with Statewide reduction goals for the year 2020, the City’s GHG-reduction program, as promulgated by the City’s CAP process, is currently being updated as part of the General Plan Update. The 2022 CAP, which is anticipated to be adopted in the near future, extends the horizon year to 2040 and sets a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 to align with State targets. The City’s climate action program, as encapsulated in both the 2014 CAP and 2022 CAP set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts.

Due to the timing of this Initial Study in correlation with the adoption of the updated 2022 CAP and BAAQMD Justification Report, and the ability for a lead agency to choose, at its discretion, methods of analyzation supported by substantial evidence, this Project is analyzed for consistency with the GHG reduction measures contained in both the 2014 CAP and 2022 CAP.

IMPACTS
a) Generate GHG Emissions That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment; and b) Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for Reducing GHG Emissions
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or if it would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. If the Project would conflict with the GHG reductions measures in the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs, it would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐71 GHG Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction generated GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County and information provided by the Project proponent such as the construction equipment and duration. Operational GHG emissions were calculated based on specific Project site plans. For the purposes of this analysis, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes an existing 169-room, 57,623 sq ft, Comfort Inn and Suites hotel.

Construction
Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker commute trips, haul trucks carrying supplies and materials to and from the Project site, and off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Project construction would result in the generation of approximately 4,595 metric tons of CO2e over the course of the five-year construction period. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Furthermore, as an Air Quality Condition of Project Approval, construction equipment would meet USEPA or CARB Tier 4 Final offroad emission standards. Tier 4 engine standards reduce precursor and subset GHG emissions such as nitrogen oxide by as much as 90 percent.

In addition, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable version of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen, as well as the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance, which requires that at least 65 percent of non-inert waste materials and 100 percent of inert waste materials are diverted from landfills through recycling and salvage. This requirement greatly reduces the generation of GHG emissions by reducing decomposition at landfills and reduces demand for natural resources. The City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs do not contain GHG reduction measures or policies related to construction emissions. Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs and construction GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.

Operations
Implementation of the Project would result in long-term operational GHG emissions from area sources, energy use, motor vehicles, water usage, and solid waste disposal. As previously described, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes the current operation of an existing 169-room, 57,623 sq ft, Comfort Inn and Suites hotel. Operationalgenerated GHG emissions for the Project are summarized in GHG Emissions Table 1.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐72 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1

OPERATIONAL-RELATED GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Proposed Project
Area Source Emissions 7
Energy Emissions 1,293
Mobile Source Emissions 3,458
Waste Emissions 206
Water Emissions 16
Proposed Project Operations Total 4,980
Existing Conditions
Area Source Emissions 0
Energy Emissions 112
Mobile Source Emissions 713
Waste Emissions 46
Water Emissions 5
Existing Operations Total 876
Difference
Project Net Operations Total 4,104
Source: ECORP Consulting, 2022. Refer to AQ/GHG Assessment for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Emissions for the Project account for the testing for four 2,000 horsepower Tier 4 generators five days per year.

The Project building would be highly energy efficient due to California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) and California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11) and would replace less efficient buildings since the existing hotel was constructed in 1986. Furthermore, the Project includes Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design – See Chapter 2, Project Description. The Project building would also be designed to the requirements of LEED Gold classification.

Additionally, the Project site can be identified for its “location efficiency”. Location efficiency describes the location of the Project site relative to the type of urban landscape its proposed to fit within, such as an ‘urban area’, ‘compact infill’, or ‘suburban center’. In general, compared to the statewide average, a project could realize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions up to 65 percent in an urban area, up to 30 percent in a compact infill area, or up to 10 percent in a suburban center, and thus reductions in GHG emissions. The Project site represents an urban/compact infill location within the central portion of the City and is served by existing public transportation (adjacent to Caltrain Station). Furthermore, the Project is in proximity to surrounding nonresidential land uses. The increases in land use diversity and mix of uses in the Project area would reduce vehicle trips and VMT by encouraging walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, which would result in corresponding reductions in transportation-related GHG emissions.

The Project was reviewed relative to the GHG reductions measures and policies within the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAP. The Project would not conflict with the GHG reductions measures in the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs (See AQ/GHG Assessment). Furthermore, all development within the City is required to adhere to applicable City-adopted policy provisions supporting its GHG reduction program, CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐73 including those contained in the 2014 and 2022 CAPs. The Project applicant would be required to complete a Development Review Checklist to confirm consistency with the CAP measures to the satisfaction of City staff. The City ensures all CAP provisions are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable.

Applicable and feasible provisions of the City GHG reduction program as promulgated by its CAP documents would be incorporated into the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs and operational GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Finding:
(1) The Project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s 2014 and 2022 CAPs and construction and operational GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐74 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST IX. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 a significant hazard to the public or the
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 is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the 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, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

INTRODUCTION
This section utilizes information from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Geosyntec Consultants (2022) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AWP 7644-OF, 09.09.2022.

SETTING

PROJECT SITE HISTORY
The Project site is currently developed with a three-story hotel and associated courtyard areas, which was constructed in 1986 according to the San Mateo County Assessor’s Office and City of South San Francisco Building Division records. Remaining areas of the site consist of parking and landscaped areas.

Based on a review of historic topographic maps, the Project site consisted of a small structure on the western side of the Project site from at least 1896 to 1899. Based on a review of additional historical resources, including historical aerial photos, the Project site appeared mostly undeveloped, with an CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐75 unimproved road passing through the southeast corner of the Project site from at least 1930 to 1946.

By 1946, a drainage feature was observed in the center of the Project site. By 1956, the drainage feature was no longer observed, and a rail spur was added parallel to the improved road and the land east of the road paved; infrastructure/equipment extended onto the Project site from the structure north of the Project site until removed by 1968; and a small structure was observed in the western corner of the site.

By 1968, two man-made surface impoundments were present in the center of the Project site. In aerial photographs the Project site appeared to be graded in 1974 and 1982. By 1982, the eastern road, rail spur, and paved area were removed. By 1993, the small structure in the western corner of the Project site was removed, and the current on-Site buildings and associated parking lot was observed. The Project site was first listed as Comfort Suites in the 1996 city directory. By 2006, the Site was listed as Comfort Suites and Paramount Hospitality Management, by 2012 as Comfort Inn-Airport North, and by 2016 as Comfort Inn.11

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Residential, schools, childcare facilities, schools and convalescent facilities are typically considered sensitive land uses. Heavy commercial and industrial land uses are typically considered potential sources of toxic or hazardous materials. Construction and operation of the Project would be considered a potential source of hazardous materials. The nearest sensitive land use to the Project site is an apartment building (Cadence Apartments) located approximately 690 ft west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard. The closest school to the Project site is Martin Elementary School, on School Street, over one-half mile away to the west.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal are governed by the following standards and permits at both the federal and state level. Chapter 1 Legislative Framework Section 1.5.4 provides additional information on the regulation and treatment of hazardous materials.

FEDERAL
 Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, Regulation 40 CFR, Part 720.  Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, administered by the Department of Transportation, Regulation 49 CFR 171 et seq.
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.  Hazardous Waste Management Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Facilities, administered by EPA, 40 CFR 260 et seq.
 Occupation Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. 651.
 Workplace Exposure Limits, administered by Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 29 CFR 1900 et seq.

STATE
 California Hazardous Waste Control Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5.
11 Geosyntec Consultants, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Site: 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080, 2022
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐76 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  California Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. California Code of Regulations, Title 22.

Social Security, Division 4. Environmental Health.
 California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
 California Occupational Safety and Health Act, California Labor Code sections 6300 et seq.

REGIONAL/COUNTY
The San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) largely serves as the lead permitting or remediation agency through various memoranda of understandings with federal, state, regional agencies, and local government. Often the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or the BAAQMD take a lead or partnership in site remediation with the SMCDEH.

The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) was established in 1993 to protect public health and safety, and to restore and enhance environmental quality, and sustain economic vitality through an effective and efficient implementation of the Unified Program. San Mateo County Environmental Health Services was designated by the State Secretary for Environmental Protection as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for San Mateo County in 1996. Compliance is achieved through routine inspections of regulated facilities, and investigation of citizen-based complaints and inquiries regarding improper handling and/or disposal of hazardous materials and/or hazardous wastes.

Businesses must complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) using an electronic reporting system for the safe storage and use of chemicals. Firefighters, health officials, planners, public safety officers, health care providers and others rely on the HMBP in an emergency. They use it to prevent or lessen damage to the health and safety of people and the environment when a hazardous material is released. The HMBP Program is also known as the Community Right to Know Program and any citizen has the right to review these plans upon request.

The HMBP must include:
 Summary of business activities
 Owner/operator information including emergency contacts  The type and quantity of reportable hazardous materials  Site map
 Emergency response procedures
 Employee training program
In general, a HMBP is required if a business/facility handles and/or stores a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for solids and 200 cubic ft (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed gases. For, minimum reportable quantities other than the quantities referenced above, refer to the Health and Safety Code Division 20 Chapter 6.95.

SAN MATEO COUNTY EVACUATION MAP
San Mateo County along with other Bay Area Counties have launched an interactive map enabling residents to find out which evacuation zone they live within and obtain the evacuation status for a given zone. The interactive map is accessed through myzone.zonehaven.com.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐77 CITY
Fire Department
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) reviews development and entitlement applications, levies and enforces code requirements for fire prevention and safety and conducts periodic inspections of business activities.

Chapter 15.60.030 Diversion and Requirements, South San Francisco Municipal Code (Demolition Debris Ordinance)
The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. A Waste Management Plan (“WMP”)is required for covered building projects, such as the Project. The WMP shall identify the methods by which at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage.

Preparation and approval of the WMP is required prior to issuance of building, grading and/or demolition permits.
1999 General Plan (1999 GP)
The 1999 GP contains Figure 8-4 Fire Hazard Management Units, which identifies High Priority Fire Management Zones (1999 GP, p. 265). The Project site is not identified as being within a High Priority Fire Management Zone.

Draft 2040 General Plan (Draft 2040GP)
Similar to the 1999 GP, the Draft 2040GP (Figure 44), identifies the only California High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in the City to be San Bruno Mountain State & County Park over one-half mile away from the Project site. The Draft 2040 GP also shows the Project site well outside of Airport Hazard Zones (Figure 46), such as runway protection zones, approach/turning zones, and sidelines zones.

IMPACTS
a) and b) Hazardous Materials Impacts to the Public or Environment Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or if it were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Construction Impacts
Hazardous materials would be stored, used, and transported in varying amounts during construction of Project. Construction activities associated with the Project would involve the use of heavy equipment, which would contain fuels and oils, and various other products such as concrete, paints, and adhesives.

The Project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials.

The State of California adopted a Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (CGP), discussed in more detail in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section X following this section. The CGP regulates construction site stormwater management. This process, vetted in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section X would prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater and minimize or CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐78 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST eliminate potential degradation of surface water or groundwater quality during construction of the Project. Construction activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment. Therefore, construction impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
Hazardous materials would also be stored, used, and transported in varying amounts during Project operations, mainly related to the proposed R&D laboratories and occasional refueling of emergency generators with diesel fuel. While specific tenants have not yet been identified, R&D laboratories would likely handle some materials considered to be biological and/or chemical hazards. Furthermore, the other proposed uses in the building would involve hazardous materials typical of commercial operations such as cleaners and solvents.

The SMCEHD 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. Among these regulations is a requirement for a HMBP. 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.

Furthermore, the City requires that building spaces be designed to handle the intended uses, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in the City’s Fire Code. Compliance with state and local regulations would ensure that buildings are equipped with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. The City further requires that upon completion of the construction of the proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is made by the South San Francisco Fire Department for conformance of all building systems with the City’s Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements. The inspection includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans.

The Project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials during operations. Operational activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment. Therefore, operational impacts would be less than significant.
c) Hazardous Materials Impacts to Schools within One-Quarter Mile Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

The Project site is not within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The closest school to the Project site is Martin Elementary School, on School Street, over one-half mile away to the west.

Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materials on schools would occur.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐79 d) Hazardous Materials Presence Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it was located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”) and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

The Project site was reviewed by Geosyntec Consultants through a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (2022). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicated the Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials site complied pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”).

Therefore, no impacts related to the presence of hazardous materials presence would occur. e) Safety Hazards Due to Nearby Airport or Airstrip
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport), and it would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area.

The Project site is within the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) and ALUC Plan Area jurisdiction, and approximately 1.8 mi north of San Francisco International Airport. The Project is not within two miles of a private airstrip.

FAA issued a “Determination of No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation” allowing up to a 295 ft height (Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AWP 7644-OF, 09.09.2022). The Project, by law, is required to undergo ALUC review. ALUC is a function of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG). C/CAG board members serve as ALUC board. The City and Project Sponsor were in the process of submitting application to ALUC for review during the preparation of this document.

The Project building, as currently proposed at 295 ft in height, would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. If the height of the Project building was increased, federal law requires sponsors of proposed projects exceeding specified heights to file a Notice of Construction or Alteration with the FAA before beginning construction. State law prohibits the construction of any object that would be an obstruction and a hazard to air navigation without a permit issued by Caltrans.

Therefore, impacts related to aircraft safety would be less than significant. f) Conflict with Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The Project site is already developed and would not interfere with emergency evacuations. The Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. h) Exposure of People or Structures to Wildland Fires
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

The Project site is already developed and is in the highly developed downtown area of the City with no wildlands nearby. The closest wildlands area is San Bruno Mountain State & County Park over one-half mile away (p 298 Figure 44 Draft 2040GP). The Project site is not near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. The Project site is not within an Airport CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐80 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Safety Compatibility Zone according to Exhibit IV-7 (page IV-23) of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012). Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Finding:
(1) The Project would be required to comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials during construction and operations. Construction and operational activities would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials in the environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(2) The Project site is not within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts related to hazardous materials on schools would occur. (3) Project site is not on a list of hazardous materials site complied pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”). Therefore, no impacts related to the presence of hazardous materials presence would occur.
(4) FAA issued a “Determination of No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation” allowing up to a 295 ft height. The Project building, as currently proposed at 295 ft height would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. State law prohibits the construction of any object that would be an obstruction and a hazard to air navigation without a permit issued by Caltrans. FAA stipulated theses measures and procedures be complied with which are standard requirements levied by the FAA.  The structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4, 5 (Red) and

15.  Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.  An FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration is required to be e-filed within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2).

Therefore, impacts related to aircraft safety would be less than significant. (5) There are no emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. The Project site is already developed and would not interfere with emergency evacuations. The Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐81 (6) The Project site is already developed and is in the highly developed downtown area of the City with no wildlands nearby. The Project site is not near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. The Project site is not within an Airport Safety Compatibility Zone according to Exhibit IV-7 (page IV-23) of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012). Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the exposure of people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐82 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such 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 of a stream 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 onor offsite; 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
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?

INTRODUCTION
This section is based on the Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment prepared for the Project by Sutro Science (Sutro Science, 2022), found in Appendix A of this Initial Study. This section provides key physical conditions and regulatory requirements relevant to assessing hydrology and water quality related environmental impacts from implementation of the Project. The existing hydrology and water quality baseline condition relevant to the Project site is described, including consideration of surface water features, existing stormwater collection systems, stormwater runoff, groundwater, flood risks, and water quality. Potential adverse effects to water resources that could result from Project implementation, with consideration of regulatory requirements, are then described and are evaluated based on significance criteria relevant to hydrology and water quality presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐83

SETTING

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The area surrounding the Project site consists of urbanized land, sloping towards San Francisco Bay. No surface water features, including impoundments, wetlands, natural catch basins, settling ponds, or lagoons, are located on the Project site. The Project is in the Colma Creek watershed and the nearest surface water feature to the Project site is Colma Creek located approximately 0.40-miles to the south.

The Project site is approximately 19 feet above msl and is generally flat, sloping gently toward the southeast. The depth of groundwater at the Project site varies from 4.5 to 16 ft below ground level (bgl) across the site and fluctuates seasonally between winter and summer based on rainfall and other factors.

Shallow groundwater beneath the Project site is not utilized for domestic purposes. The direction of groundwater flow is toward San Francisco Bay.

Surface water at the Project site is mainly generated by precipitation that cannot be absorbed into the ground in the period following a storm. The majority of the Project site is currently characterized as impervious surface. Stormwater from the Project site drains primarily as sheet flow across the paved surfaces towards storm water drains located throughout the site and in the public right of way. Project site stormwater from roofs, landscaped areas, and paved areas is directed to on-site concrete swales, which drain to the public right of way and to on-site stormwater drains connected to the City’s stormwater system which conveys storm runoff to the San Francisco Bay or nearby creeks or channels, such as Colma Creek.

The quality of surface water is primarily a function of land uses in the Project vicinity. Local land uses influence the quality of surface waters through point source discharges (i.e., discrete discharges from discharge pipes) and nonpoint source discharges (e.g., direct storm runoff from slopes). During periods of wet weather, rain carries pollutants and sediments from all parts of a watershed into surface water bodies such as storm drains, streams, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay. In an urban setting, natural drainage patterns have been altered and stormwater runoff, as well as non-storm discharges (irrigation water, accidental spills, washdown water, etc.), pick up sediments and contaminants from land surfaces, and transport these pollutants into surface and groundwater. These diffuse sources of pollutants include parking lots, bare earth at construction sites, and a host of many other sources. Common pollutants of concern from urban stormwater runoff can include pesticides, fertilizers, oils, litter and other debris, and sediment.

Floodplain zones (Special Flood Hazard Areas) are determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and used to create Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). These tools assist communities in mitigating flood hazards through land use planning. FEMA also outlines specific regulations, intended to be adopted by the local jurisdictions, for any construction, whether residential, commercial, or industrial, within 100-year floodplains. The 100-year floodplain denotes an area that has a 1 percent chance of being inundated during any 12-month period. The 500-year floodplain denotes an area that has a 0.2 percent chance of being inundated during any 12-month period. The Project site is in Flood Zone X, outside the 100-year or 500-year flood zones.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL
Clean Water Act - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System The federal Clean Water Act prohibits discharging pollutants to receiving waters of the United States unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐84 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (“NPDES”) permit. Effluent limitations serve as the primary mechanism in NPDES permits for controlling discharges of pollutants to receiving waters. For inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries, the water‐quality‐based effluent limitations are based on criteria in the National Toxics Rule and the California Toxics Rule, and objectives and beneficial uses defined in the applicable Basin Plan.

STATE
NPDES Construction General Permit
The State of California adopted a Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (CGP). The CGP regulates construction site stormwater management. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the general permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, as well as construction of buildings and linear underground projects, including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines.

The CGP is implemented and enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which administers the stormwater permitting program. To obtain coverage under this permit, project operators must electronically file Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance-related documents.

The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The BMPs include both sediment and erosion control measures as well as other measures to control potential chemical contaminants. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction.

Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, and vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. The SWPPP also includes descriptions of the BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges after all construction phases have been completed at the site (post-construction BMPs).

The CGP includes requirements for a site-specific risk-level assessment, an active stormwater effluent monitoring and reporting program during construction (for Risk Level II and III sites), rain event action plans for certain higher risk sites, and numeric effluent limitations for pH and turbidity as well as requirements for qualified professionals that prepare and implement the plan. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State-qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implementation of the SWPPP must be overseen by a State-qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP).

COUNTY
San Mateo Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP)
To comply with the Clean Water Act, San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County, including the City of South San Francisco, formed the San Mateo Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP). SMCWPPP is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) which share a common NPDES Permit, also referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), from the RWQCB. This common permit allows each of the C/CAG co-permittees to discharge stormwater from their storm drain systems to San Francisco Bay. Under the provisions of the MRP, the City is required to take steps within its area of authority to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practical.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐85 An amendment to Provision C.3 of the SMCWPPP MRP requires new and redevelopment projects that result in the addition or replacement of impervious surfaces totaling 10,000 sq ft or more, such as the proposed Project, to include specific construction and post-construction stormwater treatment measures. The goal of Provision C.3 of the MRP is for the municipalities regulated by the permit to use their permitting authority to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from these projects. This goal is primarily accomplished through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. Projects regulated under C.3 requirements must implement BMPs for reducing the volume of runoff and treating all runoff on-site prior to outfall into the drainage system and also incorporate LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment design.

CITY
South San Francisco Municipal Code
The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes Chapter 14.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control (Stormwater Ordinance), for the purpose of ensuring the future health, safety and general welfare of the City’s citizens by:
(a) Eliminating nonstormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; (b) Controlling the discharge to municipal separate storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater;
(c) Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

The intent of the Stormwater Ordinance is to protect and enhance the water quality of our watercourses, water bodies and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act.

IMPACTS
a) Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, or Substantially Degrade Surface or Groundwater Quality
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or if it would substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

Construction
Construction of the Project would include earthwork activities (i.e., grading, excavation, and other soildisturbing activities) and the placement of imported engineered soils. Stormwater runoff from disturbed soils associated with construction activities is a common source of pollutants (mainly sediment) to receiving waters. Earthwork activities can render soils and sediments more susceptible to erosion from stormwater runoff and result in the migration of soil and sediment in stormwater runoff to downstream water bodies. Excessive and improperly managed grading or vegetation removal can lead to increased erosion of exposed earth and sedimentation of watercourses during rainy periods. In addition, construction would likely involve the use of various materials typically associated with construction activities such as paint, solvents, oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, concrete and associated concrete wash-out areas. If improperly handled, these materials could result in pollutants being mobilized CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐86 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST and transported offsite by stormwater runoff (nonpoint source pollution) and degrade receiving water quality.

Because the Project exceeds one acre in size, construction activities would be required to comply with NPDES regulations and obtain coverage under the State CGP. Under the CGP, the Applicant or their contractor(s) would be required to implement construction BMPs as set forth in a detailed SWPPP.

SWPPPs are a required component of the CGP and must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). SWPPPs must describe the specific erosion control and stormwater quality BMPs being implemented to minimize pollutants in stormwater runoff, and detail their placement and proper installation. The BMPs are designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater and to keep all products of erosion and stormwater pollutants associated with construction activities from moving offsite into receiving waters. Typical BMPs to be implemented at construction sites include placement of fiber rolls or gravel barriers to detain small amounts of sediment from disturbed areas, and temporary or permanent covering of stockpiles to prevent rainfall from contacting the stockpiled material. In addition to erosion control BMPs, SWPPPs also include BMPs for preventing the discharge of pollutants other than sediment (e.g. paint, solvents, concrete, petroleum products) to downstream waters. BMPs for pollutants include conducting routine inspections of equipment for leaks, maintaining containers of supplies such that the contents are clearly labeled, the integrity of the containers is not compromised, and ensuring that construction materials are disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

Under the provisions of the CGP, the State-certified QSD is responsible for determining site risk level for sediment transport, developing the SWPPP, and managing its implementation. Site risk level is determined using a combination of the sediment risk of the project and the receiving water quality risk.

Projects can be characterized as Risk Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3, and the minimum BMPs (stormwater controls) and monitoring that must be implemented during construction are based on the risk level.

Under the direction of the QSD, the QSP is required to conduct routine inspections of all BMPs, conduct surface water sampling, when necessary, and report site conditions to the State and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of CGP compliance monitoring and reporting using the Stormwater Multi-Application Reporting and Tracking System (SMARTS). Compliance with the CGP is required by law and has proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites.

Compliance with the requirements of the CGP and the City’s Stormwater Ordinance, including the implementation of associated BMPs as part of the SWPPP, would prevent the discharge of pollutants to surface waters or groundwater and minimize or eliminate potential degradation of surface water or groundwater quality during construction of the Project. Therefore, water quality impacts related to violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of construction‐ related stormwater runoff from construction of the Project would be less than significant.

Post-Construction
The Project would be subject to compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements under SMCWPPP for projects that replace over 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. As such, the applicant would be required to conform to SMCWPPP Site Design Standards and include post-construction BMPs and LID design measures that would be incorporated into Project plans to reduce stormwater runoff volumes and treat stormwater on-site. As a Regulated Project under SMCWPPP, the Project would be required to provide stormwater treatment through LID treatment measures, including stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. Accordingly, the applicant would be required to design and install adequate LID stormwater treatment controls for the Project, based on the criteria detailed in the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, as well as ensure that long-term maintenance of the controls is provided. Therefore, water quality impacts related to violation of water quality CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐87 standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of stormwater runoff following completion of Project construction (post-construction) would be less than significant. b) Deplete Groundwater Supplies or Interfere Substantially with Groundwater Recharge Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would result in the depletion of groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.

The Project would not involve long-term groundwater extraction. The water supply for the existing developments on the Project site is the municipal water supply system. Project construction would involve subsurface excavation (for utilities and structural support). Groundwater depths vary from 4.5 to 16 ft bgl at the Project site. It is possible that subsurface excavation during Project construction could intercept shallow groundwater tables. Groundwater encountered during excavation activities would have to be pumped out of the construction trench in order to create a dry work area. However, this activity would be temporary and is unlikely to involve extensive dewatering; this activity therefore would not substantially affect groundwater levels in the vicinity of the Project. The majority of the Project site and surrounding urban area is currently covered with impervious surfaces. Under the Project, there would not be a substantial change in impervious surfaces such that groundwater recharge is impeded as compared to existing baseline. The Project would not lower the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction or through a reduction in groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant. ci and cii) Alter Existing Drainage Pattern Resulting in Substantial Erosion, Siltation, or Flooding
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site.

As described under Impact a), the Project site is currently developed and the majority covered with impervious surfaces that drain into the existing municipal stormwater collection system. No streams or other surface water bodies traverse the site, and the Project site is not within a natural drainage area.

Construction of the Project could temporarily alter local drainage patterns; however, construction activities would be subject to the CGP and City’s Stormwater Ordinance, and consequently would implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs designed to control stormwater during construction, minimizing potential temporary changes in erosion, sedimentation, or flood patterns. Following construction, the Project site would generally be paved or landscaped, which would prevent erosion and maintain existing runoff conditions. Furthermore, Project stormwater would drain to the proposed stormwater management system (discussed under Impact ciii, below) and then on to the existing municipal stormwater collection system and would be required to comply with SMCWPPP Site Design Standards to control pollutants, including sediment, in stormwater runoff and conform to the MRP. In addition, as discussed under Impact ciii, below, the Project includes improvements to the existing storm water collection system to increase capacity of onsite stormwater retention and capture pollutants.

Therefore, impacts related to erosion, siltation, or flooding as a result of increased stormwater runoff on- and off-site due to altered drainage patterns from implementation of the Project would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐88 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ciii) Create or Contribute Runoff Water Exceeding capacity of Existing Stormwater Drainage Systems or Provide Substantial Additional Sources of Polluted Runoff Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner that would 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.

The majority of the Project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces that drain into the existing municipal stormwater collection system. Under the Project, the existing 60-inch storm drain would be relocated to the street, but not reduced in conveyance capacity. The location would be approximately parallel to and 45 ft south from the existing location. During construction, the Project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff to the existing stormwater collection system because areas where construction is proposed are already developed and impervious and the volume and rate of stormwater runoff would be similar to existing baseline conditions. Stormwater runoff would be managed in accordance with the CGP, City’s Stormwater Ordinance, and SWPPP construction requirements discussed under Impact a), above, to ensure sediment and other pollutants typically associated with construction activities are not mobilized and/or transported by stormwater runoff.

Following the completion of construction (post-construction), stormwater runoff would be collected, retained onsite, and treated to remove pollutants via the proposed stormwater management system. The proposed storm water management system includes the use of impervious pavers on the building podium to designate the drainage catchment area as self-treating per SMCWPPP C.3 Technical Guidance. The paver section would be designed to store runoff from the design storm within the section voids as recommended by C.3 Technical Guidance. The paver section would also be designed to allow for a collected runoff drawdown time of less than 48 hours as recommended by C.3 Technical Guidance.

The podium slab below the paver section would be sloped to drain infiltrated storm water and overflow drains would be located throughout as needed to prevent excessive storage/ponding in the case of extreme storm events. Therefore, impacts related to exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generating additional polluted runoff would be less than significant. civ and d). Impede or Redirect Flood Flows or Risk Release of Pollutants Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it impedes or redirects flood flows or risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.

Implementation of the Project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river and the project site is not within a 100-year or 500-year flood zone nor is it subject to inundation due to tsunami or seiche. On-site stormwater would be captured, treated, and conveyed via the proposed stormwater management system (as described under Impact ciii), above) and would not redirect stormwater flows from large storms in a manner that could redirect flood flows off-site as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows, or an increased risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation would be less than significant. e) Conflict with Water Quality Control Plan or Sustainable Groundwater Management Plan Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it conflicts with or obstructs implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Refer to Impact a) and b), above. No water quality degradation would occur compared to existing baseline conditions. The Project would have a less than significant impact to water quality, including groundwater and surface waters, including Colma Creek and San Francisco Bay, which are subject to CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐89 the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) water quality objectives designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional terrestrial surface water bodies (e.g., creeks, rivers, streams, and lakes), groundwaters, coastal drainages, estuaries, coastal lagoons, and enclosed bays within the RWQCB’s jurisdictional area. Construction and operation of the Project would comply with the requirements of the NPDES MRP, CGP, and the SMCWPPP C.3 requirements, which are designed to ensure stormwater discharges comply with regulatory requirements and water quality standards, such as the Basin Plan. The Project would not require ongoing groundwater withdrawals or substantially alter groundwater recharge, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts relating to conflicting with or obstruction of implementing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality Finding:
(1) As a Regulated Project under SMCWPPP, the Project would be required to provide stormwater treatment through LID treatment measures, including stormwater harvesting and re-use, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. Accordingly, the applicant would be required to design and install adequate LID stormwater treatment controls for the Project, based on the criteria detailed in the C.3 Regulated Projects Guide, as well as ensure that long-term maintenance of the controls is provided. Therefore, water quality impacts related to violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality due to discharge of stormwater runoff following completion of Project construction (postconstruction) would be less than significant. (2) The Project would not lower the groundwater table as a result of groundwater extraction or through a reduction in groundwater recharge. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater supply and recharge would be less than significant.
(3) Construction of the Project could temporarily alter local drainage patterns; however, construction activities would be subject to the CGP and City’s Stormwater Ordinance, and consequently would implement a SWPPP and associated BMPs designed to control stormwater during construction, minimizing potential temporary changes in erosion, sedimentation, or flood patterns. Following construction, the Project site would generally be paved or landscaped, which would prevent erosion and maintain existing runoff conditions. Furthermore, Project stormwater would drain to the proposed stormwater management system and then on to the existing municipal stormwater collection system and would be required to comply with SMCWPPP Site Design Standards to control pollutants, including sediment, in stormwater runoff and conform to the MRP. In addition, as discussed under Impact ciii), above the Project includes improvements to the existing storm water collection system to increase capacity of onsite stormwater retention and capture pollutants. Therefore, impacts related to erosion, siltation, or flooding as a result of increased stormwater runoff on- and off-site due to altered drainage patterns from implementation of the Project would be less than significant. (4) During construction, the Project would not increase the amount of stormwater runoff to the existing stormwater collection system because areas where construction is proposed are already developed and impervious and the volume and rate of stormwater runoff would be similar to existing baseline conditions. Stormwater runoff would be managed in accordance with the CGP, City’s Stormwater Ordinance, and SWPPP construction requirements discussed under Impact a), above, to ensure sediment and other pollutants typically CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐90 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST associated with construction activities are not mobilized and/or transported by stormwater runoff.

