334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View September 2022
INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT NAME: 334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project FILE NUMBER:
PL-2021-130 and PL-2021-131
SITE ADDRESS: 334 San Antonio Road APN: 148-15-020
APPLICANT: 334 San Antonio LLC
Attn: Mircea Voskerician
572 Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto, California 94306
PROPERTY
OWNER:
334 San Antonio LLC
250 Robert Louis Stevenson Avenue
Alameda, California 94501
LEAD AGENCY: City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, California 94041
Project Contact: Rebecca Shapiro, Deputy Zoning Administrator [email protected], (650) 903-6306
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIRS:
- San Antonio Precise Plan EIR (2014), SCH#: 2014032001 - Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR (2012) SCH #: 2011012069
- Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Subsequent EIR (2015) SCH #: 2013092026
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: For the purposes of this CEQA analysis, the proposed project involves the demolition of existing gas station and auto repair improvements and an associated accessory structure on the project site, and the construction of a 63-unit mixed-use residential condominium building with 62 residential units and one 2,000-square foot ground-floor commercial unit, two levels of underground parking and associated landscaping and site/offsite improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The 0.62-acre (27,048-square-foot) site is located on the southwestern corner of the San Antonio Road and California Street intersection. The project site is developed with surface and underground improvements for a currently operating, one-story, 1,849-square foot gas station and auto repair shop, with a 210-square-foot accessory structure. The project area also includes three existing street trees. The project site is bounded on the east by San Antonio Road and on the north by California Street, and is surrounded by residential and mixed-uses.
DETERMINATION: This Initial Study of Environmental Significance has determined the proposed project would result in either no impact or a less than significant impact as addressed in the San Antonio Precise Plan EIR (2014) and Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. The project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) since mixed-use development was analyzed in the San Antonio Precise Plan EIR (2014).
NO ADDITIONAL IMPACT FINDING: The proposed project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, because the Checklist was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and found that with implementation of the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) standards and guidelines, standard City Conditions of Approval, State regulations and mitigation measures identified in the SAPP EIR and the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Subsequent EIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated and disclosed in these EIR(s).
Prepared by: Rebecca Shapiro, Deputy Zoning Administrator Date: September 14, 2022 Community Development Department
Referenced documentation is available for public review at the City of Mountain View, located at 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94039 during normal business hours.
Attachment 1
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
Environmental Checklist
prepared by
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, California 94041
Contact: Rebecca Shapiro, Deputy Zoning Administrator
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2022
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Environmental Checklist i
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................................................. iii Introduction and Project/Environmental History ................................................................................... 1 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 3
2. Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 3
3. Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3
4. Existing Site Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3
5. General Plan Designation .................................................................................................... 6
6. Zoning.................................................................................................................................. 6
7. Comparison with Precise Plan Analysis ............................................................................... 7
8. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 9
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ..................................................................................17
10. Construction Schedule ......................................................................................................18
11. Approvals Required ...........................................................................................................18
12. Environmental Conclusion ................................................................................................18 Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review .....................................................20 1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................24 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................30 3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................32 4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................40 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................45 6 Energy ...............................................................................................................................49 7 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................51 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................57 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................63 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................75 11 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................83 12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................85 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................87 14 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................95 15 Public Services ...................................................................................................................99 16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................105 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................107 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................113 19 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................117 20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................123 City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
ii
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................125 References ..........................................................................................................................................130 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................130 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................133 Tables
Table 1 Consistency with SAPP Development Standards ................................................................ 9 Table 2 Proposed Residential Unit Summary ................................................................................11 Table 3 Project Parking Summary ..................................................................................................12 Table 4 Surrounding Land Uses .....................................................................................................17 Table 5 Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ..............................................................................34 Table 6 Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ................................................................................34 Table 7 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ...........................................................................60 Table 8 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .........................................................61 Table 9 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results .......................................................88 Table 10 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities ...............................................92 Table 11 Consistency with Mountain View General Plan 2030 Policies ........................................108 Table 12 Estimated Project Water Demand ..................................................................................119 Table 13 Estimated Wastewater Generation ................................................................................120 Table 14 Estimated Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................121 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 Project Site .......................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ............................................................................................................10 Figure 4 Ground Floor Landscape Plan ...........................................................................................15 Figure 5 Roof Deck Landscape Plan ................................................................................................16 Figure 6 Surrounding Views from Project Site ...............................................................................28 Appendices
Appendix AQ California Emissions Estimator Model Outputs Appendix ARB Arborist Report
Appendix CUL Historical Resources Assessment
Appendix GEO Geotechnical Report
Appendix LND Project Landscaping Plans
Appendix NOI Noise Measurement Results and Manufacturer’s Specifications Appendix PLAN Project Site Plans
Appendix TDM Transportation Demand Management Plan
Appendix TRA Multimodal Transportation Analysis
Appendix UIS Utility Impact Study
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Environmental Checklist iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos Containing Materials
af acre feet
afy acre feet per year
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practices
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalOES California Office of Emergency Services
CalOSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
CalRecycle California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
COA Condition of Approval
CO2e carbon monoxide equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
iv
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted sound pressure level
DOC Department of Conservation
DOF Department of Finance
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EMFAC Emissions Factor Model
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
GHG greenhouse gases
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBtu thousand British thermal units
kWh kilowatt-hours
Ldn Day-Night Average (noise) level
Leq single steady A-weighted (noise) level
Lmax highest root mean squared sound pressure level
Lmin lowest root mean squared sound pressure level
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
mph miles per hour
MT metric tons
MVPD Mountain View Police Department
MWH megawatt hours
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS National Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 ozone
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of up to 2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of up to 10 microns PPD Precise Plan District
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Environmental Checklist v
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
SB Senate Bill
SCV Habitat Plan Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan SLF Sacred Lands File
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibels
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
vi
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction and Project/Environmental History
Environmental Checklist 1
Introduction and Project/Environmental History
The proposed 334 San Antonio Road Residential project is located in the northern portion of the P40 (San Antonio) Precise Plan (SAPP) and consists of one parcel located at the southwesterly corner of San Antonio Road and California Street. The existing uses on the site consist of a currently operating, one-story 1,849-square-foot gas station and auto repair shop, with a 210-square-foot accessory structure. The proposed project would redevelop the site with a five-story mixed-use building consisting of 62 dwelling units (including 13 below-market-rate units), a subterranean parking garage, and a 2,000-square-foot ground floor commercial space. The project is a subsequent project as part of the implementation of the SAPP.
On December 2, 2014, the Mountain View City Council approved the 123-acre SAPP, which implements the goals and policies set forth in the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan for the “San Antonio Change Area.” The SAPP provides a vision, guiding principles and development standards and guidelines to transform the historically regional commercial area into a mixed-use core in a broader existing residential neighborhood, taking into account the area’s proximity to local and regional transit services and location along two heavily traveled corridors in the city: El Camino Real and San Antonio Road.
The City of Mountain View prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2014032001) for the SAPP that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with projected development of the plan area, which was certified in December 2014. The City also prepared the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program – San Antonio Change Area Subsequent EIR (2030 General Plan SEIR), which analyzed changes in anticipated growth through development in the San Antonio Change Area, based on unexpected economic activity and office space demand, and beyond that which was analyzed in the originally-certified City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR.
The SAPP EIR tiers off the 2030 General Plan EIR, consistent with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15152. Given the changes in the 2030 growth scenario for the area since General Plan adoption, the following topics were updated in the SAPP EIR and did not tier off the analysis in the 2030 General Plan EIR: transportation and circulation, air quality, noise, utilities and service systems, and public services. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Section 15168, the SAPP EIR program-level analysis considered the broad environmental impacts of the overall SAPP.
Impacts to transportation, air quality, noise, and utilities and service systems were found to be potentially significant without the implementation of mitigation measures. However, with implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
The SAPP EIR concluded that no significant and unavoidable impacts would result from implementation of the SAPP.
Impacts to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation were discussed in the associated Initial Study as well as in the Effects Found Not to be Significant section of the SAPP EIR. Impacts related to these environmental topics were found not to be significant.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
2 The SAPP EIR acknowledged subsequent development of the SAPP area would occur in multiple years and phases, and the SAPP EIR was crafted to be used as an “analytical superstructure” for subsequent phases or detailed project analyses such that the amount of new information required for project-level environmental review is streamlined (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3). As those phases are proposed, such as the proposed project, they are evaluated to determine whether the proposed entitlements/actions fall within the scope of the certified SAPP EIR and incorporate all applicable performance standards and mitigation measures identified therein.
Should the subsequent development phases not be consistent with the approved SAPP, additional environmental review through the subsequent review provisions of CEQA for changes to previously reviewed and approved projects may be warranted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164).
The proposed project is eligible for environmental review streamlining if consistency with the SAPP is demonstrated, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and environmental review concludes no supplemental and/or subsequent EIR is required, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
The City is providing the following environmental checklist to address considerations raised by CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183, and provide additional information for decisionmakers and the public regarding the City's evidence and reasoning for determining the project's consistency with the SAPP and SAPP EIR, and eligibility for the claimed CEQA streamlining. Consistent with this process, the City is evaluating the project to determine what, if any, project-specific impacts might result, which are peculiar to the project site or not previously analyzed, and what, if any, additional CEQA review would be required. Specifically, this environmental checklist has been prepared to determine whether the environmental impacts of the project are within the scope of the previouslycertified SAPP EIR, or if there are changed environmental conditions that are of sufficient magnitude to result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, as compared to those considered in the previously-certified SAPP EIR. This analysis also considers whether there is new circumstances or information of substantial importance showing that new or substantially more severe environmental impacts would occur compared to those evaluated in the previously-certified SAPP EIR.
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 3
Project Description
0. Project Title
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
1. Project Overview
The 334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project (proposed project) would involve the demolition of an existing gas station and auto repair shop and an associated accessory structure on the project site, and the construction of a 63-unit mixed-use residential condominium building with 62 residential units (including 13 below-market-rate units) and one 2,000 square foot ground-floor commercial unit, two levels of underground parking and associated landscaping and site/offsite improvements.
2. Project Location
The project site is located at 334 San Antonio Road in the western portion of the City of Mountain View in Santa Clara County. The 0.62-acre (27,048-square-foot) site (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Parcel Number 148-15-020) is located on the southwestern corner of the San Antonio Road and California Street intersection. The project site is regionally accessible via Interstate 280 (I-280) approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the project site, Central Expressway approximately 0.2 miles northeast of the project site, and Highway 101 (U.S. 101) approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site. The project site is locally accessible via El Camino Real, California Street, San Antonio Road, and Central Expressway. The project site is approximately 0.3 miles southwest from the Mountain View Caltrain Station. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes 21, 22, 40, and 522 run in the vicinity of the project site, along San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, California Street, and Showers Drive. Mountain View Community Shuttle rboutes C and D provide service along San Antonio Road and El Camino Real.
The project site is bounded on the east by San Antonio Road and on the north by California Street. It is located approximately 0.3-mile northeast of El Camino Real. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in the region and Figure 2 depicts the project area boundaries.
3. Existing Site Conditions
The generally level project site (Accessor’s Parcel Number 148-15-020) is developed with surface and underground improvements for an active one-story, 1,849-square foot Valero gas station and auto repair shop with a 210-square-foot accessory structure, equipped with both aboveground and underground hydraulic vehicle hoist equipment, four 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), fueling dispensers and underground piping. The site is almost entirely covered by paving and/or structures. There are three existing street trees adjacent to the site. Access to the gas station/auto repair operations is provided via four ingress/egress driveways: two driveways located along San Antonio Road and two driveways located along California Street. Pedestrian access is provided along existing street frontages by monolithic (attached) public sidewalks bordering the site. Figure 2 also provides an aerial view of existing site conditions.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
4 Figure 1 Regional Location
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 5
Figure 2 Project Site
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
6 4. General Plan Designation
The project site is designated Mixed-Use Corridor in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (City of Mountain View 2020a). Allowable land uses in the Mixed-Use Corridor General Plan designation include multifamily residential, office, commercial, and lodging (City of Mountain View 2012a).
5. Zoning
The project site is zoned P-40 (San Antonio) Precise Plan (SAPP). The SAPP guides and regulates the uses and development of the precise plan area (City of Mountain View 2008).1 Within the SAPP, the project site is in the Mixed-Use Corridor subarea, where a combination of vertical and horizontal mixed-use development types is envisioned, including both residential and office buildings with ground floor retail and active space components (City of Mountain View 2014a).
The City of Mountain View first adopted the SAPP on December 2, 2014, and last updated it on November 17, 2020. The SAPP implements the goals and policies set forth in the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan for the 123-acre SAPP area. It provides guiding principles, policies, development criteria, and implementation strategies to coordinate private development and public improvements. These guiding policies include:
Revitalizing the Plan area as an attractive, vibrant, and well-connected shopping destination and mixed-use neighborhood area
Promoting achievement of Precise Plan principles and policies for redevelopment to achieve fundamental land use, open space, urban design, and circulation objectives, while providing flexibility over development standards
Supporting commercial vitality and diversity to meet the needs of the community Supporting increased housing supply and diversity
Establishing requirements that coordinate new development with the provision of public benefits to ensure future growth improves the broader community
Emphasizing affordable housing development as a public benefit Promoting improved urban design and placemaking
Promoting coordinated and well-integrated development
Integrating the revitalized Plan Area with the broader neighborhood Creating open space and pedestrian-oriented frontages
Improving connectivity to, from, and in the Plan Area
Leveraging transit resources and improving transit access Prioritizing pedestrian improvements
Prioritizing bicycle connections
Enabling a “park once” environment
Encouraging shared parking and efficient standards
Using these guiding policies, the vision of the SAPP is to transform the historical regional commercial area into a mixed-use core within a broader existing residential neighborhood and taking advantage 1 Precise Plans are a regulatory zoning tool for coordinating future public and private improvements on specific properties where special conditions of size, shape, land ownership, or existing or desired development require particular attention (City of Mountain View 2021a).
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 7
of the Plan Area’s proximity to transit services and location along two major throughways: El Camino Real and San Antonio Road.
6. Comparison with Precise Plan Analysis
Although the proposed project is located fully in the boundaries of the SAPP area and the SAPP regulations do not place a cap on residential development in the SAPP area, the number of housing units proposed on the project site under the proposed project would be beyond the residential growth projections used to analyze environmental impacts in the SAPP EIR. The SAPP EIR evaluated a net new increase of 1,235 units, 3,695 jobs, 360,000 square feet of retail/commercial service space and up to 879,000 square feet of office space, as compared to the SAPP EIR baseline conditions and consistent with the San Antonio Change Area growth studied separately in the 2030 General Plan SEIR. The SAPP ultimately established an office development cap of 600,000 square feet of net new office area, less than what was analyzed in the SAPP EIR or General Plan SEIR2..
Since adoption of the SAPP, 1,397 residential units and 49,189 square feet of retail-commercial uses have been approved in the 400 San Antonio Road (583 units and 11,171 commercial square feet), 394 Ortega (144 units), 2580 California Street (632 units and 19,720 commercial square feet), 2645 Fayette Drive (38 units) and other purely commercial projects. Therefore, approval of the 334 San Antonio Mixed-Use Project, with up to 62 residential units, would increase the number of approved residential units in the SAPP area, which already exceeds the number evaluated in the SAPP, by the project’s additional contribution of 62 units. The SAPP itself does not place a cap on the number of residential units in the SAPP area, and the project’s development intensities would be consistent with SAPP standards, as discussed further below.
Consistency of the Project with Adopted City Plans and Ordinances City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The project would be located entirely in the City of Mountain View. The 2030 General Plan is the fundamental document governing land use development and includes goals and policies relating to economic development, land use, transportation, public health, open space, conservation, safety, noise, public facilities, and utilities. The project would be required to abide by all applicable goals and policies in the adopted 2030 General Plan. The 2030 General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed-Use Corridor. This land use designation is intended to include multifamily residential, office, commercial, and lodging uses. The project would be consistent with Policy LUD 3.2, encouraging a mix of land uses, housing types, retail and public amenities, and a public neighborhood open space accessible to the community. The project would be a mixed-use building with affordable housing near transit consistent with policies LUD 3.4 and LUD 5.2, which encourage a diversity of housing options and a mix of uses with active ground floor uses and public space to create an inviting pedestrian environment.
SAPP and Mountain View Zoning Code
The SAPP implements goals and policies from the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan designated for the SAPP area, and functions as the zoning for the project site. The project would be located fully within the SAPP, which is organized into Mixed-Use Center and Mixed-Use Corridor 2 However, the SAPP ultimately included an office development cap, limiting office development in the SAPP area to a maximum of 600,000 net new square feet.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
8 subareas, both of which combine residential, commercial, and office uses. The project would comply with applicable SAPP land use policies, like LU-1.2 and LU-1.6, which prioritize new high-intensity residential units that support commercial uses. Objectives and guiding principles from the SAPP that apply to the project include revitalization of the SAPP area, achieving SAPP policy objectives, supporting commercial vitality and diversity, improving housing supply and diversity, improving urban design and placemaking, and coordinating well-integrated development.
The project would also generally comply with the SAPP development standards and applicable provisions of the City of Mountain View Zoning Code, including allowable deviations from development standards that must be approved by the City in relation to the State Density Bonus request for the proposed project. The applicant’s State Density Bonus request provides additional bonus FAR for the project and lower parking requirements, superseding applicable City regulations.
The applicant’s State Density Bonus proposal also includes requests for three concessions and several waivers or reductions to development standards (see Table 1 below), in accordance with State Density Bonus Law and to accommodate any deviations from City regulations that would not otherwise be permitted under the SAPP. These deviations are not grounds for City disapproval of the project, unless specific, limited findings can be made as defined in the Government Code. The project would otherwise conform with the SAPP’s guiding principles and objectives.
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 9
Table 1 Consistency with SAPP Development Standards
Standards Allowed Proposed
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 2.78 (with 50% State density bonus) 2.771 Maximum Building Stories 4
2 5
Maximum Building Height 55 feet2 78 feet 10 inches3
Minimum Open Area 40% 60%
Common Usable Open Space 175 square feet per unit ~130 square feet per unit3 Frontage Line Curb line Curb line
Minimum Building Frontage
Setback
18 feet from Frontage Line along Major Public
Street (San Antonio Road); 24 feet from Frontage
Line along Neighborhood Streets (California
Street)
18 feet from San Antonio Road;
19 feet 6 inches from California
Street3
Maximum Height at Frontage
Setback
4 stories (55 feet) above grade4 5 stories above grade3,4 Minimum Ground-floor Height 14 feet (floor-to-ceiling height) for commercial uses and active spaces for residential uses
14 feet
Retail Space Depth 40 feet Varies (<40 feet)3
Minimum Setback in
Neighborhood Transition Areas
25 feet N/A
Parking Spaces 51 spaces5 97 spaces
1 The project includes a request to exempt the proposed ground floor commercial floor area (2,000 square feet) from FAR calculations, which may be allowed by the City on a discretionary basis for commercial space (up to 7,500 square feet) that would be occupied by one or more qualifying businesses (as defined in the SAPP) preserved or relocated to the commercial space in the project. 2 Up to 5 stories (65 feet) will be considered on a case-by-case basis if project provides significant public benefit or major open space improvements; neither is proposed by project. Additional height (in feet) may be allowed if needed to accommodate commercial uses. 3 State Density Bonus Waiver/Reduction of Development Standards requested. 4Where more than 4 stories are allowed, 80% of a building’s linear frontage above 4 stories must step back a minimum of 10 feet on every street the project faces. While the proposed building employs additional step back of the fifth floor along street frontages, the project’s fifth floor step back does not fully comply with this standard; a State Density Bonus waiver/reduction is requested. 5 Pursuant to the State Density Bonus statute (California Government Code Section 65915), the maximum residential parking ratio the City may require is 0.5 spaces per unit based on the project location within one-half mile of a major transit station.
7. Project Description
The project would include the construction of both onsite and offsite improvements. Onsite improvements would consist of the construction of a 62-unit, mixed-use multifamily residential building with ground-floor commercial space, private common amenity space and a small public corner plaza, all located generally above two levels of subterranean garage parking featuring residential storage and secure bike parking areas as well. The five-story building would feature residential uses on all levels, oriented around a ground-level courtyard facing California Street, and with 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space along San Antonio Road. An elevator tower and two stairwells offering access to each of the building floors and the common amenity roof deck would bring the building’s maximum height to 78 feet 10 inches; other rooftop installations include mechanical equipment for the project. The 62 residential units are comprised of 17 one-bedroom and 45 two-bedroom units; 49 would be market rate units and 13 would be below market rate (BMR) units, including 10 low- and three moderate-income units. A summary of unit types and affordability is shown in Table 2. Figure 3 shows the overall site plan.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
10 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 11
Table 2 Proposed Residential Unit Summary
Unit Type
Total Number
of Unit Type
Average Residential
Square Footage
1 Bedroom/1 Bath (MR) 7 760
1 Bedroom/1 Bath (Moderate BMR) 1 783
1 Bedroom/1 Bath (Low BMR) 9 717
2 Bedroom/2 Bath (MR) 41 1,038
2 Bedroom/2 Bath (Moderate BMR) 4 1,141
Total 62
MR = market rate
BMR = below market rate
Source: Appendix PLAN
The project would be built as a Tier 1 development, pursuant to the applicable Mixed-Use Corridor subarea intensity standards of the SAPP. A project sponsor seeking to develop under these Tier 1 floor area ratio (FAR) allowances may build up to 1.85 FAR through voluntary participation in the SAPP’s Public Benefit Program, by providing public benefit contributions in exchange for higher development intensities as compared to Base FAR (maximum 1.35 FAR) projects. This project proposal also includes provision of 13 BMR units, and, based on the provision of the BMR units, the project sponsor has elected to submit a State Density Bonus Request for additional density bonus area on top of the Tier 1 FAR, as established in City of Mountain View City Code Section 36.48.80.
Pursuant to the City-adopted Density Bonus Program Guidelines, the applicable 50 percent State density bonus would be applied to the maximum allowed FAR for the Mixed-Use Corridor subarea, since SAPP area development is regulated on the basis of FAR versus traditional density metrics. As such, with the 50 percent State density bonus, the maximum allowable FAR for the project would be
2.78. The proposed FAR is 2.76, which is below the allowable FAR with the density bonus, and including a project proposal for a discretionary exemption of the ground floor commercial space from FAR calculations, in exchange for providing the space to a qualifying small business “preserved as part of a new development of relocated small business.” This FAR exemption request and Tier 1 development is reviewed by the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) who would then forward a recommendation on the project to the City Council for final action (City of Mountain View 2014a).
The project would provide separate commercial and residential trash collection rooms offering applicable compost, recycling and solid waste bins for each use category. Additional residential amenities include common amenities such as an interior clubhouse, lobby, roof deck, and mail room, as well as private patios or balconies for each unit (proposed private and common open space is described in detail below under Open Space and Landscaping). Each building floor is served by two elevators and two sets of stairs.
The building’s contemporary architecture features a brown/tan, green, white and grey color palette with wood siding, cementitious siding and anodized aluminum metal accents.3 The contemporary style and orientation of building/site features is consistent with the building design guidelines of the SAPP. The building features upper floor setbacks along street frontages, orients the building around open space amenities, provides publicly-accessible amenities and building features highlighting a 3 Anodized aluminum refers to aluminum that has been treated with an electrochemical process to create a durable finish (Aluminum Anodizers Council 2021).
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
12 key corner location and creates visual connections between public frontages and common open space areas.
Parking, Access, and Circulation
Project implementation would involve demolition of the existing driveways and paved vehicle circulation and parking areas, and removing all driveway access from San Antonio Road. Existing paving and buildings cover almost the entirety of the site, and proposed sitework would match or result in a slight net reduction in impervious site surfaces and biotreatment of surface runoff as compared to existing improvement. One new ingress/egress driveway from California Street will be constructed by the project, offering the sole vehicle access point to the site and leading to the proposed project’s below-grade garage. The parking garage would have vehicle parking spaces for both commercial and residential uses, as well as secure bicycle parking, resident storage facilities, and other building/operational utilities.
There would be a total of 97 parking spaces, with 77 spaces designated for residents and 20 spaces serving the commercial space/guest use, as detailed in Table 3, spread between the two underground parking levels (requiring an estimated 18,800 cubic yards of cut and exported soil).
Pursuant to Mountain View Municipal Code Section 8.20.32, 15 percent of total parking spaces (14 spaces) would include EV2 chargers installed, one space would include a Level 3/DC Fast Charger, and all remaining spaces (82 spaces) would be EV Ready. 75 of the total parking spaces would be located behind a security gate and reserved for the residential use. The remaining spaces (located on the first garage level, outside the security gate), include 10 commercial spaces and 10 spaces for commercial or residential guest use. Elevator and stair access for commercial customers would be limited to the ground floor lobby and building exterior only.
Table 3 Project Parking Summary
Parking Use Parking Space Type1 Number of Parking Spaces Residential Standard 62
Residential Accessible 2
Residential Assignable 13
Retail Standard 19
Retail Accessible 1
1Pursuant to Mountain View Municipal Code Section 8.20.32, 15 percent of total parking spaces (14 spaces) would include EV2 chargers installed, one space would include a Level 3/DC Fast Charger, and all remaining spaces (82 spaces) would be EV Ready Source: Appendix PLAN
There would be one public bicycle parking area located next to the primary pedestrian entry to the residential portion of the project, providing three bicycle racks along California Street accessible to residential guests and other visitors, and four additional public bicycle racks along San Antonio Road near the ground-floor commercial space. One private bicycle parking room would provide 48 secure bike parking spaces for residents, and is placed at the northwest corner of the project’s ground floor. Additional secure bicycle parking lockers would be provided on each level of the basement garage, accounting for 15 additional secure bike parking spaces for residents and one secure bike parking space for commercial employees, which complies with applicable SAPP requirements.
Overall bicycle parking would accommodate at least 76 bicycles.
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 13
Public sidewalks would be provided along both of the project’s public street frontages, including public access easements to provide SAPP-compliant streetscape designs. Onside pedestrian access would be available via concrete paved walkways flanking all private sides of the proposed building, providing connections to the public sidewalks and additional onsite circulation areas that expand or provide additional connections parallel to public sidewalk areas.
Open Space, Trees, and Landscaping
The project would include a variety of both private and public common open space areas totaling 9,429 square feet. The ground level open space includes both public open space and private open space, delineated by a slatted corten steel fence, planters, and secure gate. The project would include a public plaza totaling approximately 2,300 square feet at the corner of San Antonio Road/California Street, as well as additional ground-level, onsite publicly-accessible onsite circulation space along both street frontages. There is one approximately 2,300-square-foot private residential courtyard located in the center of the northern portion of the project site (facing California Street) with direct access to an interior residential clubhouse/community room, as well as one approximately 3,430-square-foot private common roof deck located centrally on the rooftop of the building. Each of the five floors of the proposed building would include private residential open space for each unit, in the form of ground floor patios and upper floor decks ranging in size from 63 to 355 square feet per deck/patio. Project improvements will include pedestrian-scaled outdoor lighting for private patios, common amenity areas and onsite pedestrian pathways.
There are 3 existing project trees, all of which are street trees. The project would involve the removal of the three street trees located on the northern and eastern boundaries of the project site (Appendix ARB; Appendix LND). Proposed street tree removals are reviewed under similar criteria to Heritage tree removals, but do not require the project to obtain a Heritage Tree Removal Permit (Appendix ARB). The project would involve the planting of new trees, as shown in Figure 4, including nine new street trees located on the northern and eastern perimeter of the project site bordering California Street and San Antonio Road. All of the proposed on- and offsite trees would be a minimum 24-inch box. The street trees were chosen from the City’s prescribed list for San Antonio Road and California Street (Appendix LND). Three of the trees would be evergreen trees planted along the western corner of the project site to provide screening between the project and neighboring multifamily residences to the west.
Plant material incorporated into the landscape designs would primarily be low water use and/or California native plants, and the overall landscape designs would comply with local water use regulations (City of Mountain View 2016). Site landscaping would be watered using a high-efficiency irrigation system. Landscaping on the roof deck would consist primarily custom planter areas as show in Figure 5.
Utilities and Service Providers
The project site is in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities such as water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. The project applicant would construct and maintain on-site utilities connecting to existing public utility infrastructure. Per City of Mountain View standards, existing utility connections to the project site would be abandoned and new service connections would be constructed as part of the project for City of Mountain View water service, sewer service, and stormwater drainage. Silicon Valley Clean Energy would provide electricity and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would maintain the electrical infrastructure that would deliver electricity to the project site. Comcast would provide cable City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
14 services and AT&T would provide phone services (City of Mountain View 2022a). The City contracts with Recology Mountain View to be the solid waste removal provider.
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 15
Figure 4 Ground Floor Landscape Plan
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
16 Figure 5 Roof Deck Landscape Plan
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 17
Green Building Features
The project would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 or CALGreen) and the Mountain View City Code Green Building Code Amendments. It would include designated solar areas on the building’s rooftop, totaling 6,699 square feet. The project would also include energy efficiency features, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment, ENERGY STAR dishwashers, ENERGY STAR clothes washing and drying machines, and high-efficiency lighting (Appendix PLAN). The project proposes all-electric compliance, with a targeted Gold certification level under the GreenPoint Rated system.
Offsite Improvements
Offsite improvements would include sidewalk and street improvements, including the removal of existing concrete curbs, driveways, gutters, and sidewalks to be replaced with new concrete curbs, gutters, and wider, separated sidewalks along the eastern and northern perimeters of the project site along California Street and San Antonio Road. A new wheelchair ramp would also be constructed at the northeast corner of the project site to facilitate wheelchair pedestrian access.
The California Street roadway would be expanded to construct SAPP-compliant lane widths for the existing bike lane and left turn, through and right turn vehicle lanes on the south side of California Street (along the project frontage).
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is surrounded by residential and commercial land uses. Located immediately west of the project site is a restaurant. Directly bordering the project site to the north is California Street.
Across California Street to the north exist several commercial land uses including an auto parts store, a fitness center, and a convenience store. To the northeast of the project lies the California Street and San Antonio Road intersection, where a multifamily development is currently under construction on the far side of the intersection. Directly bordering the project site to the east is San Antonio Road. Across San Antonio Road and to the southeast exists a number of commercial buildings including a pharmacy, movie theater, office buildings with ground-floor retail/commercial space and shopping center areas. Located immediately south of the project site is a bank, with recently development multifamily residences with ground-floor retail further south. Table 4 shows a summary of the existing General Plan land uses and zoning of the areas surrounding the project site.
Table 4 Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Land Use Jurisdiction (General Plan) Zoning
North Mixed-Use Corridor, Medium High-Density Residential (26-35 du/acre) P-40 (SAPP), R3-1 (Multifamily) South Mixed-Use Corridor, Medium High-Density Residential (26-35 du/acre) P-40 (SAPP) East Mixed-Use Center (San Antonio) P-40 (SAPP)
West Mixed-Use Corridor, Medium High-Density Residential (26-35 du/acre), High-Density Residential (36-80 du/acre)
P-40 (SAPP), R3-1 (Multifamily)
du = dwelling units
Source: City of Mountain View 2008; City of Mountain View 2020a City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
18 9. Construction Schedule
Project construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 25 months, with construction activities potentially beginning in March 2024 and concluding in March 2026. Construction phases could overlap would include demolition (3-4 months), site preparation and grading (3-4 months), building construction (16 months) and final paving/architectural coatings (3 months).
10. Approvals Required
The proposed project would require permit approvals from the City of Mountain View. The project is subject to the City’s site-specific design review process and would require the following permits:
Zoning Permits
Planned Community Permit
Development Review Permit
Provisional Use Permit (for rooftop amenities above the third floor) Subdivision Maps (Vesting Tentative Map and Final Map)
Excavation and/or Grading Permit(s)
Building Permit(s)
Demolition Permits (for removal of existing structures and improvements) Full Hazardous Materials Facility Closure Permits, including UST Removal Permits Offsite Improvement Plan(s), Improvement Agreement and Encroachment Permit Well Destruction Permit (would be required if any existing wells are found on the property) Vesting Rights pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 330
As part of the Zoning permits (noted above) requiring approval by the City Council, the applicant has submitted a State Density Bonus request including, at minimum, the following concessions and waivers or reductions of development standards:
Housing (BMR) Unit Mix Concession
Affordable Housing (BMR Unit) Locations Concession
Residential Entrances (Raised Unit Entries Along Street Frontages) Concession Common Open Space Waiver
Retail Space Depth Waiver
Building Height Waiver
Frontage Step Back Waiver
California Street (Frontage) Setback Waiver
11. Environmental Conclusion
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15162 and as discussed throughout the following analysis, the project would have similar or reduced impacts compared to those identified in the SAPP EIR.
Project Description
Environmental Checklist 19
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
20 Environmental Checklist for Supplemental
Environmental Review
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for development consistent with that project unless the lead agency determines that new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur. This report uses a checklist approach to determine whether the effects of the proposed development have been addressed in the previously-certified SAPP EIR.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15183, the purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any project-specific effects or impacts, or any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in environmental impact significance conclusions different from those found in the SAPP EIR. The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, rather that there are no changes in the condition or status of the impact because it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the SAPP EIR. A “no” answer could mean the checklist impacts associated with the project were adequately addressed in the SAPP EIR and the environmental impact significance conclusions of the SAPP EIR remain applicable. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.
Where Impact Was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the SAPP EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
The significance of the environmental impacts of the project-specific features not considered in the SAPP and its EIR, is indicated in the discussion for each environmental review category analyzed in this checklist.
New Circumstances Involving New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the prior environmental documents, which would require major revisions to the previously certified SAPP EIR due to new significant environmental yu7himpacts or a substantial increase in the severity of significant impacts identified in the SAPP.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Environmental Checklist 21
New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previously-certified SAPP EIR was complete, shows that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents, or (b) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents, or (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, or (D) that environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. This category of new information may apply to any new regulations, enacted after certification of the SAPP EIR, which might change the nature of the impact analysis or specifications of a mitigation measure.
If the additional analysis completed as part of this environment checklist review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, the question would be answered “no” and no additional EIR documentation (supplement to the EIR or subsequent EIR) would be required.
Do Prior Environmental Documents’ Mitigation Measures Address/Resolve Impacts?
This column indicates whether the prior environmental documents and adopted CEQA Findings provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “NA” is indicated, this environmental checklist review concludes that there was no impact, or the impact was less than significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.
Discussion and Mitigation Sections
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.
Standard Conditions of Approval
The City has Standard Conditions of Approval (COA) that would reduce or minimize project impacts.
In October 2021, the City updated the COAs, which resulted in a renumbering of the COAs. The checklist references COAs from the SAPP EIR but references the current COA numbering.
Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that would apply to the project are listed under each environmental category.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
22 Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the need for additional environmental documentation is contained in each section.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Environmental Checklist 23
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
24 Aesthetics
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP
EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect
on a scenic vista?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.1.1.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Substantially damage scenic
resources, including but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.1.1.3 No No No impact would
occur
In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.1.1.4 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Create a new source of
substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.1.1.5 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to aesthetics, described in Section 4.1, Aesthetics of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to aesthetics were analyzed on pages 12 through 16 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to aesthetics from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Aesthetics
Environmental Checklist 25
As discussed under Section 4.1.1.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the 2030 General Plan does not identify specific scenic vistas in the city. Scenic quality in the city is characterized by views of natural features, such as the Santa Cruz Mountains, the shoreline, Mount Diablo, Mission Peak, and Stevens Creek (City of Mountain View 2012b). The project site’s characteristics are generally typical of properties in the SAPP Area; there are no unique features in terms of its existing conditions or location such that its development would not be in the general discussion of potential view impacts in the EIR. Views through the project site are partially obscured by the existing gas station and auto repair shop, as shown in Figure 6, Photograph 4. As shown in Figure 6, the views through the project site are typical of infill development surrounded by buildings and street trees, neither of which contributes to a scenic vista. Although distant views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are available looking south on San Antonio Road adjacent to the site, the project would not affect these views, as they are only visible down the road itself; existing multistory buildings block views of the mountains to each side of the road. Although the project would substantially increase the scale of development on the site, the project would not block existing views of scenic vistas available through the site from public viewpoints due to intervening structures between the site and the mountains.
Therefore, the project’s impacts on any identified scenic vistas would be within the scope of the previously-certified environmental document, and impacts to identified scenic vistas would remain less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As discussed in Section 4.1.1.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, there are no official State Scenic Highways in Mountain View, and no portions of the SAPP area are in the viewshed of a State Scenic Highway. Since the certification of the SAPP EIR in 2014, no new State Scenic Highways have been designated (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2018, Caltrans 2021). Therefore, the project’s impacts on these scenic resources would be within the scope of in the previously-certified environmental document, and there would be no impact to scenic resources in a State Scenic Highway.
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
As discussed in Section 4.1.1.4 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the Precise Plan area is characterized as a historically auto-centric, aging, local, and regional commercial area with low-rise big box retail, strip commercial, and office structures. The SAPP covers an already urbanized area, and allows an increase in building height and increased intensification of land use. The SAPP and project land use intensification is consistent with the 2030 General Plan, and the project design is guided by the principles, policies, circulation plan, and development standards and guidelines in the SAPP. Project implementation of these SAPP elements would not result in significant impacts.
The project would undergo City design review as part of the development review process, which is one means through which the City reviews project implementation of applicable general design guidelines related to site design, frontage design, building design, landscaping, open space, and more which applies to development within the SAPP area as established by the City of Mountain View Zoning Code Section 36.22.35. Mountain View Zoning Code Section 36.22.35 establishes the City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
26 purpose of a precise plan and the relationship between a precise plan and the City’s general zoning standards with regard to uses, circulation, design criteria, and procedures for development review.
The project would employ varied features, such as projecting private residential patios/decks and architectural accents, upper floor stepbacks , varied rooflines and a varied material/color palette, which would introduce visual variety to the proposed building and break up the mass of the building with a contemporary design style characterized by warm wood siding and cementitious wall materials and anodized aluminum metal accents and glass panels utilized throughout the project’s exterior. The project would also include a public open space area with public art piece, adjacent to an existing public sidewalk with site furnishings, such as wood-paneled benches, trash and recycling receptacles for open space areas cohesive with building design (City of Mountain View 2014a, Appendix PLAN, Appendix LND). As discussed in the introduction section under project consistency with the City of Mountain View’s Zoning Code, the project would be within the City’s zoning code standards with approval of the requested concessions and waivers/reductions in development standards permitted under State Density Bonus law, including increased height request. The resultant project height is allowable pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and would therefore not be considered in conflict with applicable zoning, and the project height would also not exceed the height of other permissible development in the SAPP area. The project would also be consistent with the Precise Plan’s Circulation Plan, as it would involve offsite improvements and additional street trees, which would ensure there would be no conflicts with existing City regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the project’s impacts on the scenic character and quality would be within the scope of the previously-certified environmental document, the project’s impacts on scenic character and quality would remain less than significant. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
As discussed in Section 4.1.1.5 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, development associated with the implementation of the SAPP would result in an intensification of development. This could lead to an increased degree of glare due to light reflecting off new building facades during the day and lighting fixtures, and safety lighting would increase nighttime lighting levels. The 2030 General Plan includes Policy LUD 9.6, which would ensure light and glare from the project site would be minimized (City of Mountain View 2012). The SAPP and City Municipal Code also include standards that limit nighttime lighting impacts to adjacent neighbors. The SAPP EIR concluded that with implementation of Policy LUD 9.6 and SAPP standards and guidelines impacts would be less than significant.
The project’s larger scale would increase the number of reflective surfaces on the project site and contribute to glare compared to existing conditions, but this would be softened and partially screened from public view by the proposed perimeter trees, muted color scheme and relatively limited use of highly-reflective materials. The project would also involve the installation of many exterior light fixtures, with lighting concentrated in the central courtyard, along public street frontages, adjacent to onsite pathways (along the southern and western borders of the project site) and on the roof deck. According to the schematic Site Lighting Plan, the project lighting would have a maximum illuminance level of 49.64 foot-candles next to the bicycle racks located by the main pedestrian entry to the central courtyard (along the California Street frontage), and an average illuminance level of 1.93 foot-candles4 throughout the entire lighting plan of the project’s ground floor (Appendix PLAN). However, this illuminance level would be reduced due to the existing and 4 A foot-candle is a measurement of light intensity. It is defined as the illuminance on a 1 square foot surface from a uniform source of light (Energy Trust of Oregon 2013).
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Aesthetics
Environmental Checklist 27
proposed trees and landscaping that would border the project site to the south and southwest, and would blend with public street lighting along public street frontages. Additionally, the design of proposed lighting fixtures would predominantly point illumination downward and/or incorporate screening that helps control outward illuminance, and project fencing would help avoid offsite glare.
The lighting would be in accordance with Mountain View Municipal Code Article XI, Section 8.242, which requires illumination of passageways and parking lots at a minimum of 1 foot-candle at ground level. COAs PL-115 and PL-116 detailed below would further minimize light and glare impacts (City of Mountain View 2012a).
COA PL-115: Lighting Plan. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan in building permit drawings.
This plan should include photometric contours, manufacturer’s specifications on the fixtures, and mounting heights. The design and location of outdoor lighting fixtures shall ensure there will be no glare and light spillover to surrounding properties, which is demonstrated with photometric contours extending beyond the project property lines. The lighting plan submitted with building permit drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance.
COA PL-116: Rooftop Deck Lighting. Proposed lighting fixtures on the rooftop decks and courtyards shall not be visible from ground level on adjacent public streets. Any string lighting shall be designed to include shades to avoid light spillover and be screened so they are not visible from offsite.
Limited pedestrian-scale/building-mounted lighting along pathways may be permitted subject to review and approval of photometric lighting plan submitted as part of the building permit drawings.
In addition, as stated in the SAPP, final lighting will be coordinated with adjacent land uses to ensure compatibility and should be located to limit impacts to adjacent residents (City of Mountain View 2014a) pursuant to the above noted COAs. The project’s impacts on light and glare would be within the scope of the previously-certified environmental document, and the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare with the implementation of relevant General Plan policies and actions, City regulations and project conditions of approval. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics. The aesthetic impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
28 Figure 6 Surrounding Views from Project Site
Photograph 1. View from project site looking southeast Photograph 2. View from project site looking south Photograph 3. View from project site looking north Photograph 4. View from northern corner of project site looking south Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Aesthetics
Environmental Checklist 29
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
30 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps
prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.2.2.1 No No No impact
would occur
Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.2.2.1 No No No impact
would occur
Conflict with existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code Section 4526); or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code Section
51104(g))?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.2.2.1 No No No impact
would occur
Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.2.2.1 No No No impact
would occur
Involve other changes in the
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.2.2.1 No No No impact
would occur
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to agriculture and forest resources, described in Section 4.2, Agriculture and Forest Resources of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Environmental Checklist 31
Impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were analyzed on page 17 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. It was determined that no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would occur from implementation of the SAPP.
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed under Section 4.2.2.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area is fully urbanized and is not zoned or used for agriculture or forestry purposes. Impacts would be less than significant. The project site is located in the SAPP area and is not on or adjacent to land zoned or used for agriculture or forestry purposes (California Department of Conservation [DOC] 2016).
According to the DOC’s Important Farmland Finder, the project site and surrounding land are identified as urban and built-up land (DOC 2016). There is no forest land on or near the site. Project implementation would not impact agriculture or forestry resources or result in the loss of designated agricultural land. Therefore, the project’s impacts agricultural or forestry resources would be within the scope of the previously-certified environmental document, and there would remain no impact.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor new circumstances under which the project will be undertake, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) has been found that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. The agriculture and forestry impacts would be within the scope and conclusions of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/ subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
32 Air Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.B.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality
standard?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.B.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.B.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.B.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to air quality, described in Section 4.3, Air Quality of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Clean Air Plan was updated in 2017. This update is discussed below.
Impacts to air quality from implementation of the SAPP were analyzed on pages 128 through 137 of the SAPP EIR. Impacts to air quality were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation.
The project’s construction and operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0. CalEEMod uses project-specific information including the project’s proposed land use, square footage, and location to model a project’s construction and operational emissions. Calculations are included in Appendix AQ. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As addressed in the SAPP EIR, the SAPP includes guiding principles encouraging high-density development near transit services, improved connectivity via all travel modes to adjacent neighborhoods and Downtown, the use of transit, improved pedestrian and bicycle connections, crossings, and facilities, and enabling visitors to park once and walk to multiple destinations. The Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Air Quality
Environmental Checklist 33
SAPP also created development standards and guidelines that encourage energy conservation and sustainability features. The guiding principles and development standards would ensure that implementation of the SAPP would be consistent with the current BAAQMD Clean Air Plan at the time of the SAPP EIR. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would involve development of a mixed-use residential building in the SAPP area that is consistent with the mixed-use environment. The project site is located less than 0.5 mile from the San Antonio Caltrain station, and VTA bus service (rapid and local bus lines) on San Antonio Road, California street and El Camino Real. The site’s proximity to transit and commercial services would be consistent with the guiding principles of the SAPP. The SAPP EIR evaluated the projected change in vehicle trips with the implementation of the SAPP. The SAPP EIR concluded that vehicle trips would not be substantially increased at a greater rate than the projected population increase. The BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan included transportation control and energy measures intended to reduce long-term air quality emissions, and the SAPP was found to be consistent with this applicable air quality plan. Since certification of the SAPP EIR, the BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan in April 2017 (BAAQMD 2017b). The 2017 Clean Air Plan serves to decrease emissions of air pollutants most harmful to Bay Area residents, such as particulate matter, ozone (O3), and toxic air contaminants (TAC). The project would be consistent with the transportation and energy control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan, such as those that aim for transit use, support of Plan Bay Area land use planning, and reduction in energy demand, considering the project site’s proximity to transit and commercial services; the proposed mixed-use and high density land use; and adherence to CalGreen as adopted in Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article I, Division III.
Furthermore, the mixed-use nature, design, and location of the project would promote multimodal transportation and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with land use patterns and VMT reduction goals in the 2010 Clean Air Plan and 2017 Clean Air Plan. The project would be consistent with goals and growth and population forecasts, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, used in the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan. As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant. b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin was in non-attainment for federal and state 8-hour O3 standards, non-attainment for the state 1-hour O3 standard, and nonattainment for state and federal particulate matter with a diameter of up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5) standards. At the Precise Plan level, consistency with the Clean Air Plan would indicate the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in a rate of growth of vehicle trips that would be larger than the projected population growth and would therefore not contribute to a cumulatively considerable net increase in O3 precursor emissions. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of COA PL-192, reproduced below.
Moreover, the project would be developed in the SAPP area and would be consistent with the SAPP land use designation and zoning; and the project’s construction and operation-related activities would not exceed BAAQMD recommended thresholds of significance as shown in Table 5 and Table 6.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
34 COA PL-192: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures: (a) all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day; (b) all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered; (c) all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; (d) all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph; (e) all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; (f) idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; (g) all construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and (h) post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Table 5 Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
Pollutant Maximum Daily Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact? ROG 25 54 No
NOx 52 54 No
PM10 2 821 No
PM2.5 2 541 No
1 Applies to construction exhaust emissions only
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod worksheets.
Table 6 Operational Emissions (pounds/day)
Pollutant Average Daily Emissions Significance Threshold Significant Impact? ROG 2.8 54 No
NOx 0.9 54 No
PM10 1.7 82 No
PM2.5 0.5 54 No
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOx = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod worksheets.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Air Quality
Environmental Checklist 35
Implementation of City of Mountain View standard COA PL-192 would require restrictions on construction equipment idling time, proper maintenance of construction equipment, and use of low/zero emission construction equipment minimizing emissions (BAAQMD 2017a).
Through compliance with COA PL-192, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment, consistent with findings in the SAPP EIR. Therefore, the project’s impacts on attainment of air quality standards would be within the scope of the previously-certified environmental document, and the project would not create a new or more severe impact on air quality, and impacts would remain less than significant.
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed in the SAPP EIR, sensitive receptors may experience exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction and operation of projects developed in the SAPP area. Because construction-related health risks are dependent on the type of construction equipment used and the duration of the construction period, and because specific construction information would not be feasible for the SAPP given the programmatic nature of the analysis, an estimate of construction health risks could not be determined. However, the EIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (reproduced below), construction impacts would be less than significant.
As analyzed in the SAPP EIR, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 reproduced below, for projects that would facilitate residential development or use by sensitive receptors to be located within 500 feet of El Camino Real, Central Expressway, and/or any of the stationary sources identified in the SAPP EIR, impacts related to sensitive receptors would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-1
All new development projects, associated with implementation of the SAPP, which include buildings within 1,000 feet of a residential dwelling unit shall conduct a construction health risk assessment (HRA) to assess emissions from all construction equipment during each phase of construction prior to issuance of building permits. Equipment usage shall be modified as necessary to ensure that equipment use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3).
MITIGATION MEASURE AIR-2
For residential or other sensitive use projects proposed within 500 feet of El Camino Real and Central Expressway, and/or any of the stationary sources identified in Table IV.B-6 of the EIR, the City of Mountain View shall require an evaluation of potential health risk exposure. The applicant for a sensitive use project in the Precise Plan area shall prepare a report using the latest BAAQMD permit data and roadway risk estimates to determine impacts to future residents. The report shall outline any measures that would be incorporated into the project necessary to reduce carcinogenic health risk of to less than 10 in 1 million, reduce the non-cancer risk of to less than 1 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), and ensure the annual average ambient PM2.5 increase is less than 0.3 µg/m3. Measures to reduce impacts could include upgrading air filtration systems of fresh air supply, tiered plantings of trees, and site design to increase distance from source to the receptor.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
36 Carbon Monoxide
The impacts from localized carbon monoxide concentrations were not assessed in the SAPP EIR.
Based on BAAQMD’s recommendations, projects meeting all the following screening criteria would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact on localized carbon monoxide concentrations:
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway) (BAAQMD 2017a).
According to the transportation analysis prepared for the project (Appendix TRA), the project would decrease local traffic volumes currently generated by the existing use on the project site by 47 percent from 688 daily trips to 365 daily trips at affected intersections as compared to existing conditions, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation.
The traffic volumes on roadways in the project vicinity are less than 44,000 vehicles per day (City of Mountain View 2012b); since the project would reduce localized traffic associated with the project site’s uses, it would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. This project would be consistent with the applicable congestion management program established by the City of Mountain View and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and vertical and/or horizontal mixing would not be substantially limited at the affected intersections, since traffic volumes at affected intersections would not increase by more than 24,000 vehicles per hour. Implementation of COA PL-192 detailed under criterion b would require restrictions on construction equipment idling time, proper maintenance of construction equipment, dust control, and use of low/zero emission construction equipment. The project would meet the screening criteria for localized carbon monoxide concentrations at key intersections near the project site and impacts would be less than significant for carbon monoxide. As a result, this impact would be less than significant, as the project would not cause any new or more severe impact than analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document.
Toxic Air Contaminants
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, sensitive receptors may experience exposure to substantial TAC concentrations during both construction and operation of projects developed in the SAPP area.
According to BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would exceed any of the following:
Non-compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in 1 million, or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution.
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average PM2.5 would be a cumulatively considerable contribution.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Air Quality
Environmental Checklist 37
Because of the lack of specific construction information due to the programmatic nature of the SAPP, an estimate of project construction health risks could not be determined. Considering that the project would be within 1,000 feet of existing residential uses, implementation of SAPP EIR Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would be required. Preparation of a construction HRA and implementation of recommendations in the HRA would ensure that construction impacts would not adversely affect sensitive receptors in the SAPP. Project compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would ensure that operation of construction equipment would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3.
As identified in Table IV.B-6 in the SAPP EIR, the project would be built on the site identified as the San Antonio Gas and Service Stationary Source at 334 San Antonio Road. No other stationary source of TACs identified in the SAPP EIR are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. As the project would result in the removal of the gas station, future residents of the project site would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations from a nearby stationary source.
As the project would not result in traffic concentrations exceeding BAAQMD thresholds or be sited near a stationary source of TACs during construction through implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant with mitigation.
Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, diesel-powered vehicles and equipment operated during construction associated with the implementation of the SAPP would create temporary, localized odors limited to the area of construction. The new land uses proposed by the SAPP would not be expected to create objectionable odors. Impacts would be less than significant.
Due to the temporary, site-specific nature of construction, the project’s construction-related odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable odors. In addition, the EIR stated that projects developed under the SAPP would be required to comply with BAAQMD rules establishing volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for construction materials. Architectural coatings used for the project would be consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings which would limit VOCs which are the main sources of odors from architectural coatings (BAAQMD 2009). Compliance with BAAQMD rules would reduce odor-related impacts from architectural coatings. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines identify a number of land uses which could result in a significant odor impact such as a wastewater treatment plant or sanitary landfill (BAAQMD 2017a). As the project’s land use has not been identified as a potential odor source, project operation would not result in operational odor emissions which would adversely affect a substantial number of people. In addition to BAAQMD requirements, the City implements the standard COA, reproduced below, to address objectionable indoor odors.
PL-197: Indoor Formaldehyde Reductions. If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved, no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
38 As analyzed in the previous environmental document and implementation of standard COAs, odor impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new circumstances have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the SAPP EIR remain valid and the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality compared to the SAPP EIR.
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality. The air quality impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Air Quality
Environmental Checklist 39
This page intentionally left blank.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
40 Biological Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP
EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.1 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.2 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.3 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.4 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.5 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.4.6.6 No No No impact would
occur
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to biological resources, described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to biological resources were analyzed on pages 23 to 27 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to biological resources from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Biological Resources
Environmental Checklist 41
On October 14, 2020, Kielty Arborist Services LLC conducted a tree survey on the project site to determine if any of the trees would be considered a heritage tree according to the City of Mountain View’s Heritage Tree criteria. This report was revised on September 9, 2021. The report found that three street trees would be removed, none of which were found to be eligible for listing as a Heritage tree. Trees located on private property immediately adjacent to the project site, including two heritage trees, would not be impacted by construction due to a 3-foot tall retaining wall between their trunks and the construction site, whereby the wall acts like a barrier for the tree’s root zones. The full arborist report can be found attached to this report as Appendix ARB. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As discussed under Section 4.4.6.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area has been developed with increasingly intensive urban uses since the 1840s. Due to the developed nature of the Precise Plan area, it is unlikely that the special-status plants and animals that have the potential to occur in the Plan Area. Additionally, the City applies the following COAs related to water quality and nesting birds, which would reduce biological impacts in the Plan area:
COA FEP-04: Construction Best Management Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system.
COA FEP-05: Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
COA FEP-22: Stormwater Treatment (C.3). This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low-Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement. The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.
COA PL-198: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
42 general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than 2 days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows. The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500 feet for active nests—with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds—if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the project applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.
With implementation of these applicable COAs, impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located in the SAPP area. According to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation tool, the following species could be potentially located on the project site: salt marsh harvest mouse, California clapper rail, California least tern, western snowy plover, green sea turtle, California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, delta smelt, monarch butterfly, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (USFWS 2021a). However, the site is fully developed and paved; due to the previously disturbed and infill nature of the project site within the greater built-out SAPP area, the identified endangered species unlikely would be found on the project site. In addition, no critical habitat exists on the project site (USFWS 2021a). With implementation of COAs FEP-04, -05, and -22, stormwater pollution and runoff impacts that could lead to sedimentation and erosion that could negatively affect offsite habitats such as the Adobe Creek located 0.4 mile northwest of the project site would be reduced. Implementation of COA PL198 would require that tree removal either avoid nesting bird season or a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be required to identify and avoid disturbing any nests during construction activities, which would additionally reduce impacts to special-status birds. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts to special-status species would be less than significant with implementation of COAs.
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
As discussed under Sections 4.4.6.2 and 4.4.6.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, implementation of the SAPP would not result in changes to the creeks or associated riparian areas in the Precise Plan area. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located approximately 0.4 mile from the nearest riverine habitat, Adobe Creek (USFWS 2021b). The project site is surrounded by built-up urban areas and does not contain any critical habitats or wetlands on or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2021a). As such, the project would not involve development in or adjacent to sensitive habitat or protected wetlands.
Implementation of the City’s stormwater COAs, such as COAs FEP-04, -05, and -22, would protect Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Biological Resources
Environmental Checklist 43
the water quality and downstream wetlands. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts to sensitive natural communities and wetlands would be less than significant with implementation of COAs.
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? As discussed under Section 4.4.6.4 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, there are no natural wildlife corridors in the SAPP area. Development associated with implementation of the SAPP would not involve changes to creeks, riparian habitat, or other sensitive habitat which could be used as a migratory wildlife corridor or native wildlife nursery. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would not impact wildlife corridors or nursery sites due to the project’s lack of critical habitat onsite and the built-up nature of the site and adjacent developed land uses (USFWS 2021a).
Implementation of COA PL-198, Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey, which would reduce impacts to nesting birds would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts to wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites would be less than significant with implementation of COA PL-198.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As discussed under Section 4.4.6.5 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP would not conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance through compliance with General Plan Policy POS 12.1 protecting heritage trees as an ecological and biological resource by requiring an arborist report to evaluate existing tree health and preservation feasibility, and analysis of any proposed Heritage tree removals and other trees potentially impacted by project construction, as part of the development review process. The City also requires tree replacement, other mitigation and preservation plans through implementation of standard COAs referenced therein.
The City of Mountain View heritage tree preservation ordinance is found in the Mountain View City Code Section 32.25. As defined in Mountain View City Code Section 32.23, a heritage is any one of the following:
A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade
A multibranched tree which has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork Any quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade
A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit
All the project trees are non-native street trees. As stated in the Project Description section, Trees 2, 3, and 4 would be removed as part of the project. The trees on the project site do not qualify for protection under the Heritage Tree Protection Ordinance; thus, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree ordinances (Appendix ARB). An arborist report was prepared, the findings of which indicate that remaining offsite trees would not be impacted by the project, regardless of their heritage tree status. Additionally, the City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
44 project would install nine, new street trees consistent with the City’s approved Street Tree List, which satisfies City street tree replacement requirements and standard conditions for gaps in the street trees to be filled. The project would also plant new onsite trees, resulting in increased tree canopy on the project site as compared to existing conditions. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be less than significant with implementation of standard COAs reproduced below.
PL-132: Street Tree Form. The applicant shall complete the “Proposed Street Tree” form available in the Planning Division or online at www.mountainview.gov/planningforms. Once completed, the applicant shall email the original to the Parks Division at [email protected] and provide a duplicate copy to the Building Inspection Division with building permit submittal.
PL-139: Replacement Trees. The applicant shall offset the loss of each street tree with one replacement tree, for a total of three replacement trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24” box and shall be noted on the landscape plan as street replacement trees.
PW-72: Street Trees. Install standard City street trees along the street frontage, including where there are gaps in the space of existing street trees.
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
As discussed under Section 4.4.6.6 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP is located outside of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (SCV Habitat Plan); only one aspect of the SCV Habitat Plan would apply to the SAPP area. The one aspect would be indirect impacts to sensitive serpentine habitats in the SCV Habitat Plan area connected to nitrogen deposition due to an increase in passenger and commercial vehicle trips and other new industrial and nonindustrial sources as an indirect impact of SAPP implementation. New development and redevelopment projects occurring within the SAPP would represent an extremely small portion of these emissions such that the implementation of the SAPP would not have significant and adverse cumulative impacts. A mitigation program for indirect impacts on Bay Checkerspot butterfly habitat which depend on the sensitive serpentine habitat in the SCV Habitat Plan area is being implemented; however, there is no requirement for individual programs outside of the SCV Habitat Plan to pay impact fees to this mitigation program. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located in the SAPP area which is outside of the SCV Habitat Plan area. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan would be less than significant.
Conclusion
No new circumstances have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the SAPP EIR remain valid, and the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources compared to the SAPP EIR.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Cultural Resources
Environmental Checklist 45
Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.5.2.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.5.2.3 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.5.2.5 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to cultural resources, described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to cultural resources were analyzed on pages 31 to 34 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to cultural resources from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a project-specific Historical Resources Assessment in January 2022. The Historical Resources Assessment included background and archival research, a pedestrian survey of the project site, and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). The Historical Resources Assessment can be found attached as Appendix CUL.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
As discussed in Section 4.5.2.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area has not had buildings that have met the criteria under the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, no other historical resources were identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the SAPP area. However, some buildings in the SAPP area may have historical value and may not be formally registered in the Mountain View Register, California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Compliance with General Plan Actions LUD 11.1.1, LUD 11.1.3, and LUD
11.3.1 which require the maintenance of and update to the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources and the identification and evaluation of historic and cultural resources early in the development review process, would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
46 The CHRIS records search and background search conducted as part of historical resources assessment identified 37 cultural resources studies within 0.5 mile of the project site. None of the studies included a portion of the project site nor are directly adjacent to the project site. Seven cultural resources were identified within 0.5 mile of the project site. One of the seven resources, a NRHP-listed historical district in the City of Palo Alto, was identified as a historical resource within
0.5 mile of the project site. No previously recorded resources are situated within or adjacent to the project site.
The field survey conducted as part of the historical resources assessment identified one building on the project site that meets the age criteria for potential historic significance, which is the existing gas station that was constructed in 1963.5 The resource was evaluated as ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or City of Mountain View Local Register under any criteria due to its lack of significant contribution to or association with the history of the city, region, state, or nation; lack of significant association with notable historical figures significant in local, state, or national history; lack of characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and unlikelihood of the resource to yield information important to history or prehistory. Because of the resource’s ineligibility for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or City of Mountain View Local Register, it does not qualify as a historical resource. Its demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact (Appendix CUL). As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
As discussed in Section 4.5.2.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, given the history of development along the El Camino Real corridor, there is a potential for significant historic-period archaeological deposits. General Plan Policy LUD 11.5 and Actions LUD 11.3.1, LUD 11.5.1, LUD 11.5.2, and LUD
11.5.3 requiring new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits and conduct preconstruction surveys and database searches to determine the potential for significant cultural resources to exist onsite.
Implementation of COA PL-194 detailed below would further reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
COA PL-194: Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100’ of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. 5 Historic-era resource is defined as a resource 45 years or more in age.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Cultural Resources
Environmental Checklist 47
As described in Section 4.5.2.5 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the City of Mountain View includes several recorded prehistoric archaeological deposits, including those that contain Native American human remains. New development and redevelopment projects would occur under the SAPP which could have the potential to destroy prehistoric archaeological deposits that could also contain human remains. With implementation of General Plan Policy LUD 11.6 and Action LUD
11.6.1 which establishes procedures to protect human remains and COA PL-195 reproduced below, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
COA PL-195: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50’ radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their authority, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.
Due to the project site’s status as highly disturbed from previous grading and construction activities, the project site has low sensitivity for containing archaeological resources or human remains (Appendix CUL). However, project construction activities such as ground-disturbing activities, including grading and site preparation would have the potential to encounter previously as-yet unidentified subsurface deposits. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains would be encountered during project ground-disturbing activities, implementation of COA PL-194 and PL-195 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources and human remains. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts to archaeological resources and human remains would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information occurred (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) that would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources. The cultural resources impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
48 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Energy
Environmental Checklist 49
Energy
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
SAPP EIR
Sections
IV.E.2.b and
VI.C.3
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Conflict with or obstruct a state
or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.B.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
At the time of the SAPP EIR’s adoption, Energy was discussed under the Utilities and Service Systems and Other CEQA sections and was focused on energy consumption during project operation. Energy was subsequently added as a standalone topic to the CEQA Guidelines checklist in 2018.
The SAPP EIR discussed energy impacts on pages 183 through 185 and on page 202 and found impacts to be less than significant with implementation of City policies and COAs. a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum-based fuels used to power off-road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. The proposed project would require demolition, site preparation and grading, pavement and asphalt installation, building construction, architectural coating, and landscaping and hardscaping. Energy use during construction would be temporary, and construction equipment used would be typical of similarsized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than 5 minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
Dense residential and mixed-use development in the SAPP area in proximity to transit and commercial services would de-emphasize private automobile use and encourage transit ridership, City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
50 resulting in the conservation of fossil fuels. The project would be consistent with the development analyzed under the SAPP EIR as it would involve the development of a high-density mixed-use residential building within 0.5 mile of the San Antonio Caltrain transit station. In addition, the project would be built with a reduced number of parking spaces compared to the parking space amount specified in the SAPP. Proximity to transit and a reduction in parking spaces would likely result in a reduced use of private automobiles which would result in the conservation of fossil fuels during project operation. Furthermore, current California Building Code standards and Title 24 requirements would be utilized which would require energy efficiency measures that would further avoid inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.
Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant with implementation of statewide regulations. b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Mountain View adopted the most recent version of CALGreen in City Code Section 8.20.1 with local amendments (Reach Codes) to exceed the State’s minimum requirements, including “allelectric” requirements for new construction which is intended to not increase the City’s GhG emissions through increased natural gas. The project would be required to comply with the state standards outlined in the Energy Code and the local standards outlined in City’s Green Building Code and Reach Codes, as well as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) which includes measures related to residential energy efficiency and renewable energy. The project would be “allelectric”, and includes residential EnergyStar appliances as detailed in the applicant-provided building plans and 6,632 square feet of rooftop area for photovoltaic panel installation (Appendix PLAN) which would be consistent with City standards. Therefore, as analyzed in the previouslycertified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information occurred (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or more severe significant energy impacts. The energy impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Geology and Soils
Environmental Checklist 51
Geology and Soils
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.7.2
No No Impact remains less
than significant
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.7.2
No No Impact remains less
than significant
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.7.2
No No Impact remains less
than significant
4. Landslides? Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.7.2
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.7.3
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.6.5
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.6.7.4.5 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section
4.6.7.4.6 No No Impact remains less
than significant
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.5.2.4
No No No impact would
occur
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
52 Impacts related to geology and soils were analyzed on pages 38 to 41 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR and were determined to be less than significant. When the SAPP EIR was adopted, impacts related to paleontological resources were analyzed under the Initial Study’s Cultural Resources section on page 33 to 34. Impacts to paleontological impacts were determined to be less than significant.
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group on February 9, 2022, and is included as Appendix GEO.
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
As discussed in Section 4.6.7.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area is susceptible to very strong to violent ground shaking due to major regional faults located outside the city of Mountain View. No known active faults are present in the SAPP area. As discussed in Section 4.6.5.2 of the SAPP EIR Appendix A, the SAPP area is located in a moderate liquefaction susceptibility area and has low potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. As discussed in Section 4.6.5.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP is identified as a stable area with less than 5 percent slope and not underlain by landslide deposits. Impacts would be less than significant through compliance with General Plan policies and actions including Policy PSA 4.2 which focuses on minimizing natural disaster impacts, Action PSA 4.2 which enforces building and fire codes and standards, Policy PSA
5.1 which ensures new development adequately addresses seismically induced geologic hazards, and Action PSA 5.1.3 which requires hazard studies for development projects in potentially seismic areas to ensure code-compliant geotechnical investigations are prepared. Implementation of COAs PL-48 and SD-03 reproduced below would further ensure that impacts would be less than significant.
COA PL-48: Geotechnical Report. The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project.
Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.
COA SD-03: Soils Report. Soils and geotechnical reports prepared for the subdivision shall be indicated on the final map. Submit a copy of the report with the first submittal of the final map.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Geology and Soils
Environmental Checklist 53
As required by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, a project site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a registered soils/geologist identifying any seismic hazards and recommending mitigation measures to be taken by the project. The applicant, through its registered soils engineer/geologist, shall certify the project complies with the requirements of the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Indicate the location (page number) within the geotechnical report of where this certification is located, or provide a separate letter stating such.
The closest fault to the project site is the Stanford Fault, located approximately 0.4 mile to the south (DOC 2015). As the project site is located in the SAPP area, as stated above, no known active faults are present in proximity to the project site. In addition, the project site is outside known liquefaction and landslide zones (DOC 2021a). Compliance with COAs PL-48 and SD-03 would reduce the impacts of seismic ground shaking or failure. COAs PL-48 and SD-03 require a project-specific, design-level geotechnical report and soils report, which was prepared in February 2022 and is included as Appendix GEO. The geotechnical report is discussed further below. These COAs would ensure that project-specific seismic vulnerabilities would be reduced to the extent feasible.
The geotechnical investigation prepared for this project includes recommendations regarding proximity of basement excavation to existing improvements, shallow groundwater, presence of undocumented fill, expansive soil, and cohesionless soil, and differential movement at on-grade to on-structure transitions. These conditions are not unique in the plan area and were therefore anticipated in the EIR. The recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical investigation and any subsequent design-level geotechnical investigation would be required to be implemented pursuant to Condition of Approval PL-48. Implementation of the recommendations would reduce potential impacts of seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, or landslides would be less than significant with implementation of City COAs.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in Section 4.6.7.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, compliance with the City of Mountain View City Code Section 35.32.10, which requires that development projects are constructed in a manner that prevents stormwater pollution, as well as implementation of COAs, reproduced below, would reduce impacts due to substantial erosion or loss of topsoil to less-thansignificant levels.
COA FEP-04: Construction Best Management Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system.
COA FEP-05: Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
54 The project would involve construction activities such as site preparation, grading, and utility trenching which could potentially result in erosion through exposure to heavy winds or excessive rain after soils are loosened. This erosion could result in degradation of stormwater quality and water pollution. The City’s stormwater COAs (COA FEP-04 and COA FEP-05) require sedimentation and erosion prevention plans to be carried out through the duration of construction and would identify project-specific procedures for soil stabilization to reduce erosion from a storm event. In addition, City of Mountain View City Code Section 35.32.1 and Section 35.32.3 require all development projects to be conducted in a manner that prevents stormwater pollution, such as by allowing right of entry for inspection after a violation and making it unlawful to discharge polluted waters or waste into the municipal storm sewer, drain, or natural outlet. Although the project would engage in construction activities with potential erosion risk, erosion would be reduced through implementation of COAs FEP-04 and FEP-05 As analyzed in the previous environmental document, erosion impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of COAs and City regulations.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As discussed under Section 4.6.5.5 in the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, there are no significant agricultural or industrial activities that result in the substantial pumping withdrawal of water from the underlying aquifer that would contribute to subsidence in the SAPP area. Portions of the SAPP area that contain loose or uncontrolled fill may be susceptible to differential settlement may be located randomly throughout the SAPP area. Impacts due to subsidence would be less than significant with implementation of COAs PL-48 and SD-03.
According to the geotechnical report, the potential for liquefaction on the project site is negligible.
There are no open faces close enough to the project site to be considered susceptible to lateral spreading. The potential for significant differential seismic settlement is low. Still, the geotechnical report includes recommendations regarding basement excavation, shallow groundwater, presence of undocumented fill, expansive soil, and cohesionless soil, and differential movement.
Implementation of COAs PL-48 and SD-03 involves identifying geologic and seismic risks and implementing recommended mitigation from the reports as part of the project design, such as those included in Appendix GEO. Implementation of these COAs and any mitigation recommended in Appendix GEO would reduce impacts to less than significant. As mentioned under criteria (a.i.) through (a.iv.), recommendations made in the geotechnical investigation regarding soils would be implemented pursuant to COA PL-48. Recommendations would reduce impacts to unstable soils that may result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to development on top of potentially unstable soils would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of COAs.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Geology and Soils
Environmental Checklist 55
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As discussed in Section 4.6.5.4 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the near-surface soils in the vicinity of the SAPP area have moderate to high-expansion potential. Impacts due to expansive soils would be less than significant with implementation of COAs PL-48 and SD-03.
As the project site is in the SAPP area, the project site has the potential to have soil with moderate to high-expansion potential. Implementation of the COA PL-48 and SD-03 requires adhering to recommended mitigation from the geotechnical report as part of the project design which could involve recommended foundation construction practices in the event that the project would be located on expansive soils to reduce impacts associated with development of the project on expansive soil. As mentioned under criteria (a.i.) through (a.iv.), recommendations made in the geotechnical investigation regarding soils would be implemented pursuant to COA PL-48.
Recommendations would reduce impacts to expansive soils that may create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to development on top of potentially expansive soils would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of COAs.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
As discussed in Section 4.6.7.4.6 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area is serviced by a sanitary sewer system operated by the City. There would be no impact.
The project would be connected to existing sanitary sewer lines and wastewater treatment plant operated by the City of Mountain View and/or partner agencies, and would not require alternative wastewater disposal systems to serve the site. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, there would be no impact related to alternative wastewater disposal systems. f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
As discussed in Section 4.5.2.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area contains some paleontological sensitivity. Implementation of General Plan actions and policies including Policy LUD
11.5 requiring all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of paleontological deposits, Action LUD 11.5.1 requiring review of the most recent NWIC list to determine if known archaeological and paleontological sites underly the proposed project, Action LUD 11.5.2 requiring a preconstruction cultural resources field study, and Action LUD 11.5.3 requiring the adoption and maintenance of standard mitigation measures and development conditions to address the discovery and identification of archaeological and paleontological deposits would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Two vertebrate fossil localities are within 2 miles of the City’s Sphere of Influence, which indicates the potential for paleontological resources to exist on the project site. Implementation of COA PL196, reproduced below, which aims to protect paleontological resources in the event they are found during construction activities and establish procedures to follow in the event unanticipated paleontological resources would be found during ground-disturbing activities would reduce impacts related to paleontological resources.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
56 COA PL-196: Discovery of Paleontological Resources. In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, with implementation of COA PL-196, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information occurred (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils. The geology and soils impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Checklist 57
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.7.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.7.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental setting related to GHGs, described in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
BAAQMD adopted new thresholds in April 2022. The 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans guidance document contains two approaches for determining significance of GHGs (BAAQMD 2022). The two approaches are as follows:
1. Projects must include, at a minimum, the following project design elements:
Buildings
The project will not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing (in both residential and nonresidential development).
The project will not result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Transportation
Achieve a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average consistent with the current version of the California Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted Senate Bill 743 VMT target, reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research's Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA:
Residential projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita Office projects: 15 percent below the existing VMT per employee Retail projects: no net increase in existing VMT
Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
58 2. Projects must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts From Land Use Projects and Plans, a qualified GHG reduction strategy must:
Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified period, resulting from activities in a defined geographic area
Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated in the geographic area
Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level
Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan's progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels Be adopted in a public process following environmental review The SAPP EIR includes a consistency analysis with the City of Mountain View GGRP. However, although the City’s GGRP provides emission reduction measures and interim targets for the years through 2050, they do not include goals or emission reduction measures to meet the State’s SB 32 target by 2030. The GGRP details plans to achieve a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, which is not consistent with SB 32’s 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. Therefore, the GGRP is not relied on to make significance determinations, as it was for the SAPP EIR.
GHG emission impacts were analyzed on pages 43 through 45 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR.
GHG emission impacts from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
As discussed in Section 4.7.2.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the applicable GHG reduction plan for the City of Mountain View is the GGRP which was adopted by the City of Mountain View in 2012. Impacts would be less than significant through implementation of the GGRP and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures in the SAPP area. However, as discussed above, the City’s GGRP is not a qualified plan under the new BAAQMD thresholds.
To determine if a project’s GHG emissions are significant under CEQA, BAAQMD recommends completing a “fair share” analysis to determine how a new land use development project should be “designed and built to ensure it will be consistent with the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045” (BAAQMD 2022). BAAQMD has only recommended thresholds for evaluating a project’s operational emissions because “GHG emissions from construction represent a very small portion of a project’s lifetime GHG emissions” (BAAQMD 2022). In order for a project’s GHG emissions to be determined less than significant, a project must be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) or incorporate the following project design elements (BAAQMD 2022):
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Checklist 59
Not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing; Not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under PRC Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b); Achieve a reduction in project-generated VMT below the regional average consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (currently 15 percent) or meet a locally adopted SB 743 VMT target reflecting the recommendations provided in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018); and Achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2.
The proposed project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing. As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under PRC Section 21100(b)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b).
The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory provides guidance on how lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts for select project types using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the project would be expected to generate at least 15 percent below the regional average VMT per resident for the nine-County Bay Area Region, and would thus be screened out regarding VMT impacts. Following the screening guidance within the OPR Technical Advisory is appropriate and consistent with BAAQMD’s VMT threshold of significance. Therefore, the project would meet BAAQMD’s VMT reduction threshold.
The most recently adopted version of the California Green Building Code Standards specifies Tier 2 electric vehicle requirements to be twenty percent of the total number of parking spaces on a building site. 15 percent of total parking spaces would include EV2 chargers installed, one space would include a Level 3/DC Fast Charger, and all remaining spaces would be EV Ready. Therefore, the project would achieve compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of California Green Building Standards Code Tier 2. Implementation of corollary COAs, reproduced below, would assure compliance with GHG reduction measures that are part of the project design.
COA PL-123: Green Building – Mixed-Use. The project is required to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of 120 GreenPoint Rated points, for the residential portion of the project and meet the intent of LEED CertifiedTM for the nonresidential portion of the project. All mandatory prerequisite points and minimum point totals per category to attain GreenPoint Rated status or LEED CertifiedTM status must be achieved, unless specific point substitutions or exceptions are approved by the Community Development Department. Formal project registration and certification through Build It Green or U.S. Green Building Council is not required for compliance with the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC). The project is also required to comply with Title 24, Part 6.
COA PL-125 Green Building – Tenant Improvements. All nonresidential tenant improvements, including building additions of 1,000 square feet or greater, and/or building alterations with a permit valuation of $200,000 or above, must meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and Title 24, Part 6.
COA PL-158 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The property owner, property manager(s), and homeowners association (HOA) or their representative(s) (collectively, City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
60 “the owners”) are required to maintain a TDM program which provides commute and transportation alternatives to employees/residents of the project for the life of the project. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owners prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. The mandatory TDM measures for the project include:
a. Join and maintain ongoing membership in the MVTMA for the life of the project. b. Provide transit pass subsidies for residents, at minimum including one or both of:
(1) transit subsidies to each new resident for 1 year, for the first 10 years of the project; (2) projects with 25 or more units must participate in VTA’s EcoPass or equivalent program for the first three years of the project.
Of additional note, as discussed further in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would result in population growth onsite beyond that anticipated or accounted for in the SAPP EIR.
However, the project would result in a high-density mixed-use residential building with limited vehicle parking within 0.5 mile of high-quality transit, which would reduce VMT as compared to conditions analyzed in the SAPP EIR and therefore GHG emissions related to transportation and overall project operation. Additionally, the project would replace an existing, operating gas station and auto repair shop, and is anticipated to generate substantially fewer daily trips than the current site use.
The following quantitative greenhouse gas emissions analysis is provided for informational purposes. As shown in the Table 7 and Table 8 below, project operation would generate approximately 320 MT of CO2e per year.
Table 7 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Project Emissions (MT of CO2e yearly)
2024 639
2025 1,025
2026 82
Total 1,745
Total Amortized over 30 Years 58
MT of CO2e= metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod worksheets.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Checklist 61
Table 8 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Construction 58
Operational
Area <1
Energy <11
Mobile 247
Solid Waste 12
Water 3
Total 320
1 To accurately model an all-electric building, the total estimated natural gas usage in CalEEMod was converted into equivalent electricity usage.
MT of CO2e= metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod worksheets.
Overall, the project would have a less than significant impact when analyzed against the 2022 BAAQMD thresholds due to the project’s energy use, VMT reductions, and EV infrastructure.
Additionally, as analyzed in the previous environmental document, the project would be required to comply with project COAs. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, the project would not generate GHG emissions that would have a significant impact on the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
Several plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the Bay Area region, including the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan and ABAG’s 2050 RTP/SCS. The project’s consistency with these plans is discussed in the following subsections. As discussed therein, the project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
2017 Scoping Plan
The principal state plans and policies are AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and the subsequent legislation, SB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and the goal of SB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Pursuant to the SB 32 goal, the 2017 Scoping Plan was created to outline goals and measures for the state to achieve the reductions. The 2017 Scoping Plan’s strategies that are applicable to the project include reducing fossil fuel use, energy demand, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT); maximizing recycling and diversion from landfills; and increasing water conservation. The project would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. The project would be served by PG&E, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. The project site is less than 0.5 miles from the Mountain View Caltrain station. VTA bus routes 21, 22, 40, and 522 run in the vicinity of the project site, along San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, California Street, and Showers Drive. Mountain View City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
62 Community Shuttle routes C and D provide service along San Antonio Road and El Camino Real.
Thus, the project would be located in an area well-served by transit and within walking and biking distance of commercial and recreational destinations, which would reduce future residents’ VMT and associated fossil fuel usage. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.
Plan Bay Area 2050
SB 375, signed in August 2008, requires the inclusion of Sustainable Communities’ Strategies in Regional Transportation Plans to reduce GHG emissions. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted a Sustainable Communities’ Strategies that meets the GHG reduction targets set forth by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan that supports a growing economy, provides more housing and transportation choices, and reduces transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (ABAG 2020). Plan Bay Area 2050 builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 will be updated every four years to reflect new priorities. The goals of Plan Bay Area 2050 related to GHG emissions include (ABAG 2020):
Climate Protection. Reduce per capita CO2 emissions.
Healthy and Safe Communities. Reduce adverse health impacts.
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation. Direct development within urban footprint.
Transportation. Increase non-auto mode share.
The project would involve redevelopment of an existing commercial site within urbanized Mountain View with a new mixed-use building. The project site is located within 0.3 miles of a major transit stop and would include bicycle storage. These features would facilitate the use of non-auto transportation modes, while reducing adverse health impacts and CO2 emissions associated with gasoline-powered vehicles.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, the project would be consistent with applicable plans, and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
While new BAAQMD thresholds were adopted since adoption of the SAPP EIR, based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The greenhouse gas emission impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 63
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.1
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.2
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.3
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Be located on a site that is included on
a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.4
and 4.8.7.5
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.6
No No No impact would
occur
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.7
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.8.7.8
No No No impact would
occur
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hazards and hazardous materials, described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
64 Impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed on pages 48 to 54 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts due to hazards and hazardous materials from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As discussed in Section 4.8.7.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, implementation of the SAPP would involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials that could cause a significant threat if not properly managed. Impacts associated with the storage, use, handling, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during site construction and operation activities are addressed by federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and programs. Compliance with relevant General Plan policies and implementation of the COAs reproduced below would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
COA HAZ-01: Environmental Compliance Plan. Update all information in your current Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP). Attach a copy of the updated ECP to your building plan submittal.
COA HAZ-04: Underground Storage Tank System Closure. Complete an Underground Storage Tank System Closure Permit Application. Contact the Fire and Environmental Protection Division of the Fire Department at (650) 903-6378 to obtain a copy. The completed application and fees should be submitted directly to the Fire and Environmental Protection Division.
COA HAZ-18: Interior/Exterior Aboveground Class III-B Tanks. Complete an “Interior/Exterior Aboveground Class III-B Tanks (including Waste Oil)” check sheet. All applicable items in the check sheet should be completed and shown on the building plan submittal.
COA PL-39 Remediation. The applicant shall work with City staff, the necessary oversight agency (e.g., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Regional Water Quality Control Board, County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, etc.), and responsible parties, if necessary, to address any site remediation or building design/construction requirements to ensure appropriate on-site improvements in accordance with the oversight agency standard practice; local, State, and Federal regulations; and City Code requirements. Design of remediation equipment, equipment placement, or remediation activities will need to be reviewed and may require approval by all parties. Prior to the issuance of any building or fire permits, the applicant shall either: (a) submit written proof of an approval from the oversight agency of remediation activity and/or building and site design as deemed consistent with the remediation activity; or (b) provide written proof the work is not subject to approval from an oversight agency. A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until final inspections have been completed by the City and the oversight agency, if required.
COA PL-49: Toxic Assessment. A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by: the City’ Fire Department (Fire and Environmental Protection Division); the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction. No building permits will be issued until each agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 65
COA PL-50: Soil Management Plan. Prepare a soil, vapor and groundwater management plan for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH).
Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the SCCDEH must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits.
COA PL-51: Vapor Barrier. A vapor barrier shall be installed beneath all structures to mitigate any issues associated with the potential for vapor intrusion within the structure. The vapor barrier design shall be equivalent to those required for sites with known concerns in Mountain View that are also exposed to groundwater. Specifications for the vapor barrier included in the Site Management Plan shall include thickness, type, durability, and diffusion rates for VOCs of concern.
The specifications shall also describe the effectiveness of the liner over the life of the building.
As discussed in Section 4.8.7.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, construction and postconstruction activities could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. Compliance with a State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction and federal, state, as well as General Plan Policy PSA 3.2 which enforces fire and life safety codes and preventions to prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials, Policy INC 18.1 which focuses on contamination prevention, and Action INC 18.1.1 focused on enforcing local codes and supporting state and federal regulations to prevent groundwater contamination would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Due to the project site’s current use as a gas station and auto repair shop and a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) release case (Santa Clara County LOP Case #06S2W17N01f) managed by the San Clara County Department of Environmental Health, hazardous substances are known to be present on the site and would need to be remediated to reduce impacts associated with hazardous materials. The Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division and Mountain View Fire Department implement regulatory programs for sites that routinely manage hazardous materials to ensure the same storage, management, and disposal of hazardous materials.
To further reduce impacts associated with hazardous materials during project construction and operation due to the project site’s current use as a gas station an auto repair shop, City COAs HAZ01, HAZ-04, HAZ-18, PL-39, PL-49, PL-50, and PL-51 would be implemented. Similar to implementation of the overall SAPP, the project would also involve the routine management of hazardous materials that could pose a significant threat to human health or the environment if managed improperly. During construction, the project would involve construction, demolition, and landscaping activities that could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as diesel fuel, gasoline, lubricants, demolition materials, pesticides and herbicides. During operation, the project would result in the operation of a mixed-use building with both retail and residential uses. Neither residential or retail uses, such as those proposed by the project, typically use or store large quantities of hazardous materials.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, compliance with federal, state, and local requirements and implementation of City COAs would reduce impacts associated with handling hazardous materials and preventing accidental release of hazardous materials to less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? As discussed in Section 4.8.7.3 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, compliance with California Education Code Sections 21151.2, 21151.4, and 21151.8 requiring investigation of prospective City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
66 school sites in accordance with Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) guidance and General Plan Action LUD 3.10.1 amending the City’s Zoning Ordinance to protect sensitive uses from hazardous material uses would reduce impacts to schools to less than significant.
The project site is located 600 feet south of the Community School of Music. Further, the Los Altos School District purchased approximately 11 acres approximately 0.2 miles east of the project site and may operate a school there as early as 2026. City COAs HAZ-01, HAZ-04, HAZ-18, PL-39, PL-49, PL-50, and PL-51, discussed above under impact a. would be required to be implemented to mitigate impacts of hazardous materials emission to those schools within 0.25 miles of the project site.
Additionally, the School for Independent Learners is located approximately 0.5 miles south and the Gideon Hausner Jewish Day School located 0.6 miles north of the project site. These two schools along with other nearby schools, such as the Bullis Charter School and Egan Middle School are located less than 0.25 mile from North San Antonio Road. As the project site currently contains a gas station and auto repair shop, site remediation could involve transporting hazardous materials from the project site to another location to be properly disposed via North San Antonio Road. Transport of hazardous materials along major roadways such as North San Antonio Road could involve emitting hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an existing school. Implementation of General Plan Action LUD 3.10.1 which amends the Zoning Ordinance to establish standards to protect sensitive uses from hazardous material users and existing regulatory requirements would reduce the potential for school children to be exposed to hazardous materials. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of relevant General Plan actions and compliance with regulatory requirements. d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As discussed in Section 4.8.7.4 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, compliance with General Plan Policies INC 18.1 focused on contamination prevention, INC 18.2 focused on contamination cleanup, and PSA 3.4 focused on remediation and hazardous material protection in coordination with local, state, and federal oversight agencies to protect public and environmental health and safety would reduce impacts related to hazardous materials sites to less than significant levels.
The project site is not specifically listed as a Cortese hazardous material site compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, as noted under Impacts a. and b., the site is associated with a closed Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) release case (Santa Clara County LOP Case #06S2W17N01f) in the SWRCB GeoTracker database.
To evaluate the potential for onsite hazardous materials, the following environmental documents pertaining to the proposed residential project were reviewed:
Cornerstone Earth Group (Cornerstone). 2022. Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater Quality Evaluation, 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, California 94040, April 6, 2022.
CREtelligent. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, California 94040, April 29, 2021.
County of Santa Clara. 2008. Fuel Leak Investigation at Texaco (Former Exxon 7-0230), 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, CA; Case No. 02-020, SCVWDID No. 06S2W17N01f, September 4, 2008 [2 letters].
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 67
County of Santa Clara. 2007. Fuel Leak Investigation at Texaco (Former Exxon 7-0230), 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, CA; Case No. 02-020, SCVWDID No. 06S2W17N01f, August 22, 2007.
County of Santa Clara. 2006. Fuel Leak Investigation at Texaco (Former Exxon 7-0230), 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View, CA; Case No. 02-020, SCVWDID No. 06S2W17N01f, August 1, 2006.
Copies of the reports and closure letters are included in Appendix HAZ.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the following resources were also reviewed, to evaluate whether known hazardous materials are present in the project area:
USEPA
SWRCB
Online GeoTracker database search for LUST and other cleanup sites (SWRCB 2022a) DTSC
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR)
California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
Relevant information reviewed pertaining to the potential for onsite hazardous materials obtained from these resources and the previous environmental reports/closure letters is described below.
Historical Agricultural Land Use and Current Use of the Project Site Based on Rincon’s review of available aerial photographs, the project site was used for agricultural purposes before 1956. CREtelligent’s 2021 Phase I ESA reported that “the subject site was part of a large agriculturally farmed property from as early as 1939 to at least 1956.” Agricultural activities are considered of environmental interest due to the potential for pesticide use.
The project site is currently occupied by an active Valero gasoline station that is equipped with both aboveground and underground hydraulic vehicle hoists, four 10,000-gallon gasoline underground storage tanks (USTs) (installed on October 1, 1986), fueling dispensers, and underground piping.
Although the project site and adjacent properties are not listed as Cortese hazardous material sites, nor is the project site listed on the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) or DTSC EnviroStor databases, the project site is associated with a closed LUST case: Texaco – 334 San Antonio Road, Mountain View (GeoTracker Global Identification Number T0608501420). An unauthorized release of petroleum to the subsurface related to the removal of the first-generation USTs was discovered in 1986, at which time the site was entered into the LUST program through the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Cleanup status is reported as “Completed – case closed as of 9/4/2008.”
According to the November 22, 2006 Case Closure Summary, “Residual soil and groundwater contamination remains at the site that could pose an unacceptable risk under certain site development activities such as grading, excavation, and installation of water wells...The County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health and appropriate planning and building department shall be notified prior to any changes in land use, grading activities, excavation, and installation of water wells.”
As the proposed project would be developed with residences, additional site assessment would be required prior to proposed project construction to evaluate if residual contamination creates an City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
68 unacceptable human health risk to future land use. Therefore, Cornerstone completed a soil, soil vapor, and groundwater evaluation in April 2022. Cornerstone collected eight soil samples, two groundwater samples, and two soil vapor samples. Sampling results were compared to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB RWQCB) Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). The ESLs provide conservative screening levels for constituents of concern (COC) found at sites with contaminated soil, soil vapor, and groundwater and are applicable for residential land use.
Based on the results of Cornerstone’s March 2022 assessment:
Onsite soil is impacted with organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline range (TPHg), the semi-VOC compound 2-methynaphthalene, and heavy metals (chromium, cobalt, nickel, and vanadium) at concentrations above Tier 1 ESLs.
Groundwater is impacted with naphthalene, TPHg, and diesel range TPH at concentrations above the Tier 1 ESLs.
Soil vapor is impacted with TPHg, naphthalene, and tetrachloroethene (PCE) at concentrations which exceed the Tier 1 ESLs.
Cornerstone recommended that a Site Management Plan (SMP) be prepared to provide protocols for managing impacted soil encountered during construction. Cornerstone indicated that groundwater encountered during excavation would likely contain petroleum-related impacts and groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes should be treated prior to discharge.
Based on the presence of TPHg, PCE, and naphthalene in soil vapor at concentrations above Tier 1 ESLs, vapor mitigation measures would likely be required for the proposed redevelopment.
Therefore, the project applicant would be required to enter into a Remedial Action Agreement (RAA) with the SCCDEH to determine the additional information (i.e., environmental data) needed and for the review and approval of mitigation measures.
To reduce potential impacts resulting from the identified impacts to soil, vapor, and groundwater at the project site, implementation of the City’s Standard COAs reproduced above and discussed in more detail below would be required. Upon compliance with federal, state, and local hazardous material regulations and with implementation of the current City Standard COAs, hazardous material impacts associated with onsite contamination and vapor intrusion impacts would be lessthan-significant.
Toxic Assessment
Pursuant to PL-49, a toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by the City’s Fire Department (Fire and Environmental Protection Division), the State Department of Health Services, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and any federal agency with jurisdiction. No building permits will be issued until each agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.
Based on the data presented in Cornerstone (2022), COCs are present at the project site in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at concentrations exceeding Tier 1 ESLs. To comply with standard COA PL49, the project applicant would be required to enter into a RAA with the SCCDEH (cleanup oversight agency for the closed LUST case), or another agency such as the RWQCB or DTSC, to perform the oversight duties for assessment and/or remediation at the project site.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 69
The cleanup oversight agency would be utilized for agency oversight of the toxic assessment and remediation (if required) in the project through completion of building demolition, subsurface demolition, and construction the proposed project. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to notify the cleanup oversight agency project manager of the following:
Current development plan and any modifications to the development plan All former written documents concerning hazardous material impacts to soil, soil vapor, and or groundwater, including, but not limited to, Phase I ESAs, Phase II ESAs, geophysical surveys, and other subsurface investigations
All former environmental documents completed for the project site Other documents, as requested by the cleanup oversight agency Upon notification of the information above, the cleanup oversight agency could require actions, such as development of subsurface investigation workplans, completion of additional soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater subsurface investigations, installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells, soil excavation and offsite disposal, completion of human health risk assessments, and/or completion of remediation reports or case closure documents. The project applicant would be required to retain a qualified environmental consultant, California Professional Geologist (PG) or California Professional Engineer (PE), to prepare the documents required by the cleanup oversight agency.
If groundwater wells or soil vapor monitoring probes are identified during demolition, subsurface demolition, or construction at the project site, they would be required to be abandoned/destroyed under permit with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. If required, abandonment activities would need to be documented in a letter report submitted to the Water District within 60 days of the completion of abandonment activities.
The cleanup oversight agency closure and agency approval documents would need to be delivered to and reviewed by the project applicant prior to issuance of grading permits.
Remediation
Pursuant to PL-39, the applicant shall work with City staff, the necessary oversight agency (e.g., the USEPA, DTSC, State Regional Water Quality Control Board, SCCDEH), and responsible parties, if necessary, to address any site remediation or building design/construction requirements to ensure appropriate onsite improvements in accordance with the oversight agency standard practice; local, state, and federal regulations and City Code requirements. Design of remediation equipment, equipment placement, or remediation activities will need to be reviewed and may require approval by all parties. Prior to the issuance of any building or fire permits, the applicant shall either: (a) submit written proof of an approval from the oversight agency of remediation activity and/or building and site design as deemed consistent with the remediation activity, or (b) provide written proof the work is not subject to approval from an oversight agency. A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until final inspections have been completed by the City and the oversight agency, if required.
Based on the data presented in Cornerstone (2022), COCs are present at the project site in soil, soil vapor, and groundwater at concentrations exceeding Tier 1 ESLs. Therefore, to comply with this Standard Condition of Approval, soil impacts within the construction envelope containing chemicals at concentrations exceeding Tier 1 ESLs would need to be remediated. In addition, soil impacts in exceedance of hazardous waste screening thresholds for contaminants in soil (California Code of City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
70 Regulations Title 22, Section 66261.24) would also be addressed under this Standard Condition of Approval. The project applicant would be required to retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to conduct additional analytical testing and recommend soil disposal recommendations, or consider other remedial engineering controls, as necessary.
The qualified environmental consultant would utilize soil analytical data to characterize waste soil for waste characterization purposes prior to offsite transportation or disposal. The qualified environmental consultant would provide further disposal recommendations and arrange for proper disposal of the waste soil or other impacted waste (as necessary), and/or provide recommendations for remedial engineering controls, if appropriate.
Remediation of impacted soil and/or implementation of remedial engineering controls, if needed, would require additional delineation of impacts, additional analytical testing pursuant to landfill or recycling facility requirements, soil excavation, and offsite disposal or recycling.
The City of Mountain View and the project applicant would review the disposal recommendations prior to transportation of waste soil or other impacted waste offsite, and review and approve remedial engineering controls, prior to construction.
Soil Management Plan
Pursuant to PL-50, the applicant shall prepare a soil management plan for review and approval by the oversight agency(s). Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the oversight agency(s) must be provided to City prior to issuance of any demolition or building permits.
Cornerstone recommended that a SMP be prepared to provide protocols for managing impacted soil encountered during construction. Cornerstone also indicated that groundwater encountered during excavation would likely contain petroleum-related impacts and groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes should be treated prior to discharge. Under Standard COA PL-50, the SMP would be prepared to establish procedures for managing impacted soil, groundwater (if required), or other impacted waste present at the project site, for the proper characterization and disposal from construction activities, and to reduce hazards to construction workers and offsite receptors during construction. The plan would establish remedial measures and/or soil and groundwater (if required) management practices to ensure construction worker safety, the health of future workers and visitors, and the off-site migration of contaminants from the site. These measures and practices may include, but are not limited to:
Stockpile management including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of BMPs Proper disposal procedures of impacted materials
Monitoring and reporting
A site-specific health and safety plan for contractors working at the site that addresses the hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection
The site-specific health and safety plan would also need to outline proper soil handling procedures and requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
The cleanup oversight agency and the City would review and/or approve the SMP prior to issuance of a permit for demolition, grading, or building. A qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 71
would be required to oversee soils work and the management of impacted groundwater (if required) during demolition and grading activities.
Vapor Barrier
Pursuant to PL-51, a vapor barrier shall be installed beneath all structures to mitigate any issues associated with the potential for vapor intrusion in the structure. The vapor barrier design shall be equivalent to those required for sites with known concerns in Mountain View that are also exposed to groundwater. Specifications for the vapor barrier included in the SMP shall include thickness, type, durability, and diffusion rates for VOCs of concern. The specifications shall also describe the effectiveness of the liner over the life of the building.
Based on the data presented in Cornerstone (2022), COCs are present at the project site in soil vapor at concentrations exceeding Tier 1 ESLs. Therefore, to comply with Standard COA PL-51 , the project applicant would be required to implement the recommendations of the toxic assessment reports, which would likely include installation of a vapor barrier. If the cleanup oversight agency requires the preparation of a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation (VIM) Work Plan, then the project applicant would be required to comply with the cleanup oversight agency requirements. The VIM Work Plan may include, but would not be limited to:
Vapor barrier placement
Passive or active vapor venting system
Performance monitoring infrastructure
Indoor air and sub-slab vapor performance monitoring
Present procedures and protocols to evaluate the performance of soil gas mitigation measures installed at the project
The VIM Work Plan would be updated if it requires modification for reasons including, but not limited to, the following:
A change in proposed project uses
Receipt of additional information pertaining to proposed project environmental conditions Updated chemical toxicity information for contaminants detected at the proposed project based on revised regulatory screening levels
New legal or regulatory requirements applicable to the proposed project The VIM plan would be required to be submitted to the cleanup oversight agency for review and approval prior to submission to the City of Mountain View as part of compliance with this condition.
The cleanup oversight agency-approved VIM Work Plan would be incorporated into the City of Mountain View building permit prior to issuance of a permit for demolition, grading, or building construction. A qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) would be required to oversee VIM Work Plan implementation during demolition and grading activities.
Upon compliance with federal, state, and local hazardous material regulations, and with implementation of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval PL-39, PL-49, PL-50, and PL-51, hazardous material impacts associated with onsite contamination and vapor intrusion impacts would be less than significant. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts would be less than significant.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
72 e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed in Section 4.8.7.6 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area is not located in any protected airspace zones defined by the Airport Land Use Commission and has no heliports listed by the Federal Aviation Administration. There would be no impacts related to public-use airports.
The project site is located over 3 miles from the two nearest airports: the Palo Alto Airport and the Moffett Federal Airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2008, Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2012). As analyzed in the previous environmental document, due to the project site’s distance from the nearest airport, there would be no impact from safety or excessive noise due to airports.
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As discussed in Section 4.8.7.7 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, increased traffic as a result of new development in the SAPP area was identified as the principal issue that could impair emergency response and evacuation procedures. Several General Plan policies and actions which require efficient roadways and effective TDM programs would reduce the impacts related to increased traffic in the SAPP area. These General Plan policies include Policy MOB 10.1 focused on improving the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure, Policy MOB 10.2 focused on implementing TDM programs for existing and new development, and Policy MOB 10.4 focused on monitoring, evaluating, and addressing emergency response time standards. Implementation of these General Plan policies would reduce impacts related to impairment or interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans to a less than significant level.
Additionally, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation, VMT generated by the project would be lower than VMT generated by the existing use, reducing the level of local traffic that could interfere with emergency response. A draft TDM Plan was also prepared for the project (Appendix TDM) to comply with requirements of the SAPP. Implementation of the project specific TDM plan would further reduce project traffic volume related impacts to emergency response or emergency evacuation. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts would be less than significant.
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As discussed in Section 4.8.7.8 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, there are no Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) in or adjacent to the SAPP area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2007, CALFIRE 2008). Impacts would be less than significant.
As the project site is located on an urban infill site in the SAPP area, there are no FHSZs or VHFHSZs on or adjacent to the project site. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, due to the project’s location, impacts would be less than significant. Section 20, Wildfire, further discusses wildfire impacts on the project.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Checklist 73
Conclusion
No new circumstances have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the SAPP EIR remain valid, and the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials compared to the SAPP EIR.
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or more severe significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. The hazards and hazardous materials impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
74 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Checklist 75
Hydrology and Water Quality
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.8
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the Basin?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.9
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion
or siltation onsite or offsite;
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.10
No No Impact remains less
than significant
(ii) Substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding
onsite or offsite;
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.10
No No Impact remains less
than significant
(iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide
substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff; or
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.11
No No Impact remains less
than significant
(iv) Impede or redirect flood
Flows?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.13
No No Impact remains less
than significant
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Initial Study of
the SAPP EIR,
Section 4.9.14
No No Impact remains less
than significant
Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
N/A No No Impact remains less
than significant
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
76 No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hydrology and water quality, described in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to hydrology and water quality were analyzed on pages 59 to 66 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts to hydrology and water quality from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? As discussed in Section 4.9.8 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, water quality impacts would be less than significant so long as the SAPP implemented relevant General Plan policies and actions and City COAs reproduced below and complied with existing regulatory programs.
COA FEP-03: State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit. A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.
COA FEP-05: Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
COA FEP-10: Landscape Design. Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) no steep slopes exceeding 10%; (b) using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices will be used in the building plan submittal.
COA FEP-21: Parking Garages. For multiple-level parking garages, interior levels shall be connected to an approved wastewater treatment system discharging to the sanitary sewer.
COA FEP-22: Stormwater Treatment (C.3). This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low-Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement. The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Checklist 77
COA PW-64: Drainage Requirements. Onsite parking lots and driveways (other than single-family residential) shall not surface-drain across public sidewalks or driveway aprons. A 2 foot by 2 foot inlet/cleanout box is required at or near the property line for connections to the City storm drains.
For developments that do not require a subdivision map, a connection to the City’s storm main requires: (1) a written request to the Public Works Director; (2) payment of storm drainage fees; and (3) approval from the Public Works Department, unless the storm drainage fees were paid in the past for the property. A face-of-curb inlet/outlet is required to drain into the curb of the street.
Construction
Construction activities and machinery associated with project development such as grading and demolition could potentially result in the exposure of soil to water erosion leading to silt and debris entering waterways or accidental release of oil, grease, or related construction machinery pollution into the environment. Compliance with the requirements detailed in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) and COAs FEP-03 and FEP-05 would reduce the impacts to less than significant.
Operation
Project operation could lead to the accidental discharge of chemicals or other pollutants into nearby waterways or storm drains. However, implementation of relevant COAs would reduce impacts. City COAs such as FEP-10, FEP-21, FEP-22, and PW-64 focus on reducing stormwater pollution, minimizing runoff, and ensuring adequate stormwater treatment which would reduce the risk of project operation degrading surface or ground water quality.
The project would be required to comply with these COAs, and existing regulatory programs as well which would reduce impacts related to water quality standards. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, compliance with existing regulatory programs and implementation of City COAs would strengthen enforcement of surface water and groundwater quality standards and waste discharge requirements. This would reduce impacts associated with development of the project site to less than significant.
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
As discussed in Section 4.9.9 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, implementation of the SAPP would result in increased water supply demand in the SAPP area, as well as potential increase in impervious surfaces which could interfere groundwater recharge. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan actions such as Action INC 4.1.2 which focuses on groundwater quality and groundwater access, Action INC 16.1.2 which focuses on surface water replenishment and the nexus between surface water quality and groundwater percolation, and Action INC 18.1.6 which focuses on groundwater quality compliance with state and federal requirements.
The SAPP area is already developed with urban uses and impervious surfaces which would impede groundwater recharge. The City of Mountain View currently has four active groundwater supply wells which supply water to supplement the water purchased from other water agencies. In 2020, 2 percent of the City’s water supply came from groundwater (City of Mountain View 2021b).
Because the City’s water supply consists of only 2 percent groundwater, additional water demand would largely be met by other water sources besides groundwater and would not significantly City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
78 contribute to groundwater demand. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts associated with development of the project would be less than significant. c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
As discussed in Section 4.9.10 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, development associated with implementation of the SAPP has the potential to alter impervious surfaces and result in hydromodification impacts such as erosion due to active construction activities, excessive volumes of runoff, or flooding. City COAs which serve to minimize water pollution also serve to reduce potential erosion, siltation, or flooding. City COAs such as COA FEP-04, FEP-05, FEP-10, FEP-21, FEP22, PW-63, PW-64, and PW-67 detailed below would reduce impacts.
COA FEP-04: Construction Best Management Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system.
COA FEP-05: Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
COA FEP-10: Landscape Design. Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) no steep slopes exceeding 10%; (b) using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices will be used in the building plan submittal.
COA FEP-21: Parking Garages. For multiple-level parking garages, interior levels shall be connected to an approved wastewater treatment system discharging to the sanitary sewer.
COA FEP-22: Stormwater Treatment (C.3). This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low-Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Checklist 79
types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement. The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.
COA PW-63: Drainage Plans. Onsite drainage plans shall be included in the building plans.
COA PW-64: Drainage Requirements. Onsite parking lots and driveways (other than single-family residential) shall not surface-drain cross public sidewalks or driveway aprons. A 2 foot by 2 foot inlet/cleanout box is required at or near the property line for connections to the City storm drains.
For developments that do not require a subdivision map, a connection to the City’s storm main requires: (1) a written request to the Public Works Director; (2) payment of storm drainage fees; and (3) approval from the Public Works Department, unless the storm drainage fees were paid in the past for the property. A face-of-curb inlet/outlet is required to drain into the curb of the street.
COA PW-67: Surface Water Release. Provide a surface stormwater release for the lots, driveways, alleys, and private streets that prevents the buildings from being flooded in the event the storm drainage system becomes blocked or obstructed.
The project site is currently developed with a gas station and auto repair shop. It is almost completely covered with impervious surfaces. Under the proposed project, the amount of impervious surfaces would remain approximately the same or somewhat reduced. Therefore, the net amount of impervious surface added would not be substantially increased, and the drainage pattern, potential for erosion and siltation, flooding, and runoff production would be similar or slightly better than existing conditions.
City COAs which serve to minimize water pollution also serve to reduce potential erosion, siltation, flooding, or stormwater runoff. City COAs such as FEP-04, FEP-05, FEP-10, FEP-21, FEP-22, PW-63, PW-64, and PW-67 would further reduce impacts.
As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, implementation of relevant COAs would reduce impacts associated due to soil erosion, flooding, and stormwater runoff to less-thansignificant levels.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
80 c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? d. Would the project result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed in Sections 4.9.13 and 4.9.14 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP area is not located in an area prone to flood, dam failure, seiche, or tsunamis. Impacts to the SAPP area would be less than significant.
The project site is located in Zone X, or an area with reduced flood risk due to levee (Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA] 2009). With implementation of relevant General Plan policies and actions such as Policy INC 17.1, Action INC 17.1.2, Policy INC 17.2, and Policy INC 17.4 which focus on flood prevention and flood protection, impacts due to flooding would be less than significant. The project site is located outside of an identified tsunami hazard; the project would not be susceptible to tsunami-related inundation which could potentially release pollutants (DOC 2021b). Since the SAPP area is not located in a dam failure inundation zone or seiche, and the project site is not located in proximity to a dam or body of water capable of experiencing a seiche, impacts related to a potential dam failure or seiche would be less than significant (City of Mountain View 2014b).
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, implementation of relevant COAs would reduce impacts associated due to flooding vulnerability and other causes of inundation to less-thansignificant levels. e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
This criterion was not explicitly addressed in the SAPP EIR as this criterion was added after the EIR’s adoption. The project site lies atop the Santa Clara subbasin which is one of the two subbasins which makes up the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin. The Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin has been designated as a high-priority basin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] 2021a, DWR 2021b). The applicable sustainable groundwater management plan for the Santa Clara Valley subbasin is the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan which contains basin management programs and activities aimed to protect groundwater recharge and quality (Santa Clara Valley Water District 2016).6 As stated in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the City’s groundwater use has decreased in recent years due to a decline in customer demand and completion of new treated and recycled water supplies (City of Mountain View 2021b).
The project would obtain water service through new three new water service lines for landscaping, commercial, and residential use which would connect to the existing water line running underneath California Street (Appendix PLAN). The project’s water sources would be compromised of 84 percent San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 10 percent Valley Water, 2 percent groundwater, and 4 percent recycled water (City of Mountain View 2021b). The project’s stormwater would be conveyed through onsite area drains and plumbing and through a media filtration system before entering the City’s storm drain system via a new storm drain lateral. Additional drainage of public improvements would flow into existing/reconstructed or new curb inlets along the project’s eastern boundary (bordering San Antonio Road) and northern boundary (bordering California Street) and drain into the City’s stormwater drainage system. The project’s wastewater would be conveyed 6 As of December 2021, the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan has not been adopted.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Checklist 81
through new connections to the existing sanitary sewer lines underneath both San Antonio Road and California Street to the north and east of the project site to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) (Appendix PLAN). Due to the decline in groundwater demand and implementation of measures described under criterion b above, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan and impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. The hydrology and water quality impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
82 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Land Use and Planning
Environmental Checklist 83
Land Use and Planning
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Physically divide an established
community?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.10.2.1 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any
land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.10.2.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to land use and planning, described in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to land use and planning were analyzed on pages 67 through 69 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts to land use and planning from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? As discussed in Section 4.10.2.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP seeks to enhance mobility between and within existing neighborhoods by expanding the existing multimodal transportation system by enhancing existing pedestrian infrastructure, extending certain key bike routes, and encouraging development around transit nodes. The land use changes that would be implemented as part of the SAPP would absorb some of the growth planned as part of the General Plan and would allow for the preservation of existing, established neighborhoods outside the SAPP boundaries. The Precise Plan’s impacts due to the physical division of a community would be less than significant.
The project would be located on an existing parcel and would not construct elements such as an interstate highway or railroad track, or remove a means of access which would impair mobility within the existing community or between communities. As such, the project would not physically divide an established community. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to physical divisions within a community would be less than significant.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
84 b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
As discussed in Section 4.10.2.2 of the SAPP EIR, the SAPP would implement the 2030 General Plan.
The SAPP would promote the redevelopment of the SAPP area and encourage the planned intensification of specific land uses pursuant to applicable land use policies and objectives of the 2030 General Plan; therefore, implementation of the SAPP is consistent with the desired goals of the 2030 General Plan to redevelop and revitalize the Precise Plan area including the San Antonio Center. Impacts due to potential conflict with land use policy would be less than significant.
Area-specific policies in the General Plan include Policy LUD 21.1, Policy LUD 21.2, Policy LUD 21.4, Policy LUD 22.1, Policy LUD 22.2, Policy LUD 22.3, Policy LUD 22.4, and Policy LUD 22.7 which are focused on encouraging a mix of land uses, increased residential density near transit, and improved mobility in the Precise Plan area.
Specific policies found in the SAPP include Policies CIRC-1.5 and CIRC-1.9 focused on providing improved facilities to increase bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation; Policies OSUF-1.1 and OSUF-1.9 focused on creating centralized, easily-accessible open space and private and public open space to act as gathering spaces and create a sense of place; and LU-1.3 and LU-1.6 supporting affordable residential transit-oriented development.
The project would be consistent with the above General Plan policies and SAPP policies as it would involve the construction of a mixed-use residential building in the SAPP area with ground floor retail and residential units with a range of affordability, on a parcel where residential and commercial development is allowed and encouraged by the SAPP, within 0.5 mile of multiple bus stops and the San Antonio Caltrain station. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to conflict with land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or more severe significant land use and planning impacts. The land use and planning impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Mineral Resources
Environmental Checklist 85
Mineral Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of
a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.11.1 No No No impact
Result in the loss of availability of
a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.11.1 No No No impact
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to mineral resources, described in Section 4.11, Mineral Resources of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
As discussed in Section 4.11.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR (Page 70), the SAPP area is located in a developed urban area and mineral exploration and extraction is not performed in the vicinity.
No minerals, aggregate resources of statewide importance, natural gas, oil, or geothermal resources were identified as being located in or adjacent to the SAPP area. There would be no impact from Specific Plan implementation.
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? As discussed in the SAPP EIR, the project site location in the SAPP is a developed urbanized area without mineral exploration or extraction, and the project would therefore not cause the loss of a known, locally important mineral resource . In addition, as discussed in the General Plan EIR, no minerals or aggregate resources of local or statewide importance are located in Mountain View.
There are no natural gas, oil, or geothermal resources identified in or adjacent to Mountain View.
Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or locally important mineral resource recovery site.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, there would be no impacts to mineral resources.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
86 Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to mineral resources. The mineral resources impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Noise
Environmental Checklist 87
Noise
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New
or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project result in:
Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels
in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.C.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.C.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.C.2.b
No No No impact would
occur
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to noise, described in Section 4.1, Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to noise were analyzed on pages 152 through 158 of the SAPP EIR. Impacts related to noise from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant; impacts to vibration were determined to be less than significant with mitigation.
On January 12, 2022, Rincon conducted two short-term noise measurements from 10:24 a.m. to 11:06 a.m. on the project site to determine the existing ambient noise. Noise Measurement (NM) 1 was conducted on the southeast corner of the project site to capture noise levels from San Antonio Road. NM2 was conducted to the north of the project site to capture noise levels from California Street traffic noise. Table 9 summarizes the results of the noise measurements. Noise measurement outputs can be found attached as Appendix NOI.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
88 Table 9 Project Site Vicinity Sound Level Monitoring Results Measurement
Location
Measurement
Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
NM1 Southeast corner of
the project site
adjacent to San
Antonio Road
10:24 – 10:39 a.m. Approximately 50 feet to
centerline of San Antonio
Road
65.2 55.3 79.2
NM2 North of project site,
adjacent to residential
use and California
Street
10:51 – 11:06 a.m. Approximately 40 feet to
centerline of California
Street
60.4 48.2 79.6
Leq = one-hour equivalent noise level
Lmin = lowest root mean squared sound pressure level
Lmax = highest root mean squared sound pressure level
Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix NOI. a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? As discussed in the SAPP EIR, potential noise levels could occur or be facilitated by development under the SAPP due to stationary, railroad, and traffic noise sources. However, with implementation of COAs BID-64, PL-151, PL-152, PL-153, PL-188, and PL-189 reproduced below, impacts would be less than significant.
COA BID-64: Work Hours. WORK HOURS/CONSTRUCTION SITE SIGNAGE: No work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or any holiday unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. The general contractor, applicant, developer, or property owner shall erect a sign at all construction site entrances/exits to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours (see job card for specifics) and contact information, including an after-hours contact. Violation of this condition of approval may be subject to the penalties outlined in Section
8.6 of the MVCC and/or suspension of building permits.
COA PL-151: Interior Noise Levels: Construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB(A)Ldn that shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.
COA PL-152: Construction Noise Reduction. The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: (a) comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment.
COA PL-153: Site-Specific Building Acoustical Analysis. A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations. Project-specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A)Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Noise
Environmental Checklist 89
are necessary will be completed on a unit-by-unit basis. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Special building techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, but are not limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound-rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.
COA PL-188: Notice of Construction. The applicant shall notify neighbors within 750 feet of the project site of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction. A copy of the notice and the mailing list shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits.
COA PL-189: Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site.
The proposed project would generate temporary noise increases during construction and long-term increases associated with project operation. However, as discussed below, both construction and operational noise impacts would be less than significant, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, with application of mitigation measures and COAs, and in accordance with acceptable noise levels established by the City of Mountain View’s General Plan. Additionally, in accordance with the noise level provisions of the General Plan, COA PL-153 would be applied to require site-specific acoustical analysis to ensure proper construction measures are used to achieve interior noise levels complying with State noise regulations.
Construction Noise
The SAPP EIR estimated the worst-case combined noise level during the loudest phase of construction would be 94 dBA Lmax7 at a distance of 50 feet. The project would involve construction activities typical of development types expected to be constructed as part of SAPP implementation.
Therefore, project construction may generate noise levels of 94 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet to the multifamily residences located 50 feet to the northwest, the nearest sensitive receivers from construction activities.
Noise from construction, demolition, and paving activities are regulated by the Construction Noise Ordinance of the City’s Municipal Code Section 8.70.1. The Noise Ordinance limits these activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays (excluding holidays). Implementation of COA BID-64,U COA PL-188, and COA PL-189 would limit construction hours, require noticing of the construction schedule, and provide a construction disturbance coordinator; therefore, the project would be not result in a temporary or permanent increase of ambient noise levels in excess of the construction noise regulations of the City’s Municipal Code, similar to the SAPP EIR, and impacts would be less than significant.
7 Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The Lmax is defined as the highest root mean squared sound pressure level
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
90 Operational Noise
Traffic Noise
The proposed project would generate fewer vehicle trips than the existing use on the project site and would incrementally decrease traffic on area roadways, which would decrease roadway noise at nearby sensitive receivers. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the proposed project would generate approximately 365 daily vehicle trips, which would be lower than the existing 688 daily vehicle trips. The 365 daily trips added by the project would constitute a 47 percent decrease in traffic volume along California Street and San Antonio Road, resulting in a noise decrease. Such a decrease would result in reduced ambient noise levels. Therefore, as analyzed in the previouslycertified environmental document, traffic noise would remain less than significant.
Stationary Noise
As described in the SAPP EIR, development allowed by the SAPP may include installation or creation of new stationary sources of noise. The primary onsite noise sources associated with operation of the proposed project would be mechanical equipment and outdoor noise at common and private open space areas. Parking lot noise would be negligible to nearby sensitive receivers as noise associated with parking vehicles would occur in a below-grade garage and is not analyzed further.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
The primary mechanical equipment noise generator from the project would be heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units. Specific planning data for the future HVAC systems are not available at this stage of project design; the unit used in this analysis is a Carrier 38HDR060 split system condenser (manufacturer’s specifications). The manufacturer’s noise data lists the unit as having a sound power level of 72 dBA.
A Carrier 38HDR060 split system with a sound power level of 72 dBA would generate a noise level of approximately 57 dBA at a distance of 7 feet. The HVAC units would be located on the rooftop of the building. It was assumed that HVAC units would be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers (apartments to the northwest). With attenuation at this distance, this would result in a noise level of approximately 40 dBA at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers to the northwest of the project site. This would not exceed the stationary noise limits listed in Section 21.26(a) of the City’s Code, which restricts noise from stationary equipment to 55 dBA or below during daytime hours and from 50 dBA or below during the nighttime hours. Therefore, stationary noise generated by project HVAC equipment would not generate a substantial increase in ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers, relative to existing conditions. As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, onsite mechanical equipment would have a less than significant noise impact.
OUTDOOR RECREATION
Operation of the proposed project would involve use of the public and private courtyards. Noisegenerating activities typical of these outdoor areas are outdoor gatherings and general conversation.
Conversational noise was estimated based on noise levels from a certified EIR for the Palladium Residences Project in Los Angeles (City of Los Angeles 2014). The noise level of 20 people talking Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Noise
Environmental Checklist 91
simultaneously was estimated at 63 dBA Leq8 at receivers 3 feet away (City of Los Angeles 2014). The project’s outdoor areas would be located as close as approximately 90 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers, the multifamily residences to the northwest of the property, where the existing ambient noise level is approximately 60.4 dBA Leq as described in Table 9. At this distance, noise from human conversations would decrease to an estimated 34 dBA Leq (based on attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance). Therefore, noise from the outdoor recreation areas would not exceed the standards set in Section 21.26(a) of the City’s Code, which restricts noise from operational noise sources to 55 dBA or below during daytime hours and from 50 dBA or below during the nighttime hours. Impacts of noise at the outdoor areas would therefore remain less than significant, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document. b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, construction-related vibration levels associated with pile driving and vibration rollers from implementation of the SAPP would not be expected to cause damage to buildings but could cause vibration levels that would cause annoyance for occupants of nearby buildings. Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 would be required to mitigate vibration impacts to less than significant. The following mitigation measure would reduce construction-related vibration impacts resulting from development associated with implementation of the SAPP.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1
The following language shall be included as a Condition of Approval for new projects associated with implementation of the SAPP:
In the event that pile driving would be required for any proposed project in the SAPP area, all residents within 300 feet of the project site shall be notified of the schedule for its use a minimum of 1 week prior to its commencement. The contractor shall implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration, or the use of portable acoustical barriers) where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions.
To the extent feasible, the project contractor shall phase high-vibration generating construction activities, such as pile-driving/ground-impacting operations, so they do not occur in the same period with demolition and excavation activities in locations where the combined vibrations would potentially impact sensitive areas.
The project contractor shall select demolition methods not involving impact, where possible (for example, milling generates lower vibration levels than excavation using clam shell or chisel drops).
The project contractor shall avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas whenever possible.
Construction Vibration
Construction of the proposed project would intermittently generate vibration on and adjacent to the project site. Vibration-generating equipment may include bulldozers and loaded trucks to move materials and debris and vibratory rollers for paving. Pile drivers, which generate strong groundborne vibration, would not be used during construction. Vibration-generating equipment on 8 The single steady A-weighted noise level
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
92 the project site would be used as close as approximately 50 feet from the nearest sensitive receivers to the northwest.
Unlike construction noise, vibration levels are not averaged over time to determine their impact.
Vibration impacts are analyzed based on maximum vibration level and the frequency of vibratory activity. This analysis assumes that vibration-generating equipment could be located as close as 50 feet from sensitive receivers. Table 10 estimates vibration levels from equipment at this distance.
Table 10 Vibration Levels Measured during Construction Activities Equipment PPV at 50 feet (in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.0415
Loaded Trucks 0.0355
Jackhammer 0.0163
Vibratory Roller 0.0980
Small Bulldozer 0.0014
PPV = peak particle velocity
In/sec = inches per second
Source: Caltrans 2020; Appendix NOI
As shown in Table 10, construction activity would generate vibration levels reaching an estimated
0.0980 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 50 feet if vibratory rollers are used to pave asphalt. Vibration-generating equipment would be operated on a transient basis during construction. A maximum of 0.0980 in/sec, PPV would be less than Caltrans’ recommended threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for distinctly perceptible vibration from transient sources. Construction activity that generates loud noises (and therefore vibration) also would be limited to daytime hours on weekdays and Saturdays, which would prevent the exposure of sensitive receivers to vibration during evening and nighttime hours. As a result, it would not result in substantial annoyance to people of normal sensitivity. In addition, the vibration level would not exceed the Caltrans’ recommended criterion of 0.5 in/sec PPV for potential damage of old buildings from transient vibration sources (Caltrans 2020). Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 from the SAPP EIR would be required to reduce exposing people to excessive groundborne vibration and noise levels, which would include measures to implement demolition methods not involving impact, where possible, and the project contractor shall also avoid using vibratory rollers and packers near sensitive areas whenever possible. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, the impacts of vibration on people and structures would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operation Vibration
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, no permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels are proposed as part of the SAPP. The project would operate with both residential and commercial uses, neither of which would be expected to result in operational uses which would cause permanent vibration impacts.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, vibration impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE-1.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Noise
Environmental Checklist 93
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
As described in the SAPP EIR, the Moffett Federal Airfield is located northeast of the SAPP area, and the Palo Alto Airport is located to the northwest. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project site lies outside the 55 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)9 noise contour of the Palo Alto Airport and is not within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the Moffett Federal Airfield. Both airports are over 3 miles away from the project site. Due to the distance of the project site from both the Moffett Federal Airfield and the Palo Alto Airport, aircraft noise from these airports would not be a significant contributor to the existing noise environment and would not lead to project residents experiencing excessive noise levels. As analyzed in the previous environmental document, noise impacts associated with project site proximity to airports would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or more severe significant noise impacts. The noise impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. 9 The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a weighted average of noise level over time.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
94 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Population and Housing
Environmental Checklist 95
Population and Housing
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.13.2.1 No No Impacts remain
less than
significant
Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement Housing elsewhere?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.13.2.2 and
4.13.2.3 No No No impact
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to population and housing, described in Section 4.13, Population and Housing of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to population and housing were analyzed on pages 72 through 75 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts to population and housing were determined to be less than significant from implementation of the SAPP.
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As discussed in Section 4.13.2.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, the SAPP is projected to increase the population of the SAPP area by 2,490 residents, from 1,100 to 3,590 by 2030 primarily due to the construction of new housing in the area. Because new development would be located in a developed urban area within city limits, and any population growth facilitated by implementation of the SAPP would be consistent with the General Plan, which supports intensification of the SAPP area, new development would not directly induce substantial unplanned population growth.
Similarly, while the SAPP includes planned multimodal improvements, new development would not lead to the development of new utility and transportation infrastructure which on its own would indirectly induce unanticipated population growth. Impacts would be less than significant.
The project would involve the construction of residential units, which would accommodate housing for approximately 150 residents, equivalent to approximately 6 percent of the total population growth expected for buildout of the SAPP in the SAPP EIR. The project would not lead to, as it does not include, new utility and transportation infrastructure which would indirectly induce City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
96 unanticipated population growth. Although the project would facilitate population growth beyond what is forecast in the SAPP EIR, the project is consistent the land use policies and objectives of the SAPP and General Plan, which support and plan for intensification of the SAPP area, such as through the following General Plan policies and actions: Policy LUD 3.1 focused on increasing land use and densities within 0.5 mile of public transit service; Policy LUD 3.2 focused on encouraging a mix of land uses; and Policy LUD 3.5 focused on residential development to serve a range of diverse households and incomes.
The proximity of the project site to the San Antonio Caltrain station less than 0.5 mile to the northeast, as well as bus stops located as close as 250 feet of the project site’s boundaries, served by the Mountain View Transportation Management Association and Valley Transportation Authority, would in turn reduce VMT and associated impacts related to transportation, air quality, and GHG emissions. A portion of the future residents of the project may be current residents of the City of Mountain View or surrounding cities, so the project may not substantially induce population growth in the broader area. Additionally, given that the state is currently in an ongoing housing crisis due to an insufficient housing supply, the additional units would assist in addressing the existing crisis and meeting the housing needs of the city’s residents. Furthermore, the increase in affordable housing units in the SAPP area would provide housing opportunities for households with varying income levels.
In addition to housing, the project would introduce retail space, which would facilitate new employment opportunities. However, considering the mixed-use nature of the project and the SAPP’s vision to encourage mixed-use projects in the plan area, the project would not induce substantial unplanned growth due to the retail land use.
The project would not create or require the construction of new roads or major infrastructure, or directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. Furthermore, despite the exceedance of SAPP EIR population estimates, as discussed throughout this consistency checklist, no new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact related to population and housing would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in Section 4.13.2.2 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, impacts would be less than significant because new housing in the Plan area would be primarily multifamily building types, and the number of residential units projected under the SAPP would more than offset the potential impacts related to the amount of potential displacement of housing units or people. Additionally, the SAPP facilitates more intense mixed-use redevelopment of historically commercial/industrialused land with limited existing residential development.
The project site is currently developed with an operational auto repair shop and gas station. No residential units currently exist on the project site, and as such the project would not displace existing people or housing. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Population and Housing
Environmental Checklist 97
time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing. The population and housing impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
98 This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Public Services
Environmental Checklist 99
Public Services
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP
EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, or
the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios,
response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
1 Fire protection? SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
2 Police protection? SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
3 Schools? SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
4 Parks? Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.15.3.1 and
4.15.3.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
5 Other Public facilities? SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
100
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to public services, described in Section 4.15, Public Services of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR and Section IV.D.2.b of the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to public services were analyzed on pages 167 through 172 of the SAPP EIR. Impacts to public services were determined to be less than significant from implementation of the SAPP. a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, additional residents and employees associated with implementation of the SAPP would increase demand for fire protection and emergency medical services. Impacts would be less than significant with compliance with General Plan Policy INC 2.2 focused on ensuring long-term reliability from service providers and suppliers, Policy PSA 1.1 focused on maintaining adequate fire staffing and service levels to serve the community’s needs, Policy PSA 1.2 focused on implementing fire safety strategies in the design of new development, and Policy PSA 3.1 focused on minimizing losses due to fire in addition to COA FD-43 reproduced below.
COA FD-43: Emergency Responder Radio Coverage. All buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building. (California Fire Code, Section 510).
The SAPP EIR additionally identified temporary closure of traffic lanes and subsequent disturbance of traffic patterns as a result of future project construction in the SAPP area as a potentially significant issue. However, implementation of COAs PW-35, PW-36 and PW-135, reproduced below would ensure that adequate emergency access would be available at all times.
COA PW-35: Off-site Improvement Plans. Prepare off-site public improvement plans in accordance with Chapter 28 of the City Code, the City’s Standard Design Criteria, Submittal Checklist, Plan Review Checklist, and the conditions of approval of the project. The plans are to be drawn on 24”x36” sheets at a minimum scale of 1” = 20’. The plans shall be stamped by a California-registered civil engineer and shall show all public improvements and other applicable work within the public right-of-way. Traffic control plans for each phase of construction shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and shall show, at a minimum, work areas, delineators, signs, and other traffic control measures required for work that impact traffic on existing streets. Locations of on-site parking for construction equipment and construction workers and on-site material storage areas must be submitted for review and approval. Off-site improvement plans, an initial plan check fee and map plan check fee based on the Public Works fee schedule, Improvement Plan Checklist, and items noted within the checklist must be submitted together as a separate package concurrent with the first submittal of the building plans and final map. All required materials shall be submitted electronically (i.e., flattened PDFs). The off-site plans must be approved and signed by the Public Works Department.
After the plans have been signed by the Public Works Department, 10 full-size and two half-size black-line sets, one Xerox Mylar (4 mil) set of the plans, and a CD with CAD file and PDF must be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the building permit or approval of the final map. CAD files shall meet the City of Mountain View’s Digital Data Submission Standards.
PW-36: Traffic Control Plans. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and improvement plans, the applicant shall submit traffic control plans for any off-site and on-site improvements or any work Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Public Services
Environmental Checklist 101
that requires temporary lane closure, shoulder closure, bike lane closure, and/or sidewalk closure for review and approval. Sidewalk closures are not allowed unless reconstruction of sidewalk necessitates temporary sidewalk closure. In these instances, sidewalk detour should be shown on the Traffic Control plans. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). A completed Traffic Control Checklist shall be included with each traffic control plan submittal.
PW-135: Construction Management Plan. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and all subsequent building permit submittals, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans. The plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, including demolition. The plan must show the following:
Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections 19.58 and 19.59 and which does not include neighborhood residential streets; Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Show and identify construction vehicle and equipment parking area, material storage and lay-down area, sanitation facilities, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles, equipment, and trailer shall be located on-site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking) arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots, unless approved by the Public Works Director due to special conditions. Construction contractors/workers are required to park on-site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage; and
Sidewalks: Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on-site construction activities.
Traffic Control and Detour Plans: Traffic control plans, including detour plans, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and included with building permit plans to the Building Inspection Division for any on-site improvements and/or work related to any phase of the construction management plan that requires temporary roadway closure, lane closure, shoulder closure, and/or bike lane closure. Pedestrian detour plans shall be provided when necessary. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). A completed Traffic Control Checklist shall be included with each traffic control plan submittal. A separate Excavation Permit from the Public Works Department may be required prior to issuance of the building permit.
The closest fire station to the project site is Mountain View Fire Station Number 3 located 0.9 mile east of the project site. The Mountain View Fire Department does not maintain a staffing ratio goal based directly on employment or population. The population and employment growth anticipated from the implementation of the SAPP would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. As discussed in further detail in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would result in more population growth in the SAPP area than anticipated under the SAPP EIR, resulting in an exceedance of the population growth anticipated from implementation of the SAPP.
However, implementation of relevant General Plan policies and actions such as Policy PSA 1.1, Policy PSA 3.2, Policy PSA 3.3, and Policy PSA 3.5 focused on ensuring adequate fire staff is able to serve the community’s needs and doing development review of the project to ensure adequate service to new development would reduce impacts of increased population and employment on the project site. Implementation of COA FD-43 which would ensure radio spot blindness due to development would be reduced to ensure emergency responders would have radio coverage in buildings in the event of an emergency. In addition, the building would be built to current Fire Code standards in compliance with General Plan Policy PSA 1.2 which would reduce the risk of fire and the need for City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
102
fire protection services. As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant.
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, the additional residents and employees associated with implementation of the SAPP would increase demand for law enforcement services. Implementation of General Plan Policy PSA 1.1, Policy PSA 2.1, Policy PSA 2.5, and Policy PSA 2.7 focused on adequate staffing, community policing, regional partnerships, and ensuring the Mountain View Police Department meets demands from new growth and development would reduce impacts to less than significant. As with fire service, implementation of COA FD-43 would ensure radio spot blindness due to development would be reduced to ensure emergency responders would have radio coverage in buildings in the event of an emergency.
The Mountain View Police Station is located 1.8 miles southeast of the project site. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, development facilitated by the project would add an estimated 150 residents, increasing the City of Mountain View’s population from 82,814 to 82,964 (California Department of Finance [DOF] 2021). This increase in population would have a similar impact as identified under the SAPP EIR as the population increase on the project site due to project implementation would likely increase the demand for police services. Based on the Mountain View Police Department’s (MVPD) current staffing level of 106 sworn officers, the MVPD’s officer/resident ratio would drop from 1.277 to 1.275 per 1,000 residents (MVPD 2020). MVPD may be less effective at meeting its response time goal of 4 minutes or less which is currently achieved 63 percent of the time. This response time has improved since 2014 when response times were achieved 49.9 percent of the time (MVPD 2020, City of Mountain View 2014a). MVPD does not maintain a staffing ratio goal based directly on population or employment. However, with implementation of General Plan Policy PSA 1.1, Policy PSA 2.1, Policy PSA 2.5, and Policy PSA 2.7 focused on adequate staffing, community policing, regional partnerships, and ensuring the MVPD meets demands from new growth and development as well as COA FD-43, impacts would be reduced. When and if the MVPD proposes a new station or expansion of an existing station and identifies an appropriate site and funding, the City would conduct a complete evaluation of the station’s environmental impacts under CEQA.
Through compliance with General Plan policies and City COA FD-43, the project would have lessthan-significant impacts as analyzed in the prior EIR.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Public Services
Environmental Checklist 103
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As discussed in the SAPP EIR, the construction of new housing units associated with implementation of the SAPP would generate new elementary and middle school students that would exceed the current capacity of the schools. Through the payment of development fees in compliance with applicable State and local regulations, impacts to schools would be less-than-significant.
The SAPP EIR utilized student generation rates used by the two school districts, the Mountain ViewLos Altos Union High School District and Los Altos School District that would serve residents of the SAPP area to estimate the number of new students that would be generated through implementation of the SAPP. According to the student generation rates used for multifamily dwelling units in the SAPP EIR, 22 additional students would be generated by the project, approximately three high school students and approximately 19 elementary/middle school students.10 As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project site would generate more residents than anticipated in the SAPP. The SAPP EIR stated that the additional 1,235 units in the SAPP would generate approximately 57 new high school students which, at that time was under capacity by 187 students. However, since the adoption of the SAPP EIR, Los Altos High School (part of Mountain View-Los Altos High School District), which would serve the SAPP Area, has a current enrollment of 2,209 students which exceeds the identified student capacity in the SAPP EIR of 1,969 (Ed Data 2021a). The additional three students that would be generated under the project would increase current student capacity by 0.1 percent and would be a less than significant increase to high school student enrollment.
The project would generate approximately 19 elementary/middle school students. As discussed in the SAPP EIR, the Los Altos School District (LASD) schools which serve the SAPP area are cumulatively over capacity (Ed Data 2021b). New development projects implemented as part of SAPP would be required to pay new development fees that would be used to fund the construction of new school facilities which would be built to accommodate increased student enrollment resulting from development in the SAPP area. As the project would involve development in the SAPP area, the project would pay new development fees which would reduce its impact on student enrollment. While development under the SAPP and the project would increase enrollment in the school districts that are already near or over capacity, the school districts’ methods of implementing measures specified by Government Code 65996 would reduce impacts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h), payment of school facility mitigation fees has been deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation of a development project’s impacts to school facilities; however, additional funding beyond that contributed by a development project’s impact fee is usually needed to create new school capacity. Further, LASD has purchased property in the SAPP area for development of a a new school, which would be funded through a variety of resources, including mitigation fees and proceeds from the City’s LASD Transfer of Development Rights Program. Due to the built-out nature of the City of Mountain View, the SAPP EIR stated that new school sites would likely be developed on existing school sites or in an urbanized area which would likely not have significant environmental impacts beyond those already identified, though additional necessary environmental analysis would need to be conducted to determine site-specific environmental impacts associated 10 63 units x 0.046 (student generation rate used by Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District for multifamily units) = 2.898 students ≈ three students; 63 units x 0.3 (student generation rate used by Los Altos School District for multifamily units) = 18.9 students ≈ 19 students (City of Mountain View 2014a).
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
104
with the development of a school site. Through the payment of development fees and compliance with state regulations, the project would have less-than-significant impacts as analyzed in the prior EIR.
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? As discussed further in Section 16, Recreation, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts upon park facilities similar to the impacts analyzed in the prior EIR. Section 16, Recreation, contains further discussion of the impacts related to park facilities. a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, population and employment growth associated with the SAPP would increase demand for community facilities. Under the SAPP, no other specific community facilities would be developed with the exception of open space and parks. Implementation of General Policy POS 7.5 requiring the provision of library services would reduce impacts to less than significant.
The increase in number of residents on the project site would increase the number of people using Mountain View’s public libraries. The City of Mountain View Public Library is located approximately
1.75 miles southeast of the project site. The City currently has a population of 82,814 residents (DOF 2021). Implementation of the project would increase the City’s population to approximately 83,114 residents, or a 0.2 percent increase. Impacts to library services would be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of General Plan Policy POS 7.5 focused on providing high-quality library services and resources that address community needs and goals. Implementation of General Plan policies such as Policy POS 9.2 and Policy POS 9.3 focused on providing new facilities and maintaining current facilities to accommodate community needs would further reduce impacts related to public facilities. Implementation of these General Plan policies would reduce impacts to less than significant as analyzed in the prior EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services. The public services impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Recreation
Environmental Checklist 105
Recreation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed in
the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.15.3.1 and
4.15.3.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Does the project include
recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.15.3.1 and
4.15.3.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to recreation, described in Section 4.15, Recreation of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts to recreation were analyzed on pages 78 through 80 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to recreation from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed in Section 4.15.3.1 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR, population and housing growth resulting from implementation of the SAPP would not cause substantial physical deterioration of parks, open space and recreational facilities in and around Mountain View, but would cause increased demand for parks, open space, and recreational facilities in and around Mountain View.
Impacts of the SAPP would be less than significant with implementation of General Plan and Parks and Open Space Plan policies.
The project site is located approximately 730 feet south of Del Medio Park, 920 feet northeast of Fayette Greenway Park, and 1,600 feet southeast of Monroe Park. As described in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would generate population growth beyond that predicted under the SAPP. However, this increase in population growth could be made up of existing city of Mountain View residents and would not cause a substantial increase in population growth.
Increased use of recreational areas is anticipated to occur across all the parks in the city rather than City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
106
use being concentrated in one area. Existing neighborhood and regional parks would not be subject to substantial physical deterioration associated with the population increase under the SAPP, because sufficient park land and open space is available to serve existing and new residents and workers, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document. In addition, because sufficient park land and open space is available to serve existing and new residents and workers, construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not be required. This includes approximately two acres of land recently purchased in the SAPP for future development of a new neighborhood park.
The project would also include common open space areas which would provide small recreational spaces for future residents. This would further reduce the potential use and deterioration of neighboring parks and recreational facilities. Potential environmental impacts associated with the construction of passive open space for recreational use as part of the project are addressed throughout the consistency checklist. Implementation of General Plan policies and actions such as Policy POS 1.2 requiring new development to provide park and recreation facilities; Action POS 1.1.2 requiring residential projects to provide land or fees for parks as a condition of approval; and Policy LUD 16.6 encouraging development to include open space amenities, parks, and plazas that are accessible to the surrounding transit, bicycle, and pedestrian network would ensure the City’s service ratio of at least 3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents would be maintained. Application of COA PW-23 – reproduced below – would implement the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance, requiring the project to provide project-specific fees for City park land.
COA PW-23: Park Land Dedication Fee. Prior to the issuance of any building permits and prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication Fee for each net new market-rate, based on a land valuation, as determined by the Real Property Manager, per acre in accordance with Chapter 41 of the City Code. No credit against the Park Land Dedication Fee is allowed for private open space and recreational facilities.
The increased demand and use resulting from an increase in SAPP area population from the project would not result in substantial or accelerated physical degradation or result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities through implementation of applicable policies and conditions of approval. Impacts would be less than significant as analyzed in the prior EIR.
Conclusion
No new circumstances have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the SAPP EIR remain valid, and the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation compared to the SAPP EIR.
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant recreation impacts. The recreation impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Transportation
Environmental Checklist 107
Transportation
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.A
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
N/A No No N/A
Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible use
(e.g., farm equipment)?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.A
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Result in inadequate emergency
access?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Impacts to transportation and circulation were analyzed on pages 45 through 117 of the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to transportation were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation from implementation of the SAPP.
Fehr & Peers prepared a multimodal transportation analysis in March 2022 to determine the project’s impacts on vehicle operations, transit, and active transportation (Appendix TRA).
Since certification of the SAPP EIR in December 2014, the metric for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA has changed from delay-based criteria with level of service (LOS) to VMT under SB 743. While the SAPP EIR found that impacts to cumulative traffic projections would be less than significant with mitigation, these were based on LOS standards that are no longer considered an impact under CEQA. Therefore, this analysis applies VMT as the standard of significance for the proposed project and Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would no longer apply.
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, implementation of the SAPP would result in a conflict with congestion management programs, including LOS standards or other standards established by the Santa Clara County congestion management plan, at Intersection 17, San Antonio Road and California Avenue.
This intersection impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
108
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1
Add a right turn overlap phase at Intersection 17, San Antonio Road/California Avenue for the westbound right-turn movement, or comparable improvement to maintain acceptable intersection LOS.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 was implemented by other approved development projects in the SAPP area, and – future – LOS is no longer used to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA and is not used in this analysis, so further applicability of this mitigation measure would no longer apply. a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? As discussed in the SAPP EIR, implementation of the SAPP would result in a less-than-significant impact to freeways, transit facilities, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
The project site is located within 0.5 mile of the San Antonio Caltrain station. The project site’s proximity to transit and high-density development would be consistent with the guiding principles of the SAPP. Mountain View General Plan 2030 Policies MOB 2.1, MOB 3.3, and MOB 4.4 call for broad accessibility to transportation networks, facilities, and services through pedestrian connections and bicycle parking. Furthermore, Policies LUD 21.1 through LUD 21.4, LUD 22.1 through LUD 22.4, LUD 22.6, and LUD 22.7 relate to encouraging high-density residential and mixeduse development near transit and increased bicycle and pedestrian mobility in the San Antonio Center. The project’s consistency with applicable policies is shown in Table 11.
Table 11 Consistency with Mountain View General Plan 2030 Policies General Plan Policy Consistent?
MOB 2.1: Broad accessibility. Improve universal access
within private developments and public and transit
facilities, programs and services.
Yes. The proposed development would be within
0.5 mile of a major transit stop1, which would
improve access for residents to transit facilities.
MOB 3.3: Pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Enhance
pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers.
Yes. The project would install a high-visibility
crosswalk on California Street, and widen the
California Street bike lane to comply with SAPP
street standards (with high-visibility markings at
conflict point), to improve pedestrian and bicycle
crossings and movement around the California
Street/San Antonio Road intersection.
MOB 4.4: Bicycle parking standards. Maintain bicycle
parking standards and guidelines for bicycle parking and storage in convenient places in private development to
enhance the bicycle network.
Yes. The project would include bicycle storage
areas that would provide 72 spaces, which would
be more than the required one storage space per
unit and guest/visitor parking ratios of the SAPP.
LUD 21.1: A mix of land uses. Support a mix of
commercial land uses serving the neighborhood and the
region.
Yes. The project would include high-density
residential and commercial use.
LUD 21.2: Higher-density residential near transit.
Encourage higher-density residential uses near bus and
Caltrain stations.
Yes. The project would include a high-density
residential use within 0.5 mile of a major transit
stop.1
LUD 21.3: Improved connectivity. Promote improved
connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods, destinations and Downtown.
Yes. The project would include high-density
residential use within 0.5 mile of a major transit
stop1 and the City’s downtown area.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Transportation
Environmental Checklist 109
General Plan Policy Consistent?
LUD 22.4: Pedestrian-oriented design elements. Ensure
that developments include pedestrian-oriented design
elements such as accessible building entrances, visible storefronts and landscaping.
Yes. The project would include a pedestrian-only
public plaza. Additionally, the pedestrian building
entrances would be directly accessible from the
road, with the primary entry set back behind a
street-facing/adjacent residential courtyard.
LUD 22.7: Improved bicycle and pedestrian connections.
Promote improved bicycle and pedestrian connections to
the San Antonio Caltrain station, El Camino Real bus
service, adjacent neighborhoods and the citywide bicycle and pedestrian network.
Yes. The project would include high-density
residential use within 0.5 mile of the San Antonio
Caltrain station and would promote connection to
the El Camino Real bus service and adjacent
neighborhoods through proximity to a major
transit stop. The project would also reconstruct
California Street improvements to create SAPPcompliance bikeways, as well as wider, detached sidewalks on both street frontages to improve
pedestrian facilities per the SAPP.
1 According to Public Resource Code Section 21064.3, a major transit stop is an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, ferry terminal served by either a bus or trail transit service, or an intersection of at least two major bus routes with a frequency interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods.
Given the project’s consistency with General Plan transportation policies and implementation of street and streetscape improvements per the SAPP and standard public improvement COAs, impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The project would encourage use of transit and active transportation due to its location and proposed uses. The SAPP EIR evaluated the projected change in vehicle trips with the implementation of the SAPP. Implementation of the SAPP indicated that there would be no change in the number of daily vehicle trips despite an increase in population growth rate. The SAPP EIR concluded that vehicle trips would not increase at a greater rate than the projected population increase.
The project would generate approximately 365 daily vehicle trips, which would be lower than the existing 688 daily vehicle trips and the amount analyzed in the SAPP EIR. The 365 daily trips added by the project would constitute a 47 percent decrease in traffic volume along California Street and San Antonio Road.
The City of Mountain View adopted screening criteria and thresholds of significance related to VMT on June 30, 2020, after the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research determined that VMT is the best way to analyze transportation impacts. VMT screening is a process related to reviewing the location and operating parameters of land use projects and programs to determine if a project or program does not need to perform a VMT analysis, because it is presumed to generate a low amount of VMT. The screening criteria for the City of Mountain View are as follows (City of Mountain View 2020):
Small Project Screening: Single-family residential developments of 12 units or fewer, multifamily residential development of 20 units or fewer, and office developments of 10,000 square feet or less.
Map-Based Screening: Residential and employment land use projects located in areas of low VMT, defined as exhibiting VMT that is 15 percent or greater below the existing Nine-County Bay Area regional reference average VMT. Reference average VMT per capita or per employee baseline City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
110
values are obtained from Valley Transportation Authority and may be amended periodically to reflect the best available data and most relevant base year.
Transit Screening: All land-use project located within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop, or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor, pursuant to state definitions for such facilities, unless any of the following factors are exhibited by the project:
FAR of less than 0.75
Inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy Provides more parking than required by the jurisdiction Replaces affordable housing with a fewer number of moderate- or high-income residential units Affordable Housing Screening: Projects with 100 percent affordable housing The proposed project would meet the map-based and transit screening criteria. The project would be expected to be at least 15 percent below the regional average VMT per resident for the nineCounty Bay Area Region (Appendix TRA). The VMT per resident threshold is 11.86, while the project VMT per resident threshold is 18 percent less at 9.77. Furthermore, the project is within the 0.5- mile buffer from transit and would have a FAR of approximately 2.8 (greater than 0.75), be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 policies, provide parking at a lower rate than required by the City of Mountain View, and would not require replacement of affordable housing, all of which are prerequisites to qualify for transit screening criteria, as described above (Appendix TRA). Therefore, the project would be screened from further VMT analysis and impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The project would remove the existing four driveways on the site’s San Antonio Road and California Street frontages, and reconstruct one driveway on California Street, to be located further west than either existing driveway on that frontage. The reduction in driveways and lower estimated traffic volumes would reduce hazards to pedestrians and cyclists from vehicle conflicts, as compared to existing conditions.
The project would have one driveway on the west perimeter of the site, approximately 150 feet west of San Antonio Road on California Street. This driveway would provide access to the underground parking garage and would have a curb-to-curb width of 20 feet. The driveway would be accessed via right turns on eastbound California Street. The double-yellow striping on California Street prevents left-turns out and left-turns into the driveway. Posting of right-turn only signs on the driveway approach or a one-way sign on the median would help guide drivers onto the public streets. The driveway's relative location to the intersection between San Antonio Road and California Street may produce a conflict point for exiting vehicles with the eastbound right turn pocket on California Street. However, this conflict point already exists under existing conditions, and would not be exacerbated due to project implementation because of the reduction in driveways and lower trip volumes. Therefore, the new driveway would not substantially increase hazards due to geometric design.
A new pedestrian courtyard and walkway would be proposed to provide connectivity to the California Street sidewalk, along with two other egress points, one on the San Antonio Road frontage and the other on the California Street frontage. The San Antonio Road egress point would be located on the south side of the building and would provide connectivity to the San Antonio Road Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Transportation
Environmental Checklist 111
sidewalk. A secondary California Street egress point would be located at the west end of the California Street frontage, directly adjacent to the proposed motor vehicle driveway, and would provide additional connectivity to the California Street sidewalk. The new pedestrian courtyard, walkway, and sidewalk egress points would not introduce or increase hazards or incompatible uses, as they increase connectivity and do not impact motor vehicle traffic. Additionally, no new onsite or offsite bicycle pathways are proposed under the project, but the existing bike lane on California Street will be widened to comply with SAPP street standards, and high-visibility markings installed at conflict points. Lastly, public sidewalk improvements and new curb ramp(s) would be installed pursuant to SAPP standards, with wider sidewalks and landscape streets separating the sidewalk from the street, to improve pedestrian comfort and safety. Therefore, impacts related to hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would be less than significant. d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project would have adequate emergency access, as there would be three access points into the building along California Street, and fire department access would be located along the southern and western perimeters of the building. The other two access points, the common private space and the bicycle room, would be accessible to emergency personnel or evacuating residents. There would also be a rear exit along the southern side of the building, which would lead residents to San Antonio Road. The project elevator would be designed to accommodate stretcher access to all building floors. The City’s Department of Public Works and the Mountain View Fire Department would review the project as part of the plan check process to ensure the project would provide adequate emergency access. Adherence to existing state and federal regulations and City of Mountain View requirements would reduce impacts related to emergency access. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant transportation impacts. The transportation impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
112
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Checklist 113
Tribal Cultural Resources
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP
EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the
CRHR, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.5.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.5.2 No No Impact remains
less than
significant
As of July 1, 2015, AB 52 was enacted to expand CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (Public Resource Code [PRC] Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
114
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
As the Notice of Preparation for the SAPP EIR was published before July 1, 2015, AB 52 consultation was not required, and this consistency analysis does not result in a need for AB 52 consultation. If cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, relevant portions of AB 52 would apply.
As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Rincon prepared a Historical Resources Assessment in January 2022 evaluating the project site for potential sensitivity with regard to historical resources, archaeological resources and human remains (Appendix CUL).
At the time of the SAPP EIR’s adoption, the Tribal Cultural Resources discussion was captured under the Cultural Resources section. However, this section was subsequently added as a standalone section to the CEQA Guidelines checklist.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1?
Impacts to tribal cultural resources were analyzed on pages 33 through 34 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts to tribal cultural resources from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant with implementation of COAs PL-194, PL-195, and PL-204 reproduced below.
COA PL-194: Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert-flakedstone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris, culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts, stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs), and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls, filled wells or privies, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
COA PL-195: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Checklist 115
can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.
COA PL-204: Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. If indigenous or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100’ of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery.
The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
Due to the highly disturbed status of the project site from previous construction activities, the project has low sensitivity for containing archaeological resources or human remains (Appendix CUL). However, during ground-disturbing activities such as grading and site preparation that would take place as part of the project, there would be the potential to encounter unanticipated tribal cultural resources. In the event that an unanticipated tribal cultural resource would be encountered, implementation of COAs PL-194, PL-195, and PL-204 reproduced above would reduce impacts to potentially significant tribal cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources. The tribal cultural resource impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
116
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Checklist 117
Utilities and Service Systems
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Would the project:
Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.E.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry
and multiple Dry years?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.E.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.E.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.E.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.E.1.d
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to utilities and service systems, described in Section IV.E, Public Services of the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
118
Impacts to utilities and service systems were analyzed on pages 179 through 185 of the SAPP EIR.
Impacts to utilities and service systems were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation from implementation of the SAPP.
Schaaf & Wheeler prepared a utility impact study in February 2022 to determine the project’s impacts on the City’s water and sanitary sewer systems (Appendix UIS). a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Water
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, future development in the SAPP area would result in increased water use for construction activities, such as airborne dust suppression and routine cleaning of construction equipment. However, water demand during construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not be substantial. Operationally, the SAPP EIR found that water infrastructure was adequate to support development of the SAPP. Therefore, the project would not require major off-site infrastructure improvements or upgrades; if minor improvement are required, they would occur in the established utility corridors, such as surrounding streets and no significant impact would occur. In addition, water connection fees would cover costs of such minor improvements. Impacts to water infrastructure would be less than significant.
As the project would involve the construction of a mixed-use building with residential and retail uses, which were land uses identified as part of the SAPP and would be typical uses in the SAPP area, the project would not involve unanticipated water demand during construction. Impacts on water supply due to construction water demand for the project would be less than significant.
Operational water use of new development in the SAPP area would include landscape irrigation and residential water use in bathrooms and kitchens. Future development in the SAPP area would be expected to include sustainability features, including low-flow bathroom fixtures, low-water-use landscaping, and potential use of grey water for irrigation. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared to determine if the water supplier would be able to provide sufficient water supply to meet the current and planned water demand for the next 20 years. It was concluded that even without implementation of the SAPP, the City would have to rely on implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan during some dry years to reduce demand. The total population projected in the SAPP would be 3,590 residents by 2030 which would be 3 percent of the total population of 114,358 residents projected in the City of Mountain View General Plan by 2030 (City of Mountain View 2014a, City of Mountain View 2012a). As discussed further in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would facilitate population growth beyond what was forecast and analyzed in the SAPP EIR. Considering the small percentage of the 2030 population the SAPP would facilitate and the small incremental population increase caused by the project, the project would not substantially increase residential water demand, as described in more detail below.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Checklist 119
According to the City of Mountain View’s 2020 UWMP, three of the City’s four water sources, Valley Water treated water, groundwater, and recycled water, are projected to be fully available during all year types through 2045. Overall, water supply would be available to meet the City’s water demand through 2045 under normal year circumstances but would result in a 20 percent shortfall in supply from 2025 through 2045 under single dry and multiple dry year scenarios (City of Mountain View 2021b).
Operation of the proposed project would be expected to have an estimated water demand of 7,530 gallons per day (gpd) as shown in Table 12 below (Appendix UIS).
Table 12 Estimated Project Water Demand
Land Use Size Water Demand (gpd)
Residential (Multifamily) 62 du 6,200
Retail 1,000 sf 130
Restaurant 1,000 sf 1,200
Total 7,530
gpd = gallons per day; du = dwelling units; sf = square feet Source: Appendix UIS.
Existing water demand from the gas station and auto repair use is estimated at 1,187 gpd, indicating that water demand as a result of project implementation would increase by approximately 543 percent. Still, project water demand would be less than 0.1 percent of the City’s projected water demand for 2030 (City of Mountain View 2021b). Furthermore, the project site would draw water from the City’s Pressure Zone 2, which has a total capacity of 30.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and estimated 2030 demand of 23.6 mgd, on which the proposed project would exert a negligible demand increase of 0.007 mgd (Appendix UIS). Therefore, there would be adequate water supplies to serve the proposed project.
The anticipated fire flow requirement on the site is based on the 2019 California Fire Code. The project would include an automatic fire sprinkler system and assuming a conservative 50 percent water reduction through use of the system (a 75 percent reduction would be allowed upon approval of an automatic fire sprinkler system), the fire flow would be 2,060 gallons per minute (gpm).
Available flow after implementation of the proposed project would be 3,994 gpm, which would indicate that there would be adequate available fire flow to serve the proposed project (Appendix UIS).
As stated in the SAPP EIR, even without implementation of the SAPP, the City would have to rely on implementation of its Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The project would be required to comply with the City’s water-use efficiency regulations, including the City’s landscaping regulations and Mountain View Green Building Code requirements for new construction which are consistent with GGRP Measure W-1.1 focused on implementing UWMP conservation strategies to reduce the project’s impact on water supplies. As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts to water supplies would be less than significant.
Wastewater Treatment
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, future development in the SAPP area would result in an increase in overall sanitary sewer flows. Sewer flow in the SAPP area would increase incrementally by 0.35 mgd from 2010 sewer flow analyzed in the 2030 General Plan EIR. Implementation of the 2030 General City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
120
Plan policies and applicable COAs would reduce SAPP impacts to wastewater treatment requirements and main distribution facilities to less-than-significant levels.
The City implemented new capacity fees for water and wastewater to help fund improvements Citywide to expand and maintain water and wastewater services. The project would be required to contribute to the infrastructure fund which would reduce its impact on the RWQCB.
The RWQCB serves multiple communities, all of which have a proportion of capacity rights to the facility. The RWQCB has a total annual average treatment capacity of 40 mgd and peak wet weather capacity of 80 mgd. Mountain View is able to utilize on average 15.1 mgd of the total treatment capacity and 50 mgd of the peak wet weather flow (Appendix UIS). The Palo Alto RWQCP’s capacity is sufficient for current dry and wet weather loads and for future load projections. There are no plans for expansion of the plant (City of Mountain View 2012b). Table 13 shows the estimated wastewater generation associated with the project, which would discharge to the 8-inch public main in California Street and the 8-inch sewer main within San Antonio Road (Appendix UIS).
Table 13 Estimated Wastewater Generation
Land Use Size Total Wastewater Generation (gpd)
Residential (Multifamily) 62 du 4,650
Retail 1,000 sf 100
Restaurant 1,000 sf 900
Total 5,650
gpd = gallons per day; du = dwelling units; sf = square feet Source: Appendix UIS
Existing wastewater generation is estimated at 1,896 gpd, which indicates that sewage demand with project implementation would increase by approximately 202 percent (Appendix UIS). Still, the project would make up less than 0.01 percent of the City’s daily wastewater treatment capacity.
Furthermore, low-flow appliances would be implemented pursuant to the details outlined in the project plans, which would reduce wastewater and render these estimates conservative. As analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant through compliance with City policies and regulations.
Stormwater Drainage
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, future development in the SAPP area would be required to comply with programs and regulations that regulate storm drainage facilities including the NPDES MRP regulations and the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL-3 reproduced below would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure UTL-3
As private properties in the Plan area are developed, project-specific analyses of stormwater infrastructure adjacent and downstream of the project sites shall be performed to identify any impacts to the system. As a condition of approval and prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, the Public Works Department will determine and assign responsibility to project applicants for upgrades and improvements to the City’s stormwater infrastructure, as necessary.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Checklist 121
Implementation of SAPP EIR Mitigation Measure UTL-3 would ensure that adequate storm drainage capacity would be available to address project site runoff. In addition, it should be noted the project would not increase impervious surface onsite, and is therefore not likely to increase stormwater runoff. Compliance with NPDES MRP regulations and the City’s Storm Drainage Master Plan would reduce impacts related to stormwater drainage. Compliance with the NPDES MRP requirements, implementing post-construction stormwater treatment controls for new development projects, and reducing stormwater flow volumes would reduce the potential for stormwater pollution or the overcapacity of the City’s stormwater drainage systems. Additionally, as discussed above under Wastewater Treatment, the City has adequate capacity to handle the increased wastewater generation and subsequent sewer demand.
Electricity
As discussed in the SAPP EIR, development associated with growth in the SAPP area and elsewhere in the City would be considered to be less than significant due to the small increment of increased energy demand as a result of energy conservation requirements and programs that were established under the 2030 General Plan EIR and the GGRP.
As discussed in further detail in Section 6, Energy, the project would comply with energy efficiency and renewable energy measures outlined in the GGRP and would comply with state requirements established through AB 32 and Title 24. Similar to the SAPP EIR, through compliance with existing policies and regulations, the project would not cause significant impacts on energy use and production. Furthermore, the project would include onsite renewable energy in the form of solar photovoltaic panels which would further reduce the effective demand for electricity infrastructure to power the project site. Impacts would be less than significant as analyzed in the prior EIR. d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The SAPP EIR found that the SAPP area would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate waste generated from future growth. Impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant.
The SAPP area would be primarily served by Kirby Canyon Landfill. Kirby Canyon Landfill has a current daily maximum throughput of 2,600 tons per day (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2022). Even though the project would facilitate population growth beyond that projected in the SAPP EIR as discussed further in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would be adequately served by local infrastructure. As shown in Table 14, the project would produce 0.064 tons per day which would be approximately 0.0024 percent of Kirby Landfill’s maximum permitted throughput.
Table 14 Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Total (tons/year) Total (tons/day)
Residential (Multi Family) 21.73 0.06
Retail 1.57 0.004
Total 23.3 0.064
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
122
Notes: lbs= pounds
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod worksheets.
As such, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure.
Furthermore, the City of Mountain View is currently implementing its Zero Waste Plan with a goal of diverting 90 percent of waste from the landfill by 2030 and has a current waste diversion rate of 78 percent (City of Mountain View 2022b). The project would have commercial solid waste and recycling bins and residential solid waste, recycling, and composting bins which would further encourage waste diversion. The project would also be required to comply with Article III of the Mountain View City Code which specifies construction and demolition debris diversion including Section 16.65 requiring applicants to recycle or divert at least 50 percent of materials generated for discard by the project. Impacts would be less than significant as analyzed in the prior EIR.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems. The utilities and service system impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Wildfire
Environmental Checklist 123
Wildfire
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
SAPP EIR
Section
IV.D.2.b
No No Impact remains
less than
significant
Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.8.7.8 No No No impact would
occur
Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.8.7.8 No No No impact would
occur
Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslopes or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.8.7.8 No No No impact would
occur
At the time of the SAPP EIR’s adoption, wildfire discussion was captured under the Public Services and Hazards and Hazardous Materials sections. However, this section was subsequently added as a standalone section to the CEQA Guidelines checklist.
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to wildfire, described in Section IV.D, Public Services of the SAPP EIR and Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2014.
Impacts due to wildfire were analyzed on pages 167 through 168 of the SAPP EIR and on page 54 of the Initial Study for the SAPP EIR. Impacts due to wildfire from implementation of the SAPP were determined to be less than significant.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
124
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
The project site is not located in or adjacent to a VHFHSZ or State Responsibility Area (SRA) (CAL FIRE 2008). The nearest VHFHSZ to the project site is located over 8 miles south, near the City of Saratoga. The nearest SRA is located over 4 miles south in the Rancho San Antonio Open Space.
As analyzed in the previous environmental document, impacts due to wildfire would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant wildfire impacts. The wildfire impacts are within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no supplemental/subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Checklist 125
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in the SAPP EIR
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially
More Severe
Significant
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environment
Documents
Mitigation
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
Does the project:
Have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Initial Study
of the SAPP
EIR, Section
4.4.6 and
4.5.2 No No Impacts would
remain less
than significant
Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects.)
SAPP EIR
Section IV
and Initial
Study of the
SAPP EIR
No No Impacts would
remain less
than significant
Have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
SAPP EIR
Section IV.B
and IV.C and
Section 4.8.7
of Initial
Study of the
SAPP EIR
No No Impacts would
remain less
than significant
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to the mandatory findings of significance, except where noted in earlier individual resources sections of the above checklist.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
126
Impacts for mandatory findings of significance were analyzed in Section IV of the SAPP EIR and the Initial Study, including specific analysis in Sections 4.4.6, 4.5.2 and 4.8.7 of the Initial Study. Impacts for mandatory findings of significance were determined to be less than significant in the SAPP EIR. a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal based on the project location and context, as well as through implementation of COAs included in the SAPP EIR. COAs FEP-04, -05, and -22 would limit stormwater pollution and runoff impacts due to project development which could lead to sedimentation and erosion that could negatively affect offsite habitats, such as the Adobe Creek.
Implementation of COA PL-198 would require that either vegetation removal and construction activities would occur to avoid nesting bird season, or a preconstruction nesting bird survey would be required to identify and avoid disturbing any nests during construction activities which would reduce impacts to special-status birds. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would remain less than significant.
As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 7, Geology and Soils, no historical, archaeological, or paleontological resources were identified onsite. In the event unanticipated archaeological resources or human remains would be encountered during project ground-disturbing activities, implementation of COA PL-194 and PL-195 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources and human remains Therefore, as analyzed in the previouslycertified environmental document, impacts to important examples of California history or prehistory would remain less than significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), cumulative impacts associated with some of the resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Water Supply, Solid Waste, and Transportation. As discussed in these sections, impacts (including cumulative impacts) would be less than significant. The project would decrease traffic compared to existing conditions and the project would be below screening thresholds for VMT analysis and would have a less than significant VMT impact. Other resource areas were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts. As such, cumulative impacts in these issue areas would also be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). Other issues (e.g., aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials) are site-specific by nature, and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. Thus, the project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, as analyzed in the previously-certified environmental document, impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Checklist 127
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not generate significant impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants (with implementation of COA PL-192), expose sensitive receivers to substantial pollutants, or result in adverse odors. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, impacts related to groundwater, vapor, or soil contamination would not be significant as a result of project implementation of COAs HAZ-04, PL-39, PL-49, PL-50, and PL-51. Therefore, implementation of the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative hazards impacts. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, the project would not generate significant impacts related to ambient noise or ground-borne vibration with implementation of COAs BID-64, PL-152, PL-188, PL-189 and Mitigation Measure NOISE-1 (from the SAPP EIR). Thus, the project would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, as analyzed in the previouslycertified environmental document, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, have impacts that are cumulatively considerable, or cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
With incorporation of appropriate COAs and mitigation measures, the project would have no new significant or substantially more severe or peculiar site-specific impacts related to mandatory findings of significance, nor would there be potentially significant offsite impacts, cumulative impacts, or previously identified significant effects, which were not discussed in the prior environmental document. Neither the project, nor any new circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, nor any new information (which was not known or could not have been known at the time the SAPP EIR was certified) would result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than discussed in the previously-certified environmental document. Therefore, the project is within the scope of the previously-certified SAPP EIR analysis, and no additional supplemental/ subsequent EIR analysis is required pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
128
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Checklist 129
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
130
References
Bibliography
Aluminum Anodizers Council. 2021. What is anodizing? https://www.anodizing.org/page/what-isanodizing (accessed December 2021).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2009. Regulation 8 Organic Compounds Rule 3 Architectural Coatings. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-8-rule3-architecturalcoatings/documents/rg0803_0709.pdf?la=en&rev=f865de8d8a194eaf96970b766689468a (accessed January 2022).
______. 2017a. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed January 2022). ______. 2017b. Spare the Air Cool the Climate: 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19, 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed January 2022).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015. Fault Activity Map of California. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/ (accessed December 2021). ______. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed December 2021).
______. 2021a. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021b. Santa Clara County Tsunami Hazard Areas. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/santa-clara (accessed January 2022).
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2021. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2021 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Updated May 2021. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/e-5/ (accessed January 2022).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6766/fhszs_map43.pdf (accessed December 2021).
______. 2008. Santa Clara County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6764/fhszl_map43.pdf (accessed December 2021).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2022. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Kirby Canyon Recycling and Disposal Facility. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1370?siteID=3393 (accessed January 2022).
References
Environmental Checklist 131
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. California State Scenic Highway System Map.
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e 8057116f1aacaa (accessed December 2021).
______. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed January 2022).
______. 2021. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways (XLSX). https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed December 2021).
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2021a. Water Management Planning Tool. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/boundaries/ (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021b. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Basin Prioritization Dashboard. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/ (accessed December 2021).
Ed Data. 2021a. Los Altos High. http://www.ed-data.org/school/Santa-Clara/Mountain-View--LosAltos-Union-High/Los-Altos-High (accessed December 2021). ______. 2021b. Los Altos Elementary. http://www.ed-data.org/district/Santa-Clara/Los-AltosElementary (accessed December 2021).
Energy Trust of Oregon. 2013. Footcandle Light Guide.
https://www.lightingdesignlab.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Footcandle_Lighting%20Guide_R ev.072013.pdf (accessed December 2021).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Map #06085C0038H. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed December 2021).
Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Published September 2018.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed January 2022).
Illingworth & Rodkin. 2009. Wal-Mart Expansion, Williamson Ranch Plaza, Antioch, California, Environmental Noise Assessment.
Los Altos School District. 2007. School Attendance Boundaries. https://www.lasdschools.org/files/user/1/file/Adopted_attendance_boundaries_6_18_07.p df (accessed December 2021).
Los Angeles, City of. 2014. Palladium Residences. EIR. SCH No. 2013081022. https://planning.lacity.org/eir/PalladiumResidences/DEIR/DEIR/4.I_Noise.pdf.
Mountain View, City of. 2008. Zoning Map. Updated January 2020. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10990 (accessed December 2021).
______. 2012a. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 10, 2012. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702 (accessed December 2021).
City of Mountain View
334 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project
132
______. 2012b. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/regulations/general.asp (accessed December 2021).
______. 2012c. City of Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10700 (accessed January 2022).
______. 2014a. SAPP. Updated May 23, 2019.
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=29703 (accessed December 2021).
______. 2014b. SAPP EIR. https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2014032001/3 (accessed December 2021). ______. 2016. Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=18998 (accessed January 2022).
______. 2020a. General Plan Land Use Map. January 2020. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=10701 (accessed December 2021).
______. 2020b. City of Mountain View Interactive Bike Map. https://mountainview.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=192d7ea0bf65 4e51a3fa51aec9de5b28 (accessed December 2021).
______. 2020c. City of Mountain View Resolution No. 18484 Series 2020. http://laserfiche.mountainview.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=232482&dbid=0&repo=City Documents (accessed March 2022).
______. 2021a. City of Mountain View Precise Plans.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/regulations/precise.asp (accessed December 2021).
______. 2021b. City of Mountain View 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 8, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobID=35844 (accessed December 2021).
______. 2022a. City of Mountain View Local Utilities.
https://www.mountainview.gov/about/learn/utilities.asp (accessed January 2022). ______. 2022b. City of Mountain View Zero Waste.
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/pw/recycling_and_zero_waste/zero/default.asp (accessed January 2022).
Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). 2020. 2020 Annual Report. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=36134 (accessed January 2022).
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2008. Palo Alto Airport. Amended November 18, 2020. https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_PAO_CLUP.pdf (accessed December 2021).
References
Environmental Checklist 133
______. 2012. Moffett Federal Airfield. Amended December 19, 2018. https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf (accessed December 2021).
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2016. 2016 Groundwater Management Plans: Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. https://s3.us-west2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2016%20Groundwater%20Management%20Plan. pdf (accessed December 2021).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1996. The Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production. Chapter 3: Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Treatment. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/mstr-ch3.pdf (accessed December 2021).
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. Information for Planning and Consultation. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (accessed December 2021).
______. 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed December 2021).
List of Preparers
Rincon prepared this Consistency Checklist under contract to the City of Mountain View. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Abe Leider, AICP, CEP, Principal
Leslie Trejo, MUP, Project Manager
Nicole Shimizu, Environmental Planner
Mimi McNamara, Environmental Planner
Jesse Voremberg, MS, Environmental Planner
Bill Vosti, Senior Planner
Julie Welch, Director
Meghan Hearne, Environmental Scientist
JulieAnn Murphy, Senior Archaeologist
Ashley Losco, Archaeologist
Allysen Valencia, GIS Specialist
Dario Campos, Production Specialist
Appendix AQ
California Emissions Estimator Model Outputs
334 San Antonio Project - AQ
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Refer to site plans. Parking=24359 sf garage+24359 sf garage. Other asphalt=288 sf driveway. Other non-asphalt=2606 sf res crtyd+6,852 sf public crtyd+4700 sf terrace. Apts=75737 sf(total building area)-2000 sf commercial.
Construction Phase - Based on applicant-provided info
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Demolition - Based on applicant-provided info.
Grading - Based on applicant-provided info.
Architectural Coating - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 112.00 Space 0.00 44,800.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.29 1000sqft 0.01 288.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 14.16 1000sqft 0.21 14,158.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 63.00 Dwelling Unit 0.35 73,737.00 300 Regional Shopping Center 2.00 1000sqft 0.05 2,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Operational Year 2026
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
2 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Vehicle Trips - Based on TDM Plan project trip rates per 2014 Santa Clara VTA TIA Guidelines. Apt Mid Rise Rate=(343-11 trips)/63 units=5.27. Shopping Center Rate=(76-11 trips)/2000 sf=32.5.
Woodstoves - Based on applicant-provided info.
Area Coating - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
Energy Use - Building would be all-electric and would not use natural gas.
Water And Wastewater - Project would not include septic tanks. Wastewater would be treated at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant which does not use facultative lagoons.
Solid Waste - To account for Mountain View's 78% diversion rate, an additional 25% solid waste diversion rate was included. Apt=28.98*0.75=21.73. Shopping Center=2.10*0.75=1.57.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Based on COA PL-93: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info. Parking reduction calculated based on San Antonio Precise Plan parking requirements and project design.
Area Mitigation - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
Energy Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info building would be all-electric and have 6,000 sf of rooftop solar panels.
Water Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150 100
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Parking 150 100
tblAreaCoating Area_EF_Residential_Exterior 150 100
tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 42.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 348.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 86.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 43.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 42.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 65.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 3,155.00 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 5,226.68 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 2.34 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 11.14 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.50 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 9.45 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.52 63.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 10.71 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 19,200.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 290.00 288.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 14,160.00 14,158.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 63,000.00 73,737.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.01 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.33 0.21
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.66 0.35
tblLandUse Population 180.00 300.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Aerial Lifts
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Bore/Drill Rigs tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cement and Mortar Mixers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pressure Washers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pumps
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rough Terrain Forklifts tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Welders
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Paving Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 28.98 21.73
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.10 1.57
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 5.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 32.50
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.26 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.26 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.2949 2.8016 2.9582 7.1500e0030.2033 0.1099 0.3132 0.0763 0.1042 0.1805 0.0000 631.9463 631.9463 0.1210 0.0142 639.2138 2025 0.4699 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.0878 0.1546 0.2424 0.0237 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.881 3 1,017.881
3 0.1741 7.6400e0031,024.509
0 2026 0.5209 0.3592 0.4684 9.3000e0046.9700e0030.0150 0.0219 1.8500e0030.0140 0.0159 0.0000 81.1576 81.1576 0.0198 1.2000e00481.6889 Maximum 0.5209 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.2033 0.1546 0.3132 0.0763 0.1490 0.1805 0.0000 1,017.881 3 1,017.881
3 0.1741 0.0142 1,024.509
0 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
2024 0.2949 2.8016 2.9582 7.1500e0030.1298 0.1099 0.2397 0.0447 0.1042 0.1489 0.0000 631.9456 631.9456 0.1210 0.0142 639.2132 2025 0.4699 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.0878 0.1546 0.2424 0.0237 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.880 2 1,017.880
2 0.1741 7.6400e0031,024.507
9 2026 0.5209 0.3592 0.4684 9.3000e0046.9700e0030.0150 0.0219 1.8500e0030.0140 0.0159 0.0000 81.1575 81.1575 0.0198 1.2000e00481.6888 Maximum 0.5209 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.1298 0.1546 0.2424 0.0447 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.880 2 1,017.880
2 0.1741 0.0142 1,024.507
9 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.65 0.00 12.72 31.01 0.00 8.55 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 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 0.6162 0.6162
2 6-1-2024 8-31-2024 0.6739 0.6739
3 9-1-2024 11-30-2024 1.4130 1.4130
4 12-1-2024 2-28-2025 1.1393 1.1393
5 3-1-2025 5-31-2025 1.1353 1.1353
6 6-1-2025 8-31-2025 1.1346 1.1346
7 9-1-2025 11-30-2025 1.1237 1.1237
8 12-1-2025 2-28-2026 0.9925 0.9925
9 3-1-2026 5-31-2026 0.2676 0.2676
Highest 1.4130 1.4130
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 Mobile 0.1444 0.1568 1.3309 2.7500e0030.3133 2.0300e0030.3153 0.0837 1.8900e0030.0856 0.0000 262.0092 262.0092 0.0170 0.0125 266.1628 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7297 0.0000 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5047 0.0294 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386 Total 0.5060 0.1622 1.7994 2.7700e0030.3133 4.6300e0030.3179 0.0837 4.4900e0030.0882 6.2344 263.2660 269.5003 0.3024 0.0158 281.7648 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 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 0.1227 0.1181 1.0076 1.8600e0030.2083 1.4300e0030.2097 0.0556 1.3300e0030.0570 0.0000 177.1074 177.1074 0.0136 9.4600e003180.2669 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7297 0.0000 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2037 0.0247 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121 Total 0.4843 0.1235 1.4761 1.8800e0030.2083 4.0300e0030.2123 0.0556 3.9300e0030.0596 5.9334 177.8985 183.8320 0.2980 0.0121 194.8815 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 3/1/2024 6/30/2024 5 86
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 8/31/2024 5 65 3 Grading Grading 8/1/2024 9/30/2024 5 43
ROG NOx 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
4.29 23.89 17.97 32.13 33.52 12.96 33.22 33.52 12.47 32.45 4.83 32.43 31.79 1.46 23.45 30.84 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 9/1/2024 12/31/2025 5 348 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2026 2/27/2026 5 42
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2026 3/31/2026 5 42 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 64 0.46
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 1 65 0.37
Residential Indoor: 149,317; Residential Outdoor: 49,772; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,000; Striped Parking Area: 3,555 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 32.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32.25
Acres of Paving: 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203 0.36
Site Preparation Excavators 1 158 0.38
Demolition Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Demolition Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Dumpers/Tenders 1 16 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.40
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 1 212 0.43
Site Preparation Plate Compactors 1 8 0.43
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 81 0.73
Grading Plate Compactors 1 8 0.43
Grading Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 64 0.46
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 1 65 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203 0.36
Grading Excavators 1 158 0.38
Building Construction Aerial Lifts 1 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
Building Construction Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Pressure Washers 1 8.00 13 0.30
Building Construction Pumps 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8.00 100 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Building Construction Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Paving Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 10 25.00 0.00 9.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 9 23.00 0.00 2,400.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 20 71.00 17.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 11 28.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 1.0200e0030.0000 1.0200e0031.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0030.0311 0.0311 0.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3428 137.3428 0.0375 0.0000 138.2809 Total 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0031.0200e0030.0311 0.0321 1.5000e0040.0291 0.0292 0.0000 137.3428 137.3428 0.0375 0.0000 138.2809 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 1.0000e0056.1000e0041.4000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.2644 0.2644 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.2771 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5700e0031.6800e0030.0223 7.0000e0058.4900e0034.0000e0058.5400e0032.2600e0034.0000e0052.3000e0030.0000 6.4933 6.4933 1.7000e0041.7000e0046.5483 Total 2.5800e0032.2900e0030.0224 7.0000e0058.5700e0034.0000e0058.6200e0032.2800e0034.0000e0052.3300e0030.0000 6.7576 6.7576 1.8000e0042.1000e0046.8254 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 4.6000e0040.0000 4.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0030.0311 0.0311 0.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3426 137.3426 0.0375 0.0000 138.2808 Total 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0034.6000e0040.0311 0.0316 7.0000e0050.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3426 137.3426 0.0375 0.0000 138.2808 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 1.0000e0056.1000e0041.4000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.2644 0.2644 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.2771 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5700e0031.6800e0030.0223 7.0000e0058.4900e0034.0000e0058.5400e0032.2600e0034.0000e0052.3000e0030.0000 6.4933 6.4933 1.7000e0041.7000e0046.5483 Total 2.5800e0032.2900e0030.0224 7.0000e0058.5700e0034.0000e0058.6200e0032.2800e0034.0000e0052.3300e0030.0000 6.7576 6.7576 1.8000e0042.1000e0046.8254 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0172 0.0000 0.0172 1.8600e0030.0000 1.8600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0048.7000e0038.7000e0038.0000e0038.0000e0030.0000 36.6787 36.6787 0.0119 0.0000 36.9753 Total 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0040.0172 8.7000e0030.0259 1.8600e0038.0000e0039.8600e0030.0000 36.6787 36.6787 0.0119 0.0000 36.9753 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 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Total 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 7.7500e0030.0000 7.7500e0038.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0048.7000e0038.7000e0038.0000e0038.0000e0030.0000 36.6786 36.6786 0.0119 0.0000 36.9752 Total 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0047.7500e0038.7000e0030.0165 8.4000e0048.0000e0038.8400e0030.0000 36.6786 36.6786 0.0119 0.0000 36.9752 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 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Total 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.1153 0.0000 0.1153 0.0554 0.0000 0.0554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0049.8500e0039.8500e0039.0600e0039.0600e0030.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0240 Total 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0040.1153 9.8500e0030.1251 0.0554 9.0600e0030.0645 0.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0240 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 2.4900e0030.1628 0.0385 7.1000e0040.0203 1.3300e0030.0216 5.5800e0031.2700e0036.8500e0030.0000 70.5009 70.5009 2.3600e0030.0112 73.8896 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1800e0037.7000e0040.0103 3.0000e0053.9100e0032.0000e0053.9300e0031.0400e0032.0000e0051.0600e0030.0000 2.9869 2.9869 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0122 Total 3.6700e0030.1636 0.0487 7.4000e0040.0242 1.3500e0030.0256 6.6200e0031.2900e0037.9100e0030.0000 73.4878 73.4878 2.4400e0030.0113 76.9018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0519 0.0000 0.0519 0.0249 0.0000 0.0249 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0049.8500e0039.8500e0039.0600e0039.0600e0030.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0239 Total 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0040.0519 9.8500e0030.0617 0.0249 9.0600e0030.0340 0.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0239 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 2.4900e0030.1628 0.0385 7.1000e0040.0203 1.3300e0030.0216 5.5800e0031.2700e0036.8500e0030.0000 70.5009 70.5009 2.3600e0030.0112 73.8896 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1800e0037.7000e0040.0103 3.0000e0053.9100e0032.0000e0053.9300e0031.0400e0032.0000e0051.0600e0030.0000 2.9869 2.9869 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0122 Total 3.6700e0030.1636 0.0487 7.4000e0040.0242 1.3500e0030.0256 6.6200e0031.2900e0037.9100e0030.0000 73.4878 73.4878 2.4400e0030.0113 76.9018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9978 306.9978 0.0578 0.0000 308.4430 Total 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9978 306.9978 0.0578 0.0000 308.4430 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 7.7000e0040.0329 0.0101 1.5000e0044.8500e0031.9000e0045.0500e0031.4000e0031.9000e0041.5900e0030.0000 14.3699 14.3699 3.0000e0042.1300e00315.0107 Worker 7.4000e0034.8300e0030.0640 2.0000e0040.0244 1.2000e0040.0245 6.4900e0031.1000e0046.6000e0030.0000 18.6553 18.6553 5.0000e0044.9000e00418.8135 Total 8.1700e0030.0377 0.0741 3.5000e0040.0293 3.1000e0040.0296 7.8900e0033.0000e0048.1900e0030.0000 33.0252 33.0252 8.0000e0042.6200e00333.8242 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9974 306.9974 0.0578 0.0000 308.4427 Total 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9974 306.9974 0.0578 0.0000 308.4427 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 7.7000e0040.0329 0.0101 1.5000e0044.8500e0031.9000e0045.0500e0031.4000e0031.9000e0041.5900e0030.0000 14.3699 14.3699 3.0000e0042.1300e00315.0107 Worker 7.4000e0034.8300e0030.0640 2.0000e0040.0244 1.2000e0040.0245 6.4900e0031.1000e0046.6000e0030.0000 18.6553 18.6553 5.0000e0044.9000e00418.8135 Total 8.1700e0030.0377 0.0741 3.5000e0040.0293 3.1000e0040.0296 7.8900e0033.0000e0048.1900e0030.0000 33.0252 33.0252 8.0000e0042.6200e00333.8242 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9095 920.9095 0.1719 0.0000 925.2058 Total 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9095 920.9095 0.1719 0.0000 925.2058 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 2.2400e0030.0983 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0146 5.8000e0040.0151 4.2100e0035.6000e0044.7700e0030.0000 42.3431 42.3431 8.8000e0046.2600e00344.2307 Worker 0.0209 0.0131 0.1802 5.8000e0040.0732 3.4000e0040.0736 0.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 0.0000 54.6287 54.6287 1.3600e0031.3800e00355.0725 Total 0.0231 0.1114 0.2099 1.0100e0030.0878 9.2000e0040.0887 0.0237 8.8000e0040.0246 0.0000 96.9718 96.9718 2.2400e0037.6400e00399.3032 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9084 920.9084 0.1719 0.0000 925.2047 Total 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9084 920.9084 0.1719 0.0000 925.2047 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 2.2400e0030.0983 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0146 5.8000e0040.0151 4.2100e0035.6000e0044.7700e0030.0000 42.3431 42.3431 8.8000e0046.2600e00344.2307 Worker 0.0209 0.0131 0.1802 5.8000e0040.0732 3.4000e0040.0736 0.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 0.0000 54.6287 54.6287 1.3600e0031.3800e00355.0725 Total 0.0231 0.1114 0.2099 1.0100e0030.0878 9.2000e0040.0887 0.0237 8.8000e0040.0246 0.0000 96.9718 96.9718 2.2400e0037.6400e00399.3032 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Off-Road 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7137 70.7137 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 Paving 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7137 70.7137 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 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 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Total 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Off-Road 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7136 70.7136 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 Paving 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7136 70.7136 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 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 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Total 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Archit. Coating 0.4789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.5900e0030.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 Total 0.4825 0.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 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 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Total 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Archit. Coating 0.4789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.5900e0030.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 Total 0.4825 0.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 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 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Total 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1227 0.1181 1.0076 1.8600e0030.2083 1.4300e0030.2097 0.0556 1.3300e0030.0570 0.0000 177.1074 177.1074 0.0136 9.4600e003180.2669 Unmitigated 0.1444 0.1568 1.3309 2.7500e0030.3133 2.0300e0030.3153 0.0837 1.8900e0030.0856 0.0000 262.0092 262.0092 0.0170 0.0125 266.1628
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
Apartments Mid Rise 332.01 309.33 257.67 734,802 488,470 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 65.00 92.24 42.20 115,077 76,499 Total 397.01 401.57 299.87 849,878 564,969
Increase Transit Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Limit Parking Supply
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771 Regional Shopping Center 0.554285 0.058871 0.188253 0.120585 0.022598 0.005697 0.010798 0.007525 0.000977 0.000545 0.026246 0.000848 0.002771
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.4609 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Regional
Shopping Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Regional
Shopping Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
243585 0.2210 0.0000 0.0000 0.2210
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
243712 0.2211 0.0000 0.0000 0.2211
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
20780 0.0189 0.0000 0.0000 0.0189
Total 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0 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 34 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Unmitigated 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849
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
0.0479 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2996 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0141 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Total 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
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
0.0479 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2996 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0141 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Total 0.3617 5.3900e0030.4685 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.4000e0040.0000 0.7849 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121
Unmitigated 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
4.1047 /
2.58775
1.4806 5.0000e0033.1600e0032.5467
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0.148145 /
0.0907986
0.0534 1.8000e0041.1000e0040.0919
Total 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.28376 /
2.4299
1.1856 4.0000e0032.5300e0032.0385
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0.118516 /
0.0852599
0.0428 1.4000e0049.0000e0050.0736
Total 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Unmitigated 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.73 4.4110 0.2607 0.0000 10.9281
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7896
Total 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.73 4.4110 0.2607 0.0000 10.9281
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7896
Total 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 3:56 PM 334 San Antonio Project - AQ - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 334 San Antonio Project - GHG
Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - Refer to site plans. Parking=24359 sf garage+24359 sf garage. Other asphalt=288 sf driveway. Other non-asphalt=2606 sf res crtyd+6,852 sf public crtyd+4700 sf terrace. Apts=75737 sf(total building area)-2000 sf commercial.
Construction Phase - Based on applicant-provided info
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Demolition - Based on applicant-provided info.
Grading - Based on applicant-provided info.
Architectural Coating - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Enclosed Parking with Elevator 112.00 Space 0.00 44,800.00 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.29 1000sqft 0.01 288.00 0
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 14.16 1000sqft 0.21 14,158.00 0 Apartments Mid Rise 63.00 Dwelling Unit 0.35 73,737.00 300 Regional Shopping Center 2.00 1000sqft 0.05 2,000.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
4 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 64
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Operational Year 2030
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
2 CH4 Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Vehicle Trips - Based on TDM Plan project trip rates per 2014 Santa Clara VTA TIA Guidelines. Apt Mid Rise Rate=(343-11 trips)/63 units=5.27. Shopping Center Rate=(76-11 trips)/2000 sf=32.5.
Woodstoves - Based on applicant-provided info.
Area Coating - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
Energy Use - Building would be all-electric and would not use natural gas.
Water And Wastewater - Project would not include septic tanks. Wastewater would be treated at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant which does not use facultative lagoons.
Solid Waste - To account for Mountain View's 78% diversion rate, an additional 25% solid waste diversion rate was included. Apt=28.98*0.75=21.73. Shopping Center=2.10*0.75=1.57.
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Based on COA PL-93: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures.
Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info. Parking reduction calculated based on San Antonio Precise Plan parking requirements and project design.
Area Mitigation - Based on BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 3.
Energy Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info building would be all-electric and have 6,000 sf of rooftop solar panels.
Water Mitigation - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Off-road Equipment - Based on applicant-provided info.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Nonresidential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Parking 150.00 100.00
tblArchitecturalCoating EF_Residential_Exterior 150.00 100.00 tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpavedRoadVehicleSpeed 0 15 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 86.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 1.00 65.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 43.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 100.00 348.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 42.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblConstructionPhase NumDays 5.00 42.00
tblEnergyUse NT24NG 3,155.00 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 5,226.68 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 2.34 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 11.14 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.50 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 9.45 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 2.52 63.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 10.71 0.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 19,200.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 290.00 288.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 14,160.00 14,158.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 63,000.00 73,737.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.01 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.33 0.21
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.66 0.35
tblLandUse Population 180.00 300.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Aerial Lifts
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Bore/Drill Rigs tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cement and Mortar Mixers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Crawler Tractors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Generator Sets tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pressure Washers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pumps
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rough Terrain Forklifts tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Welders
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Air Compressors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Graders
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Paving Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Signal Boards
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 2.00 tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 28.98 21.73
tblSolidWaste SolidWasteGenerationRate 2.10 1.57
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.44 5.27
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 37.75 32.50
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AerobicPercent 87.46 100.00
tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater AnaerobicandFacultativeLagoonsPercent 2.21 0.00 tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWater SepticTankPercent 10.33 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.26 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.26 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.2949 2.8016 2.9582 7.1500e0030.2033 0.1099 0.3132 0.0763 0.1042 0.1805 0.0000 631.9463 631.9463 0.1210 0.0142 639.2138 2025 0.4699 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.0878 0.1546 0.2424 0.0237 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.881 3 1,017.881
3 0.1741 7.6400e0031,024.509
0 2026 0.5209 0.3592 0.4684 9.3000e0046.9700e0030.0150 0.0219 1.8500e0030.0140 0.0159 0.0000 81.1576 81.1576 0.0198 1.2000e00481.6889 Maximum 0.5209 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.2033 0.1546 0.3132 0.0763 0.1490 0.1805 0.0000 1,017.881 3 1,017.881
3 0.1741 0.0142 1,024.509
0 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
2024 0.2949 2.8016 2.9582 7.1500e0030.1298 0.1099 0.2397 0.0447 0.1042 0.1489 0.0000 631.9456 631.9456 0.1210 0.0142 639.2132 2025 0.4699 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.0878 0.1546 0.2424 0.0237 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.880 2 1,017.880
2 0.1741 7.6400e0031,024.507
9 2026 0.5209 0.3592 0.4684 9.3000e0046.9700e0030.0150 0.0219 1.8500e0030.0140 0.0159 0.0000 81.1575 81.1575 0.0198 1.2000e00481.6888 Maximum 0.5209 4.0401 5.1717 0.0117 0.1298 0.1546 0.2424 0.0447 0.1490 0.1727 0.0000 1,017.880 2 1,017.880
2 0.1741 0.0142 1,024.507
9 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.65 0.00 12.72 31.01 0.00 8.55 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 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 0.6162 0.6162
2 6-1-2024 8-31-2024 0.6739 0.6739
3 9-1-2024 11-30-2024 1.4130 1.4130
4 12-1-2024 2-28-2025 1.1393 1.1393
5 3-1-2025 5-31-2025 1.1353 1.1353
6 6-1-2025 8-31-2025 1.1346 1.1346
7 9-1-2025 11-30-2025 1.1237 1.1237
8 12-1-2025 2-28-2026 0.9925 0.9925
9 3-1-2026 5-31-2026 0.2676 0.2676
Highest 1.4130 1.4130
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 Mobile 0.1262 0.1346 1.1949 2.4900e0030.3133 1.6700e0030.3150 0.0837 1.5500e0030.0853 0.0000 242.9040 242.9040 0.0149 0.0113 246.6327 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7297 0.0000 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.5047 0.0294 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386 Total 0.4941 0.1399 1.6626 2.5100e0030.3133 4.2700e0030.3176 0.0837 4.1500e0030.0879 6.2344 244.1607 250.3950 0.3004 0.0145 262.2346 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 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 0.1060 0.1015 0.9047 1.6800e0030.2083 1.1800e0030.2095 0.0557 1.1000e0030.0568 0.0000 164.1759 164.1759 0.0118 8.4900e003166.9993 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.7297 0.0000 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2037 0.0247 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121 Total 0.4739 0.1069 1.3724 1.7000e0030.2083 3.7800e0030.2121 0.0557 3.7000e0030.0594 5.9334 164.9670 170.9004 0.2962 0.0111 181.6138 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 3/1/2024 6/30/2024 5 86
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/1/2024 8/31/2024 5 65 3 Grading Grading 8/1/2024 9/30/2024 5 43
ROG NOx 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
4.09 23.60 17.45 32.27 33.52 11.48 33.23 33.52 10.84 32.46 4.83 32.44 31.75 1.40 23.54 30.74 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 4 Building Construction Building Construction 9/1/2024 12/31/2025 5 348 5 Paving Paving 1/1/2026 2/27/2026 5 42
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 2/1/2026 3/31/2026 5 42 OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 1.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 6.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 6.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 6.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 4.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Paving Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Paving Pavers 1 7.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 64 0.46
Site Preparation Skid Steer Loaders 1 65 0.37
Residential Indoor: 149,317; Residential Outdoor: 49,772; Non-Residential Indoor: 3,000; Non-Residential Outdoor: 1,000; Striped Parking Area: 3,555 (Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 32.5
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 32.25
Acres of Paving: 0.22
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Site Preparation Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203 0.36
Site Preparation Excavators 1 158 0.38
Demolition Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46
Demolition Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Demolition Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Demolition Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Site Preparation Dumpers/Tenders 1 16 0.38
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 247 0.40
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 1 212 0.43
Site Preparation Plate Compactors 1 8 0.43
Site Preparation Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 81 0.73
Grading Plate Compactors 1 8 0.43
Grading Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 64 0.46
Grading Skid Steer Loaders 1 65 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203 0.36
Grading Excavators 1 158 0.38
Building Construction Aerial Lifts 1 8.00 63 0.31
Building Construction Bore/Drill Rigs 2 8.00 221 0.50
Building Construction Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Building Construction Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Building Construction Crawler Tractors 1 8.00 212 0.43
Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Building Construction Generator Sets 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Pressure Washers 1 8.00 13 0.30
Building Construction Pumps 2 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 8.00 100 0.40 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads
Building Construction Skid Steer Loaders 1 8.00 65 0.37 Building Construction Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Air Compressors 1 8.00 78 0.48
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Paving Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Paving Rubber Tired Loaders 1 8.00 203 0.36
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Signal Boards 1 8.00 6 0.82
Paving Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 10 25.00 0.00 9.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 12 30.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 9 23.00 0.00 2,400.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 20 71.00 17.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 11 28.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 14.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 1.0200e0030.0000 1.0200e0031.5000e0040.0000 1.5000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0030.0311 0.0311 0.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3428 137.3428 0.0375 0.0000 138.2809 Total 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0031.0200e0030.0311 0.0321 1.5000e0040.0291 0.0292 0.0000 137.3428 137.3428 0.0375 0.0000 138.2809 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 1.0000e0056.1000e0041.4000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.2644 0.2644 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.2771 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5700e0031.6800e0030.0223 7.0000e0058.4900e0034.0000e0058.5400e0032.2600e0034.0000e0052.3000e0030.0000 6.4933 6.4933 1.7000e0041.7000e0046.5483 Total 2.5800e0032.2900e0030.0224 7.0000e0058.5700e0034.0000e0058.6200e0032.2800e0034.0000e0052.3300e0030.0000 6.7576 6.7576 1.8000e0042.1000e0046.8254 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 4.6000e0040.0000 4.6000e0047.0000e0050.0000 7.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0030.0311 0.0311 0.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3426 137.3426 0.0375 0.0000 138.2808 Total 0.0766 0.7248 0.7702 1.5700e0034.6000e0040.0311 0.0316 7.0000e0050.0291 0.0291 0.0000 137.3426 137.3426 0.0375 0.0000 138.2808 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 1.0000e0056.1000e0041.4000e0040.0000 8.0000e0050.0000 8.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 3.0000e0050.0000 0.2644 0.2644 1.0000e0054.0000e0050.2771 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.5700e0031.6800e0030.0223 7.0000e0058.4900e0034.0000e0058.5400e0032.2600e0034.0000e0052.3000e0030.0000 6.4933 6.4933 1.7000e0041.7000e0046.5483 Total 2.5800e0032.2900e0030.0224 7.0000e0058.5700e0034.0000e0058.6200e0032.2800e0034.0000e0052.3300e0030.0000 6.7576 6.7576 1.8000e0042.1000e0046.8254 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0172 0.0000 0.0172 1.8600e0030.0000 1.8600e0030.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0048.7000e0038.7000e0038.0000e0038.0000e0030.0000 36.6787 36.6787 0.0119 0.0000 36.9753 Total 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0040.0172 8.7000e0030.0259 1.8600e0038.0000e0039.8600e0030.0000 36.6787 36.6787 0.0119 0.0000 36.9753 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 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Total 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 7.7500e0030.0000 7.7500e0038.4000e0040.0000 8.4000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0048.7000e0038.7000e0038.0000e0038.0000e0030.0000 36.6786 36.6786 0.0119 0.0000 36.9752 Total 0.0209 0.2292 0.1992 4.2000e0047.7500e0038.7000e0030.0165 8.4000e0048.0000e0038.8400e0030.0000 36.6786 36.6786 0.0119 0.0000 36.9752 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 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Total 2.3400e0031.5200e0030.0202 6.0000e0057.7000e0034.0000e0057.7400e0032.0500e0033.0000e0052.0800e0030.0000 5.8892 5.8892 1.6000e0041.5000e0045.9392 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.1153 0.0000 0.1153 0.0554 0.0000 0.0554 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0049.8500e0039.8500e0039.0600e0039.0600e0030.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0240 Total 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0040.1153 9.8500e0030.1251 0.0554 9.0600e0030.0645 0.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0240 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 2.4900e0030.1628 0.0385 7.1000e0040.0203 1.3300e0030.0216 5.5800e0031.2700e0036.8500e0030.0000 70.5009 70.5009 2.3600e0030.0112 73.8896 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1800e0037.7000e0040.0103 3.0000e0053.9100e0032.0000e0053.9300e0031.0400e0032.0000e0051.0600e0030.0000 2.9869 2.9869 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0122 Total 3.6700e0030.1636 0.0487 7.4000e0040.0242 1.3500e0030.0256 6.6200e0031.2900e0037.9100e0030.0000 73.4878 73.4878 2.4400e0030.0113 76.9018 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Fugitive Dust 0.0519 0.0000 0.0519 0.0249 0.0000 0.0249 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0049.8500e0039.8500e0039.0600e0039.0600e0030.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0239 Total 0.0223 0.2364 0.1613 3.6000e0040.0519 9.8500e0030.0617 0.0249 9.0600e0030.0340 0.0000 31.7671 31.7671 0.0103 0.0000 32.0239 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 2.4900e0030.1628 0.0385 7.1000e0040.0203 1.3300e0030.0216 5.5800e0031.2700e0036.8500e0030.0000 70.5009 70.5009 2.3600e0030.0112 73.8896 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.1800e0037.7000e0040.0103 3.0000e0053.9100e0032.0000e0053.9300e0031.0400e0032.0000e0051.0600e0030.0000 2.9869 2.9869 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.0122 Total 3.6700e0030.1636 0.0487 7.4000e0040.0242 1.3500e0030.0256 6.6200e0031.2900e0037.9100e0030.0000 73.4878 73.4878 2.4400e0030.0113 76.9018 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9978 306.9978 0.0578 0.0000 308.4430 Total 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9978 306.9978 0.0578 0.0000 308.4430 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 7.7000e0040.0329 0.0101 1.5000e0044.8500e0031.9000e0045.0500e0031.4000e0031.9000e0041.5900e0030.0000 14.3699 14.3699 3.0000e0042.1300e00315.0107 Worker 7.4000e0034.8300e0030.0640 2.0000e0040.0244 1.2000e0040.0245 6.4900e0031.1000e0046.6000e0030.0000 18.6553 18.6553 5.0000e0044.9000e00418.8135 Total 8.1700e0030.0377 0.0741 3.5000e0040.0293 3.1000e0040.0296 7.8900e0033.0000e0048.1900e0030.0000 33.0252 33.0252 8.0000e0042.6200e00333.8242 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9974 306.9974 0.0578 0.0000 308.4427 Total 0.1583 1.4061 1.6621 3.5700e0030.0585 0.0585 0.0564 0.0564 0.0000 306.9974 306.9974 0.0578 0.0000 308.4427 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 7.7000e0040.0329 0.0101 1.5000e0044.8500e0031.9000e0045.0500e0031.4000e0031.9000e0041.5900e0030.0000 14.3699 14.3699 3.0000e0042.1300e00315.0107 Worker 7.4000e0034.8300e0030.0640 2.0000e0040.0244 1.2000e0040.0245 6.4900e0031.1000e0046.6000e0030.0000 18.6553 18.6553 5.0000e0044.9000e00418.8135 Total 8.1700e0030.0377 0.0741 3.5000e0040.0293 3.1000e0040.0296 7.8900e0033.0000e0048.1900e0030.0000 33.0252 33.0252 8.0000e0042.6200e00333.8242 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9095 920.9095 0.1719 0.0000 925.2058 Total 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9095 920.9095 0.1719 0.0000 925.2058 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 2.2400e0030.0983 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0146 5.8000e0040.0151 4.2100e0035.6000e0044.7700e0030.0000 42.3431 42.3431 8.8000e0046.2600e00344.2307 Worker 0.0209 0.0131 0.1802 5.8000e0040.0732 3.4000e0040.0736 0.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 0.0000 54.6287 54.6287 1.3600e0031.3800e00355.0725 Total 0.0231 0.1114 0.2099 1.0100e0030.0878 9.2000e0040.0887 0.0237 8.8000e0040.0246 0.0000 96.9718 96.9718 2.2400e0037.6400e00399.3032 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 22 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
3.5 Building Construction - 2025
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9084 920.9084 0.1719 0.0000 925.2047 Total 0.4468 3.9288 4.9618 0.0107 0.1537 0.1537 0.1481 0.1481 0.0000 920.9084 920.9084 0.1719 0.0000 925.2047 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 2.2400e0030.0983 0.0297 4.3000e0040.0146 5.8000e0040.0151 4.2100e0035.6000e0044.7700e0030.0000 42.3431 42.3431 8.8000e0046.2600e00344.2307 Worker 0.0209 0.0131 0.1802 5.8000e0040.0732 3.4000e0040.0736 0.0195 3.2000e0040.0198 0.0000 54.6287 54.6287 1.3600e0031.3800e00355.0725 Total 0.0231 0.1114 0.2099 1.0100e0030.0878 9.2000e0040.0887 0.0237 8.8000e0040.0246 0.0000 96.9718 96.9718 2.2400e0037.6400e00399.3032 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 23 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Off-Road 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7137 70.7137 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 Paving 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7137 70.7137 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 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 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Total 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 24 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Off-Road 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7136 70.7136 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 Paving 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0365 0.3341 0.4142 8.1000e0040.0138 0.0138 0.0129 0.0129 0.0000 70.7136 70.7136 0.0194 0.0000 71.1978 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 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Total 1.2500e0037.5000e0040.0108 4.0000e0054.6500e0032.0000e0054.6700e0031.2400e0032.0000e0051.2600e0030.0000 3.3880 3.3880 8.0000e0058.0000e0053.4146 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 25 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Archit. Coating 0.4789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.5900e0030.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 Total 0.4825 0.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 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 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Total 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 26 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Archit. Coating 0.4789 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.5900e0030.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 Total 0.4825 0.0241 0.0380 6.0000e0051.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0031.0800e0030.0000 5.3618 5.3618 2.9000e0040.0000 5.3691 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 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Total 6.3000e0043.8000e0045.4100e0032.0000e0052.3200e0031.0000e0052.3300e0036.2000e0041.0000e0056.3000e0040.0000 1.6940 1.6940 4.0000e0054.0000e0051.7073 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 27 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1060 0.1015 0.9047 1.6800e0030.2083 1.1800e0030.2095 0.0557 1.1000e0030.0568 0.0000 164.1759 164.1759 0.0118 8.4900e003166.9993 Unmitigated 0.1262 0.1346 1.1949 2.4900e0030.3133 1.6700e0030.3150 0.0837 1.5500e0030.0853 0.0000 242.9040 242.9040 0.0149 0.0113 246.6327
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
Apartments Mid Rise 332.01 309.33 257.67 734,802 488,470 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00
Regional Shopping Center 65.00 92.24 42.20 115,077 76,499 Total 397.01 401.57 299.87 849,878 564,969
Increase Transit Accessibility
Integrate Below Market Rate Housing
Limit Parking Supply
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 28 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 Apartments Mid Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 Regional Shopping Center 9.50 7.30 7.30 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Mid Rise 0.555148 0.059467 0.187500 0.120419 0.022094 0.005825 0.011277 0.007430 0.000952 0.000505 0.025870 0.000875 0.002638 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.555148 0.059467 0.187500 0.120419 0.022094 0.005825 0.011277 0.007430 0.000952 0.000505 0.025870 0.000875 0.002638 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.555148 0.059467 0.187500 0.120419 0.022094 0.005825 0.011277 0.007430 0.000952 0.000505 0.025870 0.000875 0.002638 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.555148 0.059467 0.187500 0.120419 0.022094 0.005825 0.011277 0.007430 0.000952 0.000505 0.025870 0.000875 0.002638 Regional Shopping Center 0.555148 0.059467 0.187500 0.120419 0.022094 0.005825 0.011277 0.007430 0.000952 0.000505 0.025870 0.000875 0.002638
5.0 Energy Detail
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Percent of Electricity Use Generated with Renewable Energy Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 29 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.4609 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609 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 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 30 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Regional
Shopping Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 31 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Other Asphalt
Surfaces
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 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 Regional
Shopping Center
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 32 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
243585 0.2210 0.0000 0.0000 0.2210
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
243712 0.2211 0.0000 0.0000 0.2211
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
20780 0.0189 0.0000 0.0000 0.0189
Total 0.4609 0.0000 0.0000 0.4609
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 33 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0 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 34 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Unmitigated 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848
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
0.0542 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2996 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0141 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Total 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 35 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
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
0.0542 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products
0.2996 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0141 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Total 0.3679 5.3900e0030.4677 2.0000e0052.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0032.6000e0030.0000 0.7664 0.7664 7.3000e0040.0000 0.7848 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 36 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121
Unmitigated 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
4.1047 /
2.58775
1.4806 5.0000e0033.1600e0032.5467
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0.148145 /
0.0907986
0.0534 1.8000e0041.1000e0040.0919
Total 1.5341 5.1800e0033.2700e0032.6386
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 37 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
3.28376 /
2.4299
1.1856 4.0000e0032.5300e0032.0385
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
0.118516 /
0.0852599
0.0428 1.4000e0049.0000e0050.0736
Total 1.2284 4.1400e0032.6200e0032.1121
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 38 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Unmitigated 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Category/Year
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.73 4.4110 0.2607 0.0000 10.9281
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7896
Total 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 39 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, 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
Apartments Mid
Rise
21.73 4.4110 0.2607 0.0000 10.9281
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other Asphalt
Surfaces
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Other NonAsphalt Surfaces0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Regional
Shopping Center
1.57 0.3187 0.0188 0.0000 0.7896
Total 4.7297 0.2795 0.0000 11.7176
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 40 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied
11.0 Vegetation
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 41 of 41 Date: 1/5/2022 4:01 PM 334 San Antonio Project - GHG - Bay Area AQMD Air District, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Applied Appendix ARB
Arborist Report
Appendix CUL
Historical Resources Memo
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
4 4 9 1 5 th S t r e e t, S u i te 3 0 3
Oakland, California 94612
510 8 3 4 4 4 5 5 O F F I C E
i n f o @ ri n c o n c o n s u l t a n ts .c o m
w w w . r i n c o n c o n s u l t a n t s . c o m
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s January 18, 2022
Project Number 21-11856
Carolyn Fahey, MURP, AICP, PhD, EcoDistrict AP
Senior Planner
City of Mountain View, Planning Division
500 Castro Street, PO Box 7540
Mountain View, California 94039‐7540
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Historical Resources Assessment for the 334 San Antonio Road Project Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California
Dear Ms. Fahey:
This report presents the findings of a historical resources assessment which was prepared in support of the 334 San Antonio Road Project (project). The project site is approximately 1 acre and comprised of one parcel (APN 148-15-020) containing one historic-age service station with associated fuel island canopy (Figure 1). As proposed, the project would involve demolition of the existing gas station and auto repair facility and construction of a five‐story multi‐family residential building with 63 for‐sale units above two levels of subterranean parking. The project would also include a 2,000 square‐foot retail space at the ground level, and street improvements along the site’s frontage on San Antonio Road and California Street. The current historical resources assessment was conducted to determine whether the project would result in an impact to historical resources and included background and archival research, a pedestrian survey of the project site, and a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University (Attachment A). All work was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other applicable state and local guidelines and regulations.
Architectural Historian Project Manager JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP completed the site visit and oversaw production of this report. Architