Table B-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 B-5. Modeled Roadway Emission Rates
DPM Emissions1,2
Roadway Link
Peak Hourly
(lbs/hr)
Annual
(lbs/yr)
Link 1 Offsite 0.0001 0.2434
(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 B-6. Representative Chemical Usage Data
Chemical Usage Vapor
Annual Hourly Pressure %
Compound CAS (lbs) (lbs) (mm Hg) Emitted
Arsenic and compounds 7440‐38‐2 1.10E‐01 1.10E‐02 - Benzene 71‐43‐2 16.40 1.64 75.00 0.75 Cadmium and compounds 7440‐43‐9 7.77 7.77E‐01 - Carbon tetrachloride 56‐23‐5 7.22 7.22E‐01 91.00 0.91 Chloroform 67‐66‐3 438.00 43.80 156.70 1.57
Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane, 1,2- 96‐12‐8 1.10E‐01 1.10E‐02 0.80 0.01 Dioxane, 1,4- 123‐91‐1 33.80 3.38 27.00 0.27
Ethylene dibromide 106‐93‐4 5.86 5.86E‐01 11.70 0.12
Ethylene dibromide 107‐06‐2 33.20 3.32 100.00 1.00
Formaldehyde 50‐00‐0 1.31E‐02 1.31E‐03 1.30 0.01
Glutaraldehyde 111‐30‐8 13.50 1.35 17.00 0.17
Manganese and Compounds 7439‐96‐5 24.30 2.43 0.09 Methylene chloride 75‐09‐2 717.00 71.70 3.50 0.04 Mercury and compounds 7439‐97‐6 7.49 7.49E‐01 1.20 0.01 Potassium Bromate 1‐2‐7758 2.20 2.20E‐01 - Propylene 75‐56‐9 189.00 18.90 538.00 5.38 Source: Health Risk Analysis for Emissions of Air Toxics from Operational Sources University of California, San Francisco Mission Bay Site Genentech Hall Fume Hood Risk Screen December 7, 2011 Additional Data and Equations
Data Source Lab Area 385,000 Square Feet
Project Maximum Lab Area 836,865 Square Feet
Equation 1: Emissions = Chemical Usage * % Emitted * Project Lab Area / Data Source Lab Area Table B-7. Calculated Emissions From Project Laboratories Emissions
Annual Hourly
Compound CAS (lbs) (lbs)
Arsenic and compounds 7440‐38‐2 - Benzene 71‐43‐2 0.27 0.03 Cadmium and compounds 7440‐43‐9 - Carbon tetrachloride 56‐23‐5 0.14 Chloroform 67‐66‐3 14.95 1.49 Dibromo‐3‐chloropropane, 1,2- 96‐12‐8 - Dioxane, 1,4- 123‐91‐1 0.20 0.02 Ethylene dibromide 106‐93‐4 0.02 Ethylene dibromide 107‐06‐2 0.72 0.07 Formaldehyde 50‐00‐0 - Glutaraldehyde 111‐30‐8 0.05 0.00 Manganese and Compounds 7439‐96‐5 - Methylene chloride 75‐09‐2 0.62 0.06 Mercury and compounds 7439‐97‐6 0.00 Potassium Bromate 1‐2‐7758 - Propylene 75‐56‐9 22.10 2.21 Note: Calculated emissions were input into HARP2 as point sources.
Table B-8. Emergency Generator Operational Data
Source Number Tier
Standby
Rating (kW) Load Factor Fuel Type
Hours per
Year (ea.)
Cummings DQKAB 4 4i 2000 0.25 diesel 100
Source: Tier 4 interim compliant (without DPF) after treatment QSK50 and QSK60 series engines 1250 kW - 2250 kW 60 Hz (Cummings, 2018)
Table B-9. Tier 4i Generator Emission Factors
Tier 4 Standards for Engines Over 750 HP (g/bhp-hr)
2011 Interim 2015 Final
Description PM NOx NMHC PM NOx NMHC
generators sets < 1200 hp 0.075 2.60 0.30 0.02 0.50 0.14 generators sets > 1200 hp 0.075 2.60 0.30 0.02 0.50 0.14 all other equipment 0.075 2.60 0.30 0.02 0.50 0.14
Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-06-29/pdf/04-11293.pdf Equations
lbs/day = Hrs/day * Rating (kW) * 1.341 (bhp/kW) * Load Factor (%) * EF (g/bhp-hr) / 453.6 (g/lb) * pieces (#) lbs/yr = lbs/day * Days per Year
Table B-10. Calculated Emissions from Generators
Particulate Matter
Emissions
Source lbs/hr lb/yr
Cummings DQKAB 0.44 44.35
Emissions / Point Source (4 total) 0.11 11.09
Figures
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Station #23234 - SAN FRANCISCO/INT'L ARPT, CA
COMMENTS:
AERMET Processed Data
COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
4/22/2022
PROJECT NO.:
2022-039.01
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
4.9%
9.8%
14.7%
19.6%
24.5%
WIND SPEED
(m/s)
>= 11.10
8.80 - 11.10
5.70 - 8.80
3.60 - 5.70
2.10 - 3.60
0.50 - 2.10
Calms: 13.23%
TOTAL COUNT:
43596 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
13.23%
DATA PERIOD:
Start Date: 1/1/2009 - 00:00
End Date: 1/2/2014 - 23:59
AVG. WIND SPEED:
4.75 m/s
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
Meteorological Data
Receptor Location
Maximum Impact
ATTACHMENT C
CalEEMod Output Files – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
121 East Grand Avenue
San Mateo County, Annual
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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.
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.
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.2329 3.5245 2.9294 0.0111 0.2333 0.0930 0.3263 0.0583 0.0869 0.1452 0.0000 1,089.003 4 1,089.003
4 0.1845 0.1087 1,126.001
0 2025 0.0203 0.3219 0.2661 1.0700e0030.0315 7.6400e0030.0391 6.9900e0037.1500e0030.0141 0.0000 105.7535 105.7535 0.0175 0.0111 109.4831 2026 3.0875 5.6183 6.0310 0.0178 0.6951 0.2014 0.8965 0.1888 0.1873 0.3762 0.0000 1,658.261 6 1,658.261
6 0.2627 0.0841 1,689.885
3 2027 3.0824 5.5974 5.9874 0.0176 0.6951 0.2012 0.8963 0.1888 0.1872 0.3760 0.0000 1,640.513 4 1,640.513
4 0.2627 0.0822 1,671.568
0 2028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 3.0875 5.6183 6.0310 0.0178 0.6951 0.2014 0.8965 0.1888 0.1873 0.3762 0.0000 1,658.261 6 1,658.261
6 0.2627 0.1087 1,689.885
3 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2024 0.0845 1.8379 3.4862 0.0111 0.2092 0.0178 0.2269 0.0548 0.0173 0.0721 0.0000 1,089.002 9 1,089.002
9 0.1845 0.1087 1,126.000
5 2025 7.7400e0030.1798 0.3180 1.0700e0030.0248 1.7400e0030.0265 6.0500e0031.6900e0037.7400e0030.0000 105.7535 105.7535 0.0175 0.0111 109.4831 2026 2.7343 1.8235 6.9047 0.0178 0.6951 0.0223 0.7174 0.1888 0.0219 0.2107 0.0000 1,658.260 7 1,658.260
7 0.2627 0.0841 1,689.884
4 2027 2.7292 1.8026 6.8611 0.0176 0.6951 0.0221 0.7172 0.1888 0.0217 0.2105 0.0000 1,640.512 5 1,640.512
5 0.2627 0.0822 1,671.567
1 2028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 2.7343 1.8379 6.9047 0.0178 0.6951 0.0223 0.7174 0.1888 0.0219 0.2107 0.0000 1,658.260 7 1,658.260
7 0.2627 0.1087 1,689.884
4 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
13.50 62.53 -15.49 0.00 1.86 87.30 21.79 1.01 86.65 45.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2024 3-31-2024 0.6208 0.3077
2 4-1-2024 6-30-2024 1.0288 0.5224
3 7-1-2024 9-30-2024 1.0401 0.5281
4 10-1-2024 12-31-2024 1.0643 0.5523
5 1-1-2025 3-31-2025 0.3429 0.1891
9 1-1-2026 3-31-2026 2.1545 1.1328
10 4-1-2026 6-30-2026 2.1564 1.1234
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 11 7-1-2026 9-30-2026 2.1801 1.1357
12 10-1-2026 12-31-2026 2.2024 1.1580
13 1-1-2027 3-31-2027 2.1479 1.1263
14 4-1-2027 6-30-2027 2.1502 1.1171
15 7-1-2027 9-30-2027 2.1738 1.1294
16 10-1-2027 12-31-2027 2.1957 1.1513
17 1-1-2028 3-31-2028 0.0099 0.0048
Highest 2.2024 1.1580
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Energy 0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0900e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 Mobile 2.5064 2.2246 24.5257 0.0509 6.2395 0.0312 6.2707 1.6668 0.0290 1.6958 0.0000 4,902.722 1 4,902.722
1 0.3117 0.2039 4,971.269
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 83.5247 0.0000 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.9435 0.0000 4.9435 0.5078 0.0120 21.2099 Total 6.8164 3.4057 25.5287 0.0580 6.2395 0.1210 6.3605 1.6668 0.1188 1.7856 88.4682 6,188.422 8 6,276.891
0 5.7804 0.2394 6,492.750
7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Area 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Energy 0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0900e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 Mobile 2.0880 1.6926 18.7798 0.0353 4.2803 0.0227 4.3030 1.1434 0.0211 1.1645 0.0000 3,406.075 4 3,406.075
4 0.2466 0.1559 3,458.709
7 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 83.5247 0.0000 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.9548 0.0000 3.9548 0.4062 9.5900e00316.9679 Total 6.3980 2.8737 19.7828 0.0424 4.2803 0.1125 4.3928 1.1434 0.1109 1.2543 87.4795 4,691.776 1 4,779.255
6 5.6137 0.1891 4,975.948
7 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 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
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
6.14 15.62 22.51 26.79 31.40 7.03 30.94 31.40 6.68 29.75 1.12 24.18 23.86 2.88 21.02 23.36 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 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
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 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 11 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0284 0.0000 0.0284 4.2900e0030.0000 4.2900e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0134 0.1184 0.2318 3.6000e0045.3600e0035.3600e0034.9400e0034.9400e0030.0000 31.1792 31.1792 9.9700e0030.0000 31.4286 Total 0.0134 0.1184 0.2318 3.6000e0040.0284 5.3600e0030.0337 4.2900e0034.9400e0039.2300e0030.0000 31.1792 31.1792 9.9700e0030.0000 31.4286 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
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 13 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.0000e0040.0203 6.9200e0038.0000e0052.2000e0031.4000e0042.3300e0036.0000e0041.3000e0047.3000e0040.0000 8.7715 8.7715 9.2000e0041.4100e0039.2161 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 6.9000e0044.3000e0046.1800e0032.0000e0052.6600e0031.0000e0052.6700e0037.1000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 1.9498 1.9498 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9648 Total 9.9000e0040.0207 0.0131 1.0000e0044.8600e0031.5000e0045.0000e0031.3100e0031.4000e0041.4500e0030.0000 10.7213 10.7213 9.7000e0041.4600e00311.1808 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0128 0.0000 0.0128 1.9300e0030.0000 1.9300e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.8600e0030.0422 0.2643 3.6000e0045.7000e0045.7000e0045.7000e0045.7000e0040.0000 31.1792 31.1792 9.9700e0030.0000 31.4285 Total 4.8600e0030.0422 0.2643 3.6000e0040.0128 5.7000e0040.0133 1.9300e0035.7000e0042.5000e0030.0000 31.1792 31.1792 9.9700e0030.0000 31.4285 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.0000e0040.0203 6.9200e0038.0000e0052.2000e0031.4000e0042.3300e0036.0000e0041.3000e0047.3000e0040.0000 8.7715 8.7715 9.2000e0041.4100e0039.2161 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 6.9000e0044.3000e0046.1800e0032.0000e0052.6600e0031.0000e0052.6700e0037.1000e0041.0000e0057.2000e0040.0000 1.9498 1.9498 5.0000e0055.0000e0051.9648 Total 9.9000e0040.0207 0.0131 1.0000e0044.8600e0031.5000e0045.0000e0031.3100e0031.4000e0041.4500e0030.0000 10.7213 10.7213 9.7000e0041.4600e00311.1808 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 3.2800e0030.0000 3.2800e0033.9000e0040.0000 3.9000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0267 0.2550 0.3432 6.9000e0040.0108 0.0108 0.0100 0.0100 0.0000 60.7281 60.7281 0.0182 0.0000 61.1820 Total 0.0267 0.2550 0.3432 6.9000e0043.2800e0030.0108 0.0141 3.9000e0040.0100 0.0104 0.0000 60.7281 60.7281 0.0182 0.0000 61.1820 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.2700e0030.1524 0.0520 6.2000e0040.0165 1.0200e0030.0175 4.5400e0039.7000e0045.5100e0030.0000 65.9199 65.9199 6.9100e0030.0106 69.2611 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 7.8000e0044.8000e0046.9600e0032.0000e0052.9900e0031.0000e0053.0100e0038.0000e0041.0000e0058.1000e0040.0000 2.1954 2.1954 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.2122 Total 3.0500e0030.1529 0.0589 6.4000e0040.0195 1.0300e0030.0206 5.3400e0039.8000e0046.3200e0030.0000 68.1152 68.1152 6.9600e0030.0107 71.4733 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 1.4700e0030.0000 1.4700e0031.8000e0040.0000 1.8000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 8.8300e0030.0571 0.4353 6.9000e0041.1100e0031.1100e0031.1100e0031.1100e0030.0000 60.7280 60.7280 0.0182 0.0000 61.1820 Total 8.8300e0030.0571 0.4353 6.9000e0041.4700e0031.1100e0032.5800e0031.8000e0041.1100e0031.2900e0030.0000 60.7280 60.7280 0.0182 0.0000 61.1820 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.2700e0030.1524 0.0520 6.2000e0040.0165 1.0200e0030.0175 4.5400e0039.7000e0045.5100e0030.0000 65.9199 65.9199 6.9100e0030.0106 69.2611 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 7.8000e0044.8000e0046.9600e0032.0000e0052.9900e0031.0000e0053.0100e0038.0000e0041.0000e0058.1000e0040.0000 2.1954 2.1954 5.0000e0055.0000e0052.2122 Total 3.0500e0030.1529 0.0589 6.4000e0040.0195 1.0300e0030.0206 5.3400e0039.8000e0046.3200e0030.0000 68.1152 68.1152 6.9600e0030.0107 71.4733 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0122 0.0000 0.0122 1.7100e0030.0000 1.7100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.1642 1.5952 1.7757 3.5400e0030.0664 0.0664 0.0619 0.0619 0.0000 310.1205 310.1205 0.0857 0.0000 312.2627 Total 0.1642 1.5952 1.7757 3.5400e0030.0122 0.0664 0.0786 1.7100e0030.0619 0.0636 0.0000 310.1205 310.1205 0.0857 0.0000 312.2627 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0206 1.3799 0.4706 5.6100e0030.1496 9.2000e0030.1588 0.0411 8.8000e0030.0499 0.0000 596.7578 596.7578 0.0625 0.0963 627.0051 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0300e0032.4900e0030.0361 1.2000e0040.0155 7.0000e0050.0156 4.1300e0037.0000e0054.1900e0030.0000 11.3812 11.3812 2.7000e0042.7000e00411.4684 Total 0.0246 1.3824 0.5066 5.7300e0030.1651 9.2700e0030.1744 0.0452 8.8700e0030.0541 0.0000 608.1390 608.1390 0.0628 0.0965 638.4736 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.4800e0030.0000 5.4800e0037.7000e0040.0000 7.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0421 0.1826 2.2079 3.5400e0035.6200e0035.6200e0035.6200e0035.6200e0030.0000 310.1201 310.1201 0.0857 0.0000 312.2623 Total 0.0421 0.1826 2.2079 3.5400e0035.4800e0035.6200e0030.0111 7.7000e0045.6200e0036.3900e0030.0000 310.1201 310.1201 0.0857 0.0000 312.2623 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0206 1.3799 0.4706 5.6100e0030.1496 9.2000e0030.1588 0.0411 8.8000e0030.0499 0.0000 596.7578 596.7578 0.0625 0.0963 627.0051 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0300e0032.4900e0030.0361 1.2000e0040.0155 7.0000e0050.0156 4.1300e0037.0000e0054.1900e0030.0000 11.3812 11.3812 2.7000e0042.7000e00411.4684 Total 0.0246 1.3824 0.5066 5.7300e0030.1651 9.2700e0030.1744 0.0452 8.8700e0030.0541 0.0000 608.1390 608.1390 0.0628 0.0965 638.4736 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0122 0.0000 0.0122 1.7100e0030.0000 1.7100e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0175 0.1634 0.2059 4.1000e0046.5600e0036.5600e0036.1200e0036.1200e0030.0000 36.2064 36.2064 9.9800e0030.0000 36.4560 Total 0.0175 0.1634 0.2059 4.1000e0040.0122 6.5600e0030.0188 1.7100e0036.1200e0037.8300e0030.0000 36.2064 36.2064 9.9800e0030.0000 36.4560 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.3700e0030.1582 0.0562 6.4000e0040.0175 1.0700e0030.0185 4.8000e0031.0300e0035.8300e0030.0000 68.2500 68.2500 7.4600e0030.0110 71.7205 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0042.6000e0043.9800e0031.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.2971 1.2971 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.3067 Total 2.8200e0030.1585 0.0602 6.5000e0040.0193 1.0800e0030.0204 5.2800e0031.0400e0036.3200e0030.0000 69.5471 69.5471 7.4900e0030.0111 73.0271 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 5.4800e0030.0000 5.4800e0037.7000e0040.0000 7.7000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 4.9200e0030.0213 0.2578 4.1000e0046.6000e0046.6000e0046.6000e0046.6000e0040.0000 36.2064 36.2064 9.9800e0030.0000 36.4559 Total 4.9200e0030.0213 0.2578 4.1000e0045.4800e0036.6000e0046.1400e0037.7000e0046.6000e0041.4300e0030.0000 36.2064 36.2064 9.9800e0030.0000 36.4559 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 2.3700e0030.1582 0.0562 6.4000e0040.0175 1.0700e0030.0185 4.8000e0031.0300e0035.8300e0030.0000 68.2500 68.2500 7.4600e0030.0110 71.7205 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.5000e0042.6000e0043.9800e0031.0000e0051.8100e0031.0000e0051.8200e0034.8000e0041.0000e0054.9000e0040.0000 1.2971 1.2971 3.0000e0053.0000e0051.3067 Total 2.8200e0030.1585 0.0602 6.5000e0040.0193 1.0800e0030.0204 5.2800e0031.0400e0036.3200e0030.0000 69.5471 69.5471 7.4900e0030.0111 73.0271 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2152 2.0624 2.2319 4.2300e0030.0945 0.0945 0.0872 0.0872 0.0000 366.9543 366.9543 0.1161 0.0000 369.8572 Total 0.2152 2.0624 2.2319 4.2300e0030.0945 0.0945 0.0872 0.0872 0.0000 366.9543 366.9543 0.1161 0.0000 369.8572 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0250 1.1633 0.4318 5.0200e0030.1670 6.1800e0030.1732 0.0483 5.9200e0030.0542 0.0000 513.1161 513.1161 0.0357 0.0759 536.6152 Worker 0.1020 0.0571 0.8944 3.1500e0030.4274 1.8000e0030.4292 0.1137 1.6500e0030.1154 0.0000 299.7654 299.7654 6.1200e0036.6500e003301.9007 Total 0.1269 1.2204 1.3262 8.1700e0030.5944 7.9800e0030.6024 0.1620 7.5700e0030.1696 0.0000 812.8814 812.8814 0.0418 0.0825 838.5159 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0531 0.3531 2.6081 4.2300e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0030.0000 366.9538 366.9538 0.1161 0.0000 369.8567 Total 0.0531 0.3531 2.6081 4.2300e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0030.0000 366.9538 366.9538 0.1161 0.0000 369.8567 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0250 1.1633 0.4318 5.0200e0030.1670 6.1800e0030.1732 0.0483 5.9200e0030.0542 0.0000 513.1161 513.1161 0.0357 0.0759 536.6152 Worker 0.1020 0.0571 0.8944 3.1500e0030.4274 1.8000e0030.4292 0.1137 1.6500e0030.1154 0.0000 299.7654 299.7654 6.1200e0036.6500e003301.9007 Total 0.1269 1.2204 1.3262 8.1700e0030.5944 7.9800e0030.6024 0.1620 7.5700e0030.1696 0.0000 812.8814 812.8814 0.0418 0.0825 838.5159 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2152 2.0624 2.2319 4.2300e0030.0945 0.0945 0.0872 0.0872 0.0000 366.9543 366.9543 0.1161 0.0000 369.8572 Total 0.2152 2.0624 2.2319 4.2300e0030.0945 0.0945 0.0872 0.0872 0.0000 366.9543 366.9543 0.1161 0.0000 369.8572 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0244 1.1475 0.4330 4.9100e0030.1670 6.1300e0030.1732 0.0483 5.8700e0030.0542 0.0000 502.1743 502.1743 0.0363 0.0743 525.2236 Worker 0.0983 0.0530 0.8581 3.0600e0030.4274 1.6800e0030.4291 0.1137 1.5500e0030.1153 0.0000 294.2566 294.2566 5.6500e0036.3700e003296.2955 Total 0.1228 1.2005 1.2911 7.9700e0030.5944 7.8100e0030.6022 0.1621 7.4200e0030.1695 0.0000 796.4309 796.4309 0.0419 0.0807 821.5191 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0531 0.3531 2.6081 4.2300e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0030.0000 366.9538 366.9538 0.1161 0.0000 369.8567 Total 0.0531 0.3531 2.6081 4.2300e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0036.6400e0030.0000 366.9538 366.9538 0.1161 0.0000 369.8567 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0244 1.1475 0.4330 4.9100e0030.1670 6.1300e0030.1732 0.0483 5.8700e0030.0542 0.0000 502.1743 502.1743 0.0363 0.0743 525.2236 Worker 0.0983 0.0530 0.8581 3.0600e0030.4274 1.6800e0030.4291 0.1137 1.5500e0030.1153 0.0000 294.2566 294.2566 5.6500e0036.3700e003296.2955 Total 0.1228 1.2005 1.2911 7.9700e0030.5944 7.8100e0030.6022 0.1621 7.4200e0030.1695 0.0000 796.4309 796.4309 0.0419 0.0807 821.5191 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2234 2.1726 2.0261 4.2800e0030.0918 0.0918 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 374.4882 374.4882 0.1015 0.0000 377.0260 Paving 6.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2240 2.1726 2.0261 4.2800e0030.0918 0.0918 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 374.4882 374.4882 0.1015 0.0000 377.0260 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6800e0032.0600e0030.0323 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.8089 10.8089 2.2000e0042.4000e00410.8858 Total 3.6800e0032.0600e0030.0323 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.8089 10.8089 2.2000e0042.4000e00410.8858 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0507 0.2197 2.5206 4.2800e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0030.0000 374.4877 374.4877 0.1015 0.0000 377.0255 Paving 6.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0513 0.2197 2.5206 4.2800e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0030.0000 374.4877 374.4877 0.1015 0.0000 377.0255 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.6800e0032.0600e0030.0323 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.8089 10.8089 2.2000e0042.4000e00410.8858 Total 3.6800e0032.0600e0030.0323 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.8089 10.8089 2.2000e0042.4000e00410.8858 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2234 2.1726 2.0261 4.2800e0030.0918 0.0918 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 374.4882 374.4882 0.1015 0.0000 377.0260 Paving 6.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.2240 2.1726 2.0261 4.2800e0030.0918 0.0918 0.0854 0.0854 0.0000 374.4882 374.4882 0.1015 0.0000 377.0260 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5500e0031.9100e0030.0309 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.6102 10.6102 2.0000e0042.3000e00410.6837 Total 3.5500e0031.9100e0030.0309 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.6102 10.6102 2.0000e0042.3000e00410.6837 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0507 0.2197 2.5206 4.2800e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0030.0000 374.4877 374.4877 0.1015 0.0000 377.0255 Paving 6.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0513 0.2197 2.5206 4.2800e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0036.7600e0030.0000 374.4877 374.4877 0.1015 0.0000 377.0255 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.5500e0031.9100e0030.0309 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.6102 10.6102 2.0000e0042.3000e00410.6837 Total 3.5500e0031.9100e0030.0309 1.1000e0040.0154 6.0000e0050.0155 4.1000e0036.0000e0054.1600e0030.0000 10.6102 10.6102 2.0000e0042.3000e00410.6837 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.4750 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.1495 0.2361 3.9000e0046.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0030.0000 33.3200 33.3200 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Total 2.4973 0.1495 0.2361 3.9000e0046.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0030.0000 33.3200 33.3200 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0204 0.0114 0.1785 6.3000e0040.0853 3.6000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.3000e0040.0230 0.0000 59.8090 59.8090 1.2200e0031.3300e00360.2350 Total 0.0204 0.0114 0.1785 6.3000e0040.0853 3.6000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.3000e0040.0230 0.0000 59.8090 59.8090 1.2200e0031.3300e00360.2350 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.4750 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8800e0030.0168 0.2391 3.9000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 33.3199 33.3199 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Total 2.4789 0.0168 0.2391 3.9000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 33.3199 33.3199 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0204 0.0114 0.1785 6.3000e0040.0853 3.6000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.3000e0040.0230 0.0000 59.8090 59.8090 1.2200e0031.3300e00360.2350 Total 0.0204 0.0114 0.1785 6.3000e0040.0853 3.6000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.3000e0040.0230 0.0000 59.8090 59.8090 1.2200e0031.3300e00360.2350 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.4750 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.1495 0.2361 3.9000e0046.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0030.0000 33.3200 33.3200 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Total 2.4973 0.1495 0.2361 3.9000e0046.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0036.7200e0030.0000 33.3200 33.3200 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0196 0.0106 0.1712 6.1000e0040.0853 3.4000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.1000e0040.0230 0.0000 58.7099 58.7099 1.1300e0031.2700e00359.1167 Total 0.0196 0.0106 0.1712 6.1000e0040.0853 3.4000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.1000e0040.0230 0.0000 58.7099 58.7099 1.1300e0031.2700e00359.1167 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 2.4750 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.8800e0030.0168 0.2391 3.9000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 33.3199 33.3199 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Total 2.4789 0.0168 0.2391 3.9000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0045.2000e0040.0000 33.3199 33.3199 1.8200e0030.0000 33.3654 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 34 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0196 0.0106 0.1712 6.1000e0040.0853 3.4000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.1000e0040.0230 0.0000 58.7099 58.7099 1.1300e0031.2700e00359.1167 Total 0.0196 0.0106 0.1712 6.1000e0040.0853 3.4000e0040.0856 0.0227 3.1000e0040.0230 0.0000 58.7099 58.7099 1.1300e0031.2700e00359.1167 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Density
Improve Destination Accessibility
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 2.0880 1.6926 18.7798 0.0353 4.2803 0.0227 4.3030 1.1434 0.0211 1.1645 0.0000 3,406.075 4 3,406.075
4 0.2466 0.1559 3,458.709
7 Unmitigated 2.5064 2.2246 24.5257 0.0509 6.2395 0.0312 6.2707 1.6668 0.0290 1.6958 0.0000 4,902.722 1 4,902.722
1 0.3117 0.2039 4,971.269
7 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
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
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 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 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 37 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0900e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0900e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0000 Free-Standing
Discount store
73853.8 4.0000e0043.6200e0033.0400e0032.0000e0052.8000e0042.8000e0042.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 3.9411 3.9411 8.0000e0057.0000e0053.9645 General Light
Industry
866068 4.6700e0030.0425 0.0357 2.5000e0043.2300e0033.2300e0033.2300e0033.2300e0030.0000 46.2167 46.2167 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.4913 Health Club 434668 2.3400e0030.0213 0.0179 1.3000e0041.6200e0031.6200e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 23.1955 23.1955 4.4000e0044.3000e00423.3334 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.57469e
+006
8.4900e0030.0772 0.0648 4.6000e0045.8700e0035.8700e0035.8700e0035.8700e0030.0000 84.0314 84.0314 1.6100e0031.5400e00384.5307 Library 581670 3.1400e0030.0285 0.0240 1.7000e0042.1700e0032.1700e0032.1700e0032.1700e0030.0000 31.0401 31.0401 5.9000e0045.7000e00431.2246 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research &
Development
2.05618e
+007
0.1109 1.0079 0.8467 6.0500e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0766 0.0766 0.0000 1,097.254 5 1,097.254
5 0.0210 0.0201 1,103.775
0 Total 0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0800e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 0.0000 Free-Standing
Discount store
73853.8 4.0000e0043.6200e0033.0400e0032.0000e0052.8000e0042.8000e0042.8000e0042.8000e0040.0000 3.9411 3.9411 8.0000e0057.0000e0053.9645 General Light
Industry
866068 4.6700e0030.0425 0.0357 2.5000e0043.2300e0033.2300e0033.2300e0033.2300e0030.0000 46.2167 46.2167 8.9000e0048.5000e00446.4913 Health Club 434668 2.3400e0030.0213 0.0179 1.3000e0041.6200e0031.6200e0031.6200e0031.6200e0030.0000 23.1955 23.1955 4.4000e0044.3000e00423.3334 High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
1.57469e
+006
8.4900e0030.0772 0.0648 4.6000e0045.8700e0035.8700e0035.8700e0035.8700e0030.0000 84.0314 84.0314 1.6100e0031.5400e00384.5307 Library 581670 3.1400e0030.0285 0.0240 1.7000e0042.1700e0032.1700e0032.1700e0032.1700e0030.0000 31.0401 31.0401 5.9000e0045.7000e00431.2246 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Research &
Development
2.05618e
+007
0.1109 1.0079 0.8467 6.0500e0030.0766 0.0766 0.0766 0.0766 0.0000 1,097.254 5 1,097.254
5 0.0210 0.0201 1,103.775
0 Total 0.1299 1.1810 0.9921 7.0800e0030.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0898 0.0000 1,285.679 3 1,285.679
3 0.0246 0.0236 1,293.319
5 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
1.20338e
+006
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
138638 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Light
Industry
202682 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 101723 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
171080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Library 136126 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 9166.85 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
4.81197e
+006
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
1.20338e
+006
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
138638 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
General Light
Industry
202682 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Health Club 101723 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
171080 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Library 136126 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 9166.85 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
4.81197e
+006
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 42 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Unmitigated 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4950 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
3.6841 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0100e0031.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Total 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 43 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
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
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.4950 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
3.6841 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.0100e0031.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Total 4.1801 1.0000e0040.0110 0.0000 4.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0054.0000e0050.0000 0.0213 0.0213 6.0000e0050.0000 0.0227 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 44 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 3.9548 0.4062 9.5900e00316.9679
Unmitigated 4.9435 0.5078 0.0120 21.2099
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 45 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
2.59704 /
0.735468
0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
General Light
Industry
2.59704 /
0 0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
Health Club 2.59704 /
0.641245
0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2.59704 /
0.18212
0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
Library 2.59704 /
1.15839
0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
2.59704 /
0 0.8239 0.0846 2.0000e0033.5350
Total 4.9435 0.5077 0.0120 21.2099
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 46 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
2.07763 /
0.690605
0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
General Light
Industry
2.07763 /
0 0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
Health Club 2.07763 /
0.602129
0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
2.07763 /
0.171011
0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
Library 2.07763 /
1.08773
0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
2.07763 /
0 0.6591 0.0677 1.6000e0032.8280
Total 3.9548 0.4062 9.6000e00316.9679
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 47 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289
Unmitigated 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 48 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
69.67 14.1424 0.8358 0.0000 35.0372
General Light
Industry
43.71 8.8727 0.5244 0.0000 21.9818
Health Club 100.83 20.4676 1.2096 0.0000 50.7076
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
111.86 22.7066 1.3419 0.0000 56.2546
Library 21.8 4.4252 0.2615 0.0000 10.9633
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
63.6 12.9102 0.7630 0.0000 31.9845
Total 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 49 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Enclosed Parking
Structure
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Free-Standing
Discount store
69.67 14.1424 0.8358 0.0000 35.0372
General Light
Industry
43.71 8.8727 0.5244 0.0000 21.9818
Health Club 100.83 20.4676 1.2096 0.0000 50.7076
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
111.86 22.7066 1.3419 0.0000 56.2546
Library 21.8 4.4252 0.2615 0.0000 10.9633
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Research &
Development
63.6 12.9102 0.7630 0.0000 31.9845
Total 83.5247 4.9362 0.0000 206.9289
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 50 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.0 Vegetation
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 51 of 51 Date: 3/30/2022 2:04 PM 121 East Grand Avenue - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Emergency Generator Testing
San Mateo County, Annual
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 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2028 2.5200e0030.0410 0.0147 7.0000e0050.0000 6.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 6.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 Maximum 2.5200e0030.0410 0.0147 7.0000e0050.0000 6.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 6.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2028 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 Maximum 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 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 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 23 10-20-2027 1-19-2028 0.0436 0.0000
Highest 0.0436 0.0000
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 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 Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 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 Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Emergency Generator Testing Architectural Coating 1/1/2028 1/7/2028 5 5 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 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment
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
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 6 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.5200e0030.0410 0.0147 7.0000e0056.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 Total 2.5200e0030.0410 0.0147 7.0000e0056.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0046.9000e0040.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 7 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 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 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.5243 7.5243 2.0000e0040.0000 7.5293 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 8 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 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 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 9 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 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
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
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
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 18 Date: 4/20/2022 8:43 AM Emergency Generator Testing - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Existing (Baseline)
San Mateo County, Annual
Project Characteristics - Model run to account for existing conditions.
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 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2023 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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 tons/yr MT/yr
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 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Highest
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Energy 0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Mobile 0.5369 0.5578 4.8224 9.3100e0030.9407 8.4200e0030.9492 0.2512 7.8700e0030.2591 0.0000 858.0192 858.0192 0.0647 0.0420 872.1574 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.7828 0.0000 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.3601 0.0000 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353 Total 0.8062 0.6601 4.9102 9.9200e0030.9407 0.0162 0.9570 0.2512 0.0157 0.2669 20.1428 969.3986 989.5415 1.3166 0.0474 1,036.567 7 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Energy 0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Mobile 0.4966 0.4809 4.1893 7.6100e0030.7628 7.0400e0030.7698 0.2037 6.5700e0030.2103 0.0000 701.5939 701.5939 0.0585 0.0367 713.9889 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.7828 0.0000 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.3601 0.0000 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353 Total 0.7659 0.5832 4.2771 8.2200e0030.7628 0.0148 0.7776 0.2037 0.0144 0.2181 20.1428 812.9733 833.1162 1.3104 0.0420 878.3992 Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 3/25/2023 3/24/2023 5 0 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
4.99 11.66 12.89 17.14 18.92 8.51 18.74 18.91 8.30 18.29 0.00 16.14 15.81 0.47 11.26 15.26 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
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
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
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 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 (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0.91
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 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
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Improve Destination Accessibility
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4966 0.4809 4.1893 7.6100e0030.7628 7.0400e0030.7698 0.2037 6.5700e0030.2103 0.0000 701.5939 701.5939 0.0585 0.0367 713.9889 Unmitigated 0.5369 0.5578 4.8224 9.3100e0030.9407 8.4200e0030.9492 0.2512 7.8700e0030.2591 0.0000 858.0192 858.0192 0.0647 0.0420 872.1574
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
4.4 Fleet Mix
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
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated
0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 NaturalGas
Unmitigated
0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: Y
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not 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 tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 2.08711e
+006
0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Hotel 2.08711e
+006
0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0113 0.1023 0.0859 6.1000e0047.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0037.7800e0030.0000 111.3759 111.3759 2.1300e0032.0400e003112.0377 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 456950 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 11461.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Hotel 456950 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Parking Lot 11461.8 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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 tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Unmitigated 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0307 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.7000e0042.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Total 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
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
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
0.0307 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2272 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 1.7000e0042.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Total 0.2581 2.0000e0051.8600e0030.0000 1.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0051.0000e0050.0000 3.6000e0033.6000e0031.0000e0050.0000 3.8400e003 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
Unmitigated 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 4.28698 /
0.476332
1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Hotel 4.28698 /
0.476332
1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 1.3601 0.1397 3.3000e0035.8353
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Unmitigated 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 92.53 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Hotel 92.53 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Parking Lot 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 18.7828 1.1100 0.0000 46.5335
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
11.0 Vegetation
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 18 of 18 Date: 3/29/2022 10:05 AM Existing (Baseline) - San Mateo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
February 21, 2022
Michael Gerrity, President
Phase 3 Real Estate Partners, Inc.
4380 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92122
RE: Cultural Resources Services - In Support of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County
Dear Mr. Gerrity,
Please let this letter stand as Basin Research Associates' (BASIN) review and supplement to the Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Ave, South San Francisco (Taagepera 2021) which has previously reviewed the proposed development project. The 2021 study researched both the cultural and geological settings and provided recommended mitigation measures.
BASIN conducted a supplemental review of the project site and has developed enhanced mitigation measures based on our research.
Project Location and Description
The triangular 3.25 acre project site, located at 121 E. Grand Avenue, City of South San Francisco, is currently occupied by a Comfort Inn and Suites. U.S. Highway 101 (Bayshore Freeway) is to the immediate west while Point San Bruno and the San Francisco Bay Shoreline are approximately 1.0 to 1.5 miles to the east. The project site is bounded by Grand Avenue on the northeast, by E. Grand Avenue on the south and by Poletti Way and the Union Pacific Railroad/Caltrain tracks on the west (USGS San Francisco South, CA 1995, T 3S, R 5W, unsectioned) [Figs. 1-2].
The project plan to demolish and remove the existing structures and infrastructure and construct a mixed-use retail/life science office building, at-grade parking and potentially up to four levels of underground parking, and a public plaza. The project may also include pedestrian access to a future Caltrain station, in the form of either an overcrossing or a tunnel undercrossing. It is anticipated that site will be graded to a depth of 38 feet.
Research Protocols
BASIN reviewed Taagepera (2021); the results of the California Historical Resources Information Center, Northwest Information Center (CHRIS/NWIC) archive search and selected 2 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
publications completed for Taagepera (2021); the Meyer and Rosenthal (2007) review of local Bay Area geoarchaeology; Geocon’s (2021) geotechnical report; the USDA SoilWeb; Witter et al. (2006); USGS San Mateo historic topographic maps; Sowers et al. (2007); Givler and Sowers (2007); Tillery et al. (2007); and, Waechter et al. (2008) as well as BASIN internal files for South San Francisco and adjacent areas.
In addition, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of the Sacred Lands File (Busby 2021).
A field review of the project site was not undertaken due to the developed nature of the property.
Findings
The observations presented below are based on the available archaeological data, a review of historic maps, and geoarchaeological studies completed for the adjacent Caltrain Electrification Project in addition to research by BASIN along Colma Creek (2015, 2018).
Archaeological Resources
There are no archaeological resources within or adjacent to the project site. The nearest resource mapped by the NWIC/CHRIS is located approximately 2000 feet south southwest of the project site. The putative location of CA-SMA-41 (P-41-000045) or Nelson Mound 380 was subject to a GeoProbe coring program by AECOM in 2016 with negative results::
The negative boring results indicate that the site may no longer be present, or may never have existed at this location. This location historically bordered a tidal marsh, which is unlikely to have had surfaces stable enough to support and preserve a prehistoric or contact-era shell midden for later observation by Nelson. Given the tenuous provenience origins, negative boring results, and the unlikely placement of a shell midden site adjacent to a tidal marsh, we believe that CA-SMA-41 is mapped incorrectly on the NWIC base map. The true location of CA-SMA-41 is unknown (AECOM 2017).
BASIN agrees with the findings and that the site was mis-plotted. A review of Nelson’s maps (1909, ca. 1912) clearly shows Nelson Mounds 380-386 clustering south of the Guadalupe Valley north of the project site near Visitation Point and within what is now currently downtown Brisbane. This finding was discussed with the CHRIS/NWIC in 2015 during the completion of a review for the Colma Creek Flood Control Maintenance Project, San Mateo County by BASIN and the location should have been corrected (see Busby 2015, 2018). In summary, this resource is non-existent in the vicinity of the project site.
Native American Sacred Lands File Review
The Native American Heritage Commission has no resources listed on the Sacred Lands File (SLF) for either the project site or adjacent areas (see Sanchez 2021). The NAHC typically reviews the SLF for a minimum one mile radius of a project. 3 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Historic Map and Geological Review
The Creek & Watershed Map of Daly City & Vicinity (Givler and Sowers 2007; see also Sowers et al. 2007) shows the project within “Historical Tidal Marsh” through which Colma Creek located to the south of the project site flowed/meandered to the bay (see also USGS 1896, 1915, 1947, 1956; US War Dept 1943 [photography 1939, topography 1941]). The creek was known in the 1770s as the Arroyo de San Bruno, and from the ca. 1880s onward as Colma Creek. The recent engineered channel is often referred to as the Colma Canal (see Brown 1975).
Channelization and filling of adjacent areas to the creek appears to have started in the 1890s and continued until the 1950s or later. The USGS San Mateo, Calif. 1899 shows the project site partially within a tidal marsh and partially within dry land. It is not known if the land represents the start of the historic land reclamation started in the 1890s [see Fig. 3].
Witter et al. (2006) note that the project site is within artificial fill (af), artificial fill over bay mud (afbm) or artificial fill over estuarine mud (afem) with early to late Pleistocene alluvium, undifferentiated (Qoa) adjacent on the west boundary of the project site [see Fig. 4].
Geocon (2021) completed a series of soil bores over the project for geotechnical studies. The bores yielded artificial fills from the surface grade to approximately 7.5-12 feet below grade with the materials consisting of loose to very dense sands with variable amounts of clay and silt, soft to very stiff sandy silts with relatively minor amounts of clay and gravel, and medium dense to very dense gravels with sand. The fills also included various amounts of construction debris such as concrete, brick and slag. The fills were followed by Bay Mud to about 15.5 feet below existing grade followed by mixed alluvial deposits to approximately 33.5 to 93.5 feet below grade. The Colma Formation was encountered to depths of 59.5 to 112 feet below existing grade and is below the proposed project excavation level.
The geoarchaeological sensitivity study completed for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative: San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (Waechter et al. 2008:Appendix F; see also Meyer and Rosenthal 2007) included the area within and adjacent to the project site as potential facilities were under consideration for the area. The project site falls within Project Miles 9.39-9.44 which are identified as Latest Holocene (Bay Mud) and Pleistocene or Older Deposits with respective sensitivities of Low-Moderate and Very Low-Low for buried archaeological sites (see Waechter et al. 2008:Appendix F, Table 5).
Archaeological Sensitivity of Project Site
The archival and literature record review, the historic maps review, and geoarchaeological data strongly suggest a very low to low potential for subsurface archaeological resources. • No prehistoric resources have been recorded within the project area or immediate area.
Archaeological studies in the early 20th century recorded no shell mounds along this portion of San Francisco Bay.
• Geoarchaeological sensitivity reviews for potential subsurface cultural resources suggest a low to very low sensitivity for the Pleistocene or Older Deposits adjacent to the project site. While Waechter et al. (2008:Appendic F) assign a Low-Moderate sensitivity for Bay Mud deposits, it is unlikely that the project site had surfaces stable enough to support 4 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
and preserve a prehistoric or contact-era shell mound as it historically bordered a tidal marsh or may have been located within one.
• No surface indications of significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources have been noted during the past 50 years during archaeological inventories and/or development construction suggesting a very low potential for surface and shallow subsurface cultural resources within or adjacent to the project site.
Recommendations
It is the considered opinion of BASIN, based on a review of pertinent records, historic maps, geoarchaeological studies and other documents that the proposed project can proceed as planned as it will not affect any historic properties or unique archaeological resources. No subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources within the project construction prism is necessary. In addition, archaeological monitoring during ground disturbing construction does not appear warranted. The following measures are recommended by BASIN as protective measures even though there is a very low to low potential for exposing significant prehistoric or historic resources during ground disturbing construction:
(a) The project proponent shall note on any plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources including prehistoric Native American burials.
(b) It is recommended that prior to the start of ground disturbing construction the project proponent implement a Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) program for cultural resources.
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.
A Professional 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.
Training shall be scheduled at the discretion of the contractor in consultation with the project proponent and City of South San Francisco.
(c) It is recommended that the project proponent retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis to review and identify any potential archaeological discoveries during construction.
(d) BASIN recommends that if any unanticipated prehistoric or significant historic period cultural materials1 are exposed during construction grading and/or
1. Significant prehistoric cultural resources are defined as human burials, features or other clusterings of finds made, modified or used by Native American peoples in the past. The prehistoric and protohistoric 5 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
excavation, operations should stop within 50 feet of the find and a qualified Professional Archaeologist contacted for identification, evaluation and further recommendations consistent with CEQA and City of South San Francisco requirements.
(e) If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, he/she 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.
(f) The treatment of human remains and any associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project site shall comply with applicable State laws (i.e., Native American burials (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 to the Health and Safety Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and
indicators of prior cultural occupation by Native Americans include artifacts and human bone, as well as soil discoloration, shell, animal bone, sandstone cobbles, ashy areas, and baked or vitrified clays.
Prehistoric materials may include:
a. Human bone - either isolated or intact burials.
b. Habitation (occupation or ceremonial structures as interpreted from rock rings/features, distinct ground depressions, differences in compaction (e.g., house floors). c Artifacts including chipped stone objects such as projectile points and bifaces; groundstone artifacts such as manos, metates, mortars, pestles, grinding stones, pitted hammerstones; and, shell and bone artifacts including ornaments and beads. d. Various features and samples including hearths (fire-cracked rock; baked and vitrified clay), artifact caches, faunal and shellfish remains (which permit dietary reconstruction), distinctive changes in soil stratigraphy indicative of prehistoric activities. e. Isolated artifacts
Historic cultural materials may include finds from the late 19th through early 20th centuries. Objects and features associated with the Historic Period can include. a. Structural remains or portions of foundations (bricks, cobbles/boulders, stacked field stone, postholes, etc.).
b. Trash pits, privies, wells and associated artifacts. c. Isolated artifacts or isolated clusters of manufactured artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, metal cans, manufactured wood items, etc.).
d. Human remains.
In addition, cultural materials including both artifacts and structures that can be attributed to Hispanic, Asian and other ethnic or racial groups are potentially significant. Such features or clusters of artifacts and samples include remains of structures, trash pits, and privies. 6 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
5097.99 of the Public Resources Code)). This shall include immediate notification of the appropriate county Coroner/Medical Examiner, the project proponent and the City of South San Francisco.
(g) A Monitoring Closure Report shall be filed with the project proponent at the conclusion of ground disturbing construction if archaeological and Native American monitoring of excavation was undertaken.
Closing Remarks
The review of the archaeological data suggest that the potential for the exposure of significant cultural resources within the project site is very low to low for exposing significant cultural resources during ground disturbing construction. No archaeological testing appears necessary and archaeological monitoring does not appear to be warranted during future excavation.
Worker Awareness Environmental Training (WAET) is recommended for personnel involved with ground disturbing construction as well as the retention of an “on-call” archaeologist to respond in the event of an unexpected discovery. These measures will provide resource protection in the event of any unexpected cultural discoveries.
If I can provide any additional information or be of further service please don't hesitate to contact me.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
Colin I. Busby, Ph.D., RPA
Principal
CIB/dg
7 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
References Cited and Consulted
AECOM
2017 CA-SMA-41 (P-41-000045) Site Form Update. On file, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University Rohnert Park.
Brown, Alan K.
1975 Place Names of San Mateo County. San Mateo County Historical Association, College of San Mateo Campus, San Mateo.
Busby, Colin I. (Basin Research Associates)
2015 Records Search and Limited Literature Review, Colma Creek Flood Control Maintenance Project [Colma and South San Francisco], San Mateo County [California]. Dated 6/23/2015. On file, Horizon Water and Environment, Oakland and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.
2018 Historic Property Survey Report/Finding of Effect - Colma Creek Flood Control Zone Channel Improvement Project San Mateo County. On file WRECO, Walnut Creek and Basin Research Associates, San Leandro 2021 Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File Review and Native American Contacts List Request: 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County. Via email [email protected] on August 3, 2021.
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
2021 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Givler, Robert W. and Janet M. Sowers
2007 Creek & Watershed Map of Daly City & Vicinity. 1:25,800 scale. The Oakland Museum of California, Oakland.
Meyer, Jack and Jeffrey Rosenthal
2007 Geoarchaeological Review of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District
4. MS on file, S-33600, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University Rohnert Park.
Nelson, Nels C.
1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 7(4):309-356. ca. 1912 Site location map for Nelson's San Francisco Bay region (ca. 1910).
Manuscript map in University of California Archaeological Survey Files (as cited in University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 75:83).
Sanchez, Katy (Native American Heritage Commission)
2021 Native American Heritage Commission – Response to Request for Review of Sacred Lands Inventory 121 E. Grand Avenue, San Mateo County. Dated September 9, 2021. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro. 8 BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
Sowers, Janet M., Robert W. Givler, M. Teresa Ramirez-Herrera, Anne Tillery, Christopher Richard, and Sarah Pearce
2007 Creek and Watershed Map of the San Francisco Peninsula: A Digital Database Version 1.1. William Lettis & Associates, Inc., October 19, 2007.
Taagepera, Leann
2021 Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco. June 24, 2001. On file, Basin Research Associates, San Leandro.
Tillery, Anne C., Sowers, Janet M., and Pearce, Sarah
2007 Creek and Watershed Map of San Mateo County & Vicinity. William Lettis & Associates, Inc. and San Francisco Estuary Institute. Accessed online at www.museumca.org/creeks.
UC Davis and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service n.d. SoilWeb: An Online Soil Survey Browser | California Soil Resource Lab (ucdavis.edu)
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
1896 San Mateo Quadrangle [Topographic]. 15 minute series (surveyed 1896, reprinted 1906).
1915 San Mateo Quadrangle [Topographic]. 15 minute series (reprinted 1939). 1947 San Francisco South Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series. 1950 San Francisco South, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series.
1956 San Francisco South, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series.
1980 San Francisco South, Calif. [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series (1956 photorevised).
1995 San Francisco South, CA [Quadrangle]. Topographic map, 7.5 minute series.
United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park.
United States War Department, Corps of Engineers (US War Dept) 1943 San Mateo, Calif. (Quadrangle). Topographic map, 15 minute series. Scale 1/62500 (photography 1939, topography 1941) [in Allan 2010].
Waechter, Sharon A., Jack Meyer, and Laura Leach-Palm
2008 Cultural Resources Addendum for the Caltrain Electrification Program Alternative: San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, California.
MS on file, S-37863, CHRIS/NWIC, Sonoma State University Rohnert Park.
Witter, Robert C., Keith L. Knudsen, Janet M. Sowers, Carl M. Wentworth, Richard D. Koehler and Carolyn E. Randolph
2006 Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco Bay Region, California. USGS Open-File Report 2006-1037.
BASIN RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
ATTACHMENTS
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (ESRI World Street Map)
FIGURE 2 Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (USGS San Francisco South, CA 1995)
FIGURE 3 Project Location in 1899 (USGS San Mateo, Calif. 1899) FIGURE 4 Project Location - Quaternary Deposits (ESRI World Street Map; Witter et al. 2006)
NATIVE AMERICAN
LETTER Request to Native American Heritage Commission
LETTER Response from Native American Heritage Commission ±
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Figure 1: Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (ESRI World Street Map) Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project Location
Figure 2: Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (USGS San Francisco South, CA 1995) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project Location
Figure 3: Project Location in 1899 (USGS San Mateo, Calif. 1899) br
afbm/afem
Qoa
br
Qoa
afbm
br
br
af
af
af
Qha
br
ac
afbm/afem
afbm/afem
afbm - Artificial fill over bay mud
afem - Artificial fill over estuarine mud
ac - Artificial stream channel
af - Artificial fill
br - Bedrock
Qha -
Qoa -
Alluvial deposits, undifferentiated
(Holocene)
Alluvial deposits, undifferentiated
(Early to Late Pleistocene)
Project Location
Figure 4: Project Location - Quaternary Deposits (ESRI World Street Map; Witter et al. 2006) ±
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Sacred Lands File & Native American Contacts List Request
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1556 Harbor Boulevard, STE 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
(916) 373-5471 – Fax
[email protected]
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: 121 E. Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, San Mateo County County: San Mateo County
USGS Quadrangle Name: USGS San Francisco South, CA. 1995 Address: 121 E Grand Avenue, City of South San Francisco Township: 3S, Range: 5W, unsectioned
Company/Firm/Agency: Basin Research Associates
Contact Person: Colin I. Busby, PhD, RPA
Street Address: 1933 Davis Street, STE 215
City/Zip: San Leandro, CA 94577
Phone: (510) 430-8441 x101
Fax: (510) 430-8443
Email: [email protected]
Project Description: Demolition and removal of the existing Comfort Inn Suites complex and infrastructure on the project site. Construct mixed-use retail/life science office building, at-grade parking and potentially up to four levels of underground parking, and a public plaza. The project may also include pedestrian access to a future Caltrain station, in the form of either an overcrossing or a tunnel undercrossing.
Project site is on filled land over San Francisco Bay mud. No resources known. 8/03/21
±
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Figure 1: Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (ESRI World Street Map) Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Miles ±
Project Location
Figure 1: Project Location - T3S R5W unsectioned (USGS San Francisco South, CA 1995) STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
September 9, 2021
Colin Busby
Basin Research
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: 121 E. Grand Ave., San Mateo County.
Dear Mr. Busby:
A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.
Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.
If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address:
Sincerely,
Katy Sanchez
Associate Environmental Planner
Attachment
E
CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash
SECRETARY
Merri Lopez-Keifer
Luiseño
PARLIAMENTARIAN
Russell Attebery
Karuk
COMMISSIONER
William Mungary
Paiute/White Mountain
Apache
COMMISSIONER
Julie TumamaitStenslie
Chumash
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Christina Snider
Pomo
NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contacts List
September 9, 2021
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
3030 Soda Bay Road
Lakeport 95453
(650) 851-7489 Cell
(650) 851-7747 Office
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
[email protected]
(650) 332-1526 Fax
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed:121 E. Grand Ave., San Mateo County.
Tony Cerda, Chairman
244 E. 1st Street
Pomona 91766
(909) 629-6081
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
[email protected]
(909) 524-8041 Fax
Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed:121 E. Grand Ave., San Mateo County.
Kanyon Sayers-Roods
1615 Pearson Court
San Jose 95122
408-673-0626
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed:121 E. Grand Ave., San Mateo County.
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
P.O. Box 28
Hollister 95024
(831) 637-4238
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes for the proposed:121 E. Grand Ave., San Mateo County.
Monica Arellano, Vice Chairwoman
20885 Redwood Road, Suite 232
Castro Valley 94546
(408) 205-9714
Ohlone / Costanoan
,CA
[email protected]
Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the information available to the Commission on the date it was produced.
Quirina Luna Geary, Chairperson
P.O. Box 8053
San Jose 95155
(707) 295-4011
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
[email protected]
Tamien Nation
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the inf was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsib and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Sectio This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes fo Johnathan Wasaka Costilla, THPO
P.O. Box 866
Clearlake Oaks 95423
(925) 336-5359
Ohlone/Costanoan
,CA
[email protected]
Tamien Nation
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the inf was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsib and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Sectio This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes fo Andrew Galvan
P.O. Box 3388
Fremont 94539
(510) 882-0527 Cell
Ohlone
Bay Miwok
Plains Miwok
Patwin
,CA
[email protected]
(510) 687-9393 Fax
The Ohlone Indian Tribe
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the inf was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsib and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Sectio This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes fo Kenneth Woodrow, Chairperson
1179 Rock Haven Ct.
Salinas 93906
(831) 443-9702
Foothill Yokuts
Mono
Wuksache
,CA
[email protected]
Wuksache Indian Tribe/Eshom Valley Band
This list is current as of the date of this document and is based on the inf was produced.
Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsib and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code, or Sectio This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans Tribes fo .
Cultural and
Historical Resource Planning
June 4, 2021
Michael Gerrity and Adam Cashner
Phase 3 Real Estate Partners, Inc.
Via Electronic Mail to [email protected] and [email protected] SUBJECT: Archaeological Resources Study of 121 E. Grand Ave., South San Francisco.
Dear Mr. Gerrity and Mr. Cashner,
This letter report composes a site-specific archaeological resources study of APN 015-024-230, a
2.91 acre site, located at 121 E. Grand Ave., in South San Francisco. A Comfort Inn and Suites currently occupies the site and the project would include the demolition and removal of all of the existing structures and infrastructure on the site. The proposed project is the construction of a mixed-use office and employee services (cafe, gym, etc.) building, at-grade parking and potentially up to four levels of underground parking, bus stop area, and a public plaza. The project may also include pedestrian access to a future Caltrain station, in the form of either an overcrossing or a tunnel undercrossing. For purposes of this and other analyses of the project, it is assumed that the entire site would be graded to a depth of 38 feet. An archaeological study of the parcel is required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review process to determine whether any known archaeological sites exist on the project site and ascertain the probable likelihood of encountering any such sites during construction.
The scope of work of this study is composed of the results of a records search for archaeological resources on the project site and a study area .25 miles from the site, which was requested from the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University; a review of the geologic setting of the site; preparation of a brief regulatory setting section, determination of the site’s sensitivity for archaeological resources; and a recommendation of mitigation measures for the project. The scope of work did not include contacting the Native American Heritage Commission for a review of the Sacred Lands File or contacting any Native American representatives.
Regulatory Context
Regulations affecting this project include the statutes and guidelines contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 20183.2 and 21084.1 and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines).
CEQA regulates projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies in the state of California, whether directly undertaken by the agency, undertaken by a person supported, in whole or in part, by the agency; or involving the issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate,
or other entitlement for use by the agency, which may directly or indirectly cause a physical change in the environment (California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 13, §21063, §21065, and §21080).
A project “that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” is considered one that “may have a significant effect on the environment” (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Chapter 3, §15064.5[b]). Pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, archaeological resources, not otherwise determined to be historical resources, may be significant if they are unique. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, a unique archaeological resource is defined as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one of the following criteria:
1. The resource contains information needed to answer important scientific questions and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
2. The resource has a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
3. The resource is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
To comply with these regulations, first it should be determined whether any cultural resources exist on the site and, therefore, could be affected by the project. This archaeological resource study is intended to facilitate compliance with this requirement by identifying any previously recorded archaeological resources that might be affected, and also to assess the likelihood of encountering currently unknown resources during project construction activities.
Geological Setting
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report completed for this project and based on information from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the site and surrounding area rest on alluvial and marine terrace deposits of the Holocene Epoch of the Quaternary period. (The time period in which human occupation is known to have existed in North America.) Soils from this series are alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits. Soils of the project area are said to consist mostly of non-marine deposits, with some marine deposits near the shore. The project site is located approximately 19 feet above mean sea level with a slight slope toward the southeast.1
The geotechnical report prepared for the project indicated that “Available geologic mapping by the [USGS] and other sources indicates the site is underlain by artificial fills over Bay Mud deposits.” The geotechnical report reported the results of soil borings indicating that each boring encountered artificial fills, ranging at a depth of approximately 7.5 to 12 feet below the existing grade. Below the artificial fills, bay mud was observed extending to depths of about 1 Partner Engineering and Science, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, San Francisco Bay Development, Partner Project No. 20-281457.1, June 11, 2020; https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_49.htm
15.5 feet or less in the borings. The soil borings encountered mixed alluvial deposits below the Bay Mud and/or the artificial fill to depths of approximately 33.5 to 93.5 feet below existing grade. A Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposit, known as Colma Formation was located below the alluvial deposits, to depths of 59.5 and 112 feet below existing grade.2(This deposit is located deeper than would be graded for the project.) As stated by Moratto, “The geologic data imply, first, that local estuarine adaptations must have appeared less than 8,000 years ago; second that archaeological sites on old bayshores are probably buried deeply under sediments…”3
Records Search Result
A request was submitted to NWIC Staff to conduct a records search on April 22, 2021 and the search results were received on May 28, 2021. The records search included a review of NWIC maps (USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps with NWIC annotations) to identify recorded archaeological sites and recorded archaeological surveys. It also included a search for any site records and study reports on file at the NWIC including the project site.
The records search did not locate any known archaeological resources on the project site.
However, it identified one archaeological resource that potentially exists at least approximately 1250 feet from the project site (P-41-00004/CA-SMA-41.) This site is identified as a Native American archaeological site first identified by Nels Nelson in 1909. It was reviewed for its existence and location in a Department of Parks and Recreation Continuation Sheet dated January 12, 2017 by AECOM which found that “the site may no longer be present or may never have existed in this location.” In addition, the records search identified one report (S-048738) as including at least a part of the parcel in its study. That report was an Archaeological Survey Report, a Technical Report prepared for the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, San Francisco to San Jose Station, California High-Speed Train Project. No archaeological resources were identified on the project site as a result of this report. However, the records search result did not find that any site specific field surveys, borings, or shovel testing have been completed on the project site.
Sensitivity and Potential for Encountering Unknown Archaeological Resources The likelihood that an area includes currently unknown archaeological remains is referred to as its archaeological sensitivity. Predictions of an area's sensitivity are based on various factors, including the results of a records search, the geological and soil conditions determined from maps or geotechnical reports, and distance to streams or former water sources. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project identified the condition and uses of the site dating to 1943, when the site was vacant, until 1963 and 1968 when it appeared to be developed with two man-made ponds. By 1993, the site appeared to have been developed 2 Geocon Consultants, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, April 2021. 3 Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.
with a hotel. While archaeology of the 19th or 20th century could exist on the site, it does not appear likely that such historical-era archaeology would be encountered during construction activities unless it was mixed in with the artificial fill on the site or the remains of an unknown historical site existed under the fill material.
The age and composition of deposits affects their potential to contain Native American buried archaeological sites. Landforms that developed before the Quaternary Period have little potential for buried archaeological remains, as the surface formed prior to human occupation in the region. Landforms that developed in the Holocene, however, may contain buried archaeological remains, as they formed during the time that humans were present.
Construction of the project would result in grading to a depth of approximately 38 feet, through artificial fill, Bay Mud, and alluvial deposits. It is possible that the geological layers below the artificial fill contain buried archaeological deposits, as could all such sites throughout the area located on such soils. This possibility is discussed in and illustrated on Figure 6 “Radiocarbon dates associated with major strata and Transbay Man in Yerba Buena Cover (Meyer, 2014)” in the report Geology of San Francisco, California.4 Regarding potential former water sources, Colma Creek is located south of the site and other creeks may have existed in the area prior to urbanization.
Conclusions
This analysis found that excavations associated with the project would be confined to imported fill, a deposit of Bay Mud that underlies the imported fill, and deeper alluvial deposits. If material exists from the borings or appropriate data was gathered from them during the preparation of the geotechnical report, it is recommended that the material be reviewed for the presence of cultural resources. The results of such a review could contribute information to the determination of the archaeological sensitivity of the site. Archaeological resources may exist in these geologic layers and the possibility of the inadvertent discovery of buried archeological resources cannot be completely eliminated. As such, ground-disturbing construction activities below artificial fill have the potential to inadvertently expose and, therefore, affect previously unknown archeological resources. Since the project site is mostly developed and constructed on artificial fill material, no pedestrian field survey to review the site for surface archaeological sites is recommended. The inadvertent exposure of a previously unknown archaeological resource would be a potentially significant impact, under CEQA.
Recommended/Example Mitigation Measures
• Mitigation Measure: Inadvertent Encounter of Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. • If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, obsidian, animal bones, shells or shell pieces consistent with those found in Native American shellmounds, historic debris, building foundations, or other items are discovered inadvertently during soil or 4 Association of Engineering Geologists, Geology of Cities of the World Series, Geology of San Francisco, California, United States of America, Edited by Kenneth A. Johnson and Greg W. Bartow, 2018, https://www.aegweb.org/assets/docs/updated_final_geology_of_san.pdf
ground-disturbing activities, work shall stop in that area and within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist/cultural resource specialist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures in consultation with the City of South San Francisco, and Native American representatives, as appropriate. • Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources found. Cultural material associated with Native peoples includes, but is not limited to, chert or obsidian flakes; projectile points; mortars and pestles; dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris; heat-affected rock; human burials; shell midden deposits; hearth remains; and bone, stone and/or shell artifacts. Historical material associated with settlers include but are not limited to stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; whole or fragmentary ceramic, glass or metal objects; or wood, nails, brick, or other materials may occur within the project area in deposits such as old privies, dumps, or even as part of the fill. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms which shall be provided to the NWIC for their files. The disposition of any such items discovered shall be determined by the City of South San Francisco through recommendations provided by an archaeologist or cultural resource specialist, and in consultation with a Native American representative, if recommended by the archaeologist or cultural resource specialist.
Mitigation Measure: Inadvertent Encounter of Human Remains.
If human remains are encountered, the County coroner shall be contacted immediately. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours (pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted and the Coroner has determined that the remains are not subject to provisions of the law regarding the investigation of the circumstances, manner, and cause of death. The NAHC shall provide the City of San Francisco with the contact information for the Most Likely Descendant who will have the opportunity to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the NAHC as to how the remains shall be treated and their disposition. If any human remains are encountered, the remains shall be left in place and protected from further disturbance until a plan for their disposition can be developed. Pursuant to Section 7050.5(b), if the remains are not Native American and not subject to investigation as described above, the Coroner shall recommend treatment and disposition of the remains to the person responsible for the excavation.
Please contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Leann S. Taagepera
Principal
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Inventory Report
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
PREPARED FOR:
OCI San Fran, LLC
P.O. Box 9927729
San Diego, CA 92192
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
May 5, 2021
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Inventory Report
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
South San Francisco Tree Ordinance 4
Suitability for Preservation 5
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees. 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. 6
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Tree Inventory Report
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA
Introduction and Overview
OCI San Fran, LLC is planning to renovate the subject property at 121 East Grand Avene in South San Francisco. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company, was asked to prepare a Tree Inventory Report for the trees on the property as part of the application to the City of South San Francisco.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of each tree’s health, structure, suitability for preservation and protected status within and adjacent to the proposed project area.
2. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on April 12th and 23rd, 2021. The assessment included all trees within or adjacent to the property with a diameter of 5” or greater. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species.
2. Tagging or confirming the presence of a metal numerical tag and confirming its location on a map.
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54 inches above grade; for off-site trees diameters were estimated.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 – Tree is dead.
5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree species, and its potential to remain an asset to the site.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual tree may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 2
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees
Sixty-nine (69) trees representing 10 species were evaluated. Forty-nine (49, or 71%) of the trees were in poor condition, and seventeen (17, or 25%) were in fair condition. Coast redwood #31 and white alder #53 were in good condition. White alder #51 was dead. Tree condition varied by species. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form and locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).
Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence. 121 E Grand Ave, So. SF, CA.
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Dead
(0)
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon - 3 2 - 5
White alder Alnus rhombifolia 1 7 3 1 12
River red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis - 3 1 - 4
Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus - 2 - - 2
Silver dollar gum Eucalyptus polyanthemos - 8 4 - 12
Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon - 18 4 - 22
Manna gum Eucalyptus viminalis - 1 1 - 2
New Zealand Christmas Tree Metrosideros excelsa - 1 1 - 2 Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 3 1 - 4
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - 3 - 1 4
Total 1 49 17 2 69
The site was a Comfort Inn & Suites at the east side of Highway 101, a mostly flat property that sloped up to the Grand Avenue overpass to the northeast. The trees were located at the perimeter of the parking lot and in landscape areas.
Many of the tree species were common to Bay Area
commercial landscapes, with various eucalyptus
species making up over 60% of the trees (42 trees).
Red ironbark was the most common species
assessed, with 22 trees, or about 32% of the
population (Photo 1). The ironbarks ranged from
young trees of 8 inches to mature (29 inches).
Condition tended to be poor (18 trees), with 4 trees
in fair condition. Most of the trees were growing
along the frontage of the property along East Grand
Avenue, between the parking lot and the sidewalk.
Many had poor form and structure, with codominant
stems or multiple stems and twig dieback. Red
ironbark #6 had a crook in
its trunk, which was cracked
and leaning toward the
parking lot.
Photo 1. Trees
#1-10 lined the
south side of the
parking lot. Red
ironbark #1 is first
tree on left.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 3
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Twelve silver dollar gums were planted among the row of ironbarks along East Grand. Trees were predominantly in poor condition (8 trees), with 4 trees in fair condition. Their diameters ranged from 8 to 18 inches. Silver dollar gums tended to be crowded or suppressed by nearby trees, with narrow crowns. A few were leaning, and almost all had twig dieback.
Twelve white alders were assessed (Photo 2). Most of the alders were growing in a row along the north side of the Inn, and a trio located at the eastern corner. Conditions were variable, with 7 alders in poor condition, 3 in fair condition, and one tree, #53, in good condition. Tree #51 was dead. Trees were semi-mature in development with diameters from 10 to 21 inches. Several of the alders had high crowns or were sparse and one-sided; some had a history of limb removals.
Five blackwood acacias were growing among shrubs on the hillside at the north end of the site.
Three trees were in poor condition and 2 were fair. A few were multi-stemmed at the base and were large shrubs. Trunk diameters ranged from 2 to 17 inches.
None of the remaining six species were represented by more than four trees. Included in this group were:
• Semi-mature river red gums #36 - 38 and 42 were growing at the southwest side of property, next to parking lot. Trees #36, 38, and 42 were in poor condition, and tree #37 was in fair condition. Trunk diameters ranged from 10 to 15 inches. Trees had poor structure with narrow, suppressed or one-sided form.
• Monterey pines #58, 59, 64 and 65 were growing on the northern slope in the same area as the acacias. These were semi-mature trees with diameters ranging from 12 to 20 inches.
Three trees were in poor condition and one tree (#58) was in fair condition. Most of the pines were crowded and leaning, or had bowed trunks and poor branch structure. • Coast redwoods #31 – 34 were growing in a group at the east end of the Inn (Photo 3).
Tree #31 was the youngest, and was in good condition with a diameter of 14 inches. Trees Photo 2. White alders #54–47 (left to
right) were planted along the west side
of the Inn building.
Photo 3. Coast redwoods #32-34
were growing close to the building.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 4
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company #32 – 34 had all been topped at about 30 feet. These trees were in poor condition, and diameters ranged from 19 to 20 inches.
• Blue gums #55 and 56 were growing at the north side of the building, and were in poor condition (Photo 4). Tree #55 had a diameter of 20 inches, and was in a narrow corner planter and leaned north. Tree #56 also leaned slightly north. Its diameter was 24 inches.
It had a history of limb failures and bark was detaching from the lower portion of the trunk. • Manna gums #28 and 30 were growing on
the slope by the east parking lot and were
in poor condition. Both had high thin
crowns with twig and branch dieback.
Diameters were 10 and 15 inches,
respectively.
• New Zealand Christmas trees #57 and 66
were growing at the back (north) side of
the Inn near the hillside. Both were multistemmed at the base with shrubby form.
Tree #57 was in fair condition, with stems
ranging from 4 to 11 inches in diameter.
Tree #66 was in poor condition with stems
from one to 5 inches in diameter, and was
one-sided and
suppressed by
nearby trees.
South San Francisco - Tree Ordinance
The City of South San Francisco regulates trees under Municipal Code Chapter 13.30 Tree Preservation. A Protected tree is any of the following:
• Certain species (such as oaks) 10” and greater in trunk diameter, • Most species 15” and greater in diameter,
• Certain species (such as blackwood acacia) 24” and greater in trunk diameter (Municipal Code Section 13.30),
• A stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival, • A tree or stand of trees so designated based on findings that it is unique and is of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, or historical significance.
• In the case where the tree is a multi-stemmed specimen (i.e., is a single specimen which has two or more trunks that are connected above the ground), the size shall be determined by measuring all of the trunks at a height of fifty-four inches above natural grade and then adding the total circumference of the largest trunk to one-half the circumference of each additional trunk. These alternative measuring methods for nonstandard trees should be evaluated against the same measurement criteria as listed in the “protected tree” subsections (1), (2), and (3) above. (Ord. 1514 § 1, 2016; Ord. 1271 § 1, 2000; Ord. 1060 § 1, 1989)
Based on these definitions, thirty-two (32) trees included in the report are considered Protected.
These trees cannot be removed without a permit. Protected Trees are identified on the Tree Assessment Form.
Photo 4. Blue
gum #55 was
growing near an
enclosure wall and
was leaning
toward the Grand
Avenue overpass.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 5
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Suitability for Preservation
Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for longterm health, structural stability and longevity within the proposed development.
Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. For example, Monterey pine #64 on the north slope was in poor health with its crown half dead. It would not make a good candidate for preservation. Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Red ironbark #6 was in very poor condition with a cracked, bent trunk near the parking lot.
Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Coast redwood has good tolerance to construction impacts, while Monterey pine and white alder are poor.
Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.
Invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. South San Francisco is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blackwood acacia, river red gum, and blue gum are considered invasive on a limited basis.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, below). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 6
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation. 121 E Grand Ave, So. SF, CA.
High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. One tree had high suitability for preservation: coast redwood #31.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in the “high” category. Three (3) trees had moderate suitability for preservation.
Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Sixty-four (64) trees had low suitability for preservation.
Note: Table does not include white alder #51. This tree was dead.
Preliminary Tree Preservation Guidelines
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts. Trees with high suitability for preservation should be preserved where possible.
The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development as well as maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. The key elements of a tree preservation plan for the 121 East Grand Avenue property would include:
Focus efforts at tree preservation on those trees with high or moderate suitability for preservation. Examples include: coast redwood #31, river red gum #37, white alder #53, and New Zealand Christmas tree #57.
Establish TREE PROTECTION ZONES for each tree to be preserved. TREE PROTECTION ZONES are identified by the Consulting Arborist based on species tolerances, tree condition, trunk diameters and the nature and proximity of the proposed disturbance. Provide supplemental irrigation prior to and during the demolition and construction phases.
Trees should be preserved in groups with minimal grading within the critical root zone, where possible. The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 7
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Design recommendations
1. Plan for tree preservation by designing adequate space around trees to be preserved.
This area is called the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials should occur within that zone. Route underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. For design purposes, the tree protection zone is ten times the trunk diameter or the entire dripline whichever is larger. Areas of the Tree Protection Zone should be fenced to minimize impacts and staging in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
2. Any changes to the plans affecting the trees should be reviewed by the Project Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site plans, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans.
3. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 2 inch in diameter within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
4. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Project Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.
5. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
6. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases, occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Project Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
2. Fence the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Trees adjacent to demolition may require limb and trunk protections. This may be accomplished using foam wrapped with wattle and orange snow fencing to protect the areas where the limb (or trunk) is exposed to incidental contact.
3. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to clean the crown of dead branches 1 inch and larger in diameter, raise canopies as needed for construction activities. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300). The Project Arborist will provide pruning specifications prior to site demolition.
4. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall use equipment that will minimize damage to trees above and below ground, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The Project Arborist shall be on site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.
5. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible, tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
6. Apply and maintain 4-6” of wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 8
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be monitored by the Project Arborist.
2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.
3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist.
4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at all times.
5. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Project Arborist. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. Removal of roots larger than 2 inches in diameter should be avoided.
6. If roots 1 inches and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
7. Spoil from trench, footing, utility or other excavation shall not be placed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE, neither temporarily nor permanently.
8. All grading within the dripline of trees shall be done using the smallest equipment possible. The equipment shall operate perpendicular to the tree and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Project Arborist.
9. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Project Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 18-24 inches.
10. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Project Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.
11. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
12. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel or certified tree climber.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Trees should be monitored and inspected annually and after major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Preserved trees will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority.
Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 9
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Pam Nagle
Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester
Certified Arborist #WE-9617A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Tree Inventory Report – 121 E. Grand Ave., So. San Francisco, CA May 5, 2021 Page 10
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Exhibits
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Assessment Plan
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
1 Red ironbark 26 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 6'; twig dieback; history of branch failures. 2 Silver dollar gum 8 No 2 Low Narrow; suppressed form. 3 Red ironbark 21 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 6'; twig dieback; history of branch failures; trunk wound.
4 Red ironbark 19 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 12'; twig dieback; bows to E. 5 Red ironbark 20 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 8'; twig dieback; crown reduced to E.; lateral over sidewalk.
6 Red ironbark 12 No 1 Low Poor form and structure; trunk cracked over parking; remove asap.
7 Red ironbark 8 No 3 Low Narrow; thin form; top bows to N.8 Red ironbark 29 Yes 3 Low Crook at 10'; bows to N.9 Silver dollar gum 10 No 3 Low Codominant stems at 12'; narrow form. 10 Red ironbark 14 No 2 Low Twig dieback; thin crown.11 Silver dollar gum 10 No 3 Low Narrow form; small; thin crown.12 Red ironbark 13 No 2 Low Twig dieback; history of branch failures; poor form and structure.13 Silver dollar gum 11 No 3 Low Narrow form; leans N.14 Silver dollar gum 15 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 10'; twig dieback.15 Silver dollar gum 14 No 2 Low One sided to N.; twig dieback.16 Red ironbark 13 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; multiple attachments at 15'. 17 Silver dollar gum 18 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 8'; twig and branch dieback.18 Red ironbark 12 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; multiple attachments at 15'. 19 Red ironbark 12 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; multiple attachments at 15'; failure at point of attachment left wound.
20 Silver dollar gum 8 No 2 Low Wire girdling trunk at codominant attachment; twig dieback.
Tree Assessment
121 East Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAApril 2020
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
121 East Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAApril 2020
21 Red ironbark 16 Yes 2 Low Codominant stem removed at 10'; remaining stem has severe crook.
22 Red ironbark 18 Yes 3 Low Central leader bows to W.; full crown.23 Red ironbark 13 No 2 Low Leaning and suppressed to E.; poor structure.24 Red ironbark 19 No 2 Low Codominant stems at 5'; twig dieback; poor structure. 25 Red ironbark 26 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 12'; twig dieback; poor structure. 26 Red ironbark 13 No 2 Low Trunk leans to SE.; twig dieback; poor structure; reduced over parking.
27 Blackwood acacia 17 No 3 Low Codominant stems at 7' with included bark; full; dense crown.28 Manna gum 10 No 2 Low High small crown; twig and branch dieback.29 Blackwood acacia 6,5,4,4 No 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; low, full dense crown.30 Manna gum 15 Yes 3 Low Twig and branch dieback; leans E.; thin crown.31 Coast redwood 14 No 4 High Good upright form; slightly drought stressed.32 Coast redwood 20 Yes 2 Low Topped at 30'; drought stressed.33 Coast redwood 19 Yes 2 Low Topped at 30'; drought stressed.34 Coast redwood 20 Yes 2 Low Topped at 30'; drought stressed.35 Red ironbark 25 Yes 3 Low Codominant stems at 6'; twig dieback; lateral limbs over sidewalk.
36 River red gum 10 No 2 Low Two cracked codominant attachments; suppressed form.37 River red gum 14 No 3 Moderate Narrow form; one-sided to N.38 River red gum 15 Yes 2 Low Poor form and structure; tree ties girdling trunk; twig dieback. 39 Silver dollar gum 9 No 2 Low Suppressed and bows to SE.; poor structure.40 Silver dollar gum 14 No 2 Low Codominant stems at 18'; twig dieback; history of branch failures.41 Red ironbark 17 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 10'; twig dieback; lateral over sidewalk.
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
121 East Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAApril 2020
42 River red gum 14 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; twig dieback; hanger; sinuous form. 43 Silver dollar gum 16 Yes 3 Low Codominant stem failed; second stem has upright form with a full crown.
44 Silver dollar gum 11 No 2 Low Codominant stems at 8'; twig dieback; bark checking on trunk.45 Red ironbark 17 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 10'; twig dieback; poor structure. 46 Red ironbark 18 Yes 2 Low Twig dieback; poor structure; history of branch failures.47 White alder 16 Yes 3 Low Correcting lean SE.; crowded by bldg.; high crown. 48 White alder 19 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 7'; decay in wound N. side; history of limb removals; correcting lean E.; high crown.
49 White alder 13 No 3 Low Circling root NE. side; codominant at 20'; high crown.50 White alder 21 Yes 2 Low Codominant stems at 18'; history of limb removals; pruned back from bldg.; sparse crown.
51 White alder 10 No 0 - Dead.52 White alder 14 No 3 Low Corrected lean NW.; trunk wound W. side near base; history of limb removals W side; high crown.
53 White alder 18 Yes 4 Moderate Correcting lean N.; 1-sided to S.; vigorous.54 White alder 15 Yes 2 Low Leans N.; codominant stems at 12'; sparse crown.55 Blue gum 20 No 2 Low Old rag #4980. 1.5' from wall on S. side; in narrow corner planter; leaning N.; some twig and branch dieback; topped at 25'. 56 Blue gum 24 Yes 2 Low Leans N., slightly corrected; bark detaching lower 10' trunk; history of limb failures.
57 New Zealand
Christmas Tree
11,6,6,5,4 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments arise from base; crowded by pine; circling roots; 2 trunks fused.
58 Monterey pine 18 Yes 3 Low Correcting lean S.; lost top w/ multiple stems arising at 25'. 59 Monterey pine 12 No 1 Low Strong lean E. down slope; very suppressed; half of foliage dead; lateral branch bends back up hill and fused w/ trunk.
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
121 East Grand AvenueSouth San Francisco, CAApril 2020
60 Blackwood acacia 10 No 1 Low Trunk bows/leans SE.; 4' vertical wound S. side; decay at base. 61 Blackwood acacia 12 No 1 Low Sinuous trunk; codominant at 3.5' with fused stems; 6" lateral twists downhill; poor form and structure.
62 White alder 17 Yes 2 Low Leans E., slightly correcting; codominant at 6' with included bark.63 Blackwood acacia 8,6,3,2 No 1 Low Codominant stems arise from base; splitting apart on slope (failing); largest stem split open at base.
64 Monterey pine 20 Yes 1 Low Trunk bows N.; sinuous form; half of crown dead; crowded.65 Monterey pine 14 No 1 Low Correcting lean NE.; high crown; crowded.66 New Zealand Christmas Tree
5,5,4,1 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments arise from base; suppressed; 1-sided to N.; fairly vigorous.
67 White alder 10 No 1 Low Leans NE.; crowded by #62 and 68; high crown.68 White alder 16 Yes 2 Low Leans NE.; crowded by #67 and 69.69 White alder 11 No 1 Low Topped; codominant stems at 15'; little live foliage.
PREPARED FOR:
OCI SAN FRAN, LLC
P.O. BOX 927729
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92192
PREPARED BY:
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
6671 BRISA STREET
LIVERMORE, CALIFORNIA 94550
GEOCON PROJECT NO. E8961-04-02 APRIL 2021
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
PRELIMINARY
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
6671 Brisa Street ■ Livermore, California 94550 ■ Tel (925) 371-5900 Project No. E8961-04-02
April 21, 2021
OCI San Fran, LLC
PO Box 927729
San Diego, California 92192
Attention: Mr. Adam Cashner
Subject: PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Cashner:
In accordance with your authorization of our proposal dated November 18, 2020, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject mixed-use development in South San Francisco, California. Our investigation was performed to corroborate the soils conditions that we encountered in our previous investigation and provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. The findings of this study indicate the site is suitable for development as planned provided the recommendations of this report are implemented during design and construction.
The project is still in the early stages of design. As such, we expect this report will be updated as project design progresses, and to incorporate any review comments provided by the City of South San Francisco.
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Sincerely,
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
(1/e-mail) Addressee
(1/e-mail) M-RAD Architecture
Attention: Ms. Margerie Bonnet
(1/e-mail) M-RAD Architecture
Attention: Ms. Kristy Velasco
Shane Rodacker, GE
Senior Engineer
Andre Ashour, PE
Senior Project Engineer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING ........................................................................................................................................ 2
4. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS....................................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Faulting and Seismicity ....................................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Surface Fault Rupture ......................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Ground Shaking................................................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Liquefaction......................................................................................................................................... 4
4.5 Landslides............................................................................................................................................ 4
4.6 Tsunamis and Seiches ........................................................................................................................ 5
5. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS........................................................................................................ 5
5.1 Artificial Fill........................................................................................................................................... 5
5.2 Bay Mud............................................................................................................................................... 5
5.3 Alluvium ............................................................................................................................................... 5
5.4 Colma Formation................................................................................................................................. 5
5.5 Franciscan Formation.......................................................................................................................... 5
5.6 Groundwater........................................................................................................................................ 6
5.7 Soil Corrosion Screening ..................................................................................................................... 6
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 7
6.1 General ................................................................................................................................................ 7
6.2 Seismic Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 8
6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics .................................................................................................... 9
6.4 Materials for Fill................................................................................................................................... 9
6.5 Grading ............................................................................................................................................. 10
6.6 Mat Foundations .............................................................................................................................. 11
6.7 Tiedown Anchors .............................................................................................................................. 11
6.8 Exterior Slabs.................................................................................................................................... 12
6.9 Temporary Excavations .................................................................................................................... 12
6.10 Temporary Shoring ........................................................................................................................... 13
6.11 Retaining Wall Design ...................................................................................................................... 15
6.12 Underground Utilities........................................................................................................................ 16
6.13 Pavement Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 16
6.14 Surface Drainage.............................................................................................................................. 17
7. FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES......................................................................................................... 19
7.1 Plan and Specification Review......................................................................................................... 19
7.2 Testing and Observation Services.................................................................................................... 19
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
FIGURES
Figure 1, Vicinity Map
Figure 2, Site Plan
Figure 3, Geology Map
APPENDIX A – FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figure A1, Key to Boring Logs
Figures A2 through A7, Logs of Exploratory Borings
Figures A8 through A14, Cone Penetrometer Test Data
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Figures A15 through A17, SCPT Sounding Data
Figure A18, Borehole Percolation Test Results
APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING
Table B-I, Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results Table B-II, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results
Table B-III, Summary of Laboratory No. 200 Wash Test Results Table B-IV, Summary of Soil Corrosion Parameters
Figures B1 through B11, Laboratory Particle Size Analyses Figure B12, Unconfined Compressive Strength Test Results APPENDIX C – LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Selected CLiq Output
LIST OF REFERENCES
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 1 - April 21, 2021
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for a proposed mixed-use development in South San Francisco, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of this investigation was to corroborate the soils conditions that we encountered in our previous investigation and provide conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction, based on the conditions encountered during our study.
The scope of current investigation included field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis and the preparation of this report. Our field exploration was performed on December 3 and December 10, 2020 and included drilling two exploratory borings to depths of approximately 60 and 112 ½ feet, respectively, and four Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPTs) to maximum depths of approximately 85 feet below the existing grade. Seismic shear wave velocity measurements were collected at 5-foot intervals at each CPT location.
Subsurface exploration for our previous investigation was performed on December 16 ,2016, April 26, 2017 and May 5, 2017 and included four Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPTs) to maximum depths of approximately 55 feet and drilling four exploratory borings to approximately 45 feet or less below existing grade.
The locations of all CPTs and soil borings are depicted on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A detailed discussion of our field investigation, soil boring logs, and CPT profiles are presented in Appendix A.
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained during the investigation to evaluate pertinent geotechnical parameters. Appendix B presents the laboratory test results in tabular format and graphical format.
Appendix C presents selected output from our liquefaction analysis.
The opinions expressed herein are based on analysis of the data obtained during the investigation and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. References reviewed to prepare this report are provided in the List of References section.
If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
2. SITE CONDITIONS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The approximately 3 ¼-acre site is comprised of four adjacent parcels at the northeast corner of Poletti Way and East Grand Avenue in South San Francisco. Topographically, the site is relatively flat with ground surface elevations on the order of 15 to 20 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) according to web-based mapping. An embankment for the nearby East Grand Avenue overcrossing ascends from the northern margin of the property.
The site is currently occupied by a three-story hotel and associated courtyard areas and surface parking.
The project concept plans by M-Rad Architecture indicate the mixed-use development will consist of a Life Science Building and integrated transportation hub. The development will include eleven levels above grade with a maximum height of approximately 160 feet. Three levels of subterranean parking are also planned. The development will include 803,000 square feet (SF) of office space, and about 342,000 SF of parking between the ground level and three subterranean parking levels. A two-deck reinforced concrete podium with parking and retail space is planned at ground level. We anticipate the superstructure above the concrete podium will be steelframed and the subterranean levels will be reinforced concrete construction. The eleven above-grade levels will Project No. E8961-04-02 - 2 - April 21, 2021
be in an L-shaped configuration with wings fronting the East Grand Avenue overcrossing and Poletti Way; the balance of the site footprint will be two-level podium with a public plaza at the upper deck.
Ancillary site improvements such as new underground utilities, driveways, exterior flatwork and landscaped areas are also expected. The project will require the relocation of underground public utilities situated along the southern and western margins of the site. An above-grade retaining wall will be required where the northern property line coincides with the East Grand Avenue overcrossing embankment.
Structural design details were not available at the time of this report, but we understand a reinforced concrete mat foundation with thicknesses on the order of three to eight feet is conceptualized. We anticipate cuts up to 40 feet will be required for the subterranean levels and mat foundation construction. We have assumed the subterranean levels will generally extend laterally to the site limits. Should the underground levels only occupy a portion of the site footprint, we should be contacted to update the recommendations presented herein.
3. GEOLOGIC SETTING
South San Francisco is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California, which is characterized by a series of northwest trending mountains and valleys along the north and central coast of California.
Topography is controlled by the predominant geological structural trends within the Coast Range that generally consist of northwest trending synclines, anticlines and faulted blocks. The dominant structure is a result of both active northwest trending strike-slip faulting, associated with the San Andreas Fault system, and east-west compression within the province.
The San Andreas Fault (SAF) is a major right-lateral strike-slip fault that extends from the Gulf of California in Mexico to Cape Mendocino in northern California. The SAF forms a portion of the boundary between two tectonic plates on the surface of the earth. To the west of the SAF is the Pacific Plate, which moves north relative to the North American Plate, located east of the fault. In the San Francisco Bay Area, movement across this plate boundary is concentrated on the SAF but also distributed, to a lesser extent, across several other faults including the Hayward, Calaveras and Rodgers Creek faults, among others. Together, these faults are referred to as the SAF system.
Basement rock west of the SAF is generally granitic, while to the east it consists of a chaotic mixture of highly deformed marine sedimentary, submarine volcanic and metamorphic rocks of the Franciscan Complex. Both are typically Jurassic to Cretaceous in age (205 to 65 million years old). Overlying the basement rocks are Cretaceous (about 140 to 65 million years old) marine, as well as Tertiary (about 65 to 1.6 million years old) marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks with some continental volcanic rock. These Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks have typically been extensively folded and faulted largely because of movement along the SAF system, which has been ongoing for about the last 25 million years, and regional compression during the last about 4 million years. The inland valleys, as well as the structural depression within which San Francisco Bay is located, are filled with unconsolidated to semi-consolidated deposits of Quaternary age (about the last 1.6 million years). Continental deposits (alluvium) consist of unconsolidated to semi-consolidated sand, silt, clay and gravel, while the bay deposits typically consist of soft organic-rich silt and clay (bay mud) or sand.
Available geologic mapping by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and other sources indicates the site is underlain by artificial fills over Bay Mud deposits. Geologic mapping by the USGS indicates bedrock depths of approximately 50 to 100 feet below MSL across the site. A Geology Map depicting mapped geologic units in the site vicinity is presented as Figure 3.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 3 - April 21, 2021
4. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.1 Faulting and Seismicity
Geologists and seismologists recognize the San Francisco Bay Area as one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The significant earthquakes that occur in the Bay Area are associated with crustal movements along well-defined active fault zones that generally trend in a northwesterly direction.
The site and greater Bay Area are seismically dominated by the presence of the active San Andreas Fault System.
In the theory of plate tectonics, the San Andreas Fault System is a transform fault that forms the boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the southward moving North American Plate (east of the fault). Locally, the movement is distributed across a complex system of strike-slip, right lateral parallel and subparallel faults, which include the San Andreas, Hayward and Calaveras faults, among others.
The table below presents approximate distances to active faults in the site vicinity based on web-based mapping by the California Geological Survey (CGS), as presented in an online fault database previously maintained by Caltrans. Site latitude is N 37.6549° N, W 122.4046°.
TABLE 4
REGIONAL FAULT SUMMARY
Fault Name Approximate Distance to
Site (miles)
Maximum Earthquake
Magnitude, Mw
San Andreas 3 8.0
San Gregorio 8 ¾ 7.4
Hayward 15 7.3
Monte Vista - Shannon 21 ½ 6.4
Silver Creek 23 ¼ 6.9
Calaveras 23 ¾ 6.9
Contra Costa Shear Zone 23 ¾ 6.5
Pleasanton 25 ¼ 6.6
The faults tabulated above and many others in the greater Bay Area are sources of potential ground motion.
However, earthquakes that might occur on other faults within the northern California area are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could cause ground shaking at the site. Table 4 is intended only to acquaint the reader with the seismic setting of the site and is not meant as a basis for seismic design.
4.2 Surface Fault Rupture
The site is not within a currently established State of California Earthquake Fault Zone for surface fault rupture hazards. No active or potentially active faults are known to pass directly beneath the site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low. By CGS definition, an active fault is one with surface displacement within the last 11,000 years. A potentially active fault has demonstrated evidence of surface displacement with the past 1.6 million years. Faults that have not moved in the last 1.6 million years are typically considered inactive.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 4 - April 21, 2021
4.3 Ground Shaking
We used the web-based Unified Hazard Tool application to estimate the peak ground acceleration (PGA) and modal (most probable) magnitude associated with a 2,475-year return period. This return period corresponds to an event with 2% chance of exceedance in a 50-year period. The USGS estimated PGA is 0.96g and the modal magnitude is 7.9 for Seismic Site Class D (Vs30 = 259 m/sec). The estimated PGA is 1.05g and the modal magnitude is 7.9 for Seismic Site Class C and D boundary (Vs30 = 360 m/sec).
While listing PGA is useful for comparison of potential effects of fault activity in a region, other considerations are important in seismic design, including frequency and duration of motion and soil conditions underlying the site.
4.4 Liquefaction
The site is not located within a State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Hazard Zone for liquefaction as CGS has not published such mapping for the project area. However, web-based mapping by USGS and CGS indicates portions of the site possesses a “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary loss of shear strength due to pore pressure buildup under the cyclic shear stresses associated with intense earthquakes. Primary factors that trigger liquefaction are:
moderate to strong ground shaking (seismic source), relatively clean, loose granular soils (primarily poorly graded sands and silty sands), and saturated soil conditions (shallow groundwater). Due to the increasing overburden pressure with depth, liquefaction of granular soils is generally limited to the upper 50 feet of a soil profile.
We assessed the potential for liquefaction using the computer software program CLiq (Version 2.0, Geologismiki) and the in-situ soil parameters measured in the CPT soundings. The software applied the methodology of Boulanger and Idriss (2014) to the CPT data to evaluate liquefaction potential and estimate resultant settlements. In estimating post-liquefaction settlement at the site, we have implemented a depth weighting factor proposed by Cetin (2009). Our analysis also considered the potential for cyclic softening in clayey soil. Our evaluation incorporated an earthquake moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.9 and a groundwater depth of 5 feet. We used a ground motion/Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 1.0g for our analysis based on 2019 CBC seismic design criteria.
Our liquefaction analysis identified potentially liquefiable layers at each CPT location that did not meet refusal on obstructions within the artificial fills that mantle the site. In general, the liquefiable layers are located more than 5 feet below the existing grade at the site.
Several sandy layers within the upper 30 to 35 feet are potentially liquefiable. Should liquefaction occur, our analysis indicates total ground surface settlements of up to approximately 3 ½ inches may occur. Our soil borings encountered predominantly dense to very dense granular soil with some medium dense sandy layers below a depth of about 35 feet. Considering the upper 35 feet of soil will be removed during excavation for the underground parking, we opine that the development atop the subterranean levels may experience potential total settlement of approximately ¾ inch or less during or after a seismic event. Selected output from our liquefaction analysis is presented in Appendix C.
4.5 Landslides
There are no known landslides near the site, nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. We do not consider the potential for a landslide to be a hazard to this project.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 5 - April 21, 2021
4.6 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on mapping published by the California Emergency Management Agency and CGS, the site is outside of a tsunami (seismic sea wave) inundation area.
Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. No major waterretaining structures are located immediately up gradient from the project site. Flooding from a seismically induced seiche is considered unlikely.
5. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
5.1 Artificial Fill
Each of our soil borings encountered artificial fills. Fill depths ranged from approximately 7½ to 12 feet below existing grade. The source of the fill materials and details regarding placement methods are unknown. As observed in our soil borings, the fill materials consisted of loose to very dense sands with variable amounts of clay and silt, soft to very stiff sandy silts with relatively minor amounts of clay and gravel, and medium dense to very dense gravels with sand. The fills encountered in our borings included various amounts of construction debris such as concrete, brick and slag. We encountered slag chunks up to 6 inches in nominal dimension at a depth of about 7 feet in Boring B5. The upper approximately 4 feet of fill in Boring B3 showed indications of previous lime or cement treatment. The artificial fills encountered in Boring B4 are interpreted as trench backfill materials based on proximity to existing underground utilities.
5.2 Bay Mud
Our Borings B1, B3, B4, and B5 encountered Bay Mud beneath the artificial fills described above. The Bay Mud materials were generally observed as soft to medium stiff organic-rich, highly plastic clays with fine sands. The Bay Mud extended to depths of approximately 15 ½ feet or less in our borings.
5.3 Alluvium
All of our soil borings encountered mixed alluvial deposits below the Bay Mud and/or artificial fill. The deposits were observed as medium stiff to hard sandy clay and medium dense to very dense sand with variable amounts of gravel, silt and clay. We encountered alluvium to depths of approximately 33 ½ to 93 ½ feet below existing grade in Borings B6 and B5, respectively.
5.4 Colma Formation
Colma Formation was encountered in Borings B5 and B6 below the alluvial deposits. Colma Formation is a Pleistocene-age sedimentary deposit common in the area and is described by the USGS as mostly yellow-orange to gray, sandy clay and silty sand in the site vicinity. In our soil borings, the Colma Formation materials were observed as very stiff sandy clay and dense to very dense clayey sand with variable amount of gravel and silt content. We encountered Colma Formation to depths of 59 ½ and 112 feet below existing grade in Borings B6 and B5, respectively.
5.5 Franciscan Formation
We encountered Franciscan Formation beneath Colma Formation in Borings B5 and B6. The formational materials extended to the maximum depths explored – approximately 60 and 112 ½ feet, respectively, in Borings Project No. E8961-04-02 - 6 - April 21, 2021
B6 and B5. The Franciscan Formation materials were observed as weathered claystone and sandstone. Our Borings B5 and B6 met refusal in the formational materials. Several of our CPTs met refusal in suspected Franciscan Formation. Based on the conditions encountered in Borings B5 and B6, the top of the Franciscan Formation dips significantly from southwest to northeast across the site, which is consistent with USGS geologic mapping.
5.6 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered at approximately 8 ½ and 16 feet below grade in our recent Borings B5 and B6, respectively. Groundwater was noted at approximately 4 ½ to 8 feet below grade in our previous soil borings performed in 2017. Actual groundwater levels will fluctuate seasonally and with variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors and may be higher or lower than observed during our study.
5.7 Soil Corrosion Screening
Soil samples obtained during our field exploration were subjected to laboratory testing for minimum resistivity, pH, and chloride and water-soluble sulfate. The laboratory test results and published screening levels are presented in Appendix B. Soil corrosivity should be considered in the design of buried metal pipes, underground structures, etc.
Water-soluble sulfate test results on selected samples of site soils indicate an S0 exposure classification for sulfate attack on normal portland cement concrete (PCC) as defined in Chapter 318, Table 19.3.1.1 of the ACI Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. ACI does not set forth requirements for S0 sulfate exposure classification. In addition, none of the four soil samples tested would be classified as corrosive to buried metal improvements based on Caltrans criteria.
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.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 7 - April 21, 2021
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 General
6.1.1 No overriding geotechnical constraints were encountered during our investigation that would preclude the project as presently proposed. Primary geotechnical considerations are the presence of shallow groundwater, wet and unstable subgrade soil at the bottom of the subterranean excavation, shoring considerations for the below-grade excavation, undocumented artificial fills, and potential differential movement at on-grade to below-grade transitions. The recommendations presented herein are intended to mitigate the effects of the identified geotechnical constraints. A conventionally reinforced concrete mat foundation is planned at the bottom of the subterranean level.
6.1.2 Given the history of land use in the area, as well as the unknown source and composition of the fill materials that underlie the site, the costs for disposal of spoils generated by excavation operation should be considered in project planning.
6.1.3 Bay Mud deposits were encountered in our Borings B1, B3, B4, and B5 with the maximum observed thickness of those deposits being approximately 8 feet in Boring B1. Given the age of the fills placed atop the Bay Mud during original development in the area, as well as the surcharge effects of the nearby East Grand Avenue overcrossing embankment that was constructed in the 1980s, the potential for ongoing secondary compression in the Bay Mud is considered low.
6.1.4 Based on the subsurface conditions at the site and the anticipated structural loading, a reinforced concrete mat can be used for foundation support the proposed superstructure. Post-construction settlements due to static foundation loads should be in order of 2 inches or less. Assuming uniform mat bearing pressures across the site, differential settlements due to foundation loading should be ¼ inch or less across a distance of 50 feet. We should review mat contract pressures during project design to confirm estimated settlements.
6.1.5 The proposed project redevelops a site with past episodes of grading and construction. As such, unknown underground improvements and areas of undocumented fill materials (not discussed herein) may be present. If encountered, supplemental recommendations will be provided during site development.
6.1.6 A temporary dewatering system will be implemented prior to excavations. Design, selection of the equipment and dewatering method, and construction of temporary dewatering should be the responsibility of the contractor. In general, temporary draw down of groundwater can cause subsidence outside the excavation area. The dewatering designer should evaluate potential effects on adjacent improvements.
6.1.7 The bottom of the mat foundation for the project will be situated approximately 40 feet below grade and 35 feet below the shallowest groundwater observed in our borings. Mat foundations bearing 40 feet below grade should be designed to accommodate up to 2,200 psf in hydrostatic uplift pressure.
6.1.8 Any changes in the design, location or elevation of the proposed improvements, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.
6.1.9 All references to relative compaction and optimum moisture content in this report are based on ASTM D 1557 (latest edition).
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 8 - April 21, 2021
6.2 Seismic Design Criteria
6.2.1 We understand that seismic structural design will be performed in accordance with the provisions of 2019 CBC which is based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publication Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 7-16). We derived the following seismic design parameters using the web-based Structural Engineers Association of California application U.S.
Seismic Design Maps. Results are summarized in Table 6.2.1. The values presented are for the risktargeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) and Seismic Risk Category III. We have assigned Site Class C based on Vs30 values calculated using the shear wave velocity measurements from our CPTs. Vs30 values were calculated from the half-depth of the subterranean levels downward.
TABLE 6.2.1
2019 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
6.2.2 Table 6.2.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects with Seismic Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-16 for the mapped maximum considered geometric mean (MCEG).
Parameter Value 2019 CBC Reference
Site Class C Section 1613.2.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (short), SS
1.94g Figure 1613.2.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration
– Class B (1 sec), S1
0.798g Figure 1613.2.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.2 Table 1613.2.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.4* Table 1613.2.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration (short), SMS
2.328g Section 1613.2.3 (Eq. 16-36)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response
Acceleration – (1 sec), SM1
1.118g* Section 1613.2.3 (Eq. 16-37)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS
1.552g Section 1613.2.4 (Eq. 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1
0.745g* Section 1613.2.4 (Eq. 16-39)
Note:
*Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE/SEI 7-16, a ground motion hazard analysis shall be performed for projects for Site Class “E” sites with Ss greater than or equal to 1.0g and for Site Class “D” and “E” sites with S1 greater than 0.2g. Section
11.4.8 also provides exceptions where ground motion hazard analysis may be waived. Using the code-based values presented in the table above, in lieu of a performing a ground motion hazard analysis, requires the exceptions outlined in ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 be followed in project design.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 9 - April 21, 2021
TABLE 6.2.2
2019 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-16 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.833g Figure 22-7 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 1.00g Section 11.8.3 (Eq. 11.8-1)
6.2.3 Conformance to the criteria presented in Tables 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 for seismic design does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid structural damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
6.3 Soil and Excavation Characteristics
6.3.1 The onsite soils might be excavated with moderate effort using conventional excavation equipment.
Additional effort may be required for excavations in artificial fill materials. In general, we anticipate excavations will generate construction debris and deleterious materials not suitable for reuse in engineered fills. Contractors should review the subsurface conditions in our logs prior to bidding and selecting construction equipment and methods. Excavations or drilled shafts that extend into Franciscan Formation will require additional effort and possibly special equipment or construction methods.
6.3.1 Unknown or unanticipated constituents may exist, especially within areas of artificial fill. The artificial fills at the site are undocumented and may contain constituents not reported herein. Below-grade improvements associated with prior site development may also be present.
6.3.2 It is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that all excavations and trenches are properly shored and maintained in accordance with applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules and regulations to maintain safety and maintain the stability of adjacent existing improvements.
6.3.3 The Bay Mud and alluvial soils encountered at the site should be considered “expansive” as defined by 2019 CBC. The recommendations of this report assume proposed foundation systems will derive support in engineered fills or competent alluvial soils.
6.4 Materials for Fill
6.4.1 As discussed in Section 5.1, artificial fills were encountered in our borings to depths ranging from approximately 7 ½ to 12 feet below the existing grade. Over-excavated fill materials may be reused as engineered fill provided they are cleaned of construction debris. Engineered fills should not contain deleterious materials or cementations larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension.
6.4.2 Although not anticipated, import fill material should be primarily granular with a “low” expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50), a Plasticity Index less than 15, be free of organic material and construction debris, and not contain rock larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 10 - April 21, 2021
6.4.3 Environmental characteristics and corrosion potential of import soil materials may also be considered.
Proposed import materials should be sampled, tested, and approved by Geocon prior to its transportation to the site.
6.5 Grading
6.5.1 All clearing operations and earthwork (including over-excavation, scarification, and recompaction) should be observed and all fills tested for recommended compaction and moisture content by representatives of Geocon.
6.5.2 Structural areas should be considered as areas extending a minimum of 5 feet horizontally from a foundation or beyond the outside dimensions of building pad, including footings and overhangs carrying structural loads, and where not restricted by property boundaries or other site logistics.
6.5.3 A preconstruction conference should be held at the site prior to the beginning of grading operations with the owner, contractor, civil engineer and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling requirements can be discussed at that time.
6.5.4 After complete demolition and removal of any existing structures, site preparation should commence with the removal of all existing improvements from the area to be developed/graded. All active or inactive utilities within the construction area should be protected, relocated, or abandoned. Any pipelines to be abandoned that are greater than 2 inches and less than 18 inches in diameter should be removed or filled with sand-cement slurry. Utilities larger than 18 inches in diameter should be removed. Excavations or depressions resulting from site clearing operations, or other existing excavations or depressions, should be restored with engineered fill in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
6.5.5 Existing soils outside of the structure footprint should be over-excavated to a depth of approximately 1 foot. The exposed bottom should be scarified 8 to 12 inches moisture conditioned to at least 2% above optimum moisture and recompacted to at least 90% relative compaction (at near optimum moisture where fill materials are predominantly sands or gravels).
6.5.6 We anticipate that wet soils conditions will be exposed at bottom of the excavation for the subterranean levels. We recommend that the contractor plan to excavate an additional 12 inches.
The over-excavation should be backfilled with crushed rock completed wrapped in filter fabric to stabilize the excavation bottom and occupy casual water not removed by the project dewatering system. The exposed bottom surfaces should be observed by our representatives during overexcavation. Rubber-tire equipment should not be allowed to operate on the exposed subgrade. The crushed rock should be stockpiled and pushed out over the subgrade. The crushed rock should be consolidated in place with vibratory equipment.
6.5.7 Cement treatment of the excavation bottom may also be considered. Recommended chemical treatment depths will typically range from 12 to 18 inches depending on the magnitude of the instability. Also, if the unstable soils are exposed at over-excavation bottom, a layer of geosynthetic stabilization fabric (Mirafi RS380i or similar) may be placed across the bottom, prior to the filter fabric and crushed rock.
6.5.8 The exposed bottom surfaces and bottom processing should be observed by our representatives on a full-time basis. Supplemental recommendations may be provided based on-site conditions during grading.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 11 - April 21, 2021
6.6 Mat Foundations
6.6.1 A reinforced concrete mat may be used for foundation support. The recommendations that follow are for the mat foundation planned at the subterranean level. A mat foundation consists of a thick, rigid concrete mat that allows the entire footprint of the structure to carry building loads. As such, the mat can tolerate significantly greater differential movements such as those associated with expansive soils or seismically induced settlement. A mat foundation system will allow the structure to settle with the ground and should have sufficient rigidity to allow the structure to move as a single unit. Mat thickness and reinforcement should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.6.2 Consideration should be given to providing at least 12 inches of aggregate materials such as Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) conforming to the latest Caltrans standard specifications or a rat slab beneath the mat foundation to create a durable working platform for construction, especially if construction will occur over winter months. The AB layer should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
6.6.3 The allowable bearing capacity for localized areas of mat foundations where column loads will induce higher contact pressures can be taken as 5,000 psf for dead plus live loads. We recommended that a modulus of subgrade reaction of 125 pounds per cubic inch (pci) be utilized for the design of mat foundations. The modulus of subgrade reaction is based on the square-foot plate load method, and should be adjusted as needed to account for mat size. Spring values in the structural design model may be taken as 125 pci if the springs are spaced at 1-foot intervals.
6.6.4 Mat foundation design will require iteration(s) between the geotechnical engineer and structural engineers to review the estimated settlement and foundation contact pressures. Settlements for the mat foundation should be approximately 2 inches or less under dead plus live loading conditions.
Differential settlements will be generally controlled by mat rigidity but, due to the variable depth to bedrock across the site, maximum settlement may be expected at the northeast corner of the site assuming equivalent loading conditions. Since subgrade soils are predominantly sands, settlement should be nearly immediate upon application of load.
6.6.5 The allowable coefficient of friction to resist sliding is 0.35 for mat foundation concrete atop aggregate materials (0.30 for concrete atop recompacted or competent native alluvium). Combined passive resistance and friction may be utilized for design provided that the frictional resistance is reduced by 50%.
6.6.6 The allowable passive earth pressure for the sides of mat foundations poured against competent, undisturbed alluvial soils may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. Where not protected by pavement, the upper 1 foot of soils should be ignored when calculating passive resistance.
6.6.7 As previously discussed, groundwater was encountered at depths of 4 ½ to 16 feet. Project design should consider hydrostatic uplift pressure as discussed in Section 6.1.
6.7 Tiedown Anchors
6.7.1 Tiedown anchors will be necessary where the dead weight of the building is not sufficient to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures. The structural engineer has indicated tiedown anchors will be needed for the portions of the development where only two above-grade levels overlie the subterranean parking levels. A variety of tiedown anchor types are available but most are drilled small-diameter shafts that Project No. E8961-04-02 - 12 - April 21, 2021
are post-grouted with steel reinforcing elements. Tiedown anchors are typically designed and installed by specialty contractors. Geocon should review all tiedown anchor designs for proper incorporation of soil parameters and the recommendations herein.
6.7.2 Tiedown anchors should be spaced at least five feet or five anchor diameters apart (whichever is greater and extend to depths of at least 20 feet below subgrade for the mat foundation. Tiedown anchors spaced closer than specified above may be subject to group effects that we should evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Uplift capacities will vary with anchor type and installation techniques. For preliminary planning purposes, we recommend ultimate bond stresses of 20 pounds per square inch (psi). The tiedown anchor designer should select and apply the appropriate factor of safety to the ultimate value provided above.
6.7.3 A full-scale load test program should be applied to the production tiedown anchors with test loads of
1.5 to 2 times the design load. Anchor bond stresses higher than those provided above may be available. Details of the test program should be reviewed by Geocon prior to finalization. Tiedown installation and load testing should be observed on a continuous basis by our representatives.
6.8 Exterior Slabs
6.8.1 Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade subject to vehicle loading are considered pavements should be designed in accordance with the recommendations in Section 6.12 of this report.
6.8.2 Exterior slabs, not subject to traffic loads, should be at least 4 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions, positioned near the slab midpoint. We recommend that at least 6 inches of Class 2 Aggregate Base (AB) compacted to at least 95% relative compaction be used below exterior concrete slabs. Prior to placing AB, the subgrade should be moisture conditioned to at least 2% over optimum (at near optimum moisture where fill materials are predominantly sands or gravels) and properly compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
6.8.3 In lieu of specific recommendations from the structural or civil engineer, we recommend that crack control joints be spaced at intervals not greater than 8 feet for 4-inch-thick slabs. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement. Construction joints should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.8.4 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to soil movement. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade may exhibit some cracking due to soil movement. This is common for project areas that contain expansive soils since designing to eliminate potential soil movement is cost prohibitive. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
6.9 Temporary Excavations
6.9.1 The existing artificial fills can be considered a Type C soil in accordance with OSHA guidelines. The contractor should have a “competent person” as defined by OSHA evaluate all excavations. All onsite excavations must be conducted in such a manner that potential surcharges from existing structures, Project No. E8961-04-02 - 13 - April 21, 2021
construction equipment, and vehicle loads are resisted. The surcharge area may be defined by a 1:1 projection down and away from the bottom of an existing foundation or vehicle load. Penetrations below this 1:1 projection will require special excavation measures such as sloping and possibly shoring.
6.9.2 It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide sufficient and safe excavation support as well as protecting nearby utilities, structures, and other improvements which may be damaged by earth movements.
6.10 Temporary Shoring
6.10.1 Shoring will be required for the planned excavation for the subterranean levels. Based on the planned depth of excavation, we anticipate temporary shoring systems may include diaphragm walls such as slurry or soil mix walls coupled with more conventional shoring elements such as solider piles and tiebacks. The recommendations that follow are preliminary and will be updated, and possibly modified, as project design details are developed. The earth pressure values recommended in Section
6.10 may be used for preliminary shoring design purposes.
6.10.2 The design of temporary shoring is governed by soil and groundwater conditions, as well as the depth and width of the excavated area. Based on the depth of excavation, restrained shoring will be required to limit detrimental lateral deflections and settlement behind the shoring walls.
6.10.3 Passive soil pressure resistance for embedded portions of soldier piles can be based upon an equivalent passive soil fluid weight of 350 pcf. The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of two pile diameters. The project structural engineer or shoring designer should determine the actual embedment depth. The recommendations herein assume a level ground surface behind the shoring wall and outward from the bottom of the retained face.
6.10.4 The frictional resistance between the soldier piles and retained soil may be used to resist the vertical component of the anchor load (if any). The coefficient of friction may be taken as 0.25 based on uniform contact between the steel beam and lean-mix concrete and surrounding soil. This value may be increased to 0.30 where structural concrete is used. The portion of soldier piles below the plane of excavation may also be employed to resist the downward loads. The downward capacity may be determined using a frictional resistance of 200 pounds per square foot.
6.10.5 Drilled cast-in-place soldier piles should be placed no closer than 3 diameters on center. The minimum diameter of the piles is 30 inches. Structural concrete should be used for the soldier piles below the excavation. As an alternative, lean-mix concrete may be used where the pile reinforcing consists of a wide-flange section. The slurry must be of sufficient strength to impart the lateral bearing pressure developed by the wide-flange section to the soil.
6.10.6 Casing may be required if caving is experienced in granular soil zones and the contractor should have casing available prior to commencement of drilling activities. When casing is used, extreme care should be employed so that the pile integrity is not compromised as the casing is withdrawn. At no time should the distance between the surface of the concrete and the bottom of the casing be less than five feet. A representative of Geocon should observe the drilling of soldier piles and construction of the shoring system on a continuous basis.
6.10.7 A special concrete mix should be used for concrete to be placed below water. The design should provide for concrete with a 28-day compressive strength psi of 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) Project No. E8961-04-02 - 14 - April 21, 2021
greater than the initial job specification (minimum 4,000 psi). An admixture that reduces segregation of paste/aggregates and dilution of paste should be considered. Concrete below water should be placed via tremie method.
6.10.8 It is essential that the soldier pile and tieback system allow very limited amounts of lateral displacement. Earth pressures acting on a lagging wall can result in the movement of the shoring toward the excavation and result in ground subsidence outside of the excavation. For these reasons, we recommend that horizontal movements of the shoring wall be accurately monitored and recorded during excavation and anchor construction. Shoring systems, where adjacent offsite structures or improvements do not surcharge the shoring excavation, are typically designed to limit horizontal soldier pile movement to less than 1 inch. Where structures and/or sensitive improvements surcharge the excavations, horizontal soldier pile movement is typically limited to less than ½ inch (or no deflection if movement will damage existing structures). The allowable deflection is dependent on many factors, such as the presence of structures and utilities near the top of the excavation and will be assessed and designed by the project shoring engineer.
6.10.9 If desired for lateral restraint, tieback anchors employed in shoring should be designed such that anchors fully penetrate the “active zone” behind the shoring. The active zone is defined as the area bound by the wall and a plane projected up from the wall base at an inclination of 55º from horizontal.
The bonded portion of the tieback anchors should be situated outside of the active zone.
6.10.10 Normally, tieback anchors are contractor-designed and installed, and there are numerous anchor construction methods available. Experience has shown that the use of pressure grouting during construction of the bonded portion of the anchor will decrease the probability of anchor failure.
6.10.11 All anchors should be proof tested to at least 130 percent of the anchor’s design working load. Anchor acceptance criteria should be established in project plans and specifications. Any anchor test failure criteria should be based upon a maximum allowable displacement at 130 percent of the anchor’s working load and a maximum residual displacement (anchor creep) within the anchor following stressing. Anchor stressing should only be conducted after sufficient curing has occurred and strength has developed within the anchor grout. Anchors that fail to meet project-specified test criteria should be replaced.
6.10.12 Lagging should keep pace with excavation and anchor construction. We recommend that the excavation not be advanced deeper than 3 feet below the bottom of lagging at any time; the unlagged gaps should only be allowed to stand for short periods of time in order to decrease the probability of soil sloughing and caving. Backfilling should be conducted when necessary between the back of lagging and excavation sidewalls to reduce sloughing in this zone. Further, the excavation should not be advanced further than 4 feet below a row of tiebacks prior to those tiebacks being proof tested and locked off.
6.10.13 If tieback anchors are employed, we recommend that an accurate survey of existing utilities and other underground structures adjacent to the shoring wall be conducted. The survey should include both locations and depths of existing utilities. Locations of anchors should be adjusted as necessary during the design and construction process to accommodate existing and proposed utilities.
6.10.14 The condition of existing buildings, streets, sidewalks, and other structures around the perimeter of the planned excavation should be documented prior to the start of shoring and excavation work.
Special attention should be given to documenting existing cracks or other indications of differential settlement within these adjacent structures, pavements and other improvements. Consideration Project No. E8961-04-02 - 15 - April 21, 2021
should be given to videotaping adjacent underground utilities prior to construction to verify integrity of pipes. In addition, monitoring points should be established indicating location and elevation around the excavation and upon existing buildings. These points should be monitored on a regular basis during construction.
6.10.15 Geocon should review all shoring plans prior to finalizing to confirm the incorporation of the recommendations provided herein or to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations, as necessary.
6.11 Retaining Wall Design
6.11.1 Lateral earth pressures may be used in the design of retaining walls, buried structures and basement walls for the underground level. Lateral earth pressures against these facilities may be assumed to be equal to the pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid. The unit weight of the equivalent fluid depends on the design conditions. Table 6.10 summarizes the weights of the equivalent fluid based on the different design conditions. The parameters below should be reviewed once the location of retaining walls is established. Updated earth pressures values may be provided, particularly for the northern basement wall below the embankment for the East Grand Avenue overcrossing.
TABLE 6.10
RECOMMENDED LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
Condition Depth Below Existing Grade Equivalent Fluid Density Drained Conditions
Equivalent Fluid Density
Undrained Conditions
Active
0 to 15 feet 60 pcf 90 pcf
Below 15 feet 40 pcf 82 pcf
At-Rest
0 to 15 feet 80 pcf 100 pcf
Below 15 feet 60 pcf 92 pcf
6.11.2 Unrestrained walls should be designed using the active case. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.01H (where H is the height of the wall). Walls restrained from movement such as basement walls should be designed using the at-rest case. The above soil pressures assume level backfill within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall and no surcharges within that same area. Where the ground surface is sloped behind the retaining wall at 2:1 or flatter, an additional 15 pcf should be added to the equivalent fluid density values recommended above.
6.11.3 Unless project-specific loading information is provided by the structural engineer, where vehicle loads are expected atop the wall backfill, an additional uniform surcharge pressure equivalent to 2 feet of backfill soil should be used for design. Where the vehicle loading will be limited to passenger cars, the additional uniform surcharge equivalent may be reduced to 1 foot of backfill soil.
6.11.4 For drained conditions, retaining walls greater than 2 feet tall (retained height) should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. Positive drainage for retaining walls should consist of a vertical layer of permeable material positioned between the retaining wall and the soil backfill.
The permeable material may be composed of a composite drainage geosynthetic or a natural Project No. E8961-04-02 - 16 - April 21, 2021
permeable material such as crushed gravel at least 12 inches thick and capped with at least 12 inches of native soil. A geosynthetic filter fabric should be placed between the gravel and the soil backfill.
Provisions for removal of collected water should be provided for either system by installing a perforated drainage pipe along the bottom of the permeable material which leads to suitable drainage facilities.
6.11.5 Retaining walls should be designed considering seismic lateral earth pressure where required by building code or deemed necessary by the structural engineer. For level backfill conditions, the seismic lateral earth pressure increment exerted on a cantilever retaining wall should be a triangular distribution with a pressure of 47H (where H is the height of the wall, in feet, resulting in psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A higher seismic increment may be recommended for selected portions of the underground level once project design plans are available, particularly below the East Grand Avenue overcrossing embankment. Seismic loading should be considered in conjunction with active earth pressures for both restrained and unrestrained (cantilever) walls.
6.11.6 We recommend that all retaining wall designs be reviewed by Geocon to confirm the incorporation of the recommendations provided herein. In particular, potential surcharges from adjacent structures and other improvements should be reviewed by Geocon.
6.12 Underground Utilities
6.12.1 Underground utility trenches should be backfilled with properly compacted material. The material excavated from the trenches should be adequate for use as backfill provided it does not contain deleterious matter, vegetation or rock larger than six inches in maximum dimension. Trench backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding eight inches and should be compacted to at least 90% relative compaction at least 2% above optimum moisture content (near optimum where backfill materials are predominantly sands and gravels).
6.12.2 Bedding and pipe zone backfill typically extends from the bottom of the trench excavations to a minimum of 6 inches above the crown of the pipe. Pipe bedding material should consist of crushed aggregate, clean sand or similar open-graded material. Proposed bedding and pipe zone materials should be reviewed by Geocon prior to construction; open-graded materials such as ¾ inch drain rock may require wrapping with filter fabric to mitigate the potential for piping. Pipe bedding and backfill should also conform to the requirements of the governing utility agency.
6.13 Pavement Recommendations
6.13.1 The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to near optimum and compacted to at least 95% relative compaction. Prior to placing aggregate base, the finished subgrade should be proof-rolled with a laden water truck (or similar equipment with high contact pressure) to verify stability.
6.13.2 Sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway encroachments should be designed and constructed in accordance with City of South San Francisco requirements, as applicable.
6.13.3 Unless specifically designed and evaluated by the project structural engineer, where concrete paving will be utilized for support of vehicles, we recommend the concrete be a minimum of 6 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in both horizontal Project No. E8961-04-02 - 17 - April 21, 2021
directions. In addition, doweling, reinforcing steel or other load-transfer mechanism should be provided at joints if desired to reduce the potential for vertical offset. The concrete should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi. We should evaluate pavements to support heavy truck or bus traffic on a case-by-case basis; supplemental recommendations may be provided.
6.13.4 We recommend that at least 6 inches of Class 2 Aggregate Base be used below rigid concrete pavements. The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95% relative compaction near optimum moisture content.
6.13.5 In general, we recommend that concrete pavements be designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with industry standards such as those provided by the American Concrete Pavement Association.
6.13.6 Crack control joints should be spaced at intervals not greater than 12 feet and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical following concrete placement. Crack control joints should extend a minimum depth of one-fourth the slab thickness and should be constructed using saw-cuts or other methods as soon as practical after concrete placement. Construction joints should be designed by the project structural engineer.
6.13.7 The performance of pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of pavements. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in saturation of the subgrade materials and subsequent cracking, subsidence and pavement distress.
If planters are planned adjacent to paving, it is recommended that the perimeter curb be extended at least 6 inches below the bottom of the aggregate base to minimize the introduction of water beneath the paving. Alternatives such as plastic moisture cut-offs or modified drop-inlets may also be considered in lieu of deepened curbs.
6.14 Surface Drainage
6.14.1 Proper surface drainage is critical to the future performance of the project. Uncontrolled infiltration of irrigation excess and storm runoff into the soils can adversely affect the performance of the planned improvements. Saturation of a soil can cause it to lose internal shear strength and increase its compressibility, resulting in a change to important engineering properties. Proper drainage should be maintained at all times.
6.14.2 All site drainage should be collected and transferred to the street in non-erosive drainage devices.
Drainage should not be allowed to pond anywhere on the site, and especially not against any foundations or retaining walls. Drainage should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over any descending slope. The proposed structures should be provided with roof gutters. Discharge from downspouts, roof drains and scuppers not permitted onto unprotected soils within five feet of the building perimeter. Planters which are located adjacent to foundations should be sealed or properly drained to prevent moisture intrusion into the materials providing foundation support. Landscape irrigation within five feet of the building perimeter or footings should be kept to a minimum to just support vegetative life.
6.14.3 Positive site drainage should be provided away from structures, pavement, and the tops of slopes to swales or other controlled drainage structures. The building pad and pavement areas should be fine graded such that water is not allowed to pond. Final soil grade should slope a minimum of 2% away from structures.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 18 - April 21, 2021
6.14.4 We recommend implemented measures to reduce infiltrating surface water near buildings and slabson-grade. Such measures may include:
• Selecting drought-tolerant plants that require little or no irrigation, especially within 5 feet of buildings, slabs-on-grade, or pavements.
• Using drip irrigation or low-output sprinklers.
• Using automatic timers for irrigation systems.
• Appropriately spaced area drains.
• Hard-piping roof downspouts to appropriate collection facilities.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 19 - April 21, 2021
7. FURTHER GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
7.1 Plan and Specification Review
7.1.1 We should review project plans and specifications prior to final design submittal to assess whether our recommendations have been properly implemented and evaluate if additional analysis and/or recommendations are required.
7.2 Testing and Observation Services
7.2.1 The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will continue as Geotechnical Engineer of Record throughout the construction phase. It is important to maintain continuity of geotechnical interpretation and confirm that field conditions encountered are similar to those anticipated during design. If we are not retained for these services, we cannot assume any responsibility for others interpretation of our recommendations, and therefore the future performance of the project.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 20 - April 21, 2021
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Consultants, Inc. should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the geotechnical scope of services provided by Geocon Consultants, Inc.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices used in the site area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied. 0 1
Scale in Miles
N
280
280
280
380
380
101
101
101
1 1
1 1
35 35
Sullivan
Skyline
Ave.
Blvd.
El
El
Mission
St.
Real
Camino
Real
Serramonte
Southgate Ave.
Blvd.
Blvd.
Hickey
Blvd.
King Dr.
Sneath
Ln.
San
Bruno
Ave.
Westborough
Hillside
Blvd.
Blvd. Cities
Sister
Ave.
Grand
Ave. Grand
Blvd.
Blvd.
Airport
Airport
Chestnut
Ave.
Cypress Hills
Golf Course
San Bruno
Mountain
State and
County
Park
Lake Merced
Golf &
Country Club
San Bruno
Mountain
State and
County
Park
Golden Gate
National
Recreation
Area
Golden Gate
National
Cemetery
SAN FRANCISCO
INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
SAN
FRANCISCO
BAY
California
Golf Club of
San Francisco
Junipero
Serra
Camino
Daly
City
Brisbane
Colma
South
San
Francisco
San
Bruno
Millbrae
Ave.
Guadalupe
Canyon
Pkwy.
Bayshore
Blvd.
Geneva
Ave.
John Daly
Blvd.
280
Eastmoor
Blvd.
Gateway
Blvd.
PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
VICINITY MAP
April 2021 Figure 1
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
E8961-04-02
PROJECT
SITE
PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
SITE PLAN
April 2021 Figure 2
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
E8961-04-02
0 50
Scale in Feet
N
Approximate Boring Location (2017)
Approximate CPT Location (2016)
LEGEND:
B1
B1
B2
B4
B3
CPT4
CPTB2
CPT5
CPT6
B1
B2
B4 HA1
B5
CPT9
CPT10
B6
CPT7
CPT8
HA1
B3
CPT1
Approximate Boring Location (2020)
Approximate CPT Location (2020)
Approximate Depth (ft.) to Franciscan Formation B5
CPT7
CPT4
CPTB2
CPT5
CPT6
B5
CPT9
CPT10
EAST GRAND AVENUE
POLETTI WAY
EAST GRAND AVENUE OVERCROSSING
B6
CPT7
CPT8
59.5'
112'
59.5'
PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California
GEOLOGIC MAP
April 2021 Figure 3
Proposed Mixed-Use Development
E8961-04-02
PROJECT
SITE
0 1000
Scale in Feet
N
Artificial fill (Holocene)
Artificial fill over tidal flat (Holocene)
Alluvium (Holocene)
Slope debris and ravine fill (Pleistocene)
Colma Formation (Pleistocene)
Franciscan Complex – Sandstone and shale (Cretaceous and Jurassic) Franciscan Complex – Sheared rocks (Cretaceous and Jurassic) Ref: Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5' Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5' Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California, 1998 Qaf
Qaf/tf
Qal
Qsr
Qc
KJs
KJu
Qaf
Qaf/tf
Qal
Qaf
Qaf
Kju
Kjs
Kjs
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Fieldwork for our investigation included site visits, subsurface exploration, and soil sampling. The locations of our exploratory borings and CPTs are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Soil boring logs and CPT profiles for our exploration are presented as figures following the text in this appendix. The borings and CPTs were located by pacing from existing reference points. Therefore, the exploration locations shown on Figure 2 are approximate.
Our field exploration included the advancement of ten CPT soundings to maximum depths of approximately 85¼ feet below the existing ground surface utilizing a truck-mounted CPT rig with a down-pressure capacity of approximately 20 tons. The CPTs were performed on December 16, 2016 and December 3, 2020 by Middle Earth Geo Testing of Fremont, California using an integrated electronic cone system. The cone has a tip area of 15 square centimeters, a friction sleeve area of 150 square centimeters, and a ratio of friction sleeve area to tip end area equal to 0.80. The cone bearing (Qc) and sleeve friction (Fs) were measured and recorded during tests at approximately 2-inch depth intervals. The CPT data consisting of cone bearing, sleeve friction, friction ratio and equivalent standard penetration blow counts (N) versus penetration depth below the existing ground surface for each location has been recorded and is presented in this appendix.
Our exploration also included exploratory soil borings. Our Borings B1 and B2 were performed on April 26, 2017 using a pickup truck-mounted New Holland TK80A drill rig equipped with 4-inch solid flight augers. Our Borings B3 and B4 on May 5, 2017 were performed with a truck-mounted Mobile B-53 drill rig equipped with 8-inch hollow stem augers. Our boring on December 3, 2020 were performed with a truck-mounted Mobile B56R drill rig equipped with 8-inch hollow stem augers. Our boring on December 10, 2020 were performed with a truck-mounted Mobile B-61 drill rig equipped with 8-inch hollow stem augers.
It should be noted that our field investigation required driller remobilizations due to the presence of underground infrastructure not shown on the project plans nor identified by the City of South San Francisco during utility clearance through USA. In addition, the presence of that infrastructure and associated trench backfill and cement- or lime-treated fills precluded our planned CPTs at the eastern margin of the site.
Sampling in the borings was accomplished using a cathead or downhole-wireline 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop. Samples were obtained with a 3-inch outside-diameter (OD), split spoon (California Modified) sampler, and a 2-inch OD, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches (or fraction thereof) of the 18-inch sampling interval were recorded on the boring logs. The blow counts shown on the boring logs should not be interpreted as standard SPT “N” values; corrections have not been applied.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring were visually examined, classified and logged in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure D2488). This system uses the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) for soil designations. The log depicts soil and geologic conditions encountered and depths at which samples were obtained. The log also includes our interpretation of the conditions between sampling intervals. Therefore, the logs contain both observed and interpreted data. We determined the lines designating the interface between soil materials on the logs using visual observations, drill rig penetration rates, excavation characteristics and other factors. The transition between materials may be abrupt or gradual. Where applicable, the field logs were revised based on subsequent laboratory testing.
Upon completion, our boreholes were backfilled with grout per San Mateo County Environmental Health Services Division permit requirements.
PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
6671 BRISA STREET – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0
KEY TO LOGS
SP
SW-SC
SC
CH
CL
SP
116.6
103.9
114.0
FILL
Medium dense, damp, black, (f-m) SAND
-organic rich topsoil to 9 inches
-hand augered to 3 feet to verify clear of utilities
Loose, damp, orange-brown, (f-c) SAND with few (f) subrounded gravels and clays
Medium dense, moist, orange-brown, Clayey (f-c) SAND with few (f) subrounded gravels
BAY MUD
Soft, wet to saturated, dark gray to black, Silty (f) Sandy CLAY with few (f-m) angular gravels
-organic-rich
ALLUVIUM
Hard, moist, gray to grayish-beige, (f) Sandy CLAY
-pp>4½
Dense, moist, gray, (f) SAND with trace fines
10.6 38.1
17.2 15
11 4
68 61
B1-0-5
B1-4-4.5
B1-4.5
B1-6.5-7.5
B1-10.5-11
B1-11
B1-16
B1-20.5
B1-21 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE New Holland TK80A w/ 4-inch SFA
Cenozoic Exploration
BORING B1 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A2, Log of Boring B1, page 1 of 2
Cathead
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SAMPLE
4/26/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
SC Medium dense, damp to moist, gray, Clayey (f) SAND
END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 31½ FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT 6 FEET
BACKFILLED WITH NEAT CEMENT
18 24
B1-25.5-26.5
B1-30.5-31.5 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE New Holland TK80A w/ 4-inch SFA
Cenozoic Exploration
BORING B1 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A2, Log of Boring B1, page 2 of 2
Cathead
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 SAMPLE
4/26/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
ML
SC
SP
SC
135.7
107.5
FILL
Stiff, damp, black, (f-m) Sandy SILT with (f-m) subangular to subrounded gravels
-very stiff
-soft, wet, less gravels, with few clays
Medium dense, moist, orange-brown, Clayey (f) SAND
ALLUVIUM
Dense, moist, grayish brown, (f) SAND
Medium dense, moist, gray, (f-m) SAND with clay
21.5 16.2
36 4
41 35
17 B2-0-5
B2-2.5
B2-3
B2-5.5-6.5
B2-10.5-11
B2-11
B2-15.5-16.5
B2-20.5-21.5 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE New Holland TK80A w/ 4-inch SFA
Cenozoic Exploration
BORING B2 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A3, Log of Boring B2, page 1 of 2
Cathead
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SAMPLE
4/26/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
-same
-more clay
END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 31½ FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT 4½ FEET
BACKFILLED WITH NEAT CEMENT
24 24
B2-25.5-26.5
B2-30.5-31.5 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE New Holland TK80A w/ 4-inch SFA
Cenozoic Exploration
BORING B2 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A3, Log of Boring B2, page 2 of 2
Cathead
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 SAMPLE
4/26/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
SC
GP
CH
SC
SP
Approximately 2 inches AC
Approximately 12 inches AB
FILL
Very dense, damp, dark brown, (f-m) subrounded to angular Gravelly (f-c) SAND with clay
-cement or lime treated to 4 feet
-more gravel at 4 to 4½ feet
Dense to very dense, wet, gray, (c) GRAVEL with little sand
BAY MUD
Medium stiff, moist, dark gray to black, CLAY with little organics and few (f) sands
-organics partially rotted
ALLUVIUM
Loose to medium dense, moist, dark gray to gray, Clayey (f) SAND with few organics
-medium dense, orange-brown
Dense, moist to wet, orange-brown, (f) SAND with trace clay 50/5½"
28 8
13 18
31 B3-1-5
B3-2
B3-4-5
B3-5.5-6
B3-10.5-11
B3-11
B3-14-14.5
B3-14.5
B3-19-20
B3-24-25 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE Mobile B53 w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
BORING B3 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A4, Log of Boring B3, page 1 of 2
Downhole-Wireline
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SAMPLE
5/5/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
SC Medium dense, moist to wet, orange-brown, Clayey (f) SAND -very dense, less clay
-medium dense, more clay
END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT 8 FEET
BACKFILLED WITH NEAT CEMENT & CAPPED WITH CONCRETE
13 82/11"
21 B3-29-30
B3-34-35
B3-39-40 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE Mobile B53 w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
BORING B3 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A4, Log of Boring B3, page 2 of 2
Downhole-Wireline
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
SAMPLE
5/5/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
SC
GP
CH
SC
SP
SC
Approximately 2½ inches AC
Approximately 11 inches AC
TRENCH BACKFILL
Loose, moist, dark gray, (f-m) subrounded to angular Gravelly (f-c) SAND with few clays
Medium dense, damp, gray-brown, (f-m) rounded GRAVEL with few (f) sands
-pea gravel
BAY MUD
Medium stiff, moist, dark gray to black, CLAY with little organics and few (f) sands
-organics partially rotted
-pp=0-1
ALLUVIUM
Medium dense, moist to wet, dark gray, Clayey (f) SAND
-orange-brown
Dense, wet, gray and orange-brown, (f) SAND
Medium dense, moist to wet, orange-brown, Clayey (f) SAND 10 9
16 21
33 15
B4-2.5
B4-3
B4-9
B4-9.5
B4-14-15
B4-19-20
B4-24-25 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE Mobile B53 w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
BORING B4 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A5, Log of Boring B4, page 1 of 2
Downhole-Wireline
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 SAMPLE
5/5/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
SP-SC
CL
-more clay
-dense, less clay
Medium dense, wet to saturated, orange-brown, (f) SAND with few clays
Hard, damp, orange-brown, CLAY with few (f) sands
-pp>4½
END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 45 FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT 8 FEET
BACKFILLED WITH NEAT CEMENT & CAPPED WITH CONCRETE
13 40
15 32
B4-29-30
B4-34-35
B4-39-40
B4-44-45 DRY DENSITY JBM
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE MOISTURE Mobile B53 w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
BORING B4 CONTENT (%)
... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
GEOCON BORING LOG E8961-04-01 BORING LOGS.GPJ 08/30/18
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER SOIL
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
DEPTH
IN NO. (USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
Figure A5, Log of Boring B4, page 2 of 2
Downhole-Wireline
FEET
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED) SAMPLE SYMBOLS RESISTANCE (BLOWS/FT.) (P.C.F.)
... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION LITHOLOGY... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE 25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 SAMPLE
5/5/2017
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-01 PROJECT NAME: 121 E Grand Ave
GW
GP
CH
SC
SM
SC
B5-3-8
B5-10.5-11.5
B5-14
B5-14.5
B5-19-20
B5-24-25
B5-28.5-29.5
11 42
50 54
50/4"
Approximately 2½ inches AC
Approximately 10 inches AB
FILL
Very dense, black, GRAVEL with sand, metal slag, construction debris, etc.
Dense to very dense, wet, gray, (c) GRAVEL with sand
BAY MUD
Medium stiff, moist, dark gray to black, fat CLAY
-pp=½
ALLUVIUM
Medium dense, moist, dark gray to gray, Clayey (f-m) SAND Dense, moist to wet, brown, (f-m) SAND with little silt -wet
Very dense, moist to wet, brown, Clayey (f-m) SAND
110.3 18.3
(BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Mobile B61 w/w 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
AA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A7, Log of Boring B5, Page 1 of 4
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B5
12/10/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
SM
SC
SM
B5-35.5-36.5
B5-40.5-41.5
B5-45.5-46.5
B5-50.5-51.5
B5-55.5-56.5
B5-60-60.8
B5-65-65.8
78/9"
66 80/12"
72 57
50/3"
50/3"
Very dense, wet, brown, Silty (f-c) SAND with trace (f) gravels Very dense, moist to wet, brown, Clayey (f) SAND
Very dense, wet, brown, (f-m) SAND with little silt
(BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67 68
69 Mobile B61 w/w 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
AA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A7, Log of Boring B5, Page 2 of 4
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B5
12/10/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
SP-SM
SC/CL
B5-73.5-73.8
B5-83.5-83.9
B5-93.5-94.5
50/4"
50/5"
50/6"
Very dense, wet, brown, (f-m) SAND with few silts
COLMA FORMATION
Very dense, moist to wet, orange-brown, Clayey (f) SAND to Sandy CLAY (BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93
94 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
Mobile B61 w/w 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
AA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A7, Log of Boring B5, Page 3 of 4
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B5
12/10/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
B5-105-105.4
B5-112-112.5
50/5"
50/6" FRANCISCAN FORMATION
CLAYSTONE with SANDSTONE; weathered and fractured by sampler END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 112½ FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT APPROXIMATELY
8½ FEET
BACKFILLED WITH GROUT VIA TREMIE AND CAPPED WITH
CONCRETE
(BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
Mobile B61 w/w 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
AA
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A7, Log of Boring B5, Page 4 of 4
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B5
12/10/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
SM
GM
CL
SP-SC
SC
SC
B6-13
B6-13.5
B6-19
B6-19.5
B6-24-25
B6-29-30
B6-34-35
17 19
59 14
29 26
Approximately 4 inches AC
Approximately 4 inches AB
FILL
Medium dense, damp, dark brown to black, (f-c) Gravelly Silty (f-c) SAND Medium dense to dense, black and gray and tan, (f-c) GRAVEL with (f-c) sand and silt
-mixture of rock, brick, concrete, miscellaneous debris -no recovery, obstruction at tip of sampler
ALLUVIUM
Stiff, moist, tan to gray, (f-m) Sandy CLAY
Dense, wet, brown and red-brown and tan, (f-m) SAND with few clays Medium dense, moist, light gray-brown, Clayey (f-m) SAND
COLMA FORMATION
Medium dense, moist, orange-brown, Clayey (f-c) SAND
105.2 20.0
(BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Mobile B56R w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
JBM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A6, Log of Boring B6, Page 1 of 2
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B6
12/3/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
B6-39
B6-39.5
B6-45.5-46.5
B6-49-50
B6-54-55
B6-59-59.5
37 39
49 63
34 97/9"
50/½"
-no recovery with California Modified sampler, chased with SPT sampler -dense, brown, less clay
-very dense
-dense, more clay
-very dense
FRANCISCAN FORMATION
CLAYSTONE and SANDSTONE
END OF BORING AT APPROXIMATELY 59¾ FEET
GROUNDWATER INITIALLY ENCOUNTERED AT APPROXIMATELY
16 FEET
BACKFILLED WITH GROUT VIA TREMIE & CAPPED WITH
CONCRETE
119.2 16.0
(BLOWS/FT.)
... DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55 56
57 58
59 Mobile B56R w/ 8-inch HSA
EGI
... CHUNK SAMPLE GROUNDWATER
SOIL
(USCS)
ELEV. (MSL.)
EQUIPMENT
DRILLER
DATE COMPLETED
HAMMER TYPE
JBM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
... DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE MOISTURE RESISTANCE DRY DENSITY CONTENT (%) ... SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Figure A6, Log of Boring B6, Page 2 of 2
SAMPLE
Downhole-Wireline
DEPTH
IN
FEET NO. LITHOLOGY
CLASS
ENG./GEO.
... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
GEOCON BORING LOG W/FIG# STARTING W/ A2 E8961-04-02 BORING LOGS.GPJ 01/29/21 (P.C.F.) ... WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE PENETRATION
BORING B6
12/3/2020
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO.
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY AT THE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
E8961-04-02 PROJECT NAME: 121 E. Grand Avenue
Project: 121 E. Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-01
Date: June 2017 FIGURE A8
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-B2
Geocon Inc
Project 121 E Grand Avenue SSF Operator KK-RB Filename SDF(498).cpt Job Number E8961-04-01 Cone Number DDG1379 GPS
Hole Number CPT-B2 Date and Time 12/16/2016 1:25:16 PM Maximum Depth 48.06 ft EST GW Depth During Test 35.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 10
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 200
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project: 121 E. Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-01
Date: June 2017 FIGURE A9
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-4
Geocon Inc
Project 121 E Grand Avenue SSF Operator KK-RB Filename SDF(497).cpt Job Number E8961-04-01 Cone Number DDG1379 GPS
Hole Number CPT-04 Date and Time 12/16/2016 12:15:30 PM Maximum Depth 51.18 ft EST GW Depth During Test 35.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 10
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 200
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project: 121 E. Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-01
Date: June 2017 FIGURE A10
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-5
Geocon Inc
Project 121 E Grand Avenue SSF Operator KK-RB Filename SDF(496).cpt Job Number E8961-04-01 Cone Number DDG1379 GPS
Hole Number CPT-05 Date and Time 12/16/2016 10:59:47 AM Maximum Depth 55.45 ft EST GW Depth During Test 35.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 10
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 200
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project: 121 E. Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-01
Date: June 2017 FIGURE A11
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-6
Geocon Inc
Project 121 E Grand Avenue SSF Operator KK-RB Filename SDF(495).cpt Job Number E8961-04-01 Cone Number DDG1379 GPS
Hole Number CPT-06 Date and Time 12/16/2016 10:13:46 AM Maximum Depth 7.38 ft EST GW Depth During Test 35.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 10cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 0 500
TIP
TSF 0 10
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 200
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project:. 121 E Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: Jauary 2021 FIGURE A12
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-8
Geocon Inc.
Project Mixed-Use Development Operator BH-AJ Filename SDF(037).cpt Job Number E8961-04-02 Cone Number DDG1542 GPS
Hole Number CPT-08 Date and Time 12/3/2020 9:09:21 AM Maximum Depth 73.98 ft EST GW Depth During Test 11.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 18
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 300
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Project:. 121 E Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: January 2021 FIGURE A13
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-9
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Geocon Inc.
Project Mixed-Use Development Operator BH-AJ Filename SDF(038).cpt Job Number E8961-04-02 Cone Number DDG1542 GPS
Hole Number CPT-09 Date and Time 12/3/2020 11:59:16 AM Maximum Depth 85.30 ft EST GW Depth During Test 9.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 18
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 300
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project:. 121 E Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: Jauary 2021 FIGURE A14
CONE PENETROMETER TEST CPT-10
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Geocon Inc.
Project Mixed-Use Development Operator BH-AJ Filename SDF(039).cpt Job Number E8961-04-02 Cone Number DDG1542 GPS
Hole Number CPT-10 Date and Time 12/3/2020 2:12:58 PM Maximum Depth 82.68 ft EST GW Depth During Test 9.00 ft
Net Area Ratio .8
Cone Size 15cm squared Soil Behavior Referance *Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
0 500
TIP
TSF 0 18
FRICTION
TSF 0 10
Fs/Qt
% 0 300
SPT N
0 12
1 - sensitive fine grained
2 - organic material
3 - clay
4 - silty clay to clay
5 - clayey silt to silty clay
6 - sandy silt to clayey silt
7 - silty sand to sandy silt
8 - sand to silty sand
9 - sand
10 - gravelly sand to sand
11 - very stiff fine grained (*)
12 - sand to clayey sand (*)
CPT DATA
DEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPE
Project:. 121 E
Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: Jauary 2021 FIGURE A15
SCPT Sounding Data (CPT-8)
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Geocon Inc.
Depth 5.02ft
Ref*
Arrival 7.15mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 5.02ft
Arrival 10.47mS
Velocity 1170.73ft/S
Depth 15.03ft
Ref 10.01ft
Arrival 15.23mS
Velocity 951.90ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.03ft
Arrival 19.37mS
Velocity 1141.72ft/S
Depth 25.26ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 24.53mS
Velocity 985.52ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 25.26ft
Arrival 30.00mS
Velocity 851.07ft/S
Depth 35.04ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 35.23mS
Velocity 943.90ft/S
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.04ft
Arrival 39.92mS
Velocity 1051.26ft/S
Depth 45.05ft
Ref 40.03ft
Arrival 44.61mS
Velocity 1060.97ft/S
Depth 50.03ft
Ref 45.05ft
Arrival 48.51mS
Velocity 1267.19ft/S
Depth 55.05ft
Ref 50.03ft
Arrival 52.42mS
Velocity 1277.26ft/S
Depth 60.04ft
Ref 55.05ft
Arrival 56.72mS
Velocity 1154.73ft/S
Depth 65.03ft
Ref 60.04ft
Arrival 59.84mS
Velocity 1589.00ft/S
Depth 70.05ft
Ref 65.03ft
Arrival 65.46mS
Velocity 889.13ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 74.05ft
Ref 70.05ft
Arrival 68.04mS
Velocity 1547.57ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:
CPT-08 Mixed-Use Development
Project:. 121 E
Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: Jauary 2021 FIGURE A16
SCPT Sounding Data (CPT9)
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Geocon Inc.
Depth 5.02ft
Ref*
Arrival 6.76mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 5.02ft
Arrival 12.66mS
Velocity 659.02ft/S
Depth 15.03ft
Ref 10.01ft
Arrival 17.03mS
Velocity 1036.89ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.03ft
Arrival 21.56mS
Velocity 1043.30ft/S
Depth 25.03ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 26.01mS
Velocity 1090.89ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 25.03ft
Arrival 32.03mS
Velocity 810.89ft/S
Depth 35.20ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 37.03mS
Velocity 1020.52ft/S
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.20ft
Arrival 42.11mS
Velocity 938.52ft/S
Depth 45.05ft
Ref 40.03ft
Arrival 46.64mS
Velocity 1097.56ft/S
Depth 50.03ft
Ref 45.05ft
Arrival 51.79mS
Velocity 959.99ft/S
Depth 55.05ft
Ref 50.03ft
Arrival 56.40mS
Velocity 1082.42ft/S
Depth 60.04ft
Ref 55.05ft
Arrival 60.15mS
Velocity 1323.13ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 65.03ft
Ref 60.04ft
Arrival 61.87mS
Velocity 2889.08ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:
CPT-09 Mixed-Use Development
Project:. 121 E
Grand
Location: South San Francisco
Project No. E8961-04-02
Date: Jauary 2021 FIGURE A17
SCPT Sounding Data (CPT-10)
6671 BRISA S T R E E T – L I V E R M O R E , C A 9 4 5 5 0 PHONE 9 2 5 . 3 7 1 . 5 9 0 0 – FA X 925.371.5915
Geocon Inc.
Depth 5.02ft
Ref*
Arrival 5.31mS
Velocity*
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 5.02ft
Arrival 10.31mS
Velocity 777.43ft/S
Depth 15.03ft
Ref 10.01ft
Arrival 18.83mS
Velocity 532.71ft/S
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 15.03ft
Arrival 22.81mS
Velocity 1186.49ft/S
Depth 25.03ft
Ref 20.01ft
Arrival 27.42mS
Velocity 1053.91ft/S
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 25.03ft
Arrival 32.26mS
Velocity 1007.07ft/S
Depth 35.04ft
Ref 30.02ft
Arrival 37.58mS
Velocity 930.02ft/S
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.04ft
Arrival 41.95mS
Velocity 1126.35ft/S
Depth 45.05ft
Ref 40.03ft
Arrival 47.26mS
Velocity 936.15ft/S
Depth 50.03ft
Ref 45.05ft
Arrival 51.95mS
Velocity 1055.99ft/S
Depth 55.05ft
Ref 50.03ft
Arrival 55.54mS
Velocity 1388.32ft/S
Depth 60.04ft
Ref 55.05ft
Arrival 59.92mS
Velocity 1134.11ft/S
Depth 65.03ft
Ref 60.04ft
Arrival 62.96mS
Velocity 1629.74ft/S
Depth 70.05ft
Ref 65.03ft
Arrival 66.48mS
Velocity 1422.61ft/S
Depth 75.03ft
Ref 70.05ft
Arrival 70.54mS
Velocity 1223.66ft/S
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Depth 80.05ft
Ref 75.03ft
Arrival 73.59mS
Velocity 1642.94ft/S
Time (mS)
Hammer to Rod String Distance (ft): 5.83
* = Not Determined
COMMENT:
CPT-10 Mixed-Use Development
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected samples were tested for in-situ dry density and/or moisture content, grain size distribution, Atterberg Limits, direct shear, and screening-level soil corrosion parameters. The results of our testing are summarized in tabular format below and the following figures. In-situ dry density and/or moisture content test results are included on the boring logs in Appendix A.
TABLE B-I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4318
Sample No. Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index
B3-10.5-11 75 29 46
B4-9 NP NP NP
B5-10.5 70 29 41
B6-13 26 12 14
B6-39 22 15 7
TABLE B-II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
Boring No. Sample Depth
(feet)
Initial Average
Dry Density
(pcf)
Initial Average
Moisture Content
(%)
Cohesion (psf)
Angle of Shear
Resistance
(degrees)
B5 14.5 110.3 18.3 780 21
B6 19.5 105.2 20.0 250 31
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING (continued)
TABLE B-III
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS – NO. 200 WASH ASTM D1140
Boring No. Sample Depth (feet) Fraction Passing No. 200 Sieve (%)
B1 30.5 – 31.5 34
B2 0 – 5 50
B2 25.5 – 26.5 23
B2 30.5 – 31.5 39
B3 14 – 14.5 32
B3 19 – 20 32
B3 29 – 30 30
B3 34 – 35 19
B3 39 – 40 30
B4 14 – 15 35
B4 19 – 20 1
B4 24 – 25 26
B4 29 – 30 41
B4 34 – 35 17
B4 39 – 40 6
B5 14 43
B5 45.5 – 46.5 26
B5 73.5 – 73.8 10
B5 93.5 – 94.5 50
B6 19 8
B6 45.5 – 46.5 13
B6 54 – 55 25
B6 49 – 50 16
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING (continued)
TABLE B-IV
SUMMARY OF SOIL CORROSION PARAMETERS
(CTM 643, CTM 417, CTM 422)
Boring No.
(sample depth in feet)
Soil Type
(USCS Classification)
Resistivity
(ohm-cm) pH Chloride (ppm)
Sulfate
(ppm)
B1 (0-5) SAND with clays and gravels (SP) 3,900 8.5 50 <10 B2 (0-5) Sandy SILT with gravels (ML) 2,000 8.2 96 190
B3 (1-5) Gravelly SAND with clay (SC) 3,600 9.4 56 110
B4 (9.5) Gravelly SAND with clay (SC) 3,200 6.5 56 140
*Caltrans considers a site corrosive to foundation elements if one or more of the following conditions exist for the representative soil samples at the site:
o The pH is equal to or less than 5.5.
o Chloride concentration is equal to or greater than 500 parts per million (ppm) or 0.05%. o Sulfate concentration is equal to or greater than 1,500 ppm (0.15%) **According to the American Concrete Institute 318 Chapter 19, Type II cement may be used where sulfate levels are below 2,000 ppm (0.2%)
Boring: B1 Sieve Date: 5/31/17
Depth To Sample: 25.5'-26.5' Tested and Computed by: AC 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 99.6 97.0 53.9 28.8
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B1
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-01
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
4 3 2
Boring: B2 Sieve Date: 6/1/17
Depth To Sample: 20.5'-21.5' Tested and Computed by: AC 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 99.5 86.7 35.0 18.4
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B2
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-01
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
4 3 2
Boring: B3 Sieve Date: 6/6/17
Depth To Sample: 4'-5' Tested and Computed by: AC
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 90.9 90.9 79.2 72.8 60.7 51.4 45.4 41.4 35.8 23.3 17.2 Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B3
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave - SSF
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-01
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
4 3 2
Boring: B4 Sieve Date: 6/6/17
Depth To Sample: 3' Tested and Computed by: AC
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 95.4 86.0 64.9 50.3 39.6 32.4 24.7 15.4 11.5 Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B4
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-01
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
4 3 2
Boring: B5 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 19-20 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 99.2 79.8 31.3 20.1
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B5
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B5 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 35.5-36.5 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 99.6 89.7 38.4 22.7
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B6
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B5 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 40.5-41.5 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 99 99 98 98 97.0 95.5 82.9 39.8 23.4
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B7
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES
GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND
SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B5 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 60-60.8 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.6 97.7 71.8 20.9 14.0
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B8
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B6 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 24-25 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.9 99.7 93.3 48.4 30.7
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B9
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B6 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 29-30 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.0 99.8 93.5 43.0 25.4
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B10
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
Boring: B6 Sieve Date: 1/20/2021
Depth To Sample: 34-35 Tested and Computed by: SG
1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200
100 100 100 100 100 99 98 96.5 95.0 84.2 48.5 32.6
Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street
Livermore, CA 94550
Telephone: (925) 371-5900
Fax: (925) 371-5915
Test Data
Figure B11
Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D422
Project: 121 E. Grand Ave
Location: South San Francisco, CA
Project No.: E8961-04-02
Sieve Number
% Passing
0.0 5.0
10.0 15.0
20.0 25.0
30.0 35.0
40.0 45.0
50.0 55.0
60.0 65.0
70.0 75.0
80.0 85.0
90.0 95.0
100.0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PERCENT PASSING
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
3/4 1/2 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
1.5 1
COBBLES GRAVEL
coarse fine coarse medium fine
SAND SILT OR CLAY
43 2
2.7 Geocon Consultants, Inc.
6671 Brisa Street Project:
Livermore, CA 94550 Location:
Telephone: 925-371-5900 Proj. No.:
Fax: 925-371-5915
9170
9171
Failure Photo
16'
B1
Brown SILTY clay with some fine sand
4.36 17.2
Strain Rate (%/min) 2.0417
Strain at Failure (%)
Estimated Specific Gravity
Dry Density (pcf)
Major Principal Stress at Failure (psf)
Moisture Content (%)
Height (inch) average of 3
2.39 114.0
Saturation (%) 96.8
Diameter (inch) average of 3
121 E. Grand Ave, SSF
South San Francisco, CA
Shear Strength (lbs/ft2)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D2166)
Sample Depth (feet)
Sample Description
Initial Conditions at Start of Test
Shear Test Conditions
Boring Number
Material Description
Figure B12
9.2 Unconfined Compressive Strength (lbs/ft2
)
Unconfined Compressive Strength (tons/ft2) 4.6
Test Results
Shear Strength (tons/ft2)
E8961-04-01
2.3 4586
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Deviator Stress, psf
Strain, %
STRESS-STRAIN
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX C
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
Project: 121 E. Grand
Overlay Normalized Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/29/2021, 5:36:48 PM 1 Project: 121 E. Grand
Overlay Intermediate Results
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/29/2021, 5:36:48 PM 2 Project: 121 E. Grand
Overlay Cyclic Liquefaction Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/29/2021, 5:36:48 PM 3 Project: 121 E. Grand
Overlay Strength Loss Plots
CLiq v.2.2.0.37 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 1/29/2021, 5:36:48 PM 4 Project No. E8961-04-02 April 21, 2021
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318-14, 2014.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7- 16, 2017.
Bonilla, M.G., Bedrock Surface Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle, California (USGS MF-334), 1964.
Bonilla, M.G., Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South 7.5’ Quadrangle and Part of the Hunters Point 7.5’ Quadrangle, San Francisco Bay Area, California (USGS OF-98-354), 1998.
Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M., CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures, UC Davis Center for Geotechnical Modeling Report No. UCD/CGM-14/01, April 2014.
Brabb, E.E. et al, Geology of the Onshore Part of San Mateo County, California (USGS OF-98-137), 1998.
California Building Standards Commission, 2019 California Building Code, based on 2018 International Building Code, International Code Council.
California Emergency Management Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of California ~ County of San Mateo, San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay), 2009.
California Department of Transportation, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.0, March 2018.
California Geological Survey (CGS), Geologic and Engineering Aspects of San Francisco Bay Fill, Special Report 97, 1969.
CGS, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
CGS and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Faults and Folds database, online:
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php
Cetin, K.O., Bilge, H.T., Wu, J., Kammerer, A.M., and Seed, R.B., Probabilistic Model for the Assessment of Cyclically Induced Reconsolidation (Volumetric) Settlements, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vo. 135, No. 3, March 1, 2009.
CGS and United States Geological Survey (USGS) Quaternary Faults and Folds database, online:
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/qfaults/map.php
CGS, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, 2008.
Geologismiki and Gregg Drilling, Inc., CLiq v. 2.2.0.35 ©2006.
Geologismiki and Gregg Drilling, Inc., CPeT-IT v. 2.02.5, ©2007.
Graymer, R.W. et al, Geologic Map of the San Francisco Bay Region (USGS/CGS Scientific Investigations Map 2918), 2006.
Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010 Fault Activity Map of California, CGS Geologic Data Map No. 6, online:
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html.
Lew, M., Site Soil Class Determination for Tall Buildings, Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council, LATBSDC White Paper 2020-01, June 2020.
McDonald, S.D. et al, Map Showing Thickness of Young Bay Mud, Southern San Francisco Bay, California, (USGS MF-976), 1978.
Nichols, D.R., and Wright, N.A., Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshlands, San Francisco Bay, California (USGS OF71-216), 1971.
Structural Engineers Association of California, Seismic Design Maps: https://seismicmaps.org/ USGS, Unified Hazard Tool: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ USGS, Liquefaction Susceptibility: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/geologicmaps/liquefaction.php Youd, T.L. and Garris, C.T., Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, November 1995.
6671 Brisa Street ■ Livermore, California 94550 ■ Tel (925) 371-5900 Project No. E8961-04-02
April 21, 2021
OCI San Fran, LLC
PO Box 927729
San Diego, California 92192
Attention: Mr. Adam Cashner
Subject: PROPOSED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
121 EAST GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
RESPONSE TO PEER REVIEW COMMENTS
References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed-Use Development, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, dated April 21, 2021.
2. Peer Review Comments: Geotechnical Peer Review, 121 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California, prepared by Ninyo & Moore, dated March 24, 2021 (N&M Project No.403967001).
Dear Mr. Cashner:
We have prepared this correspondence to respond to peer review comments provided by the City of South San Francisco relative to our referenced preliminary geotechnical investigation report for the 121 East Grand Avenue project. Each peer review comment and our response are presented below. Where applicable, pertinent sections our report have been updated.
Review Comment 1: Although the geotechnical consultant has identified expansive soil as a design concern, we recommend performing expansion index testing on the soil samples to evaluate the potential for expansion. While Bay Mud is typically expansive, the surficial soil at this site is primarily a granular material.
Furthermore, expansive soil is typically not a design concern below the groundwater level.
Response: The basis for this review comment is not clear. While our report indicates the Bay Mud and alluvial soils encountered at the site should be considered expansive as defined in 2019 California Building Code, we do not conclude that the presence of those potentially expansive soils is a particular design concern. As the reviewer notes, the surficial soils at the site are predominantly granular and expansive soils are typically not a design concern below groundwater level. The development proposes to utilize a mat foundation system founded in sandy soils below groundwater. Surface improvements around the perimeter of the development are expected to be constructed near existing grade.
Review Comment 2: The geotechnical consultant should evaluate and provide estimates of span at which the estimated differential settlement occurs.
Response: Design mat foundation loadings are not yet available as project design is in its early stages.
Assuming relatively uniform mat foundation pressures, we estimate differential settlement under dead plus live load conditions will be ¼ inch or less across a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
Project No. E8961-04-02 - 2 - April 21, 2021
Review Comment 3: The geotechnical consultant should estimate the uplift pressure under the proposed mat slab foundation.
Response: Recommendations for design uplift pressure have been included in our updated geotechnical report.
Review Comment 4: The geotechnical consultant has provided information about the geological setting of the area however it is recommended that appropriate geology map of the area be added to the report.
Response: A Geology Map depicting mapped geology in the project area is included in our updated geotechnical report as Figure 3.
Review Comment 5: The geotechnical consultant should discuss the potential of ongoing secondary consolidation of the ground surface from the initial land reclamation fill, including potential differential settlement of underground utilities.
Response: Bay Mud deposits were encountered in our Borings B1, B3, B4, and B5 with the maximum observed thickness of those deposits being approximately 8 feet in Boring B1. Given the age of the fills placed atop the Bay Mud during original development in the area, as well as the surcharge effects of the nearby East Grand Avenue overcrossing embankment that was constructed in the 1980s, the potential for ongoing secondary compression in the Bay Mud is considered low.
Our professional services were performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices used in the site area at this time. No warranty is provided, express or implied.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue our professional services on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this correspondence or if we may be of further service.
Sincerely,
GEOCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Shane Rodacker, GE
Senior Engineer
(1/e-mail) M-RAD Architecture
Attention: Ms. Margerie Bonnet
(1/e-mail) M-RAD Architecture
Attention: Ms. Kristy Velasco
Engineers who understand your business
San Francisco Bay Development
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Report Date: June 8, 2020
Partner Project Number: 20-281457.2
Prepared for:
Phase 3 Properties, Inc.
San Diego, California 92192
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
800-419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
June 8, 2020
Ms. Corrine Gulutz
Phase 3 Properties, Inc.
P.O. Box 927729
San Diego, California 92192
Subject: Seismic Risk Assessment
San Francisco Bay Development
121 East Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Partner Project Number: 20-281457.2
Dear Ms. Gulutz:
Partner Engineering & Science, Inc. is pleased to provide the results of the seismic risk assessment (SRA) performed on the above-referenced property.
The purpose of this Seismic Risk Assessment is to assess expected earthquake performance of the subject property to facilitate completion of due diligence as a secured lender. The findings of this report are intended to be used in support of securing the debt created through the prospective financing for which the subject property serves as collateral. This report may not be used for any other purpose, including, without limitation, use by Owner, borrower or tenant for evaluating life safety performance, compliance with any building codes or mandatory retrofit programs, earthquake resilience of specific building components and systems, or as an instrument in negotiations related to the acquisition or disposition of the property.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide assessment services to Phase 3 Properties, Inc.. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Mark Lambson at (619) 757-1119.
Sincerely,
DRAFT
Mark Lambson
Relationship Manager
Partner Engineering & Science, Inc.
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020
User Reliance
Partner was engaged by Phase 3 Properties, Inc. (Client), or their authorized representative, to perform this assessment. The engagement agreement specifically states the scope and purpose of the assessment, as well as the contractual obligations and limitations of both parties. This report and the information therein, are for the exclusive use of the Client. This report has no other purpose and may not be relied upon, or used, by any other person or entity without the written consent of Partner. Third parties that obtain this report, or the information therein, shall have no rights of recourse or recovery against Partner, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns. Any such unauthorized user shall be responsible to protect, indemnify and hold Partner, the Client and their respective officers, employees, vendors, successors and assigns harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) and costs attributable to such use. Unauthorized use of this report shall constitute acceptance of, and commitment to, these responsibilities, which shall be irrevocable and shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted.
This report has been completed under specific Terms and Conditions relating to scope, relying parties, limitations of liability, indemnification, dispute resolution, and other factors relevant to any reliance on this report. Any parties relying on this report do so having accepted the Terms and Conditions for which this report was completed. A copy of Partner’s standard Terms and Conditions can be found at http://www.partneresi.com/terms-and-conditions.php.
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Summary of Findings .....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Identified Mandatory Seismic Retrofit Ordinance ..............................................................................................2
1.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Opinion of Cost and Scope of Work ........................................................................................................................2
2.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Scope of Work...................................................................................................................................................................3
2.3 Limitations ..........................................................................................................................................................................3
2.4 Level of Investigation......................................................................................................................................................4
2.5 ASTM Deviations ..............................................................................................................................................................4
2.6 Deviations from Client Seismic Risk Policy ............................................................................................................4
2.7 Limiting Conditions .........................................................................................................................................................4
3.0 Subject Property .............................................................................................................................5
3.1 Site Access ..........................................................................................................................................................................5
3.2 General.................................................................................................................................................................................5
3.3 Document Review............................................................................................................................................................5
3.4 Property Overview ...........................................................................................................................................................6
3.5 Design Review...................................................................................................................................................................6
4.0 Seismic Ground Motion Hazard Assessment [G] ........................................................................8
4.1 Site Ground Motions ......................................................................................................................................................8
5.0 Building Damageability Assessment [BD] ...................................................................................9
5.1 Loss Estimation Terminology ......................................................................................................................................9
5.2 Damage Loss Model (Thiel & Zsutty - Earthquake Spectra 1987)............................................................. 10
6.0 Building Stability Assessment [BS]............................................................................................12
6.1 Building Stability Procedures ................................................................................................................................... 12
6.2 Building Stability Summary....................................................................................................................................... 12
7.0 Site Stability [SS] ..........................................................................................................................13
7.1 Site Stability Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 13
7.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility......................................................................................................................................... 13
7.3 Surface Fault Rupture.................................................................................................................................................. 14
7.4 Earthquake Induced Landslide Susceptibility .................................................................................................... 15
7.5 Tsunami Inundation ..................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.6 Other Site Hazards........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020
Page ii
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
The following report Figures and Appendices are attached at the end of this report.
Figures Figure 1: Site Hazard Maps
Figure 2: Site Plan
Appendices Appendix A: Site Photographs
Appendix B: Supporting Documentation (if applicable)
Reference Material:
Retrofit Code & Process Guidance (If applicable)
Provider Qualifications (Resumes)
Seismic Risk Assessment
Project No. 20-281457.2
June 8, 2020