Following the completion of construction (post-construction), stormwater runoff would be collected, retained onsite, and treated to remove pollutants via the proposed stormwater management system. Therefore, impacts related to exceeding the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or generating additional polluted runoff would be less than significant.
(5) Implementation of the Project would not result in the alteration of the course of a stream or river and the project site is not within a 100-year or 500-year flood zone nor is it subject to inundation due to tsunami or seiche. On-site stormwater would be captured, treated, and conveyed via the proposed stormwater management system (as described under Impact ciii), above) and would not redirect stormwater flows from large storms in a manner that could redirect flood flows off-site as compared to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts related to impeding or redirecting flood flows, or an increased risk of release of pollutants due to Project inundation would be less than significant. (6) The Project would not require ongoing groundwater withdrawals or substantially alter groundwater recharge, and therefore would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, impacts relating to conflicting with or obstruction of implementing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐91 XI. Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

SETTING
LAND USE 1976-2014
The Project site, located in the northeastern portion of the City of South San Francisco (“City”), is in an area known as the East of 101. The East of 101 Area has historically been known for industrial land uses.

Over the past 46 years, the East of 101 has transitioned to include life science (i.e., Research and Development, “R&D”), office and visitor serving uses such as hotels while retaining industry in the southern portions of the area. Genentech, a major life science company, ushered in this change by locating in South San Francisco in 1976 (ssf.net accessed March 8, 2022). Now South San Francisco has over 200 life science companies in the East of 101 Area alone and is known as ‘The Birthplace of Biotechnology’ (ssf.net, accessed March 8, 2022).

The design of the built environment in the Project area is changing from minimally landscaped and industrially developed parcels with surface parking to life science buildings and campuses, hotels, and local- and -visitor serving uses. Architecture, landscape and site design standards have changed over the past 46 years from one to three story buildings with surface parking surrounded by chain-link fencing to multi-story campuses, screened and/or structured parking, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and an array of community amenities.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
LAND USE CHANGES 2014 TO 2040/DOWNTOWN STATION AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The City adopted the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP) and zoning in 2015. The DSASP is an important tool in implementing the City’s goals to: (1) provide more opportunities for safe and convenient alternatives to commuting in cars (i.e., mode shift); and (2) increase land use densities around the South San Francisco Caltrain station thereby making mode shift options more convenient and thus responding to Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

As noted in Chapter 2.3 General Plan and Zoning, the DSASP envisions high density transit-oriented development within two zones from the Caltrain Station; quarter and a half mile (See Figure 8 in Chapter 2 Project Description). The DSASP increased densities in these areas up to 3.5 FAR and allowed conditional approval for higher densities.

The City is in the final steps of approving the Draft 2040GP. Adoption is anticipated in early fall 2022.

The plan is to increase densities in the TO/RD zone; page 9 identifies the East of 101 Transit Core envisioned as:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐92 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Transit-oriented community with a walkable street pattern and a vibrant mix of high-density multifamily and employment uses with supportive retail, services, and amenities (minimum FAR from 2.0 up to 8.0 with community benefits; residential densities range from 120 du/ac to 200 du/ac with community benefits).

IMPACTS
a) Physically divide an established community
The Project would not divide an established community; but would assist in creating a community. The Project area has been transitioning to life science since the 1980’s. Currently the East of 101 area is home to over 200 life science companies. The DSASP and Draft 2040GP are heralding these changes. The Project is implementing this vision along with other projects undergoing entitlement and legislative review. Please see Chapter 3.1 Aesthetics and Chapter 2 Project Description for a more detailed discussion on the City’s vision. Future projects would continue to be reviewed by the City to insure conformance with the City’s goals and objectives.

The Project is building community benefits by developing public plazas and open spaces on the site; committing to maintain the bicycle and pedestrian facility; providing public art; creating visual and safe physical connections between the east and west areas of US 101. The Project proposes to construct and lease space for community services such as grab and go convenience stores; cafes and restaurants; and personal retail services.

The City and Project Sponsor are in the final stages of negotiating the financial constructions incumbent with increased density. These funds would be pooled with other developer fees to realize circulation improvements identified in the Mobility 2020 and the Access Study, both prepared by Fehr & Peers.

These studies identify multi-modal travel options, improvements to East Grand Avenue, and intersection signalization. Chapter 2 Project Description and Chapter 3 Section XVII Transportation identify many of the measures the Project would implement identified in various City documents.

The Project would assist the City in realizing the following vision statement appearing on page 95 of the Draft 2040GP.
“The General Plan advances the community vision of maintaining districts for R&D and industrial growth, while creating new neighborhoods that allow residential and supportive amenities and services. This vision allows for the growth and continued success of the life sciences as an economic engine for the city. Life science companies may intensify development north of East Grand Avenue, closer to key transportation corridors, in exchange for community benefits and district improvements. By allowing the life sciences area to grow through intensification rather than expanding its geographic area, the General Plan enables transportation, trade, and industrial uses to retain land area and continue to thrive in East of 101.” The Project site is north of East Grand Avenue, proposing a 7.44 FAR, a maximum height of 295 ft (as proposed 294 ft) and is 200 ft east of access to the Caltrain Station.

The Project assists in the realization of the following goal and implements the following policies (Draft 2040GP, pps 113, 115, 119).
“East of 101 GOAL SA-16: A new transit-oriented community in East of 101 with a diverse mix of uses, places, and programming to inspire creativity and social interaction that welcome all South San Francisco residents and visitors.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐93 INTENT: To create an inclusive neighborhood where people of all incomes can live, access transit, and services and amenities.

Policy SA-16.1: Require high-density development near the Caltrain station. Promote density and a mix of transit-oriented uses adjacent to the Caltrain Station and along South Airport Boulevard, including residential, offices, personal services, retail, recreation, and healthcare.

Policy SA-16.2: Implement public realm improvements near the Caltrain station. Implement public realm improvements to improve accessibility to the Caltrain Station, including signage, street trees, landscaping, street furniture, and lighting.

East of 101 GOAL SA-16: A new transit-oriented community in East of 101 with a diverse mix of uses, places, and programming to inspire creativity and social interaction that welcome all South San Francisco residents and visitors
Policy SA-19.4: Implement mobility hubs. Evaluate implementation of “mobility hubs,” which are places where different travel networks (including walking, biking, transit, and shared mobility) meet and provide convenient connections to destinations at the Caltrain Station, South San Francisco BART Station, and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal.” The Project would provide a variety of services and spaces on the site. Food, personal services, open spaces, gathering and seating areas are shown on the site plan. The plazas and first two floors of the building are non-proprietary, providing services and gathering areas to everyone.

The Project was designed to augment the improvements provided by Caltrain. For example, the Project proposes a pick-up and drop-off lane on the east side of Poletti Way that would complement the commuter bus lane recently constructed on the west side of Poletti Way (see Section XVII Transportation for more details on multi-modal opportunities on the Project site).

The Project would be high density, proposes a robust landscape and seating plan, and public facilities.

The Project would result in no impact in dividing an established community but would assist in the creation of a community.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect Climate Protection policies are identified in Chapter 14 of the Draft 2040GP. The Project proposes to provide electric car charging stations, a TDM Program targeting a 47.5 % reduction in parking demand by implementing a robust mode shift program and amenities supporting the array of transit options.

Bicycle parking includes 49 more spaces that required by code to provide for the Project and other uses in the east of 101.

Six percent of total parking is for electric vehicles and eight percent is reserved for car and vanpool.

Commercial parking and delivery vehicle access are separated to avoid pedestrian and vehicular conflicts, as well as vehicular idling times.

The Project is working toward an all-electric building. Landscape watering is proposed in conformance with the City’s Climate Action Plan (2014 and draft 2022) and the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Ordinance (Chapter 15, South San Francisco Municipal Code) and described in Chapter 2, Project Description and Chapter 1 Legislative Framework. The Project proposes to select building materials and design to reach a LEED Gold rating. All these measures serve to reduce the carbon footprint (see Chapter 2, Project Description).

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐94 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Community Resilience goals and policies appear on p 305 of the Draft 2040GP. These measures address seismic conditions, wetlands, flood zones, sea level rise and wildfire among others that affect the environment. This environmental analysis has not identified a significant unavoidable impact that would result from the Project.

Section VII. Geology and Soils restates the City requirement to provide an updated geotechnical site characterization study and site specific structural design measures to assure safety and buildability.

The Project Sponsor submitted two cultural/tribal/archaeological reports. The reports identified a very low to low probability of culturally significant soils to be located on the Project site. A training and notification measure is identified and proposed as part of the Project. The measures are restated as a mitigation measure. The Project would not result in an impact to or conflict with a plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact.

Land Use and Planning Finding: The Project would implement goals and strategies aimed at reducing environmental impacts identified in the Draft 2040GP and would assist in the creation of a high-density transit-oriented research and development neighborhood within the TO/RD District. The Project would have no impacts on land use and planning.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐95 XII. Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

SETTING
The Project site is located in the East of 101 area. Research of the 1999 GP and the Draft 2040GP found no mention of mineral resources in the City of South San Francisco.

IMPACTS
a) and b) Loss of Mineral Resources
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or if it were to result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

No mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state have been identified in South San Francisco (1999 GP and Draft 2040GP) The Project site has not been delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site in the 1999 GP or Draft 2040GP, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on any known mineral resource or result in the loss of availability of any locally important resource recovery site.

Minerals Finding: The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐96 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST XIII. Noise
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

INTRODUCTION
This section is based on the Noise Technical Report (Noise Report) prepared for the Project by RCH Group, Inc. (2022), found in Appendix A of this Initial Study. This section presents background noise information, an overview of existing noise levels measured at the Project site, local noise regulatory framework, and an analysis of potential noise and vibration impacts that would result from construction and operation of the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure level has become the most common descriptor used to characterize the “loudness” of an ambient sound level. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Decibels are measured using different scales, and it has been found that A-weighting of sound levels best reflects the human ear’s reduced sensitivity to low frequencies, and correlates well with human perceptions of the annoying aspects of noise. The Aweighted decibel scale (dBA)is cited in most noise criteria. All references to decibels (dB) in this report will be A-weighted unless noted otherwise.

Several time-averaged scales represent noise environments and consequences of human activities. The most commonly used noise descriptors are the equivalent A–weighted sound level over a given time period (Leq)12; average day–night 24-hour average sound level (Ldn)13 with a nighttime increase of 10 dB 12 The Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) is a single value of a constant sound level for the same measurement period duration, which has sound energy equal to the time–varying sound energy in the measurement period. 13 Ldn is the day–night average sound level that is equal to the 24-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level with a 10-decibel penalty applied to night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐97 to account for sensitivity to noise during the nighttime; and community noise equivalent level (CNEL)14, also a 24-hour average that includes both an evening and a nighttime sensitivity weighting.

NOISE ATTENUATION
Stationary point sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to

7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on ground absorption. Soft sites attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces (e.g., parking lots or smooth bodies of water) and therefore have less attenuation (6.0 dB per doubling). A street or roadway with moving vehicles (known as a “line” source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source, that also depends on ground absorption. Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, would increase the attenuation that occurs by distance alone.

VIBRATION
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment).

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS), as in RMS vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal.

PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings. Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern within 25 feet of existing structures.15
Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals.

In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a one-second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration.16 This is based on a reference value of one micro inch/second. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels.

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Construction activities can generate ground-borne vibrations, which can pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants. Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction 14 CNEL is the average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained by addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 to 10:00 p.m., and an addition of a 10–decibel penalty in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 15 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. 16 Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐98 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations result from vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction equipment.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element defines noise-sensitive land uses as residences, schools, churches, and hospitals. According to the General Plan, industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered noise-sensitive land uses. There are commercial and industrial land uses north, east, and south of the Project site. An existing Caltrain line and Highway 101 are west of the Project site. The nearest sensitive land use to the Project site is an apartment building (Cadence Apartments) located approximately 690 feet west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard. There are no schools within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CITY
1999 General Plan (1999 GP)
The 1999 GP Noise Element contains the San Mateo Land Use Commission noise/land use compatibility standards for review of development in noise impacted areas. The compatibility standards are specifically applicable to development within the 65 dB, CNEL noise contour of the San Francisco International Airport (Table 9.2-1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, 1999 GP, page 280).

The Project is not within the 65 dB, CNEL noise contour of the San Francisco International airport Insulation Program Area, therefore, the standards are not applicable to the Project.

Draft 2040 General Plan (Draft 2040GP)
The Draft 2040GP Noise Element is designed to provide polices that will guide development in a manner that protects the residents and employees of the City from exposure to unacceptable noise and vibration levels and make the city a healthier place for all. Figure 52, 2019 San Francisco International Airport Noise Exposure Map, of the Draft 2040GP (page 370, Draft 2040GP), shows the Project site inside the 60 dB, CNEL airport noise contour. Thus, existing aircraft noise levels at the Project site are less than 60 dB, CNEL
Noise Ordinance
The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through its Noise Ordinance (Chapter

8.32, SSFMC). The Noise Ordinance contains special provisions for construction activities (§ 8.32.050).

Construction activities authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.17, or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, as long as they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
17 Construction activities occurring within the allowable hours of construction are exempt from the City’s Noise Ordinance (P. Perry, City of South San Francisco Building Division, personal communication, March 20, 2019). As stated in the Downtown Area Specific Plan EIR, “The City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant.”
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐99  No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible.
 The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990).

According to § 8.32.060 of the Noise Ordinance, if the applicant can show to the city manager, or the manager’s designee, that a diligent investigation of available noise abatement techniques indicates that immediate compliance with the requirements of this chapter would be impractical or unreasonable, a permit to allow exception from the provisions contained in this chapter may be issued, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be of as short a duration as possible, but in no case for longer than six months. These permits are renewable upon a showing of good cause and shall be conditioned by a schedule for compliance and details of compliance methods in appropriate cases. (Ord. 1088 § 1,1990) Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (DSASP)
The DSASP EIR indicates that implementation of the Specific Plan has the potential to expose new development to stationary sources of noise and transportation noise levels that exceed the City’s normally acceptable compatibility standards (a potentially significant noise impact). The DSASP EIR also indicates that construction activities within the Plan area would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels (a potentially significant vibration impact). The DSASP EIR concludes that the implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. The DSASP EIR also indicates a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to traffic noise. The following mitigation measures from the DSASP EIR are applicable to the Project and would be required as COA:

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise Ordinance Section

8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical barriers.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis – Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustic analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐100 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST a) The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibrationgenerating construction activities. b) Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c) Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.

IMPACTS
a) Generation of a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in Excess of Local Standards.

Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity in excess of standards established in the 1999 GP, DSASP, or the City Noise Ordinance. Construction noise would have a significant environmental impact if it occurs outside the hours specified in the City Noise Ordinance.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
Construction would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project.

Construction activities would require the use of numerous pieces of noise-generating equipment, such as excavating machinery (e.g., loaders, etc.) and other construction equipment (e.g., scrapers, dozers, compactors, trucks, etc.). The noise levels generated by construction equipment would vary greatly depending upon factors such as the type and specific model of the equipment, the operation being performed, the condition of the equipment and the prevailing wind direction. The maximum noise levels for various types of construction equipment that could be used during Project construction are provided in Noise Table 1 below. Maximum noise levels generated by construction equipment used for the proposed project would range from 77 to 90 dB, Lmax at 50 ft.

As discussed above, the nearest noise-sensitive receptor is an apartment building approximately 690 ft west of the Project site on Airport Boulevard. Project construction noise at these apartments would be masked by rail line and traffic noise from US 101, Grand Avenue, and Airport Boulevard. Construction activities would occur during the adopted construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance exempts noise from construction activities that take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐101 and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Therefore, Project construction would result in a less-than-significant impact.

NOISE TABLE 1

TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction Equipment Noise Level (dB, Lmax1 at 50 ft) Backhoe 78
Dozer 82
Forklift 77
Auger Drill Rig 84
Concrete Saw 90
Crane 81
Excavator 81
Paver 77
Grader 85
Compressor (Air) 78
Generator 81
Roller 80
Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80
Concrete Mixer Truck 79
Front End Loader 79
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006.

Permanent Operational Noise Impacts
Land Use Noise Compatibility Impacts on the Project
As detailed in the Noise Technical Report, existing 24-hour noise levels at the Project site are 73-74 dB, CNEL (at the southwest corner of the Project site) and 69-70 dB, CNEL (at the northernmost point of the Project site). The Project site is less than 75 dB, CNEL threshold which is considered a Conditionally Acceptable outdoor noise level for non-residential uses (per DSASP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2).

Therefore, the effect of existing noise on the Project would be a less-than-significant impact.

Stationary Noise Impacts from the Project
Operation of the Project would not produce substantial levels of off-site noise. Mechanical equipment would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance § 8.32.030 (DSASP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-1). The Project applicant would be required to submit a design plan for the Project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for adjacent receiving land use categories as specified in Noise Ordinance § 8.32.030.

Therefore, noise impacts from Project stationary equipment during operations would result in a lessthan-significant impact.

Traffic Noise Impacts from the Project
A doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB increase in sound, which means that a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a road) would result in a barely perceptible change in CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐102 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST sound level. The Project is located directly east of US 101 and nearby major roadways (Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue). The DSASP EIR indicates a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to traffic noise. However, the Project would not result in a doubling of traffic on nearby roadways and any increase in traffic noise would be negligible compared to the existing noise generated by US 101 and other nearby major roadways. Therefore, noise impacts from Project-related motor vehicles during operations would result in a less-than-significant impact.
b) Generation of Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise Levels Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Per Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the DSASP EIR, vibration exceeding 75 VdB for Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) would be significant.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
As discussed, construction activities have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. Per DSASP EIR Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration, all construction activities in the Specific Plan area are required to implement the following vibration control measures:
a. The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibrationgenerating construction activities. b. Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c. Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

In most cases, vibration induced by typical construction equipment does not result in adverse effects on people or structures. Vibrational effects from typical construction activities are only a concern within 25 ft of existing structures.18 There are no structures within 25 ft of the Project site. Therefore, construction vibration would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Nearby Caltrain Vibration Impacts
According to a study conducted on Caltrain rails, ground vibration from Caltrain passbys measured up to 89 VdB at 25 ft.19 Based on the Project site plan, the western building façade would be located approximately 140-150 ft east of the outermost track of the Caltrain rail line. At this distance, the VdB from passing commuter rails along the Caltrain rail line would attenuate to approximately 67 VdB. These levels of vibration would be below the 75 VdB threshold established by Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the DSASP EIR for rail line vibration. Furthermore, per Mitigation Measure 4.6-5 of the DSASP EIR, a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines would be required for the Project prior to obtaining a building permit. Therefore, vibration from the adjacent Caltrain rail line would result in a less-than-significant impact.
18 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2002. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. 19 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. 2014. Draft Environmental Report, SCH #2013012079. Available at:
https://www.caltrain.com/projects/caltrain-modernization/calmod-document-library/pcep-deir-2014 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐103 c) Aircraft Noise
Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

The Project site is within the San Mateo County ALUC Plan Area jurisdiction, and approximately 1.8 mi north of San Francisco International Airport. The Project is not within two mi of a private airstrip.

The Project site is outside of the 65 dB, CNEL airport noise contour, as shown in Exhibit IV-5 (page IV-13) and IV-6 (page IV-15) of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (November 2012). The Project site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program Area (page 279, 1999 GP). The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65 dB, CNEL aircraft noise contour. This is consistent with Figure 52 of the Draft 2040GP (page 370, Draft 2040GP), which shows the Project site inside the 60 dB, CNEL airport noise contour. Thus, aircraft noise at the Project site is less than 60 dB, CNEL and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.

Therefore, aircraft noise would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Noise Finding:
(1) The Noise Ordinance exempts noise from construction activities that take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Therefore, Project construction would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The Project site is less than 75 dB, CNEL threshold which is considered a Conditionally Acceptable outdoor noise level for non-residential uses (per DSASP EIR, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2). Therefore, the effect of existing noise on the Project would be a less-thansignificant impact. Stationary and traffic noise impacts from Operations would also be less than significant.
(2) There are no structures within 25 ft of the Project site, thus construction does not pose vibrational concerns. Caltrain vibration levels would be below applicable significance thresholds specified in the DSASP EIR. Therefore, Construction and operational vibration impacts would be less than significant.
(3) Aircraft noise at the Project site is less than 60 dB, CNEL and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Aircraft noise impacts would be less than significant.
(4) The following mitigation measures required by the DSASP EIR are required as part of the building permit process. These measures are restated herein.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐104 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis – Nonresidential Development.

Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustic analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site.

Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a) The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities. b) Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c) Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the sitespecific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐105 XIV. Population and Housing
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

SETTING
The Project would not result in a change of land use envisioned in the TO/RD District and the Draft 2040GP. The area within the TO/RD core is envisioned for high density transit-oriented life science.

The Draft 2040GP identifies the Project site and TO/RD area as permitting up to an 8.0 FAR provided certain as-built and financial benefits are realized. The Project is required to provide financial contributions to assist the City in implementing a variety of improvements in the area, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description and Chapter 3 Section XI Land Use and Planning.

The Project Sponsor provided population density projections based upon a 7.44 FAR for the water assessment study. The Project assumes a 50/50 split of research and development/office use.

Population and Housing Table 1 below identifies the employment and use projections. The Project would add 2,339 jobs in South San Francisco. Aesthetics Chapter 3.1 identifies the Draft 2040GP jobs population projections for 2040 at 137,000. The proposed Project would contribute 1.7% of the total projections.

POPULATION AND HOUSING TABLE 1

PROJECTED PROJECT POPULATION
Use SQ FT Persons/SQ FT Ratio/1000sf
R&D 418,433 500 837 2.00
Office 418,433 300 1,395 3.33
Amenity 107,100 1,000 107 1.0
Total 943,965 2,339 2.48
PH3RE, Michael Gerrity, April 22, 2022

IMPACTS
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
The Project would not require new roads to be constructed. The Project is designed as a ‘transit hub’ i.e., a project providing multi-modal transit options and is proposing a robust TDM Program designed to achieve a 47.5% mode shift.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐106 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The City has been and continues to study and implement solutions to increase densities along major transit corridors, and provide other convenient and safe mode shift options. The Caltrain station relocation is one strategy that was identified and constructed. Other strategies are identified in Chapter 1 Project Description and Chapter 3 Section XVII, Transportation. The Project would have a less than significant impact directly or indirectly as the result of a 7.44 FAR life science campus, by realizing

1.7%of the total employment projections on the Project site. Moreover, with multi-modal transit options, public amenities and a TDM Program designed to reduce the reliance on single-occupancy vehicular travel the Project would not result in the construction of additional roadways in the area.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
There is no impact with respect to displacement of people or housing that would require construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project would replace a hotel. No permanent housing is on the site.

Population and Housing Finding:
(1) The Project would add 2,339 jobs in South San Francisco. Draft 2040GP employment projections for 2040 is 137,000. The proposed Project would contribute 1.7% of the total projections, a less than significant impact.
(2) The Project would not remove or replace housing. The Draft 2040GP is proposing the construction of mixed-use multi-family housing in the East of 101 and other areas throughout the City. This strategy will assist the City in meeting its regional housing needs and develop complete neighborhoods that include mode shift options as envisioned by the Draft 2040GP.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐107 XV. Public Services
a. 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 public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

1. Fire protection?

2. Police protection?

3. Schools?

4. Parks?

5. Other public facilities?

SETTING
The Project would result in a change of land use envisioned in the TO/RD District and the Draft 2040GP. The Project is required to provide financial contributions to assist the City in implementing a variety of improvements to the area, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description and Chapter 3 Section XI Land Use and Planning.

Project review process is identified in Chapter 1 Legislative Framework. In summary, staff members from Planning, Building, Fire, Engineering, and Water Quality review plans pursuant to their areas of expertise, identify modifications required to conform with city requirements and later to identify additional conditions of project approval. This group is referred to as the Technical Advisory Group (TAG). Staffing shortages or the need to improve the service infrastructure were not identified as lacking during the first TAG meeting conducted on February 15, 2022. Additional TAG review, part of the entitlement process, is where specific conditions of project approval are identified. The types and style of conditions of approval are identified in Chapter 1 Legislative Framework.

Changes in project design typically occur during project entitlement review. For example, the Project designed fire access based upon input from the Fire Marshal. Circulation improvements were built into the site plan to support and add mode-shift options on site. These changes were in response to various City studies. Modifications are identified in Chapter 2 Project Description and Chapter 3 Section XVII Transportation.

Standard conditions of project approval do require the payment of impact fees. Impact fees are based upon a set amount per square foot per land use. The Project proposes a life science (R&D) use. For Office/R&D the fee schedule is as follows:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐108 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PUBLIC SERVICES TABLE 1

PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACT FEES
Fee Category $/Per/SQ FT
Parks and Recreation 3.10 plus administrative fee
Child Care 1.32
Commercial Linkage 16.55
Library 0.13
Citywide Transportation Fee 30.52
Public Safety 1.15
School District 0.61
Public Art Art contribution payment of not less than 0.5% of construction costs or acquisition and installation of art on site
The community benefits fees are in addition to those identified in Table 1 Public Services Impact Fees, above.

IMPACTS
Public Services Finding 1-5: Discretionary projects undergo review by various divisions and departments within the City to identify conditions of Project approval. The conditions of approval and impact fees render impacts to public services less than significant. The proposed Project is also required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code and state planning law to implement conditions of project approval into the design of the Project. The Project was also reviewed by the City’s Technical Advisory Group (see Chapter 1, Legislative Framework) in February and June 2022. The Technical Advisory Group did not identify any service impacts associated with the Project. School impact fees are assessed on retail and life science uses. The Project would have a less than significant impact of public services.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐109 XVI. Recreation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?

SETTING
The Project proposes four plazas that would provide approximately 46,663 sq ft of open space.

Confluence, Poletti Way and East Access plazas contain seating and landscaping totaling 41,485 sq ft (0.95 acre) of open space. Arrival Plaza is bracketed by but void of landscaping and seating. Arrival Plaza is designed to be unobstructed to allow for surges of people disembarking Caltrain and other mode shift options. Jack Drago Park is directly across East Grand Avenue from the Project.

The Draft 2040GP Chapter 10 ‘Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation’ identifies existing and planned recreational opportunities. Page 206 identifies the targeted metric for open space per capita. For job generating projects 0.5 acres of open space per 1,000 employees is the target.

Open space and recreational facilities are located at Jack Drago Park, Oyster Point Marina and Park, the Bay Trail and the one-acre City Park parcel providing home to the ‘Wind Harp’, a 243 ft welded steel sculpture, designed after an aeolian harp. The Wind Harp is located approximately 243 ft above msl and is a walking, bicycling or driving destination.

The City is seeking opportunities for additional parkland for mixed-use residential projects in the East of 101 and Lindenville planning areas (Draft 2040GP Policy PR-2.6, p 222). Colma Creek channel is one opportunity, and unused abandoned railway spurs, dating back to the early industrial uses in the area, are another. Additional open space and recreational opportunities would likely be derived through the development design process and payment of park in lieu and/or community development fees on a project-by-project basis.

IMPACTS
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; and
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No substantial deterioration of parks located in the East of 101 planning area are anticipated from realization of the Project. The Project is required to pay park-in-lieu fees and proposes 0.95 acre of landscaped urban open space on site. Impacts to parks and recreation would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐110 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Parks and Recreation Finding:
(1) The Project would have a less than significant impact on parks and recreation due to the facilities proposed to be provided onsite, the location of Jack Drago Park 100 ft east of the site, the payment of park in lieu fees and payment of public amenity fees. (2) Policies in the Draft 2040GP identify programs to include the construction of recreation and open space as part of mixed-use residential projects.
(3) The Project proposes 0.95 acres of landscaped and furnished urban open space, not including the Arrival Plaza in this calculation. The Project would not cause substantial deterioration of any park and would not require expansion of recreational facilities. The Project would add open space and construct a 30 ft wide bicycle and pedestrian facility.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐111 XVII. Transportation
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a) Conflict with a program, 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) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

INTRODUCTION
The Project is considered a transit-oriented infill employment center project as demonstrated in Chapter 3 Section I Aesthetics. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision states “[g]enerally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing highquality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact”. The Project is approximately 200 ft from the entrance to Caltrain. Therefore, the Project is presumed to have a less than significant impact associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

SETTING

EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Project is flanked by Poletti Way to the west and East Grand Avenue to the south and southeast, and Grand Avenue to the north. The site has active street frontage on three sides: west, south, and east.

A 20 ft wide service area runs the length of the northern side of the building and is adjacent to the Grand Avenue Overpass. The recently relocated Caltrain station, approximately 200 feet west from the Project site, is an easy walk.

Vehicular Access
Local vehicular access to the Project site from the north is derived from Oyster Point Boulevard Interchange and flyover, and Airport Boulevard (both from the north and south). Access from the south is provided by East Grand Avenue via the Grand Avenue northbound exit from US101. All these roadways connect to US 101. Airport Boulevard also connects to Interstate 380. Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue provides a surface street connection to the areas east and west of US 101.

Multi-Modal Access
As noted in the Access Study prepared by Fehr & Peers, Commute.org operates two routes connecting the East of 101 area within the South San Francisco Caltrain Station area: Oyster Point Boulevard and Utah Avenue /Grand Avenue. Genentech operates two routes to the Millbrae Caltrain Station, Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, primarily providing connections to bullet trains. These services are largely populated with employees of the businesses that support the facility although they are open to the public.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐112 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST SamTrans buses connect to the relocated Caltrain Station on the west side of 101, not the east side.

SamTrans is currently studying changes to serve the East of 101 area (Reimagine SamTrans study). Bus service is also under consideration along Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue.

Access Study notes that shuttle routes will eventually serve the four development corridors envisioned in the Draft 2040GP: Oyster Point-Gateway, East Grand Avenue, Forbes Boulevard, and South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue.

As-Built Caltrain Constructed Existing Conditions
Current Caltrain ridership levels in the East of 101 area are around 270 per day. The Caltrain Business Plan (year 2040) indicates an expected 3,000 riders per day. Forecasts derived from the draft 2040GP indicate a ridership in the East of 101 at 4,500 per day (Table 1, Comparison of Land Use and Ridership Forecasts, Access Study, p 10).

The South San Francisco Caltrain Station Improvement Project provided the following changes near and at the eastern entrance to Caltrain (summarized from the Access Study, and confirmed by Daniel Jacobson of Fehr & Peers, Transportation Consultants on May 10, 2022):
 Conversion of Poletti Way to two-way street with a bus-and shuttle-only lane in the southbound direction.
 Construction of a roughly 390-foot shuttle loading zone on the west side of Poletti Way accommodating six 40-foot vehicles (or additional smaller vehicles).  Construction of a pedestrian hybrid beacon controlling the northbound US-101 offramp activated by pedestrians and bicyclists, accompanied by a stop-controlled crossing for vehicles along southbound Poletti Way and westbound East Grand Avenue and two bypass lanes for right-turning vehicles from US-101 onto East Grand Avenue.  Construction of a 16-foot-wide underpass connecting to the station platform and downtown, transitioning to a split stairwell and ram entrance each about five feet wide.  Construction of a 15 ft wide mixed-use bicycle /pedestrian trail on the west side of Poletti Way, connecting to the crosswalk in Poletti Way.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS
City and Partnership Improvements
Through various planning documents, partnerships and funding sources the City has identified improvements to multi-modal options.
 Draft 2040GP Policy SA-16.1: Require high-density development near the Caltrain station.

Promote density and a mix of transit-oriented uses adjacent to the Caltrain Station and along South Airport Boulevard, including residential, offices, personal services, retail, recreation, and healthcare.
 Draft 2040GP Policy SA-16.2: Implement public realm improvements near the Caltrain station.

Implement public realm improvements to improve accessibility to the Caltrain Station, including signage, street trees, landscaping, street furniture, and lighting.  The Project is high density. The provides non-proprietary amenities and landscaped public plazas. The Arrival Plaza is an iconic landmark design defining access to the east of 101 from the Caltrain Station.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐113  Draft 2040GP (analyzed in Section 3. XI Land Use and Planning)  Mobility 2020 East of 101 Transportation Plan, for the City of South San Francisco by Fehr & Peers, 2019 (‘Mobility 2020’)
 South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study prepared for South San Francisco, Caltrain, Phase 3 Real Estate Partners, by Fehr & Peers and Mark Thomas, 2021 (‘Access Study’)  ‘Active South San Francisco’ the City’s draft bicycle and pedestrian master plan. Figure 5 shows improvements to provide a connection to the East of 101 Area including a trail along Poletti Way connecting the station entrance to employment centers to the north (Oyster Point Boulevard, Gateway Boulevard, the Bay Trail, and Sierra Point). Policies include prioritizing safe bike and pedestrian travel and design of facilities and amenities. Share the road signs and provision of services to the traveling public are some of the many items addressed.  Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Figure 6 shows the priority for a pedestrian priority zone along East Grand Avenue to connect pedestrians to the eastern station entrance as well as provide an extension of downtown South San Francisco into the East of 101 Area.

Some of the measures identified in the various plans identified above are incorporated into various project’s as they undergo the City’s review process. Others will be implemented area-wide by the City through developer fees, community benefit fees and various grants of funding. City staff are beginning the process of meeting with businesses in the East of 101 Area to prioritize construction of the improvement measures identified in the Access Study.

Improvements Proposed by the Project Sponsor
The following measures and their locations are proposed by the Project Sponsor, as shown in Transportation Figure 1 Transportation Improvements Incorporated into the Project and described below.

1. Arrival Plaza is designed to replace a 25 sq ft arrival point connecting to the crosswalk in Poletti Way with an arrival area that immediately fans out into a 60 ft wide arc and an unobstructed 5,178 sq ft plaza. While this condition is not currently hazardous, due to low Caltrain ridership, increased ridership levels would result in a ‘pinch point’ where commuters could bunch up and spill out into Poletti Way.

Access Plaza is also where a 15 ft wide multipurpose bicycle/pedestrian trail, along the west side of Poletti Way, would convert to a Class IV 30 ft wide separated bicycle and pedestrian facility traveling adjacent to the Project site along East Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue. The pedestrian lane is shown to be located on the Project site and separated from the bicycle lane by landscaping. The bicycle portion of the 30-ft wide facility is proposed within the East Grand Avenue right-of-way and would be separated from the vehicular lane by a structured concrete berms and landscaping. Both facilities would be lighted.
2 a. Poletti Way Plaza would support a covered 30-ft wide and 165 ft long sidewalk that creates a 5,105 sq ft circulation area. The rideshare pick up and drop off lane is identified in the Access Study as a benefit to multi-modal commuting and would complement the Caltrain built shuttle bus lane on the west side of Poletti Way (Figure 9, Access Study 2021, p 15). 2 b. Poletti Way Plaza proposes retail and sitting areas supporting mode shift. 2 c. Poletti Way Setback is proposed at 30 ft and was informed by the Mobility 2020 study and the.

Access Study. The Mobility 2020 study identifies a potential circulation improvement to elevate the CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐114 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Grand Avenue offramp and realign it with the Dubuque Avenue overpass (restated in the Access Study, item 3, p 26). Elevation of the off ramp would preclude the ability for zero lot line development. Nonetheless, the activity planned for the area would create a lively pedestrian frontage and a more relaxing one during non-peak hours to wait for a train, visit or engage in a bite to eat or a beverage.
2 d. Poletti Way Plaza would provide 140 bicycle parking spaces, 49 more than required by code. The additional bicycle parking is identified as needed in the area to help meet area-wide bicycle parking needs (Figure 9, Access Study 2021, p15).
2 e. Poletti Way (mid-western and northern portions) would provide access to the Project parking structure.
2 f. Poletti Way/Grand Avenue Overpass is an area in the northwestern/northern area of the Project site dedicated solely for delivery and service trucks. The service access point is proposed off of Poletti Way, under the Grand Avenue Overpass, at the northern (service alley) area of the Project site. Separating large trucks from vehicular and pedestrian areas to maximum extent feasible is identified as a circulation improvement in the Access Study.

3. Confluence Plaza is a 28,000 sq ft landscaped outdoor gathering and seating area that would provide a comfortable social space for people to gather for respite, food, meetings or solitude. The Mobility 2020 study and the Draft 2040GP identify the need to provide circulation and gathering areas in the East of 101. Gathering areas help promote a sense of community and a walkable environment. The bicycle and pedestrian facility continue through this area to the East Access Plaza.

There are no curb cuts proposed here or in the East Access Plaza, separating vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle travel for safety. Confluence Plaza and all the plazas and public amenities on the site would implement Draft 2040GP Policy SA-16.1 and Policy SA-16.2. Access Plaza activates the street frontage, and with the lack of curb cuts provides a safe place to gather.

4. East Access Plaza provides entry to and exiting from the southern area of the East of 101. The 8,350 sq ft plaza would support a collection of bicyclists and pedestrians entering and exiting the area. East Access Plaza brings the bicycle and pedestrian facility to Grand Avenue.

5. Amenities located on Levels 1 and 2 are proposed to provide food and services to encourage people to stay in the area and not commute elsewhere for personal needs. Mode shift requires goods and services nearby to be an effective solution to climate change.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐115 TRANSPORTATION FIGURE 1

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐116

IMPACTS
a) A significant impact would be one that conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Project would provide an additional 49 bicycle parking spaces for the community. The Project proposes mode-shift options on site and amenities to support mode shift. The Project, in compliance with Chapter 20 SSFMC, include a Transportation Demand Management Program targeting a 47.5% mode shift. The Project implements recommendations contained in the Access Study 2021, Mobility 2020 and Draft 2040GP Policy SA-16.1 and Policy SA-16.2 to increase safety and desirability of modeshift options and to provide goods and services to support mode shift. The Project proposes services on site to encourage and support mode shift including but not limited to retail, food and service options, approximately one acre of outdoor space furnished to provide seating and gathering areas, dropoff/pick-up lane, and indoor restaurant and retail services. The Project would have no impact on a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities because the Project proposes to implement city and state policies that support safe circulation and mode-shift options.
b) A significant impact would result if the project were in conflict or inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

The Project is approximately 200 ft from entrance to Caltrain. CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) states “generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high-quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact”. Moreover, the Project is a ‘transportation hub’, being a development that proposes and serves a variety of mode-shift options. The Project would have a less than significant impact on CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. The Project is a transit-oriented infill employment center project.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) The Project proposes to separate pedestrian and bicyclist activity from vehicles to the maximum extent feasible. Project parking would be accessed along the mid-to-northern side of Poletti Way. Large commercial and service truck access and activity would be restricted to the 20 ft service alley along the northern side of the building, accessed off of Poletti Way underneath the Grand Avenue Overpass.

The Caltrain Station pedestrian access from the west includes a crosswalk in Poletti Way that leads to a 25 sq ft arrival point on the Project site. While this condition is not currently hazardous due to low Caltrain ridership, increased ridership levels would result a ‘pinch point’ where commuters could bunch up and spill out into Poletti Way. The Access Plaza is designed to replace the 25 sq ft arrival point with an arrival area that immediately fans out into a 60 ft wide arc and an unobstructed 5,178 sq ft plaza.

The Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with geometric design, sharp curves, or dangerous intersections. The Project would improve existing conditions in Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐117 d) A significant impact would result in inadequate emergency access by not providing or blocking areas designated for such access or violating building codes that prescribe safety and access measures.

The Project would provide emergency access. City Fire Marshal Ian Hardage (February 14, 2022) directed the Project Sponsor to provide at grade fire access along all sides of the building ranging from 20 to 26 ft in width. To provide emergency access to the upper floors of the building Fire Marshal Hardage directed the Project Sponsor to limit landscaping to a maximum of 15 ft in height along the façade of the building on the east and west elevations.

The site plan also includes emergency access from East Grand Avenue through the East Access Plaza and limits landscaping accordingly. The Project is required by law to conform to the latest building code and implement the conditions of approval identified by staff. These measures are designed to protect safety and provide emergency access. The Project would have a less than significant impact on emergency services as it is designed in conformance with the recommendations of the City Fire Marshal and shall comply with conditions of project approval and the City building code.

Transportation Finding:
(1) The Project would provide an additional 49 bicycle parking spaces for the community. The Project proposes mode-shift options on site and amenities to support mode shift. The Project, in compliance with Chapter 20 SSFMC, include a Transportation Demand Management Program targeting a 47.5% mode shift. The Project implements recommendations contained in the Access Study 2021, Mobility 2020 and Draft 2040GP Policy SA-16.1 and Policy SA-16.2 to increase safety and desirability of mode-shift options and to provide goods and services to support mode shift. The Project proposes services on site to encourage and support mode shift including but not limited to retail, food and service options, approximately one acre of outdoor space furnished to provide seating and gathering areas, drop-off/pick-up lane, and indoor restaurant and retail services. The Project would have no impact on a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities because the Project proposes to implement city and state policies that support safe circulation and mode-shift options.
(2) The Project would have a less than significant impact on CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3.

The Project is a transit-oriented infill employment center project. (3) The Project would have no impact associated with geometric design, sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The Project proposes to separate pedestrian and bicyclist activity from vehicles to the maximum extent feasible by providing vehicular activity on the mid-tonorthern side of Poletti Way and large commercial and service truck activity on the northern elevation of the building. The Project proposes the pedestrian lane to be located on the Project site and separated from the bicycle lane by landscaping. The bicycle portion of the 30-ft wide facility is proposed within the East Grand Avenue right of way and would be separated from the vehicular lane by a structured concrete berms and landscaping. Both facilities would be lighted.

The Caltrain Station pedestrian access from the west includes a crosswalk in Poletti Way that leads to a 25 sq ft arrival point on the Project site. While this condition is not currently hazardous due to low Caltrain ridership, increased ridership levels would result a ‘pinch point’ where commuters could bunch up and spill out into Poletti Way. The Access Plaza is CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐118 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST designed to replace the 25 sq ft arrival point with an arrival area that immediately fans out into a 60 ft wide arc and an unobstructed 5,178 sq ft plaza.

The Project would have no impact associated with geometric design, sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The Project would improve existing conditions in Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue.
(4) The Project would have a less than significant impact on emergency services as it is designed in conformance with the recommendations of the City Fire Marshal and shall comply with conditions of project approval and the City building code.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐119 XVIII. Tribal Cultural
Resources
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Would the Project Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resource Code § 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 in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource 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 § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

SETTING
Archaeological, cultural and historic resources are vetted in Chapter 3, Section V above. This section contains only the Sacred Lands research conducted by BASIN research.

The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on September 9, 2021. The research was conducted by BASIN Resource Associates as part of the cultural resources report.

IMPACTS
No sacred lands listings were identified on the Project site and within a one-mile (minimum) radius surrounding the site (BASIN, 2021, p 2 from Katy Sanchez Native American Heritage Commission research ‘Native American Heritage Commission – Response to Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory 121 E. Grand Avenue, San Mateo County’ September 9, 2021, and on file at Basin Research Associates, San Leandro) (‘Sanchez, September 9, 2021’).

Tribal Resources Finding: No sacred lands listings were identified on the Project site and within a one-mile minimum radius surrounding the site (BASIN, 2021, p 2 and Sanchez September 9, 2021). No historic resources are located on the Project site as defined by Public Resources Code 5024.1.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐120 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST XIX. Utilities and Service
Systems
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation 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 it has 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 or local standards, or in excess of the 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 to solid waste?

SETTING
The Project site is within an urbanized area of the City. The Project would replace a hotel use with a life science use. Utilities and service systems are present and available on the Project site.

REGULATORY AND SERVICE PROVIDER FRAMEWORK
For additional information on utility service providers and the legislative framework thereto please see Chapter 1, Legislative Framework Section 1.4 and Chapter 3 Sections VI Energy, X Hydrology and Water Quality, and XI Land Use and Planning.

WATER
State
Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990
Assembly Bill (AB) 325 of 1990 created the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act requiring the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to develop a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). This Model Ordinance was adopted and went into effect January 1, 1993, requiring all local agencies to adopt a water efficient landscape ordinance, unless proven unnecessary, by 1993. In 2004, AB 2717 requested the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) to convene a task force in order to evaluate and recommend improving the efficiency of water use in urban irrigated landscapes. The outcome was 43 recommendations, some of which included updates to the Ordinance. In 2006, AB 1881 was enacted requiring DWR to update the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance reflecting the recommendations of the CUWCC task force and public CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐121 comment. The updated MWELO went into effect January 1, 2010, was updated again by Executive Order, and has been in effect since December 1, 2015.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Section 15155. WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS (CEQA Guidelines) requires a Lead Agency, in this case the City of South San Francisco (see Ch 1 Legislative Framework) to consult with water agencies (in this case Cal Water) if a project is considered a ‘Water Demand Project’. A ‘Water Demand Project’ includes eight categories of use associated with various water demand levels. The 121 E Grand Avenue Project is considered a water demand project because it meets the following criteria:
(B) A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(F) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in subdivisions (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D), (a)(1)(E), and (a)(1)(G) of this section.

The City of South San Francisco met with Cal Water and it was decided that a water assessment would be required for the Project (see below).

Local District
Cal Water System and Requirement for a Water Assessment Study The East of 101 area is served by Cal Water through water purchased from San Francisco’s Public Utility Commission Hetch Hetchy System and local groundwater. As noted above a water assessment study (WSA) was required for the Project because the Project would generate more than 1,000 employees and would be greater than 500,000 sq ft (CEQA Guidelines section 15115(a)(1)(B)). The following two documents, incorporated by reference are found in Appendix A and are the basis of the water evaluation herein.
 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco-Water Demand Memorandum, Job # 20201781, Lokelani Yee, BKF Project Manager, April 25, 2022. (BKF, 2022)  Water Supply Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue Project, South San Francisco District California Water Service, eki environment & water, draft May 2022 (EKI, 2022).

The purpose of a WSA is to evaluate whether a water provider has sufficient water supply to meet the current and planned water demands within its service area, including the demands associated with the Project, during normal and dry hydrologic years over a 20-year time horizon.20 Given that the SSF District shares its contractual allocation for its primary water source (the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System [RWS]) with Cal Water’s Bear Gulch and Mid-Peninsula Districts (referred to as the “three Peninsula Districts), the collective projected supplies and demands for all three Peninsula Districts are considered in the WSA prepared by EKI. The WSA includes:
 A summary of the WSA requirements articulated in Water Code §10910-10912 and a description of how they apply to the Project.
 A description and analysis of the current and projected future water demands of the Project through the year 2045.
20 The Water Code specifies that a WSA must look at supplies and demand on a 20-year horizon (i.e., to 2040), but given the available data, the eki WSA looks beyond that to 2045.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐122 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  A description and analysis of the historical and current water demands for the SSF District, and projected future water demands for the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas through the year 2045.
 A description and analysis of the current and projected future water supplies for the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas through the year 2045.  A comparison of the water supplies and demands for the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas, including the projected water demands associated with the Project.

City
Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
The City adopted a MWELO ordinance in conformance with state law. Chapter 20.003.007 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Zoning) stipulates the review and approval process for landscape plans. The plans are required to (among other items) include prescriptive irrigation, planting specifications and soil treatment methods to reduce water consumption. An applicant is required to complete the Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet contained in Appendix B of the State of California model water efficient landscape ordinance, which contains information on the plant factor, irrigation method, irrigation efficiency, and area associated with each hydrozone. Calculations are then made to show that the evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) for the landscape project does not exceed a factor of 0.55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non-residential areas, exclusive of special landscape areas. The ETAF for a landscape project is based on the plant factors and irrigation methods selected.

The maximum applied water allowance is calculated based on the maximum ETAF allowed (0.55 for residential areas and 0.45 for non-residential areas) and expressed as annual gallons required. The estimated total water use (ETWU) is calculated based on the plants used and irrigation method selected for the landscape design. ETWU must be below the maximum allowable water allowance.

Wastewater
See Chapter 1, Legislative Framework Section 1.5.5 and Chapter 3 Section X Hydrology and Water Quality for the legislative framework.

City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant The City’s Water Quality Control Plant (wastewater treatment) is located on Belle Air Road in South San Francisco. The facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. The plant also provides the dichlorination treatment of chlorinated effluent for the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, and the San Francisco International Airport prior to discharging the treated wastewater into San Francisco Bay. The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 million gallons per day (MGD). Peak wet weather flows can exceed 60 MGD.

The City’s Water Quality Control Plan operator requires compliance with local, state and federal regulations addressing treatment and discharge of wastewater. The Water Quality Control Plant operates the following programs to remain in compliance with local, state and federal mandates (https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/environmentalcompliance, accessed on May 12, 2022).

Pretreatment Program: The pretreatment program exists to limit the impacts to the wastewater collection system by residential, commercial, and industrial users.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐123 Pretreatment Resources
 Local Discharge Limits
 Grease Trap Maintenance Log Sheet
 Grease Waste Hauler List
 Groundwater Well Discharge Sites Permit Application
 Groundwater Well Discharge Permit Application Requirements  General Dewatering Discharge Permit Application
 General Dewatering Discharge Permit Application Requirements  Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Application
 Pretreatment Fee Schedule
 Retail Food Facility Permit Application
 Slug Discharge Guidance Manual
 Waste Hauler Discharge Permit- Example
 Waste Hauler Discharge Permit Application
Pollution Prevention Program. The Pollution Prevention Program focuses ways to reduce or eliminate waste by promoting the use of non-toxic or less-toxic substances, implementing conservation techniques, and re-using materials rather than putting them into the waste stream.

Pollution Prevention Resources
 Automotive Services Best Management Practices
 Bay Area Pollution Prevention Group
 California Fats, Oils & Grease Workgroup
 Dental Inspection and Survey Form
 Dental Facility Accepted Amalgam Separator List
 Hazardous & Medical Waste Haulers
 Medication Disposal
 Mercury Assessment Checklist
 Pesticides & Pests
 US EPA Pollution Prevention Pays (P2
 Solution to Water Pollution
 Zero Waste California - All fluorescent lamps and tubes should be recycled or disposed of as hazardous waste.
 Universal Waste Guidelines
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Resources
 South San Francisco Storm Drain System (MS4) Map
 Car Washing Guidelines
 Construction Activity Best Management Practices
 Construction Site Stormwater Inspection Form
 How Your Business Can Prevent Stormwater Pollution
 List of Outdoor Vehicle Wash Systems
 Mobile Surface Cleaner Guidelines
 Stormwater Inspection Form
CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐124 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST  Vehicle Service Facility Best Management Practices
The Project Sponsor or designated representative is required by ordinance to apply for and obtain an approved ‘Industrial Waste Discharge Permit’. The application process identifies the types of chemicals and materials of concern to be used on site and methods to reduce the toxicity to acceptable levels identified by the California Water Quality Board and other regulatory agencies.

STORMWATER
Chapter 1, Legislative Framework Section 1.5.5 and Chapter 3 Section X Hydrology and Water Quality for the legislative framework.

Chapter 1, Legislative Framework identifies the types of conditions of approval that are required by ordinance to be implemented into Project design and operations. There are 25 to 30 requirements levied on a project to assure stormwater impacts are not significant and comply with local, state and federal regulations.

The Project would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of any building, grading, and/or demolition permits.

WASTE DIVERSION
State
See Chapter 1, Legislative Framework Section 1.5.7 for a description of the California Green Building Code that addresses a plethora of environmental mitigation measures including waste diversion.

City
The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. The City adopted an ordinance to assist in meeting this state mandated requirement. Through conditions of project approval, the City requires completion of and compliance thereto of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects, such as the Project. The WMP shall identify the methods by which at least sixty-five percent (65%) of non-inert project waste materials and one hundred percent (100%) of inert materials (“65/100”) will be diverted from the landfill through recycling and salvage. Preparation and approval of the WMP is required prior to issuance of building, grading and/or demolition permits.

The implementing legislation is contained in Chapter 15.60.030 Diversion and Requirements (South San Francisco Municipal Code). The Ordinance is in compliance with Section 4.408 of Chapter 4 of the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The City ordinance stipulates projects shall be in conformance with CALGreen, as it may be amended from time to time.

The diversion requirements of the ordinance shall be met by submitting and following a waste management plan that includes the following:
(1) Deconstructing and salvaging all or part of the structure as practicable; and (2) Directing one hundred percent of inert solids to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the city; and
(3) Either:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐125 (a) Taking all mixed construction and demolition debris to mixed construction and demolition debris recycling facilities approved by the city and taking all sorted or crushed construction and demolition debris to approved facilities, or
(b) Source separating noninert materials such as cardboard and paper, wood, metals, green waste, new gypsum wallboard, tile, porcelain fixtures, and other easily recycled materials, and directing them to recycling facilities approved by the city and taking the remainder to a facility for disposal. In this option, calculations must be provided to show that the minimum amount of debris as specified by Section 4.408 of Chapter 4 of CALGreen has been diverted. (Ord. 1532 § 1, 2017)
The ordinance is regulated through conditions of project approval and the building permit and inspection process.

ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), telephone and internet services are currently provided on the Project site. See Chapter 3 Section VI Energy for a discussion of this utility provider.

REQUIRED WATER REPORT PREPARED BY EKI, 2022
The information contained in the WSA is based primarily on Cal Water’s SSF, Bear Gulch, and MidPeninsula Districts 2020 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs), except as updated with relevant water demand and supply reliability and other information provided by Cal Water, Department of Water Resources (DWR), the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The findings of the WSA are contingent upon the successful development of supplemental water supplies and/or the implementation of conservation/demand management measures to offset any net new demands from qualifying projects in specified Cal Water’s districts under Cal Water’s Water Neutral Development Policy.

Cal Water began development of a Water Neutral Development Policy in July 2021(Policy) for its three Peninsula Districts, which share the same SFPUC supply allocation. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that there is enough water at all times to meet the basic needs of the community and increase drought resiliency, among other things. The findings of the WSA prepared by EKI are contingent upon the successful development of supplemental water supplies and/or the implementation of conservation/demand management measures to offset any net new demands from qualifying projects in specified Cal Water’s districts under the Policy.

The Policy, as currently drafted, will require any new residential, commercial, or industrial development within the SSF District that is expected to exceed a specified amount of new demand to offset its net increase in water demand. The net increase in water demand associated with any new development is calculated as the expected total water use due to the proposed development and/or expansion, minus the amount of existing water use, onsite credits (if available), and/or alternative sources of water supply.

Alternative sources may include but are not limited to: (1) reused graywater, (2) reused blackwater, (3) reused mixed gray/blackwater, (4) captured rainwater / stormwater, and (5) air conditioning condensate.

The offset amount is determined using a detailed projection of total annual water demand resulting from the proposed development, excluding temporary demands such as those required for landscape establishment. An applicant may choose to comply with the defined offset amount by: (1) paying to the SSF District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy. Cal Water will verify compliance with this Water Neutral Development Policy (i.e., ensure that all payments for offsets and/or conservation offset measures are completed) prior to establishing a water service connection.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐126 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Projected Project Water Demand
The Project would replace a three-story motel historically using between 14 to 21-acre feet per year (AFY) (EKI 2022, p 10). Average annual water demand for the Project was provided by BKF Engineers (BKF Engineers, 2022; see Appendix A). These estimates were reviewed by EKI relative to current water use by similar uses in the Cal Water SSF District. Similar uses within the Cal Water SSF District are based on the Cal Water WSA Water Factor Tool, which was developed based on 2016-2018 water use data for the SSF District. Water demand for the Project is projected to be 181 AFY from 2030 to 2045 (EKI 2022, p 12; Appendix A). EKI assumed Project buildout to be the year 2030.

Projected water use is derived by an industry assumed amount of water use (i.e., demand factor per use) in square feet and type of land use (i.e., office, café, research and development). Water use is also derived from the number of residents or employees associate with a project. As identified in the Population and Housing section of this document, (Section 3.XIV) 2,239 employees are anticipated for the Project.

Based upon the water demand memorandum provided by BKF Engineers (see attachment A) and a reviewed and analyzed by EKI water demand for the Project is shown below.

Indoor Water Use: The Project is anticipated to require 169,974 gallons per day (GPD), or approximately 190 acre feet per year (AFY). The projection is based upon:
 Office Space: 0.13 gallons per day/square foot (GPD/SF),  Research and Development: 0.21 GPD/SF for R&D,
 Amenities: Ranging 0.10 GPD/SF and 0.80 GPD/SF
 Employees: 73 GPD/employee
EKI notes all unit demand factors were sourced from published Redwood City water demand assumptions21, as recommended by the City. EKI also notes the estimated the number of employees is substantially higher than the 20-35 GPD/employee estimate for commercial and industrial settings, per the EPA Lean & Water Toolkit (USEPA, 2021). Based on Cal Water’s WSA Water Demand Factor Tool, non-residential uses within the SSF District (based on 2016-2018 data), are 0.063 GPD/SF.

Therefore, if this demand factor were applied to the Project, demands would be estimated as 67 AFY.

EKI notes the water demand estimates provided by the Project Proponent are expected to be conservative and reflect a higher intensity of water use than typical office and commercial uses (EKI 2022, p 17).

Outdoor Water Use: 818 GPD or approximately 0.92 AFY 0.07 GPD/SF based upon 11,700 sq ft of irrigated landscape area.

EKI notes, the Project will be required to comply with South San Francisco’s water efficient landscaping ordinance, which is consistent with the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. Based on MWELO, the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA; DWR, 2015) is 0.43 AFY,22 less than half of that estimated by BKF Engineers. Given that the outdoor irrigation demand estimates provided by the Project are higher and thus more conservative, and the exact landscape designs are not currently known, an estimate of 0.92 AFY is used.

Total Water Use: Based on the above methodologies and assumptions and adjusting for the existing water use at the site, the incremental increase in water demand associated with the Project at full buildout 21 2019 Engineering Standards for the City of Redwood City Attachment Q: Water Demand Projection Worksheet. 22 MAWA demands were calculated by multiplying the Reference Evapotranspiration rate of 42.8 inches per year for Redwood City, an Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor of .45 for non-residential areas, a conversion factor of .62, and the total project square footage, for a total of .92 AFY, per DWR, 2015.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐127 and occupancy is estimated to be 181 AFY. However, as discussed above, in accordance with the SSF District’s Water Neutral Development Policy, the offset amount for the Project is equal to the associated incremental increase in water demand. Thus, the Project will be required to offset a total of 181 AFY and is therefore not expected to result in a net increase in water demands to Cal Water’s SSF District.

Th EKI study concludes (p 18)
Consistent with the UWMP Act (Water Code §10610-10656), the 2020 UWMPs for the three Peninsula Districts present estimates of projected future water demand for each respective District service area in five-year increments, between the years 2025 and 2045 (Cal Water, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c).

The projections include all existing demands within the SSF District, as well as for other large projects for which Cal Water has prepared WSAs in the last five years (i.e., 201 Haskins Way, South SFPUC Site, South San Francisco Downtown Station, Oyster Point Development, the 2017 Genentech Master Plan Update, and the Southline Specific Plan).

While the 2020 UWMP water demand projections account for growth within the current SSF District, the proposed Project is not explicitly included in these projections, and the projected demand associated with the proposed Project is higher than the projected demand growth anticipated by the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, for the purposes of this WSA, it is conservatively assumed that no portion of the water demand associated with the proposed Project is included in the projected SSF District water demands. Notwithstanding, through implementation of the Water Neutral Development Policy, the proposed Project will not result in an increase in demands for the SSF District relative to those projected in the 2020 UWMP.23 All other new developments that are expected to exceed a specified amount of demand within the three Peninsula Districts will also be required to comply with the Water Neutral Development Policy and thus will result in no incremental increase in demand on the system.

The Project as a matter of securing water service from Cal Water is require to offset a total of 181 AFY of water. The offset amount was determined using a detailed projection of total annual water demand resulting from the proposed development, excluding temporary demands such as those required for landscape establishment. An applicant may choose to comply with the defined offset amount by: (1) paying to the SSF District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy. With implementation of this requirement the project is not expected to result in a net increase in water demands to Cal Water’s SSF District.

The EKI 2022 (p 52) concludes:

Therefore, this WSA concludes that, through the (1) development of supplemental water supplies and/or (2) implementation of conservation or demand management measures equal to the Project’s estimated net new demands consistent with the Cal Water’s Water Neutral Development Policy, the proposed Project will not affect water supply reliability within the South San Francisco District. Based on currently available information and conservative estimates of projected demand, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing South San Francisco District service area (as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts), inclusive of the proposed Project in normal 23 Demand estimates for the District’s service area through 2045 were developed using Cal Water’s demand forecast model, which estimates future demands based on current water use for the District, anticipated growth based on projections by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), projected water conservation efforts, and anticipated passive conservation savings.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐128 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST hydrologic years. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the South San Francisco District Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).

In addition, as described herein and in Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP, BAWSCA, Cal Water, and SFPUC are pursuing the development of additional water supplies to improve the RWS and South San Francisco District supply reliability.

Implementation of Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1 which is a restatement of Cal Water’s Net Neutral Policy would reduce water impacts associated with the Project to less than significant.

Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1: The Project Sponsor/designated representative shall implement Cal Water’s Net Neutral Policy by either (1) paying to the SSF District of CalWater the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy.

IMPACTS
a and b) A significant impact to water resources would occur if the project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water; and not have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.

As noted above, the EKI Report (p 52) concluded that through the (1) development of supplemental water supplies and/or (2) implementation of conservation or demand management measures equal to the Project’s estimated net new demands consistent with the Cal Water’s Water Neutral Development Policy, the Project will not affect water supply reliability within the South San Francisco District. Based on currently available information and conservative estimates of projected demand, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing South San Francisco District service area (as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts), inclusive of the proposed Project in normal hydrologic years. The shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the South San Francisco District Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).

Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1 WATER: The Project Sponsor/designated representative shall implement Cal Water’s Net Neutral Policy by either (1) paying to the SSF District of Cal Water the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐129 The Project is required by law to comply with City and State water reduction measures. The Project proposes a LEED Gold approach to building construction and operations all of which serve to reduce water use.
a, c, d and e) A significant impact would result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction which would result in a significant impact, or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

The City Water Quality Control Plant has not identified issues with providing wastewater treatment services. The permitting process would reduce discharge to levels identified as compliant with local, state and federal law. The Environmental Compliance Program administers the Pretreatment Program, Pollution Prevention Program, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs mandated by the State of California. The programs regulate and control concentrations of wastewater and stormwater pollutants discharged by industrial, commercial, and residential discharges. Impacts associated with the operations and capacity of the Water Quality Control Plant would be less than significant.

Storm water drainage is considered less than significant with implementation of the conditions of approval that are required by ordinance to be implemented into project design and operations. There are 25 to 30 requirements levied on a project to assure stormwater impacts are not significant and comply with local, state and federal regulations.

The Project would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, Notice of Intent and SWPPP prior to issuance of any building, grading, and/or demolition permits. Wastewater and stormwater impacts would be less than significant.

PG&E currently provides service to the Project site. Telephone and internet services are provided at 121 East Grand Avenue. Impacts would be less than significant.

The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. The City adopted an ordinance to assist in meeting this state mandated requirement. Through conditions of project approval (identified in Chapter 1 Legislative Framework’ the City requires completion of and compliance thereto of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects, such as the Project. Solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

Utilities and Service Systems Finding:
(1) Implementation of Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1 which is a restatement of Cal Water’s Net Neutral Policy would reduce water impacts associated with the Project to less than significant.

Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1: The Project Sponsor shall implement Cal Water’s net neutral policy by either (1) paying to the SSF District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy.

The Project is required by law to comply with City and State water reduction measures. The Project proposes a LEED Gold approach to building construction and operations all of which serve to reduce water use.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐130 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST (2) The City Water Quality Control Plant has not identified issues with providing wastewater treatment services. The permitting process would reduce discharge to levels identified as compliant with local, state and federal law. The Environmental Compliance Program administers the Pretreatment Program, Pollution Prevention Program, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Programs mandated by the State of California. The programs regulate and control concentrations of wastewater and stormwater pollutants discharged by industrial, commercial, and residential discharges. Impacts associated with the operations and capacity of the Water Quality Control Plant would be less than significant. (3) Storm water drainage is considered less than significant with implementation of the conditions of approval that are required by ordinance to be implemented into project design and operations. There are 25 to 30 requirements levied on a project to assure stormwater impacts are not significant and comply with local, state and federal regulations. (4) The Project would be required to prepare a stormwater management plan and obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit, Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to issuance of any building, grading, and/or demolition permits. Wastewater and stormwater impacts would be less than significant. (5) Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) currently provide service to the Project site. Telephone and internet services are provided at 121 East Grand Avenue. Impacts would be less than significant.
(6) The City of South San Francisco is mandated by the State of California to divert sixty-five percent (65%) of all solid waste from landfills either by reusing or recycling. The City adopted an ordinance to assist in meeting this state mandated requirement. Through conditions of project approval (identified in Chapter 1 Legislative Framework’ the City requires completion of and compliance thereto of a Waste Management Plan (“WMP”) for covered building projects, such as the proposed Project. Solid waste impacts would be less than significant.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐131 XX. 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
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the 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, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

SETTING
The Project site is relatively flat, as identified in Chapter 2 Project Description and Chapter 3 Section VI Geology and Soils. The site is in an urbanized area. No slopes surround the Project site or area. There are no dense stands of trees, understory or ladder fuels in the area.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Project site, as well as the City of South San Francisco, is not located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as mapped by CalFire and shown on their Fire Survey Maps (osfm.fire.ca.gov/media6800/fhszl_map41.pdf). Cities from Burlingame, located north of Interstate 280, up the Peninsula to San Francisco are not in a VHFHSZ.

The Draft 2040GP, Figure 44 California Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) does identify San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, located in San Mateo County (SBMCP), and adjacent to the northern South San Francisco boundary as being within a California Fire Hazard Severity Zone. SBMCP is located

0.5 mi northwest of the Project site.

IMPACTS
a-d) A significant impact would occur if a project would substantially impede an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; be located in an area associated with wildland fire risks; require the installation and maintenance of road, firebreaks, etc and expose people of structures to significant risks
There would be no impacts associated with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) as mapped by CalFire as shown on their Fire Survey Maps. The site and City are not identified on the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering-/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zonesmaps/)or the San Mateo County Very High Fire CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐132 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Area, November 24, 2008 available at https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/ media/6800/fhszl_map41.pdf. The Draft 2040GP does identify San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, 0.5 mi northwest of the Project site as being a California Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone Wildfire Finding: The Project site is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The site is in an urbanized area. No slopes surround the Project site or area. There are no dense stands of trees, understory or ladder fuels in the area There is no need to construct wildland fire fighting measures such as roads, fire breaks or additional water sources. There are no impacts associated with wildfire.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐133 XXI. Mandatory Finding of
Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a 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 or restrict the range of a rare 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 a
project 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 or indirectly?
a) Environmental Quality: Implementation of the mitigation measures below would reduce impacts to biological (nesting birds) and archaeological (cultural) to less than significant.

Tree removal permits are required by City ordinance and restated below. The Project Sponsor has agreed to and/or proposed the following measures as part of the Project (see Appendix A, letter from M Gerrity the Project Sponsor dated May 3, 2022) the following is restated herein:

Biology Impact 1: Tree removal during nesting season could result in a significant impact if active nests are disturbed or destroyed.

Biology Mitigation 1
Bio 1.A.1: Tree Removal Within Nesting Season (approximately March 1 to August 31). No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall retain a licensed biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey for protected birds on the site and in the immediate vicinity if any Project construction activities occur during nesting season. The survey shallbe done no more than 15 days prior to the initiation of tree removal and grading and other construction activities. In the event that nesting birds are found on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity, Project Sponsor, or designated representative shallnotify the City, locate and map the nest site(s) within three (3) days, submit a report to the City and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), establish a no-disturbance buffer of 250-ft, and conduct on-going weekly surveys to ensure the no-disturbance buffer is maintained. In the event of destruction of a nest with eggs, or if a juvenile or adult raptor should become stranded from the nest, injured or killed, the qualified biologist shall immediately notify the CDFW. The licensed biologist shall coordinate with the CDFW to have the injured bird either CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐134 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST transferred to a raptor recovery center or, in the case of mortality, transfer it to the CDFW within 48 hours of notification.

A tree permit per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance), shall be required prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representativ shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities; or,
Bio 1.B.1: Tree Removal Outside Nesting Season (approximately September 1 to February 28).

No construction activities of any kind, including but not limited to tree and landscape removal, demolition, site grubbing, grading, etc shall occur until the following protocol is met.

Tree removal outside of nesting season would preclude the need for the measures identified in 1.A.1, above. A tree permit shall be required per South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 13.30.030 (Tree Preservation Ordinance)prior to removal of a Protected Tree, defined in section 13.30.020 as: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the director based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Prior to removing trees, the Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall contact the Parks Division to determine if a removal permit is needed. The Project Sponsor, or designated representative shall obtain City issued tree removal permits prior to commencing any tree removal activities.

The Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources with regard to native wildlife movement opportunities or nursery sites because the Project Sponsor would either remove trees outside of nesting season or follow the established protocol and mitigation measure during nesting season.

Archaeology Impact 1: There is a remote possibility that culturally significant soils, those containing artifacts or remains, could be located in subsurface areas of the site. Disturbance of these soils could result in a significant impact.

Archaeology Mitigation 1
Arch 1.A.1a: Employee Training and Awareness. Prior to the start of ground disturbing grading, demolition or construction, the Project Sponsor/designated representative shall ensure that a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) is conducted by a licensed archaeologist (Archaeologist) in the state of California. Training shall be scheduled in consultation with the Project Sponsor/designated representative, construction manager and other key site personnel, and the City of South San Francisco.

WAET training shall be required for all personnel participating in ground disturbing construction to alert them to the archaeological sensitivity of the Project area and provide protocols to follow in the event of a discovery of archaeological materials. The Project Sponsor/designated representative shall also ensure the occurrence of the following:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐135

1.A.1.b: Archaeologist shall be on an “on-call” basis to review and identify any potential archaeological discoveries during ground disturbing grading, demolition and excavation operations and work shall stop within 50 feet of the find. Archaeologist shall be contacted for identification, evaluation and further recommendations consistent with California Environmental Quality Act and City of South San Francisco requirements.

1.A.1c: Grading, demolition and any other plans that require soil disturbance shall note that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials on the site.

1.A.1.d: Archaeologist shall develop and distribute for job site posting an "ALERT SHEET" summarizing potential finds that could be exposed and the protocols to be followed as well as points of contact to alert in the event of a discovery.

Arch 1.B.1: Protocol in the Event of Discovery of Potentially Culturally Significant Soils, Objects or Remains

1.B.1.a: Stop work and contact the on-call archaeologist.

1.B.1.b: Should Archaeologist determine that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, Archaeologist shall notify the appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less-than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5.

Mitigation measures may include avoidance, preservation in-place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and/or Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the project proponent in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

The treatment of human remains, and any associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the Project site shall follow the requirements of section 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code). This shall include immediate notification of the appropriate county Coroner/Medical Examiner, Project Sponsor and the City of South San Francisco.

1.B.1c: A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the Applicant/Project Sponsor/designated representative and the City at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken. b) Cumulative Impacts: The Project would not result in adverse impacts that are individually less than significant but cumulatively considerable. The analysis considered area wide development know at the time of preparation and forecasted development in the East of 101 area contained in the Draft 2040GP, and various circulation studies prepared for the Project area. c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings: The Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Geology and Soils Mitigation 1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

The restated Noise mitigations from the DSASP EIR, identified and restated in Chapter 3.XIII Noise, would reduce noise and vibration impacts to less than significant.

Although required by the City as part of the building permit process, the following is required of the Project and is restated herein:

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PAGE 3‐136 121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Geology and Soils Mitigation 1: An updated geotechnical report(s) shall be provided to the City for peer review prior to any issuance of building, grading, grubbing or tree removal permits. The updated report(s) shall address the revised Project description and include all design measures requisite to be compliant with the California Building Code. The updated report(s) shall include at a minimum, structural design and construction specifications, including but not limited to, undergrounding of utilities addressing any construction requirements for potentially and/or corrosive soils, grading, site stabilization, drainage, utility and infrastructure design and placement, foundation design, retaining wall specifications, and soil compaction requirements and design. The report(s) shall be peer reviewed by the City’s consultant and revised accordingly until determined complete by the City.

Although required as a part of the Federal Aviation Administration permitting process the following is required of the Project and restated herein:

1. The structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights-Chapters 4, 5 (Red) and 15.

2. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.

3. An FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration is required to be e-filed within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2).

Although required as part of the Building Permit process the following noise mitigations are restated herein:

DSASP Mitigation Measure 4.6-1: HVAC Mechanical Equipment Shielding. Prior to the approval of building permits for non-residential development, the applicant shall submit a design plan for the project demonstrating that the noise level from operation of mechanical equipment will not exceed the exterior noise level limits for a designated receiving land use category as specified in Noise Ordinance Section 8.32.030. Noise control measures may include, but are not limited to, the selection of quiet equipment, equipment setbacks, silencers, and/or acoustical barriers.

DSASP Mitigation Measure 4.6-2: Site-Specific Acoustic Analysis – Nonresidential Development. Prior to the approval of building permits for new non-residential land uses where exterior noise level exceeds 70 dBA CNEL, an acoustic analysis shall be performed to determine appropriate noise reduction measures such that exterior noise levels shall be reduced below 70 dBA CNEL, unless a higher noise compatibility threshold (up to 75 dBA CNEL) has been determined appropriate by the City of South San Francisco. The analysis shall detail the measures that will be implemented to ensure exterior noise levels are compatible with the proposed use. Measures that may be implemented to ensure appropriate noise levels include, but are not limited to, setbacks to separate the proposed nonresidential structure from the adjacent roadway, or construction of noise barriers on site.

DSASP Mitigation Measure 4.6-4: Construction Vibration. For all construction activities within the study area, the construction contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:
a) The construction contractor shall provide, at least three weeks prior to the start of construction activities, written notification to all residential units and nonresidential tenants within 115 feet of the construction site informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration-generating construction activities.

CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE – CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST PAGE 3‐137 b) Stationary sources, such as temporary generators, shall be located as far from off-site receptors as possible.
c) Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site.

DSASP Mitigation Measure 4.6-5: Rail Line Groundborne Vibration. Implement the current FTA and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) guidelines, where appropriate, to limit the extent of exposure that sensitive uses may have to groundborne vibration from trains. Specifically, Category 1 uses (vibration-sensitive equipment) within 300 feet from the rail line, Category 2 uses (residences and buildings where people normally sleep) within 200 feet, and Category 3 uses (institutional land uses) within 155 feet of the rail line shall require a site-specific groundborne vibration analysis conducted by a qualified groundborne vibration specialist in accordance with the current FTA and FRA guidelines prior to obtaining a building permit. Vibration control measures deemed appropriate by the site-specific groundborne vibration analysis to meet 65 VdB, 72 VdB, and 75 VdB respectively for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3 uses, shall be implemented by the project applicant and approved by the City prior to receiving a building permit.

Although the following Cal Water Net Neutral Policy is a requirement levied by Cal Water as a condition of receiving water service it is restated as a mitigation measure:

Utility and Service Systems Mitigation Measure 1: The Project Sponsor shall implement Cal Water’s Net Neutral Policy by either (1) paying to the SSF District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs included in the Policy, and/or (2) conducting other activities as defined in the Policy.
4 APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES
Cultural Resource Services-In Support of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County Basin Research, Colin Busby, Ph.D, RPA, Principal. February 21, 2022.

Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Ave., South San Francisco, Leann Taagepera, Cultural and Historic Resource Planning, Principal. June 24, 2021

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Bartlett Construction, May 5, 2021. “Tree Inventory, 2021”

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, Project No. 8961-04-02, March 2021 and April 2021.

Geotechnical Peer Review 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California Project # 40396 7001, March 24 and April 28, 2021, Ninyo & Moore.

Seismic Risk Assessment SF Bay Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA, Partners Project # 20-281457.2, June 8, 2020.

Basis of Design 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA, Magnusson Klemenic Associates, Structural Engineers, March 3, 2022.

ENERGY
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Project, City of South Francisco, California, ECORP Consulting, Inc. April 2022.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco California 94080, Project Number WR3122, Apri120, 2022. Report only, appendices not included due to file size limitations.

Determination of No Significant Hazard to Air Navigation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AWP 7652-OE, September 9, 2021.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment, 121 East Grand Avenue Development Project, 121 East Grand Avenue, City of South San Francisco, California. Sutro Science. April 28, 2022.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Documents Incorporated by Reference Available on City Website Not Included Herein:

South San Francisco General Plan (Adopted October 1999) Draft 2040 South San Francisco General Plan
Southline Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 20220050452) Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Adopted February 2015) Downtown Station Area Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2013102001) NOISE
Noise Technical Report, South San Francisco 121 East Grand Avenue Project, RCH Group. May 2022.

TRANSPORTATION
Documents Incorporated by Reference Available on City Website Not Included Herein:

South San Francisco Caltrain Station Eastern Access Study prepared for South San Francisco, Caltrain, Phase 3 Real Estate Partners. October 2021, Fehr & Peers and Mark Thomas (‘Access Study’) Mobility 2020 East of 101 Transportation Plan Mobility prepared for the City of South San Francisco.

Fehr & Peers, 2019 (‘Mobility 2020’)
Included as an attachment
Draft Transportation Demand Management Plan, TDM Specialists Inc, June 2, 2022.

UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
121 East Grand Avenue South San Francisco-Water Demand Memorandum, Job # 20201781, Lokelani Yee, BKF Project Manager, April 25, 2022.

Water Supply Assessment for 121 East Grand Avenue Project, South San Francisco District California Water Service, eki environment & water, draft May 2022.

APPLICANT’S LETTER
Michael Gerrity, President Phase 3 Real Estate, letter to Billy Gross and Allison Knapp dated May 26, 2022.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Assessment
121 East Grand Avenue Project
City of South San Francisco, California
Prepared For:

Prepared By:
55 Hanover Lane
Chico, CA 95926
April 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 AIR QUALITY.................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1.4 Ambient Air Quality.................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.1.5 Sensitive Receptors .................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 10

2.2.1 Federal .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.2.2 State .............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.2.3 Local .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3 Air Quality Emissions Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................... 16

2.3.1 Threshold of Significance...................................................................................................................................... 16

2.3.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 19

2.3.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 20 3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 33

3.1 Greenhouse Gas Setting ............................................................................................................................................. 33

3.1.1 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 34

3.2 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................................................ 35

3.2.1 State .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35

3.2.2 Local .............................................................................................................................................................................. 36

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 37

3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................................................... 37

3.3.2 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................... 40

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 2-1. Summary of Criteria Air Pollutants Sources and Effects .................................................................................. 5 Table 2-2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data ................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2-3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Mateo County Portion of the SFBAAB ............. 9 Table 2-4. BAAQMD Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 14 Table 2-5. BAAQMD Significance Thresholds ........................................................................................................................ 18 Table 2-6. Construction-Related Criteria Air Polluant Emissions ................................................................................... 21 Table 2-7. Operational Criteria Air Polluant Emissions ..................................................................................................... 213 Table 2-8. Maximum Cancer Risk Summary ......................................................................................................................... 219 Table 2-9. Maximum Non Cancer Risk Summary ................................................................................................................. 30 Table 3-1. Summary of Greenhouse Gases ............................................................................................................................. 34 Table 3-2. Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................................... 40 Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 41 Table 3-4. Climate Action Plan Measure for New Development .................................................................................... 41

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – CalEEMod Output File for Air Quality Emissions Attachment B – Health Risk Analysis Output Files
Attachment C – CalEEMod Output File for Greenhouse Gas Emissions

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ASF Age sensitivity factor
AT Averaging time
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BR Beathing Rate
BW Body Weight
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPF Cancer potency factor
CH4 Methane
City South San Francisco
CO Carbon monoxide
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents
DPM Diesel particulate matter
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
ED Exposure duration
EF Exposure factor
EO Executive Order
FAH Fraction of time at home
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
GLC Ground level concentration
HRA Health Risk Assessment
hp Horsepower
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
lbs Pounds
L/kg Liter per kilogram
MEIR Maximumly Exposed Individual Resident
MEIW Maximumly Exposed Individual Worker
N2O Nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOx Nitrous oxides
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
O3 Ozone
parts per million ppm
PM10 Coarse particulate matter
PM2.5 Fine particulate matter
PMI Point of Maximum Impact
ppb Parts per billion
Project 121 East Grand Avenue Project
REL Reference Exposure Level
ROG Reactive organic gases
R&D Research and Development
SB Senate Bill
SF Square Feet
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
TACs Toxic air contaminants
tpy Tons per year
USEPA U.S. Environment Protection Agency
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 1 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
1 INTRODUCTION
This report documents the results of an Air Quality, Health Risk, and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Assessment completed for the 121 East Grand Avenue Project (Project), which includes the construction of a 17-story research and development (R & D) building on a 2.91- acre site in the City of South San Francisco (City). This assessment was prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the rules and regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Regional and local existing conditions are presented, along with pertinent emissions standards and regulations. The purpose of this assessment is to estimate Project-generated criteria air pollutants, health risk and GHG emissions attributable to the Project and to determine the level of impact the Project would have on the environment. Significance levels set forth by BAAQMD are utilized to compare modeled project emissions and determine significance.

1.1 Project Location and Description
The Project Site, located in the City of South San Francisco, is a 2.91-acre property located west of Poletti Way, south and southeast of East Grand Avenue and north of Grand Avenue. Under existing conditions, the Project Site accommodates a 169-room Comfort Inn & Suites with associated features that is proposed for demolition. The Site is generally bound by industrial uses to the south and office uses to the northeast.

The Project is proposing the construction of two 17-story R & D building “wings” and associated features.

The first two floors of the building would provide public amenities and floors 3 through 17 would include R & D and office uses. Table 1-1 provides a detailed summary of the various Project characteristics. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 2 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 1-1. Project Characteristics
Building Characteristics
Floor Anticipated Use Types and Area
1 Lobby: 7,696 square feet
Retail Space: 8,500 square feet
2 Fitness/Wellness Center: 17,691 square feet
Lobby: 4,349 square feet
Pre-Function Space: 5,025 square feet
Conference Center: 14,300 square feet
Restaurant: 4,600 square feet
Café: 2,300 square feet
Kitchen (that serves the entire level): 2,500 square feet 3 - 17 R & D / Office: 836,865 square feet
Associated Features Anticipated Use Types and Area
Two below ground parking levels 229,216 square feet
Surface level parking (1,413 spaces) 26,191 square feet Pedestrian/ bike path 1,000 feet
Long term bike parking 142 spaces
Short term bike parking 108 spaces
Enclosed loading area 4,927 square feet
Mechanical, storage and lab support areas 30,649 square feet Traffic light installation N/A
Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in January of 2024 and last approximately five years. Construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would include demolition of the existing building on the Project Site, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating. Approximately 175,000 cubic yards of dirt as well as 57,000 square feet of building material will be removed from the Project Site.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 3 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
2 AIR QUALITY

2.1 Environmental Setting
Air quality in a region is determined by its topography, meteorology, and existing air pollutant sources.

These factors are discussed below, along with the current regulatory structure that applies to the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which encompasses the Project Site, pursuant to the regulatory authority of the BAAQMD.

Ambient air quality is commonly characterized by climate conditions, the meteorological influences on air quality, and the quantity and type of pollutants released. The air basin is subject to a combination of topographical and climatic factors that reduce the potential for high levels of regional and local air pollutants. The following section describes the pertinent characteristics of the air basin and provides an overview of the physical conditions affecting pollutant dispersion in the Project Area.

2.1.1 San Francisco Bay Air Basin
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) divides the state into air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features. The Project Site is located in the City of South San Francisco, located in San Mateo County, which is located in the SFBAAB. The SFBAAB is approximately 5,600 square miles in area and consists of nine counties that surround the San Francisco Bay, including all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties; the southwestern portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County.

The topography of the SFBAAB is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys and bays. This complex terrain, especially the higher elevations, distorts the normal wind flow patterns in the SFBAAB. The greatest distortions occur when low‐level inversions are present and the air beneath the inversion flows independently of air above the inversion, a condition that is common in the summertime (BAAQMD 2017).

The air flowing in from the coast to the Central Valley, called the sea breeze, begins developing at or near ground level along the coast in late morning or early afternoon. As the day progresses, the sea breeze layer deepens and increases in velocity while spreading inland. The depth of the sea breeze depends in large part upon the height and strength of the inversion. If the inversion is low and strong, and hence stable, the flow of the sea breeze will be inhibited and stagnant conditions are likely to result (BAAQMD 2017).

Summertime temperatures in the SFBAAB are determined by the effect of differential heating between land and water surfaces. Because land tends to heat up and cool off more quickly than water, a large‐scale gradient (differential) in temperature is often created between the coast and the Central Valley, and small‐ scale local gradients are often produced along the shorelines of the ocean and bays (BAAQMD 2017).

During the summer, winds flowing from the northwest are drawn inland through the Golden Gate and over the lower portions of the San Francisco Peninsula. Immediately south of Mount Tamalpais, the northwesterly winds accelerate considerably and come more directly from the west as they stream 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 4 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
through the Golden Gate. This channeling of wind through the Golden Gate produces a jet that sweeps eastward and splits off to the northwest toward Richmond and to the southwest toward San Jose when it meets the East Bay hills. Wind speeds may be strong locally in areas where air is channeled through a narrow opening, such as the Carquinez Strait, the Golden Gate, or the San Bruno Gap.

An inversion is a layer of warmer air over a layer of cooler air. Inversions affect air quality conditions significantly because they influence the mixing depth, i.e., the vertical depth in the atmosphere available for diluting air contaminants near the ground. The highest air pollutant concentrations in the SFBAAB generally occur during inversions. The areas having the highest air pollution potential tend to be those that experience the highest temperatures in the summer and the lowest temperatures in the winter. The coastal areas are exposed to the prevailing marine air, creating cooler temperatures in the summer, warmer temperatures in winter, and stratus clouds all year. The inland valleys are sheltered from the marine air and experience hotter summers and colder winters. Thus, the topography of the inland valleys creates conditions conducive to high air pollution potential.

2.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established air quality standards for outdoor or ambient concentrations to protect public health with a determined margin of safety. Ozone (O3), coarse particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) are generally considered to be regional pollutants because they or their precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) are considered to be local pollutants because they tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM is also considered a local pollutant. Health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 2-1.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 5 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-1. Summary of Criteria Air Pollutants Sources and Effects Pollutant Major Manmade Sources Huma Health and Welfare Effects CO An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

NO2 A reddish-brown gas formed during fuel
combustion for motor vehicles, energy utilities
and industrial sources.

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to ozone and acid rain.

Causes brown discoloration of the atmosphere.

O3 Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrous
oxides (N2O) in the presence of sunlight.

Common sources of these precursor pollutants
include motor vehicle exhaust, industrial
emissions, solvents, paints and landfills.

Irritates and causes inflammation of the mucous
membranes and lung airways; causes wheezing,
coughing and pain when inhaling deeply;
decreases lung capacity; aggravates lung and
heart problems. Damages plants; reduces crop
yield.

PM2.5 & PM10 Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants, unpaved roads and parking lots, wood-burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

Increased respiratory symptoms, such as
irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty
breathing; aggravated asthma; development of
chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal
heart attacks; and premature death in people
with heart or lung disease. Impairs visibility
(haze).

SO2 An odorless, colorless gas formed when carbon
in fuel is not burned completely; a component
of motor vehicle exhaust.

Reduces the ability of blood to deliver oxygen to
vital tissues, effecting the cardiovascular and
nervous system. Impairs vision, causes dizziness,
and can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Source: California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA 2013) Carbon Monoxide
CO, in the urban environment, is associated primarily with the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels in motor vehicles. CO combines with hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduces the amount of oxygen that can be circulated through the body. High CO concentrations can cause headaches, aggravate cardiovascular disease and impair central nervous system functions. CO concentrations can vary greatly over comparatively short distances. Relatively high concentrations of CO are typically found near crowded intersections and along heavy roadways with slow moving traffic. Even under the most sever meteorological and traffic conditions, high concentrations of CO are limited to locations within relatively short distances (i.e., up to 600 feet or 185 meters) of the source. Overall CO emissions are decreasing as a result of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, which has mandated increasingly lower emission levels for vehicles manufactured since 1973.

Nitrogen Oxides
Nitrogen gas comprises about 80 percent of the air and is naturally occurring. At high temperatures and under certain conditions, nitrogen can combine with oxygen to form several different gaseous compounds collectively called nitric oxides (NOx). Motor vehicle emissions are the main source of NOx in urban areas. NOx is very toxic to animals and humans because of its ability to form nitric acid with water in the eyes, lungs, mucus membrane, and skin. In animals, long-term exposure to NOx increases 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 6 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
susceptibility to respiratory infections, and lowering resistance to such diseases as pneumonia and influenza. Laboratory studies show that susceptible humans, such as asthmatics, who are exposed to high concentrations can suffer from lung irritation or possible lung damage. Precursors of NOx, such as NO and NO2, attribute to the formation of O3 and PM2.5. Epidemiological studies have also shown associations between NO2 concentrations and daily mortality from respiratory and cardiovascular causes and with hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

Ozone
Ozone (O3) is a secondary pollutant, meaning it is not directly emitted. It is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) also known as reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOx undergo photochemical reactions that occur only in the presence of sunlight. The primary source of ROG emissions is unburned hydrocarbons in motor vehicle and other internal combustion engine exhaust. Sunlight and hot weather cause ground-level O3 to form. Ground-level O3 is the primary constituent of smog. Because O3 formation occurs over extended periods of time, both O3 and its precursors are transported by wind and high O3 concentrations can occur in areas well away from sources of its constituent pollutants.

People with lung disease, children, older adults, and people who are active can be affected when O3 levels exceed ambient air quality standards. Numerous scientific studies have linked ground-level O3 exposure to a variety of problems including lung irritation, difficult breathing, permanent lung damage to those with repeated exposure, and respiratory illnesses.

Sulfur Dioxide
SO2 is a colorless gas with a pungent odor, however sulfur dioxide can react with other particulates in the atmosphere to for particulates which contribute to the haze effect. SO2 standards have been developed by the EPA to regulate all sulfur oxides, however SO2 is by far the most abundant sulfur oxide in the atmosphere. Currently, SO2 is primarily a result of the burning of fossil fuels for power generation and other industrial sources. Modern regulations on diesel fuel have greatly reduced the amount of SO2 in the atmosphere and there are currently no areas in California that have levels of SO2 that are not acceptable by state or federal standards.

Particulate Matter
Particulate matter includes both aerosols and solid particulates of a wide range of sizes and composition.

Of concern are those particles smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter size (PM10) and small than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Smaller particulates are of greater concern because they can penetrate deeper into the lungs than larger particles. PM10 is generally emitted directly as a result of mechanical processes that crush or grind larger particles or form the resuspension of dust, typically through construction activities and vehicular travel. PM10 generally settles out of the atmosphere rapidly and is not readily transported over large distances. PM2.5 is directly emitted in combustion exhaust and is formed in atmospheric reactions between various gaseous pollutants, including NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx) and VOCs. PM2.5 can remain suspended in the atmosphere for days and/or weeks and can be transported long distances.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 7 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
The principal health effects of airborne PM are on the respiratory system. Short-term exposure of high PM2.5 and PM10 levels are associated with premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Long-term exposure is associated with premature mortality and chronic respiratory disease. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), some people are much more sensitive than others to breathing PM10 and PM2.5. People with influenza, chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worse illnesses; people with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms; and children may experience decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5. Other groups considered sensitive include smokers and people who cannot breathe well through their noses. Exercising athletes are also considered sensitive because many breathe through their mouths.

2.1.3 Toxic Air Contaminants
In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. For regulatory purposes, carcinogenic TACs are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur, and cancer risk is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Carcinogenic TACs can also have noncarcinogenic health hazard levels.

There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Additionally, diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants composed of gaseous and solid material. The solid emissions in diesel exhaust are known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). In 1998, California identified DPM as a TAC based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems (e.g., asthma attacks and other respiratory symptoms). Those most vulnerable are children (whose lungs are still developing) and the elderly (who may have other serious health problems). Overall, diesel engine emissions are responsible for the majority of California’s known cancer risk from outdoor air pollutants. Diesel engines also contribute to California’s PM2.5 air quality problems. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as from accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. The health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, and death.

2.1.4 Diesel Exhaust
Most recently, CARB identified DPM as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle-phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light-duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine (USEPA 2002). Some short-term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 8 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs; due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

2.1.5 Ambient Air Quality
Ambient air quality at the Project Site can be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted at nearby air quality monitoring stations. CARB maintains more than 60 monitoring stations throughout California. O3, PM10 and PM2.5 are the pollutant species most potently affecting the Project region. The San Francisco-Arkansas Street air quality monitoring station, located at 10 Arkansas Street approximately 8 miles north of the Project Site, monitors ambient concentrations of O3, PM2.5 and PM10. Ambient emission concentrations will vary due to localized variations in emission sources and climate and should be considered “generally” representative of ambient concentrations in the Project Area.

Table 2-2 summarizes the published data concerning O3, PM2.5 and PM10 since 2018 for each year that the monitoring data is provided.

Table 2-2. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Data
Pollutant Scenario 2018 2019 2020
O3
Max 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.065 0.091 0.088
Max 8-hour concentration (ppm) (state/federal) 0.049 / 0.049 0.074 / 0.073 0.056 / 0.055 Number of days above 1-hour standard (state/federal) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0 Number of days above 8-hour standard (state/federal) 0 / 0 1 / 1 0 / 0 PM10
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 43.0 / 40.9 42.0 / 42.1 105.0 / 102.3 Number of days above 24-hour standard (state/federal) * / 0 0 / 0 23 / 0 PM2.5
Max 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) (state/federal) 177.4 / 177.4 25.4 / 25.4 147.3 / 147.3 Number of days above federal 24-hour standard 14.6 0 8
Notes: * = Insufficient data available
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million (2) A bold value signifies that this category is above the applicable standard.

Sources: CARB 2021
The USEPA and CARB designate air basins or portions of air basins and counties as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each of the criteria pollutants. Areas that do not meet the standards are classified as nonattainment areas. Acceptable exceedances of the maximum value vary for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 4th highest concentration for the 8-hour O3 standard to 99th percentile to the SO2 standard. The NAAQS for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 are based on statistical calculations over one- to three-year periods, depending on the pollutant. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 9 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
not to be exceeded during a three-year period. The attainment status for the San Mateo County portion of the SFBAAB, which encompasses the Project Site, is included in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3. Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the San Mateo County Portion of the SFBAAB Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation
O3 Nonattainment Nonattainment
PM10 Nonattainment Unclassified
PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment
CO Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassified/Attainment
Source: CARB 2019
The determination of whether an area meets the state and federal standards is based on air quality monitoring data. Some areas are unclassified, which means there is insufficient monitoring data for determining attainment or nonattainment. Unclassified areas are typically treated as being in attainment.

Because the attainment/nonattainment designation is pollutant-specific, an area may be classified as nonattainment for one pollutant and attainment for another. Similarly, because the state and federal standards differ, an area could be classified as attainment for the federal standards of a pollutant and as nonattainment for the state standards of the same pollutant. The San Mateo County region is designated as a nonattainment area for the federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and is also a nonattainment area for the state standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 (CARB 2019).

2.1.6 Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses.

Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The nearest sensitive land uses to the Project Site is an apartment building located approximately 0.13 mile west of the Project Site on Airport Boulevard.

121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 10 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01

2.2 Regulatory Framework

2.2.1 Federal
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and the CAA Amendments of 1971 required the USEPA to establish the NAAQS, with states retaining the option to adopt more stringent standards or to include other specific pollutants. On April 2, 2007, the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant covered by the CAA; however, no NAAQS have been established for CO2.

These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those “sensitive receptors” most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed.

The USEPA has classified air basins (or portions thereof) as being in attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the NAAQS have been achieved. If an area is designated unclassified, it is because inadequate air quality data were available as a basis for a nonattainment or attainment designation. Table 2-3 lists the federal attainment status of the San Mateo County portion of the SFBAAB for the criteria pollutants.

2.2.2 State
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) allows the state to adopt ambient air quality standards and other regulations provided that they are at least as stringent as federal standards. CARB, a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California, including setting the CAAQS. CARB also conducts research, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, and provides oversight of local programs. CARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (such as hairspray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid), and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. CARB also has primary responsibility for the development of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), for which it works closely with the federal government and the local air districts.

California State Implementation Plan
The federal CAA (and its subsequent amendments) requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as the SIP. The SIP is a living document that is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, plans, and rules and regulations of air basins as reported by the agencies with jurisdiction over them. The CAA Amendments dictate that states containing areas violating the NAAQS revise their SIPs to include extra control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP includes strategies and 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 11 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
control measures to attain the NAAQS by deadlines established by the CAA. The USEPA has the responsibility to review all SIPs to determine if they conform to the requirements of the CAA.

State law makes CARB the lead agency for all purposes related to the SIP. Local air districts and other agencies prepare SIP elements and submit them to CARB for review and approval. CARB then forwards SIP revisions to the USEPA for approval and publication in the Federal Register. The SFBAAB currently has four air quality plans in place, discussed below, which collectively constitute the SFBAAB SIP elements. • 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. The 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was developed for compliance with the NAAQS for the 1-hour O3 standard. In June 2005, the USEPA revoked the standard for 1- hour O3; however, the state standard for 1-hour O3 remains. Therefore, BAAQMD continues to implement the strategies outlined in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. • 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy. The 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy served as an update to the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan and expanded on strategies to achieve compliance with the state 1- hour O3 standard.
• 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses various pollutants including O3, PM, and air toxics, as well as GHG emissions within the SFBAAB. It serves to update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement all feasible measures, to reduce O3, and to consider the impacts of O3 control measures on particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas emissions in a single, integrated plan and review progress in improving air quality in recent years.
• 2017 Clean Air Plan. In April 2017, BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan, whose primary goals are to protect public health and to protect the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan and complies with state air quality planning requirements, as codified in the California Health and Safety Code (although the 2017 plan was delayed beyond the three-year update requirement of the code). State law requires the Clean Air Plan to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of O3 precursors and to reduce the transport of O3 precursors to neighboring air basins. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 measures to address reduction of several pollutants: O3 precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHGs. Other measures focus on a single type of pollutant: super GHGs such as methane and black carbon that consists of harmful fine particles that affect public health. These control strategies are grouped into the following categories:
a. Stationary Source Measures
b. Transportation Control Measures
c. Energy Control Measures
d. Building Control Measures
e. Agricultural Control Measures
f. Natural and Working Lands Control Measures
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 12 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
g. Waste Management Control Measures
h. Water Control Measures
i. Super GHG Control Measures
Tanner Air Toxics Act & Air Toxics “Hot Spot” Information and Assessment Act CARB’s Statewide comprehensive air toxics program was established in 1983 with Assembly Bill (AB) 1807, the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Air Toxics Act of 1983). AB 1807 created California's program to reduce exposure to air toxics and sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB adopts an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) for sources that emit designated TACs. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure to below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate toxics best available control technology to minimize emissions.

CARB also administers the state’s mobile source emissions control program and oversees air quality programs established by state statute, such as AB 2588, the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987. Under AB 2588, TAC emissions from individual facilities are quantified and prioritized by the air quality management district or air pollution control district. High priority facilities are required to perform a health risk assessment (HRA) and, if specific thresholds are exceeded, required to communicate the results to the public in the form of notices and public meetings. In September 1992, the "Hot Spots" Act was amended by Senate Bill (SB) 1731, which required facilities that pose a significant health risk to the community to reduce their risk through a risk management plan.

2.2.3 Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The BAAQMD is designated by law to adopt and enforce regulations to achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards. The BAAQMD responsibilities include preparing plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adopting and enforcing air pollution rules, issuing permits for and inspecting stationary air pollution sources, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implementing state and federal programs and regulations. The BAAQMD has also adopted various rules and regulations that are designed to reduce and control pollutant emissions from project’s construction and operational activities. The following provisions are applicable to the Proposed Project are summarized as follows:
 Regulation 2, Rule 1, General Permit Requirements: Includes criteria for issuance or denial of permits, exemptions, appeals against decisions of the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) and BAAQMD actions on applications.
 Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review: Applies to new or modified sources and contains requirements for Best Available Control Technology and emission offsets. Rule 2 implements federal New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration requirements. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 13 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
 Regulation 6, Rule 1, General Requirements: Limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere by controlling emission rates, concentration, visible emissions and opacity.  Regulation 6, Rule 6, Prohibition of Trackout: Controls trackout of solid material onto public paved roads from three types of sites: large bulk material sites, large construction sites, and large disturbed area sites. Under this regulation, the owners and operators of a construction site are required to clean up trackout on public roadways within four hours of identification and at the conclusion of each workday. The rule also includes requirements regarding the emission of fugitive dust during cleanup of trackout, and requirements for monitoring and reporting trackout at regulated sites
 Regulation 7, Odorous Substances: Regulation 7 places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. A person (or facility) must meet all limitations of this regulation but meeting such limitations shall not exempt such person from any other requirements of BAAQMD, state, or national law. The limitations of this regulation shall not be applicable until BAAQMD receives odor complaints from ten or more complainants within a 90‐day period, alleging that a person has caused odors perceived at or beyond the property line of such person and deemed to be objectionable by the complainants in the normal course of their work, travel, or residence. When the limits of this regulation become effective, as a result of citizen complaints described above, the limits shall remain effective until such time as no citizen complaints have been received by BAAQMD for one year. The limits of this Regulation shall become applicable again if BAAQMD receives odor complaints from five or more complainants within a 90‐day period. BAAQMD staff investigate and track all odor complaints it receives and make attempts to visit the site and identify the source of the objectionable odor and assist the owner or facility in finding a way to reduce the odor.

BAAQMD Construction Mitigation Measures
The BAAQMD recommends quantifying a proposed project’s construction-generated emissions by implementing the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as mitigation for dust and exhaust construction impacts in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance documentation. If additional construction measures are required to reduce construction-generated emissions, the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures should then be applied. Table 2-4 identifies the Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures. In addition, all projects must implement any applicable air toxic control measures. For example, projects that have the potential to disturb asbestos (from soil or building materials) must comply with all the requirements of CARB’s air toxic control measures for construction, grading, quarrying, and surface mining operations.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 14 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-4. BAAQMD Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

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.

All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.

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.

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.

All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

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.

BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures
All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.

Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the number of disturbed surfaces at any one time.

All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Minimizing the idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to 2 minutes.

The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings).

Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 15 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-4. BAAQMD Basic and Additional Construction Mitigation Measures Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines.

City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan The City of South San Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (2014) guides the City in its planning efforts to create a vibrant, transit-supportive, diverse Downtown, particularly the area surrounding the City’s Caltrain commuter rail station. The Downtown Station Area Specific Plan (Specific Plan) crafts a vision for the Downtown core and identifies an implementation process to achieve City and community goals, including design standards and regulations for future development. The Project Site is located in an area identified in the Specific Plan as being intended for transit offices/ research & development core. The Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) identifies various mitigation measures that all projects taking place in the Specific Plan Area must abide by. The following mitigation measure are applicable to the Proposed Project.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: Construction emissions for all future development under the Specific Plan shall be quantified prior to the start of construction. For projects where construction emissions are anticipated to exceed the most recent City-adopted thresholds, in addition to the BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, construction activities shall implement the BAAQMD Additional Construction Mitigation Measures to reduce construction emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significant criteria. Mitigation reduction shall be quantified prior to the start of construction to demonstrate that adequate measures have been identified to reduce project emissions. The Additional Construction Mitigation Measures include the following:

1. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimal soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probes.

2. All excavating, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.

3. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have a maximum 50 percent air porosity.

4. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seeds)shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

5. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activates shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces an any one time.

6. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.

7. Site access to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6-to-12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 16 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01

8. Sandbags or other erosion control measure shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent.

9. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes.

10. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retro fit technologies, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available.

11. Use low-ROG coating beyond local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coating).

12. All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technologies for emission reduction of NOx and PM.

13. All contractors shall use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standards for offroad heavy-duty diesel engines.

Mitigation Measure 4.2-2: Prior to issuance of a building permit for future development projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant shall demonstrate implementation of recommended BAAQMD operational mitigation measures as necessary to reduce operational emissions of criteria air pollutants to below significance criteria. Operational emissions and mitigation reductions will be quantified prior to issuance of the building permit to demonstrate that adequate measure shave been identified to reduce project emissions. The recommended measures include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

1. Increase on-street parking fees.

2. Daily parking charge for employees.

3. Provide a parking “cash-out” incentive for employees who use alternative transportation to commute.

4. Provide subsidized or free transit passes to employees.

5. Encourage alternative compressed work schedules and telecommuting.

6. Provide a ridesharing program.

2.3 Air Quality Emissions Impact Assessment

2.3.1 Threshold of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant impact to air quality if it would do any of the following:
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 17 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people).

To assist local jurisdictions in the evaluation of air quality impacts under CEQA, the BAAQMD has published a guidance document for the preparation of the air quality portions of environmental documents that include thresholds of significance to be used in evaluating land use proposals. Thresholds of significance are based on a source’s projected impacts and are a basis from which to apply mitigation measures. BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds have also been used to determine air quality impacts in this analysis. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the Project would be cumulatively considerable. Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

The BAAQMD’s established thresholds of significance for air quality for construction and operational activities of land use development projects are shown in Table 2-5. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 18 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-5. BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
Construction Related
Air Pollutant Average Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG 54
NOx 54
PM10 (exhaust) 82
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) Best Management Practices
Local CO None
Operational Related
Air Pollutant Average Daily Emissions
(pounds per day)
Maximum Annual Emissions
(tons per year)
ROG 54 10
NOx 54 10
PM10 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 10
PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) None None
Local CO 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Source: BAAQMD 2017
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a project’s individual emissions exceed its identified significance thresholds, the project would be cumulatively considerable.

Projects that do not exceed significance thresholds would not be considered cumulatively considerable.

In addition to the emission of criteria air pollutants, this Projects evaluates the health risk from construction and operations of the Proposed Project. Specifically, the potential exposure of nearby existing residents to DPM emissions from heavy-duty trucks, R & D vented lab emissions and emergency generator emissions.

The BAAQMD thresholds for what constitute an exposure of substantial air toxics are as follows. • Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million.
• Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of 1 in one million.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 19 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The BAAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to TAC exposure. This threshold serves to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulative impact. The 10-in-one-million standard is a very health-protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 persons out of one million equally exposed people would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) to the levels of TACs over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these air toxics. To put this risk in perspective, the risk of dying from accidental drowning is 1,000 in a million, which is 100 times more than the BAAQMD’s threshold of 10 in one million.

The BAAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at, or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less of than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non-carcinogenic exposures of less than 1.0 are considered less than significant.

2.3.2 Methodology
Air quality impacts were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by the BAAQMD.

Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction-generated air pollutant emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County and information provided by the Project proponent such as the construction equipment and duration.

Operational air pollutant emissions were calculated based on specific Project Site plans.

For the purposes of this analysis, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes an existing 169-room, 57,623 square foot, Comfort Inn and Suites.

Additionally, DPM concentrations and associated dispersion generated from both construction off-road equipment and construction haul trucks during construction, as well as heavy-duty trucks for Project operations and operational emissions from R& D lab vents (assumed to be located on the roof) and emergency generators were modeled using the HARP2 modeling program provided by CARB, with regulatory default settings, to perform the dispersion and health risk modeling for this analysis. HARP2 implements the latest regulatory guidance to develop inputs to the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model for dispersion and as the inputs for calculations for the various health risk levels. AERMOD is a steadystate plume model that incorporates air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources, and both simple and complex terrain. The resultant concentration values at vicinity sensitive receptors were then used to calculate chronic and carcinogenic health risk using the standardized equations contained in the Office of 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 20 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Environment Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015).

2.3.3 Impact Analysis
Project Construction-Generated Criteria Air Quality Emissions Emissions associated with Project construction would be temporary and short-term but have the potential to represent a significant air quality impact. Three basic sources of short-term emissions will be generated through construction of the Proposed Project: operation of the construction vehicles (i.e., tractors, forklifts, pavers), the creation of fugitive dust during clearing and grading, and the use of asphalt or other oilbased substances during paving and coating activities. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind blowing over exposed soils would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive PM emissions that affect local air quality at various times during construction. Effects would be variable depending on the weather, soil conditions, the amount of activity taking place, and the nature of dust control efforts. The dry climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation.

Construction-generated emissions associated the Proposed Project were calculated using the CARBapproved CalEEMod computer program, which is designed to model emissions for land use development projects, based on typical construction requirements. See Attachment A for more information regarding the construction assumptions, including construction equipment and duration, used in this analysis.

Predicted maximum daily construction-generated emissions for the Proposed Project are summarized in Table 2-6. Construction-generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only if construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 21 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-6. Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Construction
Year
Pollutant (maximum pounds per day)

ROG NOX
PM10
(exhaust)
PM2.5
(exhaust)
PM10
(fugitive
dust)
PM2.5
(fugitive
dust)
Construction
First Year 1.19 21.26 0.21 0.20 2.17 0.56
Construction
Second Year 0.67 15.87 0.15 0.14 1.79 0.48
Construction
Third Year 21.05 14.18 0.17 0.16 5.54 1.50
Construction
Fourth Year 20.91 13.45 0.16 0.16 5.54 1.50
Construction
Fifth Year 1.40 11.97 0.10 0.10 4.74 1.28
BAAQMD
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Threshold
54 pounds/day 54 pounds/day 82 pounds/day 54 pounds/day Basic
Construction
Mitigation
Measures
Basic
Construction
Mitigation
Measures
Exceed
BAAQMD
Threshold?
No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0 Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Construction emissions taken from the season (summer or winter) with the highest output. Building construction, paving, and architectural coating assumed to occur simultaneously. Emission calculations account for the movement and export of 175,000 cubic yards of soil as well as the demolition and export of 57,000 square feet of demolished material.

All construction Projects South San Francisco are required to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as a condition of project approval. Emissions estimates account for the quantifiable components of the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, specifically watering unpaved portions of the construction site twice daily, limiting off-road equipment to speeds of 15 mph, and removing dirt track-out on adjacent public roads with a wet power vacuum once daily. Additionally, Tier 4 mitigation for all pieces of construction equipment was implemented to account for Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.

As shown in Table 2-6, emissions generated during Project construction would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Therefore, criteria pollutant emissions generated during Project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Project Operations Criteria Air Quality Emissions
Implementation of the Project would result in long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants such as PM10, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 as well as O3 precursors such as ROG and NOX. As previously described, projected emissions associated with proposed operations are compared to the existing baseline, which includes the current operation of an existing 169-room, 57,623 square foot, Comfort Inn and Suites.

Predicted maximum daily operational-generated emissions of criteria air pollutants for the Proposed 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 22 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Project are summarized in Table 2-7 and compared to the operational significance thresholds promulgated by the BAAQMD.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 23 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-7. Operational Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions Emission Source
Pollutant
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Proposed Project - 17-Story Research and Development Building with Associated Feature Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 40.17 17.66 135.41 0.32 33.06 9.27
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Proposed Project 38.92 19.45 151.76 0.31 33.06 9.27
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Proposed Project 6.39 2.91 19.79 0.04 4.39 1.25
Existing Conditions - 169 Room Comfort Inn and Suites
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 4.57 3.08 23.53 0.04 4.65 1.29
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Existing Baseline 4.37 3.48 26.32 0.04 4.65 1.29
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Existing Baseline 0.76 0.58 4.27 0.00 0.77 0.21
Difference
Summer Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +35.6 +14.58 +111.88 +0.28 +28.41 +7.98
BAAQMD Daily Significance
Threshold
54 pounds/day
54 pounds/day None None 82 pounds/day
54 pounds/day
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Winter Emissions (Pounds per Day)
Difference +34.55 +15.97 +125.44 +0.27 +28.41 +7.98
BAAQMD Daily Significance
Threshold
54 pounds/day
54 pounds/day None None 82 pounds/day
54 pounds/day
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Annual Emissions (Tons per Year)
Difference +5.63 +2.33 +15.52 +0.04 +3.62 +1.04
BAAQMD Annual Significance
Threshold
10 tons/year
10 tons/year None None 15 tons/year
10 tons/year
Exceed BAAQMD Daily
Threshold? No No No No No No
Source: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment A for Model Data Outputs.

Notes: Operational emissions for the Proposed Project accounts for the testing for four 2,000 horsepower Tier 4 generators five days per year.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 24 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
As shown in Table 2-7, the Project’s emissions would not exceed any BAAQMD thresholds for any criteria air pollutants during operations.

Project Consistency with Air Quality Planning
As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the USEPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a SIP that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under state law, the CCAA requires an air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment with regard to the federal and state ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

As previously described, the BAAQMD is the agency responsible for enforcing many federal and state air quality requirements and for establishing air quality rules and regulations. The BAAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in San Mateo County through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues.

The most recently adopted air quality plan is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan, the primary goals of which are to protect public health and the climate. The 2017 Clean Air Plan includes a wide range of control measures and actions to reduce combustion-related activities, decrease combustion of fossil fuels, improve energy efficiency, and reduce emissions of potent greenhouse gases. Several measures address the reduction of multiple pollutants such as O3 precursors, PM, air toxics, and GHG emissions.

Determination of whether a project supports the goals in the 2017 Clean Air Plan is achieved by a comparison of project-estimated emissions with BAAQMD thresholds of significance. If project emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project is consistent with the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. As shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6, emissions generated during Project construction and operations would not exceed the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct reduction measures presented in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Additionally, the Project Site can be identified for its “location efficiency”. Location efficiency describes the location of the Project Site relative to the type of urban landscape its proposed to fit within, such as an ‘urban area’, ‘compact infill’, or ‘suburban center’. In general, compared to the statewide average, a project could realize vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions up to 65 percent in an urban area, up to 30 percent in a compact infill area, or up to 10 percent in a suburban center (CAPCOA 2021), and thus reductions in air pollutant emissions, a primary goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. The Project Site represents an urban/compact infill location within the central portion of South San Francisco. The Project Site is served by existing public transportation. Additionally, the Project is in proximity to surrounding nonresidential land uses. The increases in land use diversity and mix of uses in the Project Area would reduce vehicle trips and VMT by encouraging walking and non-automotive forms of transportation, which would result in corresponding reductions in transportation-related emissions, a primary goal of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 25 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants As previously described, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over age 65, children under age 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis. The nearest sensitive land uses to the Project Site is an apartment building located approximately 0.13 mile west of the Project Site on Airport Boulevard.

Health Risk Assessment
A HRA was performed to determine the health risk associated with construction and operations of the Proposed Project. The HRA analyzed cancer and chronic non-cancer risk calculated for 70‐year, 30-year, 25-year and 9-year exposure scenarios for operational emissions and 5-years for construction emissions.

Per OEHHA guidance, the 25-year scenario was used to model the health risk for workers at business locations and the 70-, 30-, and 9-year scenarios were used for residents in residential areas. In addition, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration was modeled for comparison with BAAQMD thresholds.

Construction Emission Sources
All onsite and offsite diesel truck traffic related emissions were generated using EMFAC2021 for construction beginning in the year 2024 and conservatively utilized throughout the proposed period of construction. Construction off-road equipment for onsite activities was modeled as eleven-line volume sources places along the permitter of the Project Site totaling 0.28 mile. Construction off-road equipment for offsite activities was modeled as fourteen-line volume sources traversing East Grand Avenue, onto Grand Avenue and to the nearest Highway 101 freeway entrance totaling 0.36 mile. Annual off-road PM10 exhaust emissions generated using the CalEEMod model were used to represent emissions from onsite off-road diesel equipment used throughout construction. The annual emissions for all phases and years of construction were used to conservatively estimate annual construction emissions for the estimated Project construction duration of five years. PM2.5 emissions were modeled as total on and offsite PM2.5 emissions during the highest emission year as calculated by EMFAC2021. Detailed calculations for construction emissions can be found in Attachment A and B of this document.

Operational Emission Sources
Project related onsite and offsite roadway sources were entered into AERMOD as fourteen-line volume sources traversing East Grand Avenue, onto Grand Avenue and to the nearest Highway 101 freeway entrance totaling 0.36 mile. Roadway sources all have a width of 3.7 meters using standard line sizing and an estimated one lane. Daily truck trips were estimated from Project Site plans assuming four truck trips over a ten-hour day, conservatively totaling 40 daily truck trips. Emissions from the R & D lab were modeled as a point source located on top of the proposed building with a release height of 265 feet. A chemical profile from a similar project (University of California at San Francisco 2011) and conservatively scaled to the total square footage of the maximum lab area (836,865 square feet). Emergency generator 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 26 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
emissions were calculated using a standard load factor and a generator rating and 100 hours per year per BAAQMD guidance (BAAQMD 2019). Detailed calculations for operational emissions can be found in Attachment B of this document.

Dispersion Modeling
The air dispersion modeling for the HRA was performed using the USEPA AERMOD Version 21112 dispersion model. AERMOD is a steady‐state, multiple‐source, Gaussian dispersion model designed for use with emission sources situated in terrain where ground elevations can exceed the stack heights of the emission sources. The alberhill30m.dem file found at CARB’s website for HARP Digital Elevation Model Files was used for elevation data for all sources and receptors in the Project domain. All regulatory defaults were used for dispersion modeling as configured in the latest version of HARP2.

AERMOD requires hourly meteorological data consisting of wind vector, wind speed, temperature, stability class, and mixing height. Pre-processed meteorological data files provided by BAAQMD using USEPA’s AERMET program, designed to create AERMOD input files for the San Francisco International Airport monitoring station, were selected as being the most representative meteorology based on proximity. The unit emission rate of one gram per second was utilized in AERMOD to create plot files containing the dispersion factor (Χ/Q) for each source group. Emissions for each source group as described above were input into HARP2 to calculate the ground level concentrations (GLCs) related to Project operations. AERMOD summary files, calculations and figures can be found in Attachment B.

A uniform grid was placed over the Project Area with a spacing of 50 meters by 50 meters encompassing

0.9 mile and including 900 receptors. The grid was placed primarily over the residential area to the west of the Project Site to include all necessary sensitive receptors.

Risk during construction and operations was also modeled utilizing worker factors and residential factors to find the Maximumly Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR), Maximumly Exposed Individual Resident (MEIW) and maximumly exposed school child. The chronic and carcinogenic health risk calculations are based on the standardized equations contained in the OEHHA Guidance Manual (2015) as implemented in CARB’s HARP2 program (CARB 2020). The risk associated with traffic emissions related to Project operations was assessed as risk associated with future Project operations.

Based on the OEHHA methodology, the residential inhalation cancer risk from the annual average TAC concentrations is calculated by multiplying the daily inhalation or oral dose, by a cancer potency factor, the age sensitivity factor (ASF), the frequency of time spent at home, and the exposure duration divided by averaging time, to yield the excess cancer risk. These factors are discussed in more detail below.

Cancer risk must be separately calculated for specified age groups, because of age differences in sensitivity to carcinogens and age differences in intake rates (per kg body weight). Separate risk estimates for these age groups provide a health-protective estimate of cancer risk by accounting for greater susceptibility in early life, including both age-related sensitivity and amount of exposure.

Exposure through inhalation (Dose-air) is a function the breathing rate, the exposure frequency, and the concentration of a substance in the air. For residential exposure, the breathing rates are determined for specific age groups, so Dose-air is calculated for each of these age groups, 3rd trimester, 0<2, 2<9, 2<16, 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 27 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
16<30 and 16-70 years. To estimate cancer risk, the dose was estimated by applying the following formula to each ground-level concentration:

Dose-air = (Cair * {BR/BW} * A * EF * 10-6)
Where:

Dose-air = dose through inhalation (mg/kg/day)
Cair = air concentration (μg/m3) from air dispersion model {BR/BW} = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg body weight – day) (361 L\kg BW-day for 3rd Trimester, 1,090 L/kg BW-day for 0<2 years, 861 L/kg BW-day for 2<9 years, 745 L/kg BW-day for 2<16 years, 335 L/kg BW-day for 16<30 years, and 290 L/kg BW-day 16<70 years)
A = Inhalation absorption factor (unitless [1])
EF = exposure frequency (unitless), days/365 days (0.96 [approximately 350 days per year]) 10-6 = conversion factor (micrograms to milligrams, liters to cubic meters) OEHHA developed ASFs to take into account the increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure. In the absence of chemical-specific data, OEHHA recommends a default ASF of 10 for the third trimester to age 2 years, an ASF of 3 for ages 2 through 15 years to account for potential increased sensitivity to carcinogens during childhood and an ASF of 1 for ages 16 through 70 years.

Fraction of time at home (FAH) during the day is used to adjust exposure duration and cancer risk from a specific facility’s emissions, based on the assumption that exposure to the facility’s emissions are not occurring away from home. OEHHA recommends the following FAH values: from the third trimester to age <2 years, 85 percent of time is spent at home; from age 2 through <16 years, 72 percent of time is spent at home; from age 16 years and greater, 73 percent of time is spent at home.

To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):

Riskinh-res = (Doseair * CPH * ASF * ED/AT * FAH)
Where:

Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 28 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
ED = exposure duration (in years) for a specified age group (0.25 years for 3rd trimester, 2 years for 0<2, 7 years for 2<9, 14 years for 2<16, 14 years for 16<30, 54 years for 16- 70)
AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the Reference Exposure Level (REL) for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse noncancer health effects are anticipated. The following equation was used to determine the non-cancer risk:

Hazard Quotient = Ci/RELi
Where:

Ci = Concentration in the air of substance i (annual average concentration in μg/m3) RELi = Chronic noncancer Reference Exposure Level for substance i (μg/m3) Cancer Risk
Operational cancer risk calculations for existing residential receptors are based on 70-, 30-, and 9-year exposure periods and worker receptors are based on a 25-year exposure period to for operations with a 5-year exposure period used for construction. The calculated cancer risk accounts for 350 days per year of exposure to residential receptors. While the average American spends 87 percent of their life indoors (USEPA 2001), neither the pollutant dispersion modeling nor the health risk calculations account for the reduced exposure structures provide. Instead, health risk calculations account for the equivalent exposure of continual outdoor living. The calculated carcinogenic risk at Project vicinity receptors is depicted in Table 2-8.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 29 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 2-8. Maximum Cancer Risk Summary
Maximum Exposure Scenario Total Maximum Risk
Project Operations
70-Year Exposure Resident 2.027
30-Year Exposure Resident 1.078
9-Year Exposure Resident 1.187
25-Year Exposure Worker 1.702
Project Construction
5-Year Exposure Resident 4.68
5-Year Exposure Worker 0.70
Significance Threshold 10
Exceed Threshold? No
Source: ECORP Consulting 2022. See Attachment B.

As shown, impacts related to cancer risk for all modeled scenarios would be below the 10 in one million threshold for both operations and construction. These calculations do not account for any pollutantreducing remedial components inherent to the Project or the Project site.

For construction and operational emissions, the Maximumly Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR) is an apartment building located off Airport Boulevard approximately 0.13 miles west of the Project Site while the Maximumly Exposed Individual Worker (MEIW) is located directly to the north of the Project Site, within the existing roadway of Grand Avenue. The offsite Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) is located on the northwestern section of the Project boundary. All of the above listed points were found to be the same for operation and construction scenarios and are presented in Appendix B of this document.

Non-Carcinogenic Hazards
In addition to cancer risk, the significance thresholds for TAC exposure requires an evaluation of noncancer risk stated in terms of a hazard index. Non-cancer chronic impacts are calculated by dividing the annual average concentration by the REL for that substance. The REL is defined as the concentration at which no adverse non-cancer health effects are anticipated. The potential for acute non-cancer hazards is evaluated by comparing the maximum short-term exposure level to an acute REL. RELs are designed to protect sensitive individuals within the population. The calculation of acute non-cancer impacts is similar to the procedure for chronic non-cancer impacts.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 30 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
An acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0 is considered individually significant. The hazard index is calculated by dividing the acute or chronic exposure by the REL. The highest maximum chronic hazard indexes for residents and workers at the Proposed Project Site as a result of DPM from mobile sources and emergency generators and the R & D lab emission exposure is shown in Table 2-9. No acute risk was analyzed for construction or operations as DPM from the truck trips and generators as well as the TACs associated with R & D lab emissions have no identified acute risk.

Table 2-9. Maximum Non-Carcinogenic Health Risk Summary Exposure Scenario
Chronic Hazard Values Maximum
PM2.5 Annual
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximum Residential
Hazard
Maximum Worker
Hazard
Maximum
Sensitive
Receptor Hazard
Operation 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.008
Construction 0.01 0.01 1.0e-02 0.068
Significance Threshold 1 1 1 0.3
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: ECORP Consulting 2022. See Attachment B.

As shown in Table 2-8, impacts related to non-cancer risk (chronic hazard index) as a result of the Project site would not surpass significance thresholds.

Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Given the high traffic volume potential, areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours. It has long been recognized that CO hotspots are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at congested intersections.

However, transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited, and CO disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. Furthermore, vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the allowable CO emissions standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars (there are requirements for certain vehicles that are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of increasingly sophisticated and efficient emissions control technologies, CO concentration in the SFBAAB is designated as in attainment. Detailed modeling of Project-specific CO “hot spots” is not necessary and thus this potential impact is addressed qualitatively.

A CO “hot spot” would occur if an exceedance of the state one-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm) or the eight-hour standard of 9 ppm were to occur. The BAAQMD concludes that under existing and future vehicle emission rates, a given project would have to increase traffic volumes at a single 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 31 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
intersection by more than 44,000 vehicles per hour or 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal air does not mix—in order to generate a significant CO impact.

According to Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual (2017), the Project would result in approximately 9,147 trips per weekday, 2,075 trips each Saturday, and 660 trips each Sunday. Thus, the Proposed Project would not generate traffic volumes at any intersection of more than 44,000 vehicles per day and there is no likelihood of the Project traffic exceeding CO values.

Odors
Typically, odors are regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; in fact, an odor that is offensive to one person (e.g., from a fast-food restaurant) may be perfectly acceptable to another. It is also important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word “strong” to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human.

During construction, the Proposed Project presents the potential for generation of objectionable odors in the form of diesel exhaust in the immediate vicinity of the site. However, these emissions are short-term in nature and will rapidly dissipate and be diluted by the atmosphere downwind of the emission sources.

Additionally, odors would be localized and generally confined to the construction area. Therefore, construction odors would not adversely affect a substantial number of people to odor emissions.

Land uses commonly considered to be potential sources of obnoxious odorous emissions include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Proposed Project does not include any uses as being associated with odors.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 32 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
However, as previously described, the ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and is inherently subjective in nature. For instance, the Project proposes a 17-story R & D building, which has the potential to be a source of odors that may affect certain people. The specific types of laboratories proposed are currently unknown. However, the Project would be subject to the BAAQMD Regulation 7.

Regulation 7, Odorous Substances, places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. Thus, the Project would not be a source of operational odors. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 33 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride; however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic factors together (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014).

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

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

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 34 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013).

Table 3-1. Summary of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse
Gas
Description
CO2
Carbon dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas. CO2 is emitted in a number of ways, both naturally and through human activities. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, industrial facilities, and other sources.

A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses such as mineral production, metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products can also lead to CO2 emissions. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is so readily exchanged in the atmosphere.1
CH4
Methane is a colorless, odorless gas and is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. It is also formed and released to the atmosphere by biological processes occurring in anaerobic environments. Methane is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry (intestinal fermentation in livestock and manure management), rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of CH4 to the atmosphere. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and other sources such as wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years.2
N2O
Nitrous oxide is a clear, colorless gas with a slightly sweet odor. Nitrous oxide is produced by both natural and human-related sources. Primary human-related sources of N2O are agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuels, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. N2O is also produced naturally from a wide variety of biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N2O is approximately 120 years.3 Sources: (1) USEPA 2016a; (2) USEPA 2016b; (3) USEPA 2016c The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; it is sufficient to say the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature or to global, local, or microclimates.

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

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

Emissions from the electricity sector account for 14 percent of the inventory and have shown a substantial 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 35 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
decrease in 2019 due to increases in renewables. California’s industrial sector accounts for the second largest source of the State’s GHG emissions in 2019, accounting for 21 percent (CARB 2021b).

3.2 Regulatory Framework

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

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

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016
In August 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, which serve to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include § 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 36 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Senate Bill X1-2 of 2011, Senate Bill 350 of 2015, and Senate Bill 100 of 2018 In 2018, SB 100 was signed codifying a goal of 60 percent renewable procurement by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 Renewables Portfolio Standard.
2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings The Building and Efficiency Standards (Energy Standards) were first adopted and put into effect in 1978 and have been updated periodically in the intervening years. These standards are a unique California asset that have placed the State on the forefront of energy efficiency, sustainability, energy independence and climate change issues. The 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards improve upon the 2016 Energy Standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. The 2019 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focuses on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The 2019 standards are a major step toward meeting Zero Net Energy. The most significant efficiency improvement to the residential Standards includes the introduction of photovoltaic into the perspective package, improvements for attics, walls, water heating and lighting. Buildings permitted on or after January 1, 2020, must comply with the 2019 Standards.

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

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

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

The previous BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017) were established to “attribute an appropriate share of greenhouse gas emission reductions necessary to reach AB 32 goals to new land use development projects in the BAAQMD’s jurisdiction that are evaluated pursuant to CEQA” (BAAQMD 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 37 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
2017). The BAAQMD project-level operational threshold of significance for GHG emissions is the project generation of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year during operations (bright-line numeric threshold); or the project generation of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (employees + residents) per year during operations (efficiency-based threshold); or compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy.

City of South San Francisco GHG-Reduction Program
2014 Climate Action Plan
The City Climate Action Plan (CAP), adopted in 2014, includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the City’s GHG emissions, in compliance with AB 32. GHG reduction strategies identified in the CAP include a development checklist to identify applicable plan measures for discretionary projects. The City’s CAP was adopted, with the purpose of reducing GHGs community-wide to achieve a reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 emission levels by 2020. The CAP identifies GHG reduction measures to reduce GHG emissions within the City. Strategies include implementation of transportation demand management plans, expanding active transportation alternatives, maximizing energy efficiency in the build environment, developing a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials, and reducing water demand. The City’s CAP is currently being updated, as part of the General Plan Update. The City’s CAP was adopted with the intention of supporting AB 32 while also protecting the unique resource of the community through goals, policies, and strategies that can be built on for future GHG reduction.

City of South San Francisco Draft Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco is currently updating the original 2014 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change. The 2014 CAP set an emissions target for 2020 and this updated CAP extends the horizon year to 2040 while also setting a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045, consistent with State targets. The Draft 2022 CAP update outlines how the City of South San Francisco will create new policies, programs, and services that will support the community in taking strong action to reduce GHG emissions. Although the City implemented many policies and programs identified in the 2014 CAP, the City experienced steady economic and population growth over that time period. By updating its existing CAP, the City of South San Francisco reaffirms its commitment to leading the way to a more sustainable future. The City has set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts. The Draft 2022 CAP identifies 62 actions to achieve the GHG reduction targets and has reduction targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32), 80 percent reduction by 2040 and carbon net neutrality by 2045.

3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact Assessment

3.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
The impact analysis provided below is based on the following CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance. The Project would result in a significant impact to greenhouse gas emissions if it would:
1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 38 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Appendix G thresholds for GHG’s do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Guidelines emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA. With respect to GHG emissions, the CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a) states that lead agencies “shall make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions resulting from a project. The CEQA Guidelines note that an agency has the discretion to either quantify a project’s GHG emissions or rely on a “qualitative analysis or other performance-based standards.” (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15064.4(b)). A lead agency may use a “model or methodology” to estimate GHG emissions and has the discretion to select the model or methodology it considers “most appropriate to enable decision makers to intelligently take into account the project’s incremental contribution to climate change.” (14 CCR 15064.4(c)). Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when determining the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment:

1. The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting.

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

Per CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3), a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a “water quality control plan, air quality attainment or 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 39 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Put another way, CEQA Guidelines § 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions.

The local air quality agency regulating the SFBAAB, including the Project Site, is the BAAQMD, the regional air pollution control officer for the basin. As previously stated, the BAAQMD recently approved the Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (2022) in April of 2022. The Air District developed these thresholds of significance based on typical residential and commercial land use projects. As such, these thresholds may not be appropriate for other types of projects that do not fit into the mold of a typical residential or commercial project. A lead agency does not necessarily need to use a threshold of significance if the analysis and justifications that were used to develop the threshold do not reflect the particular circumstances of the project under review. Accordingly, a lead agency should not use these thresholds if it is faced with a unique or unusual project for which the analyses supporting the thresholds as described in this report do not squarely apply. In such cases, the lead agency should develop an alternative approach that would be more appropriate for the particular project before it, considering all of the facts and circumstances of the project on a case-by-case basis. The 2014 CAP is the most recent adopted City document addressing GHG emissions. While this document was intended to reduce Citywide GHG emissions consistent with Statewide reduction goals for the year 2020, the City’s GHG-reduction program, as promulgated by the City’s CAP process, is currently being updated as part of the General Plan Update.

The Draft 2022 CAP, which is anticipated to be adopted in the near future, extends the horizon year to 2040 and sets a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 to align with State targets. The City’s climate action program, as encapsulated in both the 2014 CAP and Draft 2022 CAP set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the City’s resilience to climate change impacts.

Due to the timing of this document in correlation with the adoption of the updated CAP and BAAQMD Justification Report, and the ability for a lead agency to choose, at its discretion, methods of analyzation supported by substantial evidence, this Project is analyzed for consistency with the GHG reduction measures contained in both the 2014 CAP and Draft 2022 CAP.

Methodology
Operations of the Proposed Project are compared for consistency with the overall Citywide GHGreduction program encapsulated in both the 2014 CAP and Draft 2022 CAP. Emissions were modeled using CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential GHG emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Project construction-generated GHG emissions were calculated using CalEEMod model defaults for San Mateo County and information provided by the Project proponent such as the construction equipment and duration. Operational GHG emissions were calculated based on specific Project Site plans.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 40 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01

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

Table 3-2. Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Construction First Year 1,126
Construction Second Year 109
Construction Third Year 1,689
Construction Fourth Year 1,671
Construction Fifth Year 0
Total Construction Emissions 4,595
Sources: CalEEMod version 2020.4.0. Refer to Attachment C for Model Data Outputs As shown in Table 3-2, Project construction would result in the generation of a maximum of approximately 4,595 metric tons of CO2e over the course of construction. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease. Furthermore, GHG emissions generated by the construction sector have been declining in recent years. For instance, construction equipment engine efficiency has continued to improve year after year. The first federal standards (Tier 1) for new off-road diesel engines were adopted in 1994 for engines over 50 horsepower (hp) and were phased in from 1996 to 2000. In 1996, a Statement of Principles pertaining to off-road diesel engines was signed between the USEPA, CARB, and engine makers (including Caterpillar, Cummins, Deere, Detroit Diesel, Deutz, Isuzu, Komatsu, Kubota, Mitsubishi, Navistar, New Holland, Wis-Con, and Yanmar). On August 27, 1998, the USEPA signed the final rule reflecting the provisions of the Statement of Principles. The 1998 regulation introduced Tier 1 standards for equipment under 50 hp and increasingly more stringent Tier 2 and Tier 3 standards for all equipment with phase-in schedules from 2000 to 2008. As a result, all off-road, dieselfueled construction equipment manufactured in 2006 or later has been manufactured to Tier 3 standards.

Tier 3 engine standards reduce precursor and subset GHG emissions such as nitrogen oxide by as much as 60 percent. On May 11, 2004, the USEPA signed the final rule introducing Tier 4 emission standards, which were phased in over the period of 2008-2015. The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of nitrogen oxide be further reduced by about 90 percent. All off-road, diesel-fueled construction equipment manufactured in 2015 or later will be manufactured to Tier 4 standards.

In addition, the California Energy Commission recently released the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (also known as the California Energy Code). Both the 2016 and 2019 updates to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards focus on several key areas to improve the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions, and 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 41 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
alterations to existing buildings. For instance, effective January 1, 2017, owners/builders of construction projects have been required to divert (recycle) 65 percent of construction waste materials generated during the project construction phase. This requirement greatly reduces the generation of GHG emissions by reducing decomposition at landfills, which is a source of CH4, and reducing demand for natural resources.

Long-term operational GHG emissions attributable to the Project are identified in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3. Operational-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Description CO2e Emissions (Metric Tons/Year)
Proposed Project - 17-Story Research and Development Building with Associated Feature Area Source Emissions 7
Energy Emissions 1,293
Mobile Source Emissions 3,458
Waste Emissions 206
Water Emissions 16
Proposed Project Operations Total 4,980
Existing Conditions - 169 Room Comfort Inn and Suites
Area Source Emissions 0
Energy Emissions 112
Mobile Source Emissions 713
Waste Emissions 46
Water Emissions 5
Existing Operations Total 876
Difference
Difference +4,104
Sources: CalEEMod 2020.0.4.0
Notes: Emission projections are predominantly based on CalEEMod model Defaults for San Mateo County. Area source emissions account for the testing for four 2,000 horsepower Tier 4 generators five days per year.

As shown in Table 3-3 Project operations would result in the increased generation of 4,104 metric tons of CO2e per year beyond existing conditions.

Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting in Conflicts with any Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of Greenhouse Gases City of South San Francisco 2014 Climate Action Plan
The Developmental Review Checklist, included as Appendix E of the 2014 CAP, identifies applicable CAP measures and serves as a tool to track project-level contribution to the CAP reduction targets. Table 3-4 presents the appreciable reduction measures identified in the CAP for the Proposed Project. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 42 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Table 3-4. Climate Action Plan Measures for New Development Measure Explanation
Does the Project include bicycle facilities
(e.g., bicycle lanes, parking, lockers)?
The Project is proposing the construction of a 700-foot long lighted and landscaped bicycle/ pedestrian lane that would traverse the Site from Poletti Way, along the western,
southern, and eastern frontages of the Project Site to Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue. An additional 300 feet of pedestrian paths are proposed on the Project Site as well.

Additionally, the Project would include 142 short-term bike parking spaces along the Poletti Way sidewalk, 108 long-term bike parking spaces within an enclosed storage area accessed from the Arrival Plaza lobby and 51 long term bike parking spaces.

Will the project support bike sharing/ rental
programs?
As stated above, the Project proposes to implement
approximately 1,000 feet of bicycle lanes and 301 bicycle parking/ locker facilities.

Will there be a commute shuttle or public
transportation stop on-site or within 500
feet?
The Project is located in the Transit Office / Research & Development Core. The Project Site is located just east of the Caltrain tracks and the recently relocated Caltrain station is approximately 200 feet west from the Project Site.

Is the Project within ¼ mile of a Caltrans or
BART stop?
The Project Site is located just east of the Caltrain tracks and the recently relocated Caltrain station is approximately 200 feet west from the Project Site.

Will the Project include high-density housing
and a diverse range of housing?
The Project is proposing two 17-story R & D building wings with the first two floors providing public amenities.

Will the Project provide traffic calming
treatments?
The Project is located approximately 200 feet from the
recently relocated Caltrain station. Additionally, the Project is proposing bicycle/ pedestrian lanes and bicycle
parking/storage.

Is the Project paying a traffic impact fee to
fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements?
The Project is proposing the construction of a 700-foot long lighted and landscaped bicycle/ pedestrian lane that would traverse the Site from Poletti Way, along the western,
southern, and eastern frontages of the Project Site to Grand Avenue and East Grand Avenue. An additional 300 feet of pedestrian paths are proposed on the Project Site.

Will the Project provide shared or reduce
parking?
The Project is proposing the construction of two 17-story R & D building “wings” and associated features, which would be leased to various business, institutions, and other entities that would share parking in the proposed subterranean parking structure and surface parking lot.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 43 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Will the Project provide designated parking
spaces for electric vehicles, carpool vehicles,
or low emission vehicles?
Vehicular parking is proposed to be accommodated primarily in a subterranean parking structure consisting of 229,216 square feet and an at-grade parking area with accessible parking stalls and valet assist pick-up areas spanning
approximately 26,191 square feet. These parking areas will include electric vehicle charging stations consistent with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Will the Project have any ground level
commercial space?
The first two floors of the two 17-story R & D building wings would be dedicated to public amenities, including 8,500 square feet of retail space, 4,600 square feet of restaurant and a 2,500 square foot café.

Does the Project include any alternative-fuel
stations?
These parking areas will include electric vehicle charging stations consistent with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Will the Project have any pre-wiring or
conduit construction to easily add electric
vehicle charging stations or alternative
energy facilities as a later date?
According to information provided in the 121 East Grand Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design document
provided by the Project proponent, the Project is proposing installation of conduit for the addition of electric vehicle charging stations.

If this project is replacing an existing
building, is the building being replaced more
than 30 years old?
The Project proposes the redevelopment of an existing urban environment. As previously described, the Project Site
currently accommodates a 169-room Comfort Inn & Suites
with associated features that is proposed for demolition. The Project is considered “infill development” as it proposes to redevelop a build-out property and enhance the physical design of the urban environment. Under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21061.3, an “infill site” is defined as a site that “has been previously developed for qualified urban uses.” In turn, a “qualified urban use” is defined, pursuant to PRC section 21072, as “a residential, commercial, or public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.” Additionally, the Project Site is located in an “urbanized area,” which is defined under PRC section 21071 as “an incorporated city” that meets the criteria of having a population of at least 100,000 persons.

These aspects of the Project would result in the generation of a reduced amount of GHG emissions. According to the
USEPA, redevelopments (namely at brownfield sites such as the Project Site) produce 32 to 57 percent less emissions per capita relative to conventional developments (USEPA 2011); this is because the number of daily vehicle trips and daily VMT associated with the redevelopment tend to be lower
compared with development on vacant land. As a result, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the identified transportation and mobile source control measures of the Clean Air Plan.
121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 44 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
Will certification of the building be sought
under LEED or other green building criteria?
The Project is targeting LEED Gold certification and will coordinate with the City to meet these standards.

Will the Project include any high-reflectivity
(“cool”) roof or surface paving?
The Project would reduce its heat island effect through the use of high-albedo surfaces and/ or similar technologies.

Will there be a net increase in the number of
mature trees on-site once the Project is
complete?
The Project is proposing the removal of 69 trees however would provide landscaping with native vegetation.

Will any renewable energy systems be
installed as part of this Project?
All buildings on the Project Site would be built with solarready wiring.

Is the Project a nonresidential condition
space of 5,000 square feet or more?
The Project is proposing two 17-story R & D building wings with the first two floors dedicated to public amenities.

Will the Project use renewable energy
generate off-site?
The Proposed Project would purchase at least 50 percent of building energy use as calculated by the Title 24 energy consumption model from off-site renewables.

Will there be composting collection on-Site? All common areas amenities (confrere room, lounge, etc..) would have designated bins for each waste stream.

Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen
standards?
All fixtures will, at a minimum, meet CALGreen standards and all water features would have an established variable-speed pump exchange.

Will the Project incorporate low-impact (LID)
practices?
The Project would incorporate LID practices through the reduction of impervious surfaces and the use of native plants in landscaping.

Will any xeriscaping be installed? All landscaping on the Project Site would be with native, water-efficient plants.

Will captured rainwater or graywater be used
for irrigation?
All landscaping on the Project Site would be with native, water-efficient plants that require limited irrigation. Drip irrigation system will be installed.

Sources: South San Francisco 2014.
2022 Draft City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan As previously discussed, the City is currently updating the 2022 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change while also extending the horizon year to 2040 while setting a longterm goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. The Draft CAP identifies 62 actions to achieve Citywide GHG reduction. The reduction measures that are currently applicable to the Project based on information provided by the Project proponent and Project Site plans are presented below:
• BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction: Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (e.g., expedited permitting, floor area ratio increases, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard. • BNC 2.1 Adopt an all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction: Implement residential all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. Exempt occupancies must install electric building systems (e.g., space and water 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 45 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
heating equipment) where feasible. Until the adoption of the nonresidential all-electric reach code, require any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more to comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20 percent or more. For additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements. • TL 1.2 Electric Vehicle Chargers at Municipal Facilities: Seek opportunities to install additional electric vehicle chargers at suitable public facilities, including Downtown parking structures and community and regional parks.
• TL 2.2 Transportation Demand Management Program: Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. • TL 2.4 Parking Demand Management Strategy: Incorporate maximum parking requirements for new residential and office/R&D projects.
• TL 2.5 Development along Transit Corridors: For all new land use and transportation projects, adhere to the City’s vehicle miles traveled Analysis Guidelines and qualitatively assess the project’s effect on multimodal access. Use the development review process to identify opportunities to enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity.
• TL 2.8 Improve Transit Station Access: Leverage public-private partnerships to increase transit ridership and improve transit station access by incorporating first/last mile bus, shuttle, and active transportation connections between employment hubs and regional transit stations. • WW 1.1 Landscaping Water Requirements: Achieve greater water use reductions than WELO by requiring all landscapes obtain a landscape permit, decreasing the size threshold to capture all landscape renovations, adding prescriptive irrigation plant lists, or water budget requirements. • WW 1.4 Landscaping Plant List: Develop a plant list, landscaping palette for efficiency and habitat/wildlife for new development and landscape retrofits. • WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards: Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. • CL 1.1 Minimum LEED certification or equivalent for new buildings: Require all new municipal buildings and facilities to meet a minimum LEED silver standards as outlined by the US Green Building Council or equivalent green building rating system. Require feasibility studies for zero net energy use, on-site renewable energy generation, and on-site batteries.

All development in the City, including the Project, is required to adhere to all applicable City-adopted policy provisions supporting its GHG-reduction program, including those contained in the 2014 CAP and Draft 2022 CAP. The Project applicant must complete a Developmental Review Checklist to confirm consistency with the CAP measures to the satisfaction of City staff. The City ensures all provisions of the CAP are incorporated into projects and their permits through development review and applications of conditions of approval as applicable. All of the applicable and feasible provisions of the City GHGreduction program as promulgated by its CAP documents will be incorporated into the Proposed Project. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 46 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
4 REFERENCES
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2022. Draft Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans. _____. 2019. Calculating Potential to Emit for Emergency Backup Power Generators _____. 2017. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

CAPCOA. 2021. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.0.4.0. _____. 2013. Health Effects. http://www.capcoa.org/health-effects/.

CARB. 2021a. Air Quality Data Statistics. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html. _____. 2021b. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory 2021 Edition. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data
_____. 2019. State and Federal Area Designation Maps. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. _____. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan Appendices (Appendix F).

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2017. 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. http://www.ipcc.ch/.
_____. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.

OEHHA. 2015. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

South San Francisco. City of. 2014. City of South San Francisco 2014 Climate Action Plan. _____. 2022. Draft Climate Action Plan.

University of California at San Francisco. 2011. San Francisco Mission Bay Site Genentech Hall Fume Hood Risk Screen.

USEPA. 2001. National Human Activity Pattern Survey.
_____. 2018a. Status of SIP Required Elements for California Designated Areas. _____. 2018b. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. _____. 2016a. Climate Change – Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Carbon Dioxide. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2.html.
_____. 2016b. Methane. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html. 121 East Grand Avenue Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment ECORP Consulting, Inc. Page 47 April 2022
121 East Grand Avenue Project 2022-039.01
_____. 2016c. Nitrous Oxide. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/n2o.html. _____. 2011. Air and Water Quality Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/bfenvironimpacts042811.pdf. _____. 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=300055PV.TXT.

ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Output Files – Criteria Air Pollutants
121 East Grand Avenue
San Mateo County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Lot acreage updated to only account for uses on the ground floor.

Construction Phase - Building construction, paving and painting assumed to occur simultaneously. Information updated to match that provided by the applicant.

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Research & Development 836.87 1000sqft 0.00 836,865.00 0 Library 23.67 1000sqft 0.00 23,674.00 0
General Light Industry 35.25 1000sqft 0.97 35,249.00 0
Enclosed Parking Structure 229.22 1000sqft 0.00 229,216.00 0 Parking Lot 26.19 1000sqft 0.97 26,191.00 0
Health Club 17.69 1000sqft 0.00 17,691.00 0
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 9.40 1000sqft 0.00 9,400.00 0 Free-Standing Discount store 16.20 1000sqft 0.97 16,196.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Equipment list updated to match information provided by the Project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - Equipment list updated to match information provided by the Project applicant.

Demolition -
Grading - Material to be exported divided between phases based on number of days Vehicle Trips - Operational trips updated for that of “general office” to account for the actual usage of the site/ No traffic report was provided as the site is in close proximity to transit.

Energy Use - All nontitle-24 electricity usage was reduced by 50%. Per the ‘121. E Grand Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design’ sheet provided by the applicant.

Water And Wastewater - Indoor water use provided by applicant. Usage was evenly distributed between all uses.

Land Use Change -
Sequestration -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4 imposed for mitigation measure 4.2-1 in Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Additional mitigation per the BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Water Mitigation -
Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - conversion of 1kw=1.341 hp Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 220.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 522.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 20.97 10.48
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 110.00 6.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 4.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 159,250.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 15,750.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 836,870.00 836,865.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 23,670.00 23,674.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 35,250.00 35,249.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 229,220.00 229,216.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 26,190.00 26,191.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 17,690.00 17,691.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,200.00 16,196.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 19.21 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.54 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.81 0.97
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.26 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.60 0.97
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.41 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.97
tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 16.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 70.76 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.99 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 2.21
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 122.40 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 80.09 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 2.21
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 60.21 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.00 0.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 142.64 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 42.09 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.70
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 53.12 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.96 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 112.18 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 72.05 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 9.74
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,199,974.85 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 8,151,562.50 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,046,242.22 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 2,853,216.90 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 740,608.46 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 411,483,913.60 2,597,035.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.9743 40.2471 40.2413 0.1337 2.3547 1.1843 3.5390 0.5915 1.1021 1.6936 0.0000 14,214.65 75 14,214.65
75 2.7684 1.1770 14,634.60
98 2025 1.7730 27.5022 23.1486 0.0928 1.8515 0.6643 2.5158 0.4907 0.6220 1.1127 0.0000 10,142.49 77 10,142.49
77 1.6751 1.0586 10,499.82
12 2026 23.6629 42.6891 46.4911 0.1381 5.5475 1.5434 7.0910 1.5013 1.4355 2.9368 0.0000 14,174.99 83 14,174.99
83 2.2146 0.7041 14,440.17
61 2027 23.6221 42.5369 46.1389 0.1363 5.5477 1.5420 7.0897 1.5014 1.4341 2.9355 0.0000 14,021.69 64 14,021.69
64 2.2150 0.6882 14,282.14
95 2028 2.5607 24.5406 26.9713 0.0933 4.7428 0.7828 5.5256 1.2879 0.7241 2.0120 0.0000 9,829.408 4 9,829.408
4 1.3341 0.6620 10,060.03
42 Maximum 23.6629 42.6891 46.4911 0.1381 5.5477 1.5434 7.0910 1.5014 1.4355 2.9368 0.0000 14,214.65 75 14,214.65
75 2.7684 1.1770 14,634.60
98 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.1925 20.4583 49.4478 0.1337 2.1745 0.2138 2.3883 0.5699 0.2093 0.7793 0.0000 14,214.65 75 14,214.65
75 2.7684 1.1770 14,634.60
98 2025 0.6771 15.1439 27.6628 0.0928 1.7906 0.1509 1.9414 0.4821 0.1468 0.6289 0.0000 10,142.49 77 10,142.49
77 1.6751 1.0586 10,499.82
12 2026 20.9564 13.6097 53.1865 0.1381 5.5475 0.1709 5.7185 1.5013 0.1675 1.6688 0.0000 14,174.99 83 14,174.99
83 2.2146 0.7041 14,440.17
61 2027 20.9157 13.4576 52.8343 0.1363 5.5477 0.1695 5.7172 1.5014 0.1662 1.6675 0.0000 14,021.69 64 14,021.69
64 2.2150 0.6882 14,282.14
95 2028 1.3187 11.4424 29.8542 0.0933 4.7428 0.1095 4.8523 1.2879 0.1065 1.3944 0.0000 9,829.408 4 9,829.408
4 1.3341 0.6620 10,060.03
42 Maximum 20.9564 20.4583 53.1865 0.1381 5.5477 0.2138 5.7185 1.5014 0.2093 1.6688 0.0000 14,214.65 75 14,214.65
75 2.7684 1.1770 14,634.60
98 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

17.46 58.25 -16.39 0.00 1.20 85.75 19.97 0.56 85.03 42.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Energy 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mobile 19.5100 14.7129 172.7132 0.3847 47.2440 0.2268 47.4708 12.5780 0.2107 12.7887 40,878.96 92 40,878.96
92 2.3587 1.5440 41,398.05
84 Total 43.1320 21.1853 178.2708 0.4236 47.2440 0.7191 47.9630 12.5780 0.7030 13.2810 48,644.81 35 48,644.81
35 2.5082 1.6864 49,210.06
66 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Energy 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mobile 16.5530 11.1906 129.8597 0.2671 32.4094 0.1649 32.5743 8.6285 0.1531 8.7816 28,380.42 71 28,380.42
71 1.8424 1.1776 28,777.41
39 Total 40.1751 17.6630 135.4173 0.3059 32.4094 0.6572 33.0665 8.6285 0.6454 9.2739 36,146.27 13 36,146.27
13 1.9919 1.3200 36,589.42
22 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 1/1/2024 3/1/2024 5 45
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/2/2024 3/31/2024 5 20 3 Grading Grading 4/1/2024 2/1/2025 5 220
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2026 1/1/2028 5 522 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2026 12/31/2027 5 522
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/1/2026 12/31/2027 5 522 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Signal Boards 2 2.00 6 0.82
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

6.86 16.63 24.04 27.78 31.40 8.61 31.06 31.40 8.19 30.17 0.00 25.69 25.69 20.58 21.73 25.65 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,408,613; Non-Residential Outdoor: 469,538; Striped Parking Area:
15,324 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0.97
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Excavators 1 7.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Other Construction Equipment 3 7.00 172 0.42 Site Preparation Rollers 1 8.00 16 0.38
Site Preparation Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 0 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Grading Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 0 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Other Construction Equipment 2 8.00 172 0.42 Building Construction Signal Boards 2 8.00 6 0.82
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 8.00 9 0.56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 262.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 15 38.00 0.00 1,969.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 19,906.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 10 416.00 196.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 83.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.2605 0.0000 1.2605 0.1909 0.0000 0.1909 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5954 5.2601 10.3007 0.0159 0.2382 0.2382 0.2197 0.2197 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Total 0.5954 5.2601 10.3007 0.0159 1.2605 0.2382 1.4987 0.1909 0.2197 0.4106 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0137 0.8697 0.3072 3.6600e0030.1014 6.0000e0030.1074 0.0278 5.7400e0030.0335 429.6668 429.6668 0.0450 0.0693 451.4422 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0309 0.0167 0.2855 9.8000e0040.1232 5.4000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.0000e0040.0332 100.7141 100.7141 2.0800e0032.0900e003101.3883 Total 0.0446 0.8864 0.5927 4.6400e0030.2246 6.5400e0030.2312 0.0604 6.2400e0030.0667 530.3809 530.3809 0.0471 0.0714 552.8305 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5672 0.0000 0.5672 0.0859 0.0000 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2160 1.8774 11.7475 0.0159 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Total 0.2160 1.8774 11.7475 0.0159 0.5672 0.0254 0.5926 0.0859 0.0254 0.1113 0.0000 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0137 0.8697 0.3072 3.6600e0030.1014 6.0000e0030.1074 0.0278 5.7400e0030.0335 429.6668 429.6668 0.0450 0.0693 451.4422 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0309 0.0167 0.2855 9.8000e0040.1232 5.4000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.0000e0040.0332 100.7141 100.7141 2.0800e0032.0900e003101.3883 Total 0.0446 0.8864 0.5927 4.6400e0030.2246 6.5400e0030.2312 0.0604 6.2400e0030.0667 530.3809 530.3809 0.0471 0.0714 552.8305 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.3277 0.0000 0.3277 0.0393 0.0000 0.0393 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6647 25.4982 34.3238 0.0693 1.0814 1.0814 1.0037 1.0037 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Total 2.6647 25.4982 34.3238 0.0693 0.3277 1.0814 1.4091 0.0393 1.0037 1.0430 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2313 14.7065 5.1942 0.0619 1.7149 0.1015 1.8164 0.4695 0.0971 0.5666 7,265.387 0 7,265.387
0 0.7616 1.1717 7,633.593
9 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0783 0.0423 0.7233 2.4700e0030.3122 1.3800e0030.3135 0.0828 1.2700e0030.0841 255.1424 255.1424 5.2800e0035.2900e003256.8503 Total 0.3095 14.7489 5.9175 0.0644 2.0270 0.1029 2.1299 0.5523 0.0984 0.6507 7,520.529 4 7,520.529
4 0.7669 1.1770 7,890.444
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1475 0.0000 0.1475 0.0177 0.0000 0.0177 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8830 5.7095 43.5303 0.0693 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Total 0.8830 5.7095 43.5303 0.0693 0.1475 0.1109 0.2584 0.0177 0.1109 0.1286 0.0000 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2313 14.7065 5.1942 0.0619 1.7149 0.1015 1.8164 0.4695 0.0971 0.5666 7,265.387 0 7,265.387
0 0.7616 1.1717 7,633.593
9 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0783 0.0423 0.7233 2.4700e0030.3122 1.3800e0030.3135 0.0828 1.2700e0030.0841 255.1424 255.1424 5.2800e0035.2900e003256.8503 Total 0.3095 14.7489 5.9175 0.0644 2.0270 0.1029 2.1299 0.5523 0.0984 0.6507 7,520.529 4 7,520.529
4 0.7669 1.1770 7,890.444
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1108 0.0000 0.1108 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6674 16.1944 18.0277 0.0360 0.6738 0.6738 0.6287 0.6287 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Total 1.6674 16.1944 18.0277 0.0360 0.1108 0.6738 0.7846 0.0155 0.6287 0.6442 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2126 13.5162 4.7738 0.0569 1.5761 0.0933 1.6694 0.4315 0.0893 0.5207 6,677.353 2 6,677.353
2 0.7000 1.0769 7,015.758
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0412 0.0223 0.3807 1.3000e0030.1643 7.3000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.7000e0040.0443 134.2855 134.2855 2.7800e0032.7800e003135.1844 Total 0.2537 13.5385 5.1545 0.0582 1.7404 0.0940 1.8344 0.4750 0.0899 0.5650 6,811.638 7 6,811.638
7 0.7028 1.0797 7,150.943
2 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0499 0.0000 0.0499 6.9800e0030.0000 6.9800e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Total 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0499 0.0570 0.1069 6.9800e0030.0570 0.0640 0.0000 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2126 13.5162 4.7738 0.0569 1.5761 0.0933 1.6694 0.4315 0.0893 0.5207 6,677.353 2 6,677.353
2 0.7000 1.0769 7,015.758
8 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0412 0.0223 0.3807 1.3000e0030.1643 7.3000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.7000e0040.0443 134.2855 134.2855 2.7800e0032.7800e003135.1844 Total 0.2537 13.5385 5.1545 0.0582 1.7404 0.0940 1.8344 0.4750 0.0899 0.5650 6,811.638 7 6,811.638
7 0.7028 1.0797 7,150.943
2 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1108 0.0000 0.1108 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5236 14.2119 17.9014 0.0360 0.5704 0.5704 0.5322 0.5322 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Total 1.5236 14.2119 17.9014 0.0360 0.1108 0.5704 0.6812 0.0155 0.5322 0.5478 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2101 13.2701 4.8881 0.0555 1.5764 0.0931 1.6696 0.4316 0.0891 0.5207 6,540.931 0 6,540.931
0 0.7157 1.0559 6,873.491
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0392 0.0202 0.3591 1.2600e0030.1643 7.0000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.4000e0040.0442 131.0692 131.0692 2.5200e0032.6200e003131.9121 Total 0.2493 13.2903 5.2472 0.0568 1.7407 0.0938 1.8345 0.4752 0.0897 0.5649 6,672.000 2 6,672.000
2 0.7183 1.0586 7,005.403
3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0499 0.0000 0.0499 6.9800e0030.0000 6.9800e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Total 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0499 0.0570 0.1069 6.9800e0030.0570 0.0640 0.0000 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2101 13.2701 4.8881 0.0555 1.5764 0.0931 1.6696 0.4316 0.0891 0.5207 6,540.931 0 6,540.931
0 0.7157 1.0559 6,873.491
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0392 0.0202 0.3591 1.2600e0030.1643 7.0000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.4000e0040.0442 131.0692 131.0692 2.5200e0032.6200e003131.9121 Total 0.2493 13.2903 5.2472 0.0568 1.7407 0.0938 1.8345 0.4752 0.0897 0.5649 6,672.000 2 6,672.000
2 0.7183 1.0586 7,005.403
3 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1939 8.6150 3.2664 0.0385 1.3251 0.0473 1.3724 0.3813 0.0452 0.4266 4,332.925 3 4,332.925
3 0.3017 0.6402 4,531.241
0 Worker 0.7827 0.3861 7.1117 0.0254 3.4173 0.0138 3.4311 0.9064 0.0127 0.9191 2,669.026 0 2,669.026
0 0.0480 0.0517 2,685.635
0 Total 0.9766 9.0011 10.3782 0.0639 4.7425 0.0610 4.8035 1.2878 0.0579 1.3457 7,001.951 2 7,001.951
2 0.3497 0.6919 7,216.876
0 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1939 8.6150 3.2664 0.0385 1.3251 0.0473 1.3724 0.3813 0.0452 0.4266 4,332.925 3 4,332.925
3 0.3017 0.6402 4,531.241
0 Worker 0.7827 0.3861 7.1117 0.0254 3.4173 0.0138 3.4311 0.9064 0.0127 0.9191 2,669.026 0 2,669.026
0 0.0480 0.0517 2,685.635
0 Total 0.9766 9.0011 10.3782 0.0639 4.7425 0.0610 4.8035 1.2878 0.0579 1.3457 7,001.951 2 7,001.951
2 0.3497 0.6919 7,216.876
0 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1898 8.4973 3.2762 0.0376 1.3253 0.0469 1.3722 0.3814 0.0449 0.4262 4,240.411 1 4,240.411
1 0.3067 0.6270 4,434.928
3 Worker 0.7530 0.3583 6.8188 0.0248 3.4173 0.0129 3.4303 0.9064 0.0119 0.9183 2,619.828 1 2,619.828
1 0.0443 0.0495 2,635.687
5 Total 0.9428 8.8555 10.0950 0.0623 4.7426 0.0598 4.8024 1.2878 0.0567 1.3446 6,860.239 2 6,860.239
2 0.3510 0.6765 7,070.615
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1898 8.4973 3.2762 0.0376 1.3253 0.0469 1.3722 0.3814 0.0449 0.4262 4,240.411 1 4,240.411
1 0.3067 0.6270 4,434.928
3 Worker 0.7530 0.3583 6.8188 0.0248 3.4173 0.0129 3.4303 0.9064 0.0119 0.9183 2,619.828 1 2,619.828
1 0.0443 0.0495 2,635.687
5 Total 0.9428 8.8555 10.0950 0.0623 4.7426 0.0598 4.8024 1.2878 0.0567 1.3446 6,860.239 2 6,860.239
2 0.3510 0.6765 7,070.615
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1869 8.4017 3.2958 0.0367 1.3254 0.0466 1.3720 0.3814 0.0446 0.4260 4,152.656 4 4,152.656
4 0.3123 0.6143 4,343.524
4 Worker 0.7248 0.3353 6.5727 0.0242 3.4173 0.0120 3.4294 0.9064 0.0111 0.9175 2,577.151 8 2,577.151
8 0.0411 0.0477 2,592.389
3 Total 0.9117 8.7370 9.8685 0.0609 4.7428 0.0586 4.8014 1.2879 0.0556 1.3435 6,729.808 2 6,729.808
2 0.3533 0.6620 6,935.913
7 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1869 8.4017 3.2958 0.0367 1.3254 0.0466 1.3720 0.3814 0.0446 0.4260 4,152.656 4 4,152.656
4 0.3123 0.6143 4,343.524
4 Worker 0.7248 0.3353 6.5727 0.0242 3.4173 0.0120 3.4294 0.9064 0.0111 0.9175 2,577.151 8 2,577.151
8 0.0411 0.0477 2,592.389
3 Total 0.9117 8.7370 9.8685 0.0609 4.7428 0.0586 4.8014 1.2879 0.0556 1.3435 6,729.808 2 6,729.808
2 0.3533 0.6620 6,935.913
7 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7119 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7167 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0282 0.0139 0.2564 9.2000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 96.2389 96.2389 1.7300e0031.8600e00396.8378 Total 0.0282 0.0139 0.2564 9.2000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 96.2389 96.2389 1.7300e0031.8600e00396.8378 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3885 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3934 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0282 0.0139 0.2564 9.2000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 96.2389 96.2389 1.7300e0031.8600e00396.8378 Total 0.0282 0.0139 0.2564 9.2000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 96.2389 96.2389 1.7300e0031.8600e00396.8378 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7119 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7167 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0272 0.0129 0.2459 8.9000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 94.4650 94.4650 1.6000e0031.7900e00395.0368 Total 0.0272 0.0129 0.2459 8.9000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 94.4650 94.4650 1.6000e0031.7900e00395.0368 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3885 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3934 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0272 0.0129 0.2459 8.9000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 94.4650 94.4650 1.6000e0031.7900e00395.0368 Total 0.0272 0.0129 0.2459 8.9000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 94.4650 94.4650 1.6000e0031.7900e00395.0368 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 19.1362 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1562 0.0770 1.4189 5.0700e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 532.5220 532.5220 9.5700e0030.0103 535.8358 Total 0.1562 0.0770 1.4189 5.0700e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 532.5220 532.5220 9.5700e0030.0103 535.8358 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 18.9951 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1562 0.0770 1.4189 5.0700e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 532.5220 532.5220 9.5700e0030.0103 535.8358 Total 0.1562 0.0770 1.4189 5.0700e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 532.5220 532.5220 9.5700e0030.0103 535.8358 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 19.1362 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1502 0.0715 1.3605 4.9400e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 522.7061 522.7061 8.8300e0039.8800e003525.8704 Total 0.1502 0.0715 1.3605 4.9400e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 522.7061 522.7061 8.8300e0039.8800e003525.8704 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 18.9951 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1502 0.0715 1.3605 4.9400e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 522.7061 522.7061 8.8300e0039.8800e003525.8704 Total 0.1502 0.0715 1.3605 4.9400e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 522.7061 522.7061 8.8300e0039.8800e003525.8704 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 16.5530 11.1906 129.8597 0.2671 32.4094 0.1649 32.5743 8.6285 0.1531 8.7816 28,380.42 71 28,380.42
71 1.8424 1.1776 28,777.41
39 Unmitigated 19.5100 14.7129 172.7132 0.3847 47.2440 0.2268 47.4708 12.5780 0.2107 12.7887 40,878.96 92 40,878.96
92 2.3587 1.5440 41,398.05
84 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Standing Discount store 157.79 35.80 11.34 186,239 127,760 General Light Industry 343.34 77.90 27.14 759,790 521,216 Health Club 172.30 39.09 12.38 225,332 154,578
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 91.56 20.77 6.58 80,412 55,163 Library 230.55 52.31 16.57 295,779 202,904
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Research & Development 8,151.11 1,849.48 585.81 15,463,854 10,608,204 Total 9,146.64 2,075.37 659.82 17,011,407 11,669,825
Increase Density
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Enclosed Parking Structure 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Free-Standing Discount store 9.50 7.30 7.30 12.20 68.80 19.00 47.5 35.5 17 General Light Industry 9.50 7.30 7.30 59.00 28.00 13.00 92 5 3 Health Club 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.90 64.10 19.00 52 39 9
High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

9.50 7.30 7.30 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Library 9.50 7.30 7.30 52.00 43.00 5.00 44 44 12
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Research & Development 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00 48.00 19.00 82 15 3

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Enclosed Parking Structure 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 Free-Standing Discount store 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 General Light Industry 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 Health Club 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 Library 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 Parking Lot 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 Research & Development 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing
Discount store
202.339 2.1800e0030.0198 0.0167 1.2000e0041.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e00323.8046 23.8046 4.6000e0044.4000e00423.9461 General Light
Industry
2372.79 0.0256 0.2326 0.1954 1.4000e0030.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 279.1516 279.1516 5.3500e0035.1200e003280.8105 Health Club 1190.87 0.0128 0.1168 0.0981 7.0000e0048.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e003140.1025 140.1025 2.6900e0032.5700e003140.9350 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
4314.21 0.0465 0.4230 0.3553 2.5400e0030.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 507.5546 507.5546 9.7300e0039.3100e003510.5707 Library 1593.62 0.0172 0.1562 0.1312 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.4843 187.4843 3.5900e0033.4400e003188.5985 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research &
Development
56333.6 0.6075 5.5229 4.6392 0.0331 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 6,627.485 3 6,627.485
3 0.1270 0.1215 6,666.869
1 Total 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1489 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.202339 2.1800e0030.0198 0.0167 1.2000e0041.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e00323.8046 23.8046 4.6000e0044.4000e00423.9461 General Light
Industry

2.37279 0.0256 0.2326 0.1954 1.4000e0030.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 279.1516 279.1516 5.3500e0035.1200e003280.8105 Health Club 1.19087 0.0128 0.1168 0.0981 7.0000e0048.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e003140.1025 140.1025 2.6900e0032.5700e003140.9350 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

4.31421 0.0465 0.4230 0.3553 2.5400e0030.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 507.5546 507.5546 9.7300e0039.3100e003510.5707 Library 1.59362 0.0172 0.1562 0.1312 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.4843 187.4843 3.5900e0033.4400e003188.5985 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research &
Development

56.3336 0.6075 5.5229 4.6392 0.0331 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 6,627.485 3 6,627.485
3 0.1270 0.1215 6,666.869
1 Total 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1489 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Unmitigated 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784

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

2.7123 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

20.1867 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0112 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Total 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
Use Water Efficient Landscaping

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

2.7123 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

20.1867 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0112 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Total 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 1:59 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

Construction Phase - Building construction, paving and painting assumed to occur simultaneously. Information updated to match that provided by the applicant.

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Equipment list updated to match information provided by the Project applicant.

Off-road Equipment - Equipment list updated to match information provided by the Project applicant.

Energy Use - All nontitle-24 electricity usage was reduced by 50%. Per the ‘121. E Grand Conservation Measures and Sustainable Design’ sheet provided by the applicant.

Water And Wastewater - Indoor water use provided by applicant. Usage was evenly distributed between all uses.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Mobile Commute Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -
Water Mitigation -
Operational Off-Road Equipment -
Stationary Sources - Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps - conversion of 1kw=1.341 hp Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck False True CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 3.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 2.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 6.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 45.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 220.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 522.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 522.00
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 20.97 10.48
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblEnergyUse NT24E 3.36 1.68
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 110.00 6.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 4.50
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 159,250.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 15,750.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 836,870.00 836,865.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 23,670.00 23,674.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 35,250.00 35,249.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 229,220.00 229,216.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 26,190.00 26,191.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 17,690.00 17,691.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 16,200.00 16,196.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 19.21 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.54 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.81 0.97
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.26 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.60 0.97
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.41 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.22 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.37 0.97
tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 80.00 16.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 70.76 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.99 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 20.87 2.21
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 122.40 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 80.09 2.21
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 1.90 2.21
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 60.21 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.00 0.77
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 26.73 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 142.64 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 42.09 0.70
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.11 0.70
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 53.12 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 4.96 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 32.93 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 112.18 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 72.05 9.74
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.26 9.74
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,199,974.85 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 8,151,562.50 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,046,242.22 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 2,853,216.90 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 740,608.46 2,597,035.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 411,483,913.60 2,597,035.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 2.9723 41.0577 40.2644 0.1336 2.3547 1.1846 3.5393 0.5915 1.1024 1.6939 0.0000 14,203.24 08 14,203.24
08 2.7683 1.1785 14,623.63
33 2025 1.7680 28.2326 23.1683 0.0927 1.8515 0.6645 2.5160 0.4907 0.6222 1.1129 0.0000 10,137.88 45 10,137.88
45 1.6747 1.0596 10,495.51
86 2026 23.7656 43.2631 46.6097 0.1364 5.5475 1.5437 7.0912 1.5013 1.4357 2.9370 0.0000 13,999.10 70 13,999.10
70 2.2225 0.7147 14,267.63
61 2027 23.7256 43.0992 46.2631 0.1347 5.5477 1.5422 7.0899 1.5014 1.4344 2.9357 0.0000 13,849.49 65 13,849.49
65 2.2223 0.6984 14,113.16
33 2028 2.6438 25.0753 27.0913 0.0920 4.7428 0.7830 5.5258 1.2879 0.7243 2.0122 0.0000 9,693.235 9 9,693.235
9 1.3395 0.6702 9,926.433
0 Maximum 23.7656 43.2631 46.6097 0.1364 5.5477 1.5437 7.0912 1.5014 1.4357 2.9370 0.0000 14,203.24 08 14,203.24
08 2.7683 1.1785 14,623.63
33 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2024 1.1905 21.2690 49.4709 0.1336 2.1745 0.2141 2.3886 0.5699 0.2096 0.7795 0.0000 14,203.24 08 14,203.24
08 2.7683 1.1785 14,623.63
33 2025 0.6722 15.8742 27.6825 0.0927 1.7906 0.1511 1.9417 0.4821 0.1470 0.6292 0.0000 10,137.88 45 10,137.88
45 1.6747 1.0596 10,495.51
86 2026 21.0592 14.1837 53.3051 0.1364 5.5475 0.1712 5.7187 1.5013 0.1678 1.6691 0.0000 13,999.10 70 13,999.10
70 2.2225 0.7147 14,267.63
61 2027 21.0192 14.0198 52.9585 0.1347 5.5477 0.1697 5.7174 1.5014 0.1664 1.6678 0.0000 13,849.49 64 13,849.49
64 2.2223 0.6984 14,113.16
33 2028 1.4019 11.9771 29.9742 0.0920 4.7428 0.1097 4.8525 1.2879 0.1067 1.3946 0.0000 9,693.235 9 9,693.235
9 1.3395 0.6702 9,926.433
0 Maximum 21.0592 21.2690 53.3051 0.1364 5.5477 0.2141 5.7187 1.5014 0.2096 1.6691 0.0000 14,203.24 08 14,203.24
08 2.7683 1.1785 14,623.63
33 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

17.37 57.22 -16.35 0.00 1.20 85.73 19.96 0.56 85.01 42.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Energy 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mobile 18.4134 17.0560 189.4538 0.3689 47.2440 0.2269 47.4708 12.5780 0.2108 12.7888 39,193.75 24 39,193.75
24 2.6083 1.6904 39,762.70
32 Total 42.0354 23.5284 195.0114 0.4078 47.2440 0.7191 47.9631 12.5780 0.7030 13.2810 46,959.59 66 46,959.59
66 2.7578 1.8328 47,574.71
15 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Energy 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mobile 15.2990 12.9843 146.2071 0.2564 32.4094 0.1650 32.5743 8.6285 0.1532 8.7817 27,233.79 89 27,233.79
89 2.0783 1.2946 27,671.55
93 Total 38.9211 19.4567 151.7646 0.2952 32.4094 0.6572 33.0666 8.6285 0.6454 9.2739 34,999.64 32 34,999.64
32 2.2278 1.4370 35,483.56
75 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

7.41 17.31 22.18 27.61 31.40 8.61 31.06 31.40 8.19 30.17 0.00 25.47 25.47 19.22 21.59 25.42 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 1,408,613; Non-Residential Outdoor: 469,538; Striped Parking Area:
15,324 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 6
Acres of Paving: 0.97
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Site Preparation Excavators 1 7.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Graders 0 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Other Construction Equipment 3 7.00 172 0.42 Site Preparation Rollers 1 8.00 16 0.38
Site Preparation Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8.00 100 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Site Preparation Scrapers 0 8.00 367 0.48
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Grading Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Grading Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 0 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Other Construction Equipment 2 8.00 172 0.42 Building Construction Signal Boards 2 8.00 6 0.82
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 0 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 8.00 9 0.56
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Paving Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Paving Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 262.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 15 38.00 0.00 1,969.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 19,906.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 10 416.00 196.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 83.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 1.2605 0.0000 1.2605 0.1909 0.0000 0.1909 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.5954 5.2601 10.3007 0.0159 0.2382 0.2382 0.2197 0.2197 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Total 0.5954 5.2601 10.3007 0.0159 1.2605 0.2382 1.4987 0.1909 0.2197 0.4106 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0131 0.9171 0.3086 3.6600e0030.1014 6.0200e0030.1074 0.0278 5.7600e0030.0335 429.8137 429.8137 0.0450 0.0693 451.6002 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0339 0.0206 0.2855 9.2000e0040.1232 5.4000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.0000e0040.0332 95.2270 95.2270 2.3700e0032.4000e00396.0009 Total 0.0470 0.9377 0.5941 4.5800e0030.2246 6.5600e0030.2312 0.0604 6.2600e0030.0667 525.0407 525.0407 0.0474 0.0717 547.6011 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.2 Demolition - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.5672 0.0000 0.5672 0.0859 0.0000 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.2160 1.8774 11.7475 0.0159 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0254 0.0000 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Total 0.2160 1.8774 11.7475 0.0159 0.5672 0.0254 0.5926 0.0859 0.0254 0.1113 0.0000 1,527.521 5 1,527.521
5 0.4886 1,539.736
9 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0131 0.9171 0.3086 3.6600e0030.1014 6.0200e0030.1074 0.0278 5.7600e0030.0335 429.8137 429.8137 0.0450 0.0693 451.6002 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0339 0.0206 0.2855 9.2000e0040.1232 5.4000e0040.1238 0.0327 5.0000e0040.0332 95.2270 95.2270 2.3700e0032.4000e00396.0009 Total 0.0470 0.9377 0.5941 4.5800e0030.2246 6.5600e0030.2312 0.0604 6.2600e0030.0667 525.0407 525.0407 0.0474 0.0717 547.6011 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.3277 0.0000 0.3277 0.0393 0.0000 0.0393 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.6647 25.4982 34.3238 0.0693 1.0814 1.0814 1.0037 1.0037 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Total 2.6647 25.4982 34.3238 0.0693 0.3277 1.0814 1.4091 0.0393 1.0037 1.0430 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2216 15.5074 5.2174 0.0619 1.7149 0.1018 1.8167 0.4695 0.0974 0.5669 7,267.871 0 7,267.871
0 0.7608 1.1724 7,636.265
5 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0859 0.0521 0.7233 2.3400e0030.3122 1.3800e0030.3135 0.0828 1.2700e0030.0841 241.2418 241.2418 6.0100e0036.0700e003243.2023 Total 0.3075 15.5595 5.9406 0.0643 2.0270 0.1032 2.1302 0.5523 0.0987 0.6509 7,509.112 7 7,509.112
7 0.7668 1.1785 7,879.467
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.3 Site Preparation - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1475 0.0000 0.1475 0.0177 0.0000 0.0177 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.8830 5.7095 43.5303 0.0693 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.1109 0.0000 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Total 0.8830 5.7095 43.5303 0.0693 0.1475 0.1109 0.2584 0.0177 0.1109 0.1286 0.0000 6,694.128 1 6,694.128
1 2.0015 6,744.165
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2216 15.5074 5.2174 0.0619 1.7149 0.1018 1.8167 0.4695 0.0974 0.5669 7,267.871 0 7,267.871
0 0.7608 1.1724 7,636.265
5 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0859 0.0521 0.7233 2.3400e0030.3122 1.3800e0030.3135 0.0828 1.2700e0030.0841 241.2418 241.2418 6.0100e0036.0700e003243.2023 Total 0.3075 15.5595 5.9406 0.0643 2.0270 0.1032 2.1302 0.5523 0.0987 0.6509 7,509.112 7 7,509.112
7 0.7668 1.1785 7,879.467
8 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1108 0.0000 0.1108 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.6674 16.1944 18.0277 0.0360 0.6738 0.6738 0.6287 0.6287 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Total 1.6674 16.1944 18.0277 0.0360 0.1108 0.6738 0.7846 0.0155 0.6287 0.6442 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2037 14.2523 4.7951 0.0569 1.5761 0.0936 1.6696 0.4315 0.0895 0.5210 6,679.636 1 6,679.636
1 0.6992 1.0775 7,018.214
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3807 1.2300e0030.1643 7.3000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.7000e0040.0443 126.9693 126.9693 3.1600e0033.2000e003128.0012 Total 0.2489 14.2797 5.1757 0.0582 1.7404 0.0943 1.8347 0.4750 0.0902 0.5652 6,806.605 5 6,806.605
5 0.7024 1.0807 7,146.215
4 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0499 0.0000 0.0499 6.9800e0030.0000 6.9800e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Total 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0499 0.0570 0.1069 6.9800e0030.0570 0.0640 0.0000 3,470.551 6 3,470.551
6 0.9589 3,494.524
7 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2037 14.2523 4.7951 0.0569 1.5761 0.0936 1.6696 0.4315 0.0895 0.5210 6,679.636 1 6,679.636
1 0.6992 1.0775 7,018.214
2 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0452 0.0274 0.3807 1.2300e0030.1643 7.3000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.7000e0040.0443 126.9693 126.9693 3.1600e0033.2000e003128.0012 Total 0.2489 14.2797 5.1757 0.0582 1.7404 0.0943 1.8347 0.4750 0.0902 0.5652 6,806.605 5 6,806.605
5 0.7024 1.0807 7,146.215
4 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.1108 0.0000 0.1108 0.0155 0.0000 0.0155 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.5236 14.2119 17.9014 0.0360 0.5704 0.5704 0.5322 0.5322 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Total 1.5236 14.2119 17.9014 0.0360 0.1108 0.5704 0.6812 0.0155 0.5322 0.5478 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2011 13.9958 4.9072 0.0555 1.5764 0.0934 1.6698 0.4316 0.0893 0.5209 6,543.441 8 6,543.441
8 0.7150 1.0566 6,876.187
9 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0433 0.0249 0.3597 1.1900e0030.1643 7.0000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.4000e0040.0442 123.9453 123.9453 2.8800e0033.0100e003124.9127 Total 0.2444 14.0207 5.2669 0.0567 1.7407 0.0941 1.8348 0.4752 0.0900 0.5651 6,667.387 1 6,667.387
1 0.7178 1.0596 7,001.100
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.4 Grading - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 0.0499 0.0000 0.0499 6.9800e0030.0000 6.9800e0030.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0570 0.0000 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Total 0.4277 1.8535 22.4156 0.0360 0.0499 0.0570 0.1069 6.9800e0030.0570 0.0640 0.0000 3,470.497 5 3,470.497
5 0.9568 3,494.418
0 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.2011 13.9958 4.9072 0.0555 1.5764 0.0934 1.6698 0.4316 0.0893 0.5209 6,543.441 8 6,543.441
8 0.7150 1.0566 6,876.187
9 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0433 0.0249 0.3597 1.1900e0030.1643 7.0000e0040.1650 0.0436 6.4000e0040.0442 123.9453 123.9453 2.8800e0033.0100e003124.9127 Total 0.2444 14.0207 5.2669 0.0567 1.7407 0.0941 1.8348 0.4752 0.0900 0.5651 6,667.387 1 6,667.387
1 0.7178 1.0596 7,001.100
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1896 9.0793 3.3596 0.0385 1.3251 0.0476 1.3727 0.3813 0.0455 0.4268 4,335.993 4 4,335.993
4 0.3011 0.6413 4,534.631
5 Worker 0.8693 0.4749 7.1323 0.0240 3.4173 0.0138 3.4311 0.9064 0.0127 0.9191 2,524.187 2 2,524.187
2 0.0549 0.0594 2,543.247
7 Total 1.0589 9.5542 10.4919 0.0625 4.7425 0.0613 4.8038 1.2878 0.0581 1.3459 6,860.180 6 6,860.180
6 0.3559 0.7007 7,077.879
1 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1896 9.0793 3.3596 0.0385 1.3251 0.0476 1.3727 0.3813 0.0455 0.4268 4,335.993 4 4,335.993
4 0.3011 0.6413 4,534.631
5 Worker 0.8693 0.4749 7.1323 0.0240 3.4173 0.0138 3.4311 0.9064 0.0127 0.9191 2,524.187 2 2,524.187
2 0.0549 0.0594 2,543.247
7 Total 1.0589 9.5542 10.4919 0.0625 4.7425 0.0613 4.8038 1.2878 0.0581 1.3459 6,860.180 6 6,860.180
6 0.3559 0.7007 7,077.879
1 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1851 8.9578 3.3676 0.0376 1.3253 0.0472 1.3724 0.3814 0.0451 0.4265 4,243.695 1 4,243.695
1 0.3061 0.6282 4,438.535
9 Worker 0.8406 0.4406 6.8453 0.0234 3.4173 0.0129 3.4303 0.9064 0.0119 0.9183 2,477.802 2 2,477.802
2 0.0507 0.0568 2,496.000
6 Total 1.0257 9.3984 10.2129 0.0610 4.7426 0.0601 4.8027 1.2878 0.0570 1.3448 6,721.497 3 6,721.497
3 0.3568 0.6850 6,934.536
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1851 8.9578 3.3676 0.0376 1.3253 0.0472 1.3724 0.3814 0.0451 0.4265 4,243.695 1 4,243.695
1 0.3061 0.6282 4,438.535
9 Worker 0.8406 0.4406 6.8453 0.0234 3.4173 0.0129 3.4303 0.9064 0.0119 0.9183 2,477.802 2 2,477.802
2 0.0507 0.0568 2,496.000
6 Total 1.0257 9.3984 10.2129 0.0610 4.7426 0.0601 4.8027 1.2878 0.0570 1.3448 6,721.497 3 6,721.497
3 0.3568 0.6850 6,934.536
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 1.6489 15.8035 17.1028 0.0324 0.7242 0.7242 0.6685 0.6685 3,099.600 2 3,099.600
2 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1820 8.8595 3.3858 0.0368 1.3254 0.0468 1.3722 0.3814 0.0448 0.4262 4,156.113 5 4,156.113
5 0.3116 0.6155 4,347.307
4 Worker 0.8129 0.4122 6.6028 0.0229 3.4173 0.0120 3.4294 0.9064 0.0111 0.9175 2,437.522 3 2,437.522
3 0.0471 0.0547 2,455.005
1 Total 0.9949 9.2717 9.9885 0.0596 4.7428 0.0589 4.8016 1.2879 0.0559 1.3437 6,593.635 8 6,593.635
8 0.3587 0.6702 6,802.312
5 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.5 Building Construction - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Total 0.4070 2.7054 19.9856 0.0324 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0509 0.0000 3,099.600 1 3,099.600
1 0.9808 3,124.120
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.1820 8.8595 3.3858 0.0368 1.3254 0.0468 1.3722 0.3814 0.0448 0.4262 4,156.113 5 4,156.113
5 0.3116 0.6155 4,347.307
4 Worker 0.8129 0.4122 6.6028 0.0229 3.4173 0.0120 3.4294 0.9064 0.0111 0.9175 2,437.522 3 2,437.522
3 0.0471 0.0547 2,455.005
1 Total 0.9949 9.2717 9.9885 0.0596 4.7428 0.0589 4.8016 1.2879 0.0559 1.3437 6,593.635 8 6,593.635
8 0.3587 0.6702 6,802.312
5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7119 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7167 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0314 0.0171 0.2572 8.7000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 91.0164 91.0164 1.9800e0032.1400e00391.7036 Total 0.0314 0.0171 0.2572 8.7000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 91.0164 91.0164 1.9800e0032.1400e00391.7036 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3885 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3934 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0314 0.0171 0.2572 8.7000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 91.0164 91.0164 1.9800e0032.1400e00391.7036 Total 0.0314 0.0171 0.2572 8.7000e0040.1232 5.0000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.6000e0040.0331 91.0164 91.0164 1.9800e0032.1400e00391.7036 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7119 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7167 16.6480 15.5257 0.0328 0.7035 0.7035 0.6546 0.6546 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0303 0.0159 0.2468 8.4000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 89.3438 89.3438 1.8300e0032.0500e00390.0000 Total 0.0303 0.0159 0.2468 8.4000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 89.3438 89.3438 1.8300e0032.0500e00390.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.6 Paving - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.3885 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Paving 4.8700e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.3934 1.6835 19.3150 0.0328 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0518 0.0000 3,163.238 0 3,163.238
0 0.8575 3,184.674
2 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0303 0.0159 0.2468 8.4000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 89.3438 89.3438 1.8300e0032.0500e00390.0000 Total 0.0303 0.0159 0.2468 8.4000e0040.1232 4.7000e0040.1237 0.0327 4.3000e0040.0331 89.3438 89.3438 1.8300e0032.0500e00390.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 19.1362 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1735 0.0948 1.4230 4.7900e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 503.6239 503.6239 0.0110 0.0118 507.4268 Total 0.1735 0.0948 1.4230 4.7900e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 503.6239 503.6239 0.0110 0.0118 507.4268 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2026
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 18.9951 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1735 0.0948 1.4230 4.7900e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 503.6239 503.6239 0.0110 0.0118 507.4268 Total 0.1735 0.0948 1.4230 4.7900e0030.6818 2.7500e0030.6846 0.1809 2.5300e0030.1834 503.6239 503.6239 0.0110 0.0118 507.4268 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1709 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 19.1362 1.1455 1.8091 2.9700e0030.0515 0.0515 0.0515 0.0515 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1677 0.0879 1.3658 4.6700e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 494.3692 494.3692 0.0101 0.0113 498.0001 Total 0.1677 0.0879 1.3658 4.6700e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 494.3692 494.3692 0.0101 0.0113 498.0001 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2027
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 18.9654 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0297 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Total 18.9951 0.1288 1.8324 2.9700e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0033.9600e0030.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0154 281.8319 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.1677 0.0879 1.3658 4.6700e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 494.3692 494.3692 0.0101 0.0113 498.0001 Total 0.1677 0.0879 1.3658 4.6700e0030.6818 2.5800e0030.6844 0.1809 2.3700e0030.1832 494.3692 494.3692 0.0101 0.0113 498.0001 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 15.2990 12.9843 146.2071 0.2564 32.4094 0.1650 32.5743 8.6285 0.1532 8.7817 27,233.79 89 27,233.79
89 2.0783 1.2946 27,671.55
93 Unmitigated 18.4134 17.0560 189.4538 0.3689 47.2440 0.2269 47.4708 12.5780 0.2108 12.7888 39,193.75 24 39,193.75
24 2.6083 1.6904 39,762.70
32 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Enclosed Parking Structure 0.00 0.00 0.00
Free-Standing Discount store 157.79 35.80 11.34 186,239 127,760 General Light Industry 343.34 77.90 27.14 759,790 521,216 Health Club 172.30 39.09 12.38 225,332 154,578
High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 91.56 20.77 6.58 80,412 55,163 Library 230.55 52.31 16.57 295,779 202,904
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Research & Development 8,151.11 1,849.48 585.81 15,463,854 10,608,204 Total 9,146.64 2,075.37 659.82 17,011,407 11,669,825
Increase Density
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1488 0.1424 7,811.729
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Free-Standing
Discount store
202.339 2.1800e0030.0198 0.0167 1.2000e0041.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e00323.8046 23.8046 4.6000e0044.4000e00423.9461 General Light
Industry
2372.79 0.0256 0.2326 0.1954 1.4000e0030.0177 0.0177 0.0177 0.0177 279.1516 279.1516 5.3500e0035.1200e003280.8105 Health Club 1190.87 0.0128 0.1168 0.0981 7.0000e0048.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e0038.8700e003140.1025 140.1025 2.6900e0032.5700e003140.9350 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
4314.21 0.0465 0.4230 0.3553 2.5400e0030.0322 0.0322 0.0322 0.0322 507.5546 507.5546 9.7300e0039.3100e003510.5707 Library 1593.62 0.0172 0.1562 0.1312 9.4000e0040.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 187.4843 187.4843 3.5900e0033.4400e003188.5985 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research &
Development
56333.6 0.6075 5.5229 4.6392 0.0331 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 6,627.485 3 6,627.485
3 0.1270 0.1215 6,666.869
1 Total 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1489 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Interior
Use Low VOC Paint - Non-Residential Exterior
No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

0.202339 2.1800e0030.0198 0.0167 1.2000e0041.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e0031.5100e00323.8046 23.8046 4.6000e0044.4000e00423.9461 General Light
Industry

56.3336 0.6075 5.5229 4.6392 0.0331 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 0.4197 6,627.485 3 6,627.485
3 0.1270 0.1215 6,666.869
1 Total 0.7119 6.4713 5.4359 0.0388 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 0.4918 7,765.582 9 7,765.582
9 0.1489 0.1424 7,811.729
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Unmitigated 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784

2.7123 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

20.1867 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0112 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Total 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Install Low Flow Bathroom Faucet
Install Low Flow Kitchen Faucet
Install Low Flow Toilet
Install Low Flow Shower
Use Water Efficient Irrigation System
Use Water Efficient Landscaping

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

2.7123 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

20.1867 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0112 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Total 22.9102 1.1000e0030.1216 1.0000e0054.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0044.3000e0040.2614 0.2614 6.8000e0040.2784 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 42 Date: 3/30/2022 2:02 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Emergency Generator Testing
San Mateo County, Summer
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Construction Phase - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Off-road Equipment - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Architectural Coating - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Area Coating - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4 per BAAQMD Area Mitigation - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Consumer Products - Model run done for the testing of emergency generators

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.10 1000sqft 0.00 100.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 0.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 0.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 1050
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 100 0
tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 6 0
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu e
1050 0
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 5.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 0
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_Degreaser 3.542E-07 0
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_PesticidesFertilizers 5.152E-08 0 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 2,982.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2028 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Maximum 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Emergency Generator Testing Architectural Coating 1/1/2028 1/7/2028 5 5 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Emergency Generator Testing Generator Sets 4 0.30 2982 0.74 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Emergency Generator
Testing
4 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 6 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Emergency Generator Testing - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Total 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Emergency Generator Testing - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

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

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

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:46 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Emergency Generator Testing
San Mateo County, Winter
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Construction Phase - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Off-road Equipment - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Architectural Coating - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Area Coating - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4 per BAAQMD Area Mitigation - Model run done for emissions of emergency generator testing Consumer Products - Model run done for the testing of emergency generators

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.10 1000sqft 0.00 100.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2028
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 0.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 0.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Interior 100.00 0.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Interior 100 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 0
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 1050
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Interior 100 0
tblAreaCoating Area_Parking 6 0
tblAreaCoating ReapplicationRatePercent 10 0
tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintResidentialExteriorValu e
1050 0
tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 0.00 5.00
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF 2.14E-05 0
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_Degreaser 3.542E-07 0
tblConsumerProducts ROG_EF_PesticidesFertilizers 5.152E-08 0 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 84.00 2,982.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2028 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Maximum 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 0.2744 0.2744 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 0.0000 3,319.848
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 2.0000e005 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 6 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Emergency Generator Testing - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Total 1.0100 16.4161 5.8846 0.0292 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 0.2744 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Emergency Generator Testing - 2028
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0292 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3,317.659 1 3,317.659
1 0.0876 3,319.848
3 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.445042 0.076631 0.244215 0.152976 0.026509 0.006871 0.010884 0.001867 0.001384 0.000522 0.029860 0.000424 0.002814 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

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

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

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 2.0000e005 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 13 Date: 4/20/2022 8:48 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

Land Use - Model run to account for existing conditions. Parking estimated from google earth. Lot acreage updated to match that for the Project.

Construction Phase - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Off-road Equipment - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Trips and VMT - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Energy Use - Model run to account for existing conditions- historical data used.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 169.00 Room 2.00 57,623.00 0
Parking Lot 32.75 1000sqft 0.91 32,748.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2021
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/7/2023 3/24/2023
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 3.82 3.13
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.88 0.35
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.95 1.95
tblEnergyUse T24NG 31.80 29.09
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 245,388.00 57,623.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.63 2.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.75 0.91
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Energy 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mobile 3.3219 2.9281 26.8459 0.0559 5.6410 0.0485 5.6895 1.5014 0.0453 1.5467 5,675.508 8 5,675.508
8 0.3799 0.2503 5,759.600
8 Total 4.7986 3.4889 27.3374 0.0593 5.6410 0.0911 5.7322 1.5014 0.0880 1.5894 6,348.270 2 6,348.270
2 0.3929 0.2627 6,436.362
7 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Energy 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mobile 3.0957 2.5224 23.0474 0.0457 4.5739 0.0405 4.6144 1.2174 0.0378 1.2552 4,638.608 0 4,638.608
0 0.3407 0.2182 4,712.155
9 Total 4.5724 3.0832 23.5390 0.0490 4.5739 0.0832 4.6571 1.2174 0.0805 1.2979 5,311.369 3 5,311.369
3 0.3537 0.2306 5,388.917
8 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/25/2023 3/24/2023 5 0 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 0 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Architectural Coating 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

4.71 11.63 13.89 17.23 18.92 8.76 18.76 18.92 8.50 18.34 0.00 16.33 16.33 9.97 12.22 16.27 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 86,435; Non-Residential Outdoor: 28,812; Striped Parking Area: 1,965 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.91
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 3.0957 2.5224 23.0474 0.0457 4.5739 0.0405 4.6144 1.2174 0.0378 1.2552 4,638.608 0 4,638.608
0 0.3407 0.2182 4,712.155
9 Unmitigated 3.3219 2.9281 26.8459 0.0559 5.6410 0.0485 5.6895 1.5014 0.0453 1.5467 5,675.508 8 5,675.508
8 0.3799 0.2503 5,759.600
8 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Hotel 1,412.84 1,384.11 1005.55 2,565,954 2,080,561
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1,412.84 1,384.11 1,005.55 2,565,954 2,080,561
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Hotel 9.50 7.30 7.30 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0
Improve Destination Accessibility

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.503496 0.067796 0.219620 0.135110 0.024059 0.005574 0.010071 0.002314 0.001646 0.000661 0.026822 0.000442 0.002389 Parking Lot 0.503496 0.067796 0.219620 0.135110 0.024059 0.005574 0.010071 0.002314 0.001646 0.000661 0.026822 0.000442 0.002389

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: Y
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 5718.1 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 5.7181 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied No Hearths Installed

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Unmitigated 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471

0.1684 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.2447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9300e0031.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Total 1.4150 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1684 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.2447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9300e0031.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Total 1.4150 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:07 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

Land Use - Model run to account for existing conditions. Parking estimated from google earth. Lot acreage updated to match that for the Project.

Construction Phase - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Off-road Equipment - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Trips and VMT - Model run to account for existing conditions. No construction.

Energy Use - Model run to account for existing conditions- historical data used.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation -
Area Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 169.00 Room 2.00 57,623.00 0
Parking Lot 32.75 1000sqft 0.91 32,748.00 0

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

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Peninsula Clean Energy
Operational Year 2021
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 0.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/7/2023 3/24/2023
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 3.82 3.13
tblEnergyUse LightingElect 0.88 0.35
tblEnergyUse T24E 2.95 1.95
tblEnergyUse T24NG 31.80 29.09
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 245,388.00 57,623.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.63 2.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.75 0.91
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripLength 20.00 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripLength 7.30 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripLength 10.80 0.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 8.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Energy 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mobile 3.1361 3.3873 29.5958 0.0535 5.6410 0.0485 5.6895 1.5014 0.0453 1.5467 5,431.775 5 5,431.775
5 0.4344 0.2770 5,525.192
6 Total 4.6128 3.9481 30.0874 0.0568 5.6410 0.0912 5.7322 1.5014 0.0880 1.5894 6,104.536 8 6,104.536
8 0.4474 0.2894 6,201.954
5 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.4151 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Energy 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mobile 2.8987 2.9213 25.8377 0.0437 4.5739 0.0405 4.6145 1.2174 0.0378 1.2553 4,442.008 3 4,442.008
3 0.3946 0.2420 4,523.997
2 Total 4.3754 3.4821 26.3293 0.0471 4.5739 0.0832 4.6571 1.2174 0.0805 1.2979 5,114.769 7 5,114.769
7 0.4076 0.2544 5,200.759
1 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.0 Construction Detail

5.15 11.80 12.49 17.14 18.92 8.76 18.76 18.92 8.50 18.34 0.00 16.21 16.21 8.90 12.10 16.14 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 86,435; Non-Residential Outdoor: 28,812; Striped Parking Area: 1,965 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.91
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

3.2 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 2.8987 2.9213 25.8377 0.0437 4.5739 0.0405 4.6145 1.2174 0.0378 1.2553 4,442.008 3 4,442.008
3 0.3946 0.2420 4,523.997
2 Unmitigated 3.1361 3.3873 29.5958 0.0535 5.6410 0.0485 5.6895 1.5014 0.0453 1.5467 5,431.775 5 5,431.775
5 0.4344 0.2770 5,525.192
6 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.503496 0.067796 0.219620 0.135110 0.024059 0.005574 0.010071 0.002314 0.001646 0.000661 0.026822 0.000442 0.002389 Parking Lot 0.503496 0.067796 0.219620 0.135110 0.024059 0.005574 0.010071 0.002314 0.001646 0.000661 0.026822 0.000442 0.002389

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: Y
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 5718.1 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Hotel 5.7181 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0617 0.5606 0.4709 3.3600e0030.0426 0.0426 0.0426 0.0426 672.7172 672.7172 0.0129 0.0123 676.7148 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied No Hearths Installed

0.1684 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.2447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9300e0031.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Total 1.4150 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.1684 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

1.2447 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.9300e0031.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Total 1.4150 1.9000e0040.0207 0.0000 7.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0057.0000e0050.0442 0.0442 1.2000e0040.0471 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 13 Date: 3/29/2022 10:08 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied

11.0 Vegetation

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

8.0 Waste Detail

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

ATTACHMENT B
Health Risk Analysis Output Files
Construction Health
Risk Model Outputs
Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Point Sources
Source
Type
Stack Inside
Diameter
[m]
Release
Height
[m]
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Base
Elevation
(Optional)
Y Coordinate
[m]
X Coordinate
[m]
Source
ID
Gas Exit
Temp.
[K]
Gas Exit
Velocity
[m/s]
POINT STCK1 552511.93 4167695.94 5.41 80.77 291.00 5.00 1.00 Rooftop Vent

1.00000
POINT STCK2 552539.00 4167725.50 8.52 1.37 291.00 5.00 1.00 Generator 1

1.00000
POINT STCK3 552552.88 4167717.83 8.39 1.37 291.00 5.00 1.00 Generator 2

1.00000
POINT STCK4 552567.68 4167709.24 7.46 1.37 291.00 5.00 1.00 Generator 3

1.00000
POINT STCK5 552584.31 4167699.92 6.48 1.37 291.00 5.00 1.00 Generator 4

1.00000
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\South SF- Operations\South SF- Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line Volume Sources
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SLINE2 (Offsite HDT)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

Emission Unit Label:

Unit Factor: 1E6

GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Source Group ID: STCK5 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) STCK5
Source Group ID: STCK4 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) STCK4
Source Group ID: STCK3 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) STCK3
Source Group ID: STCK2 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) STCK2
Source Group ID: STCK1 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) STCK1
Source Group ID: SLINE2 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) SLINE2
Source Group ID: ALL List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) All Sources Included
Source Groups
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\South SF- Operations\South SF- Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Receptor
Network ID
Grid Origin
X Coordinate [m]
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate [m]
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis [m]
Spacing for
Y-Axis [m]
UCART1 551401.43 4166490.10 30 30 50.00 50.00
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 552142.68 4167489.68 6.90
2 552027.56 4167539.00 8.56
3 552116.68 4167425.27 6.91
4 552243.56 4167902.46 7.81
Plant Boundary Receptors
Cartesian Plant Boundary
Primary
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 552500.01 4167748.47 FENCEPRI 5.35
2 552434.92 4167671.17 FENCEPRI 5.30
3 552439.57 4167656.35 FENCEPRI 5.30
4 552446.25 4167654.61 FENCEPRI 5.19
5 552491.00 4167653.74 FENCEPRI 5.22
6 552568.01 4167656.06 FENCEPRI 5.03
7 552593.87 4167674.66 FENCEPRI 5.57
8 552602.88 4167692.09 FENCEPRI 6.73
9 552499.72 4167749.92 FENCEPRI 5.37
Receptor Groups
Group ID Group Description
Record
Number
1 FENCEPRI Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors
2 UCART1 Receptors generated from Uniform Cartesian Grid AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\South SF- Operations\South SF- Construction.isc Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
..\..\modeling\E Grand Ave\SFIAP_met\724940.SFC
Default AERMET format
Filename:

Format Type:

Filename:

Format Type:
..\..\modeling\E Grand Ave\SFIAP_met\724940.PFL
Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 9.14 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:

Meteorological Station Data
Upper Air
Station No. Year Station Name
Surface
Stations X Coordinate [m] Y Coordinate [m]
2009 SAN FRANCISCO/INT'L ARPT
2009 OAKLAND/WSO AP
Default AERMET format
Wind Speed
Wind Speeds are Vector Mean (Not Scalar Means)
Data Period
Start Date: 1/1/2009 Start Hour: 1 End Date: 1/2/2014 End Hour: 24 Data Period to Process

10.8 8.23

5.14 3.09

1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s] Stability Category Wind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\South SF- Operations\South SF- Construction.isc Operational Health
Risk Model Outputs
Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line Volume Sources
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SLINE1 (Onsite construction)
Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

22.15 0.00E+0 552611.22 4167692.25 6.83 0.00
552584.84 4167658.65 5.36 0.00
552556.84 4167649.54 4.75 0.00
552442.01 4167647.91 5.15 0.00
552437.11 4167650.24 5.26 0.00
552428.94 4167660.05 5.58 0.00
552427.77 4167668.21 5.51 0.00
552498.96 4167758.53 5.41 0.00
552610.75 4167692.72 6.91 0.00
Source Type: LINE VOLUME
Source: SLINE2 (Vendors, construction worker + hauling) Release Height
[m]
Base Elevation
[m]
Y Coordinate for points
[m]
X Coordinate for Points
[m]
Length of Side
[m]
Emission Rate
[g/ s]
Building Height
[m]

22.15 1.00000 552492.48 4167647.32 4.96 0.00
552492.48 4167641.23 4.97 0.00
552564.31 4167642.75 4.82 0.00
552591.67 4167656.44 5.38 0.00
552614.10 4167684.18 6.23 0.00
552628.92 4167710.41 6.89 0.00
552498.94 4167786.42 5.13 0.00
552456.75 4167789.84 5.23 0.00
552412.66 4167771.98 5.17 0.00
552333.61 4167675.06 6.59 0.00
552310.04 4167667.08 5.52 0.00
552294.08 4167666.70 5.17 0.00
552286.48 4167670.88 5.26 0.00
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Volume Sources Generated from Line Sources
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SLINE1 L0000001 552604.38 4167683.54 6.15 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000002 552573.47 4167654.95 5.11 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000003 552530.73 4167649.17 4.83 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000004 552487.13 4167648.55 5.03 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000005 552443.53 4167647.93 5.17 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000006 552437.46 4167680.50 5.29 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000007 552464.45 4167714.74 5.30 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000008 552491.43 4167748.99 5.51 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000009 552526.06 4167742.58 5.73 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000010 552563.63 4167720.46 10.44 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 L0000011 552601.21 4167698.34 7.54 0.00 0.00E+0 22.15 20.28 2.37 Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SLINE2 L0000033 552497.47 4167641.34 4.97 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000034 552541.76 4167642.28 4.77 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000035 552583.76 4167652.48 5.21 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000036 552613.96 4167684.01 6.22 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000037 552616.88 4167717.45 7.70 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000038 552578.64 4167739.81 10.57 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000039 552540.39 4167762.18 5.94 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000040 552502.15 4167784.54 5.33 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000041 552458.50 4167789.70 5.23 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000042 552417.32 4167773.86 5.19 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000043 552387.83 4167741.54 13.54 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 2 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Source Pathway - Source Inputs
AERMOD
Line
Source
ID
Volume
Source
ID
X Coordinate
[m]
Y Coordinate
[m]
Base
Elevation
[m]
Release
Height
[m[
Emission
Rate
[g/s]
Length of
Side
[m]
Building
Height
[m]
Initial Lateral
Dimencion
[m]
Initial Vertical
Dimencion
[m]
SLINE2 L0000044 552359.83 4167707.21 9.49 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000045 552330.95 4167674.16 6.50 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 L0000046 552288.59 4167669.72 5.26 0.00 0.07143 22.15 20.60 2.37 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO1 - 3 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Source Pathway
AERMOD
Option not in use
Building Downwash Information
Emission Rate Units for Output
For Concentration
Concentration Unit Label:

Emission Unit Label:

Unit Factor: 1E6

GRAMS/SEC
MICROGRAMS/M**3
Source Group ID: SLINE2 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) SLINE2
Source Group ID: SLINE1 List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) SLINE1
Source Group ID: ALL List of Sources in Group (Source Range or Single Sources) All Sources Included
Source Groups
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software SO2 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Receptor Pathway
AERMOD
Receptor Networks
Note: Terrain Elavations and Flagpole Heights for Network Grids are in Page RE2 - 1 (If applicable) Generated Discrete Receptors for Multi-Tier (Risk) Grid and Receptor Locations for Fenceline Grid are in Page RE3 - 1 (If applicable) Uniform Cartesian Grid
Receptor
Network ID
Grid Origin
X Coordinate [m]
Grid Origin
Y Coordinate [m]
No. of X-Axis
Receptors
No. of Y-Axis
Receptors
Spacing for
X-Axis [m]
Spacing for
Y-Axis [m]
UCART1 551773.50 4166989.63 30 30 50.00 50.00
Discrete Receptors
Discrete Cartesian Receptors
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 552142.68 4167489.68 6.90
2 552027.56 4167539.00 8.56
3 552116.68 4167425.27 6.91
4 552243.56 4167902.46 7.81
Plant Boundary Receptors
Cartesian Plant Boundary
Primary
X-Coordinate [m] Y-Coordinate [m] Terrain Elevations
Flagpole Heights [m]
(Optional)
Record
Number
Group Name
(Optional)
1 552487.63 4167757.73 FENCEPRI 5.66
2 552424.22 4167671.71 FENCEPRI 5.56
3 552437.00 4167647.62 FENCEPRI 5.19
4 552562.84 4167648.11 FENCEPRI 4.77
5 552609.04 4167692.35 FENCEPRI 6.83
Receptor Groups
Group ID Group Description
Record
Number
1 FENCEPRI Cartesian plant boundary Primary Receptors
2 UCART1 Receptors generated from Uniform Cartesian Grid AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software RE1 - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Meteorology Pathway
AERMOD
Met Input Data
Surface Met Data
Profile Met Data
..\Lakes AERMOD Outputs\a-Met Data\SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT\724940.SFC Default AERMET format
Filename:

Format Type:

Filename:

Format Type:
..\Lakes AERMOD Outputs\a-Met Data\SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT\724940.PFL Potential Temperature Profile
Base Elevation above MSL (for Primary Met Tower): 9.14 [m] Wind Direction
Rotation Adjustment [deg]:

10.8 8.23

5.14 3.09

1.54 No Upper Bound
Wind Speed [m/s] Stability Category Wind Speed [m/s]
F
E
D
C
B
A
Stability Category
Wind Speed Categories
AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software ME - 1 4/22/2022 Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc Plant Boundary Summary Results
C:\Users\agne\Desktop\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.

Concentration - Source Group: ALL
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m) Units
1-HR 1ST 174.95103 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 2/3/2012, 7 1-HR 1ST 151.40468 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 1/7/2013, 22 1-HR 1ST 171.77649 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/17/2013, 2 1-HR 1ST 182.11601 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 1/21/2009, 6 1-HR 1ST 193.95583 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 1/3/2013, 18 24-HR 1ST 68.85549 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 12/31/2011, 24 24-HR 1ST 71.34411 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 11/3/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 64.85353 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/17/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 71.26890 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 1/7/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 69.09224 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 11/16/2009, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.40209 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 11/14/2012, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.77118 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 12/3/2012, 24 24-HR 6TH 59.95815 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/27/2010, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.06628 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 11/3/2009, 24 24-HR 6TH 62.56222 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 11/29/2010, 24 ANNUAL 27.07699 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 27.20815 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 24.92537 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 23.86320 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 27.88478 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 4/22/2022
Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc RS - 1 of 3
Plant Boundary Summary Results
C:\Users\agne\Desktop\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.

Concentration - Source Group: SLINE1
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m) Units
1-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 1-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 1-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 1-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 1-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 24-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 24-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 24-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 24-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 24-HR 1ST 0.00000 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 24-HR 6TH 0.00000 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 24-HR 6TH 0.00000 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 24-HR 6TH 0.00000 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 24-HR 6TH 0.00000 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 24-HR 6TH 0.00000 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 0.00000 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 0.00000 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 0.00000 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 0.00000 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 0.00000 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 4/22/2022
Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc RS - 2 of 3
Plant Boundary Summary Results
C:\Users\agne\Desktop\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.

Concentration - Source Group: SLINE2
Averaging
Period Rank Peak
X
(m)
Y
(m)
ZELEV
(m)
ZHILL
(m)
Peak Date,
Start Hour
ZFLAG
(m) Units
1-HR 1ST 174.95103 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 2/3/2012, 7 1-HR 1ST 151.40468 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 1/7/2013, 22 1-HR 1ST 171.77649 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/17/2013, 2 1-HR 1ST 182.11601 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 1/21/2009, 6 1-HR 1ST 193.95583 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 1/3/2013, 18 24-HR 1ST 68.85549 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 12/31/2011, 24 24-HR 1ST 71.34411 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 11/3/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 64.85353 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/17/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 71.26890 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 1/7/2009, 24 24-HR 1ST 69.09224 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 11/16/2009, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.40209 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 11/14/2012, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.77118 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 12/3/2012, 24 24-HR 6TH 59.95815 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 12/27/2010, 24 24-HR 6TH 64.06628 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 11/3/2009, 24 24-HR 6TH 62.56222 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 11/29/2010, 24 ANNUAL 27.07699 ug/m^3 552487.63 4167757.73 5.66 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 27.20815 ug/m^3 552424.22 4167671.71 5.56 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 24.92537 ug/m^3 552437.00 4167647.62 5.19 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 23.86320 ug/m^3 552562.84 4167648.11 4.77 0.00 357.95 ANNUAL 27.88478 ug/m^3 552609.04 4167692.35 6.83 0.00 357.95 AERMOD View by Lakes Environmental Software 4/22/2022
Project File: C:\Users\agne\Desktop\Full HRA\121 East Grand Avenue (South SF)\South SF- Construction\South SF- Construction.isc RS - 3 of 3
Construction
Health Risk
Calculations
Table A-1. Modeled Roadway Dimensions
Roadway Link Description AERMOD ID
Length
(miles) Width (m) Area (m2
)
Link 1 Onsite Link1 0.28 3.7 1,667.28
(1) All roadways modeled with standard 3.7 meter width per lane. (2) Site to Montague captures eastbound and westbound traffic Table A-2. Total Haul and Vendor Trip Information
Trip Type Trips/Day
Vendor Heavy Duty Trucks (Building
Construction) 22333
Note: All grading material assumed to remain on site and no new material will be brought onsite Daily truck trips from CalEEMod for building and construction and materials Table A-3. Modeled Roadway Trip Information
Truck Trips
Roadway Link
Percentage
Total Trips Hourly
Average
Daily
Link 1 Onsite 100% 2791.6 22333
(1) Offiste truck emissions calcuated for roadway within .36 miles of the site.

Table A-4. Onroad DPM Emission Rates
DPM Emission Rates1 (g/mi)
Vehicle Type Idle2 5 mph 15 mph 45 mph
Onsite
Composite4
Offsite
Composite5
HHDT 0.039 0.041 0.024 0.020 0.027 0.021
MHDT 0.018 0.069 0.048 0.039 0.051 0.039
Station Customer Composite3 0.028 0.055 0.036 0.030 0.039 0.030 (1) DPM Emission Rates conservativly represented using EMFAC2017 PM10 Exhaust emission factors for 2022. (2) Idle emission rates in grams per minute.
(3) Vender diesel vehicle fleet mix estimated at 50% HHDT 50% MDV per CalEEMod. (4) Onsite Composite factor is 85% @ 15 mph + 15% @ 5 mph + 1 minute idle per mile (5) Offsite Composite factor is 80% @ 45 mph + 10% @ 15 mph + 10% @ 5 mph + .1 minute idle per mile Table A-5. Modeled Roadway Emission Rates
DPM Emissions1,2
Roadway Link
Peak Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Annual
(lbs/yr)
Link 1 Onsite 0.0680 135.9048
(1) Peak Hourly Emissions = DPM Emission Rate (g/mi) * Peak Hourly Trips * Link Length (mi) / 453.6 (g/lb) (2) Annual Emissions = DPM Emission Rate (g/mi) * Daily Trips * Link Length (mi) * 365 (days/yr) / 453.6 (g/lb) Table A-6. Construction Phase Information
Phase Name Start Date End Date
Demolition 1/1/2024 3/1/2024
Site Preperation 3/2/2024 3/31/2024
Grading 4/1/2024 2/1/2025
Building Construction 1/1/2026 1/1/2028
Paving 1/1/2026 12/31/2027
Architectural Coating 1/1/2026 12/31/2027
Source: CalEEMod - Annual Consite Construction
Table A-7. Construction Offroad Equipment List
Phase Name
Equipment
Type Amount
Usage
Hours
Horse
Power
Load
Factor
Demolition Excavators 2 8 158 0.38
Demolition Signal Boards 2 2 6 0.82
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 1 8 65 0.37
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 97 0.37
Site Preparation Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8 221 0.5
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Site Preparation Excavators 1 7 158 0.38
Site Preparation Other Construction Equipment 3 7 172 0.42 Site Preparation Rollers 1 8 16 0.38
Site Preparation Rough Terrain Forklifts 2 8 100 0.4
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 203 0.36
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 2 8 65 0.37
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 97 0.37
Grading Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 81 0.73
Grading Graders 1 8 187 0.41
Grading Pavers 1 8 130 0.42
Grading Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36
Grading Rollers 1 8 80 0.38
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8 203 0.36
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 2 8 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts
27 89 0.2
Building Construction Other Construction Equipment28 172 0.42 Building Construction Signal Boards286 0.82
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders18 65 0.37
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes16 97 0.37 Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws18 81 0.73
Paving Graders18 187 0.41
Paving Pavers18 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment18 132 0.36
Paving Rollers18 80 0.38
Paving Rubber Tired Dozers18 247 0.4
Architectural Coating Air Compressors16 78 0.48
Source: CalEEMod - Annual Onsite Construction
Table A-8 Annual Onsite Offroad DPM Exhaust Construction Emissions by Phase Emissions (tons/yr) Total
Phase 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 (tons)
Demolition 0.00057 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.00057
Site Preparation 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0011 Grading 0.0056 0.0007 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0063
Building Construction 0.0000 0.0000 0.0066 0.0066 0.0000 0.0133 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0068 0.0068 0.0000 0.0135
Architectural Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0010 Annual DPM Emissions 0.0067 0.0007 0.0139 0.0139 0.0000 0.0358 Source: CalEEMod - Annual Onsite Construction
Note: Emissions modleing done for five years of construction Operational
Health Risk
Calculations
Table B-1. Modeled Roadway Dimensions
Roadway Link Description AERMOD ID
Length
(miles) Width (m) Area (m2
)
Link 1 Offsite Link1 0.28 3.7 1,667.28
(1) All roadways modeled with standard 3.7 meter width per lane. (2) Site to Montague captures eastbound and westbound traffic Table B-2. Total Haul and Vendor Trip Information
Trip Type Trips/Day
Vendor Heavy Duty Trucks (Building
Construction) 40
Note: All grading material assumed to remain on site and no new material will be brought onsite Daily truck trips from CalEEMod for building and construction and materials Table B-3. Modeled Roadway Trip Information
Truck Trips
Roadway Link
Percentage
Total Trips Hourly
Average
Daily
Link 1 Offsite 100% 5.0 40
(1) Offiste truck emissions calcuated for roadway within .36 miles of the site.

South San Francisco City CouncilSeptember 14, 2022

South San Francisco City Council
September 14, 2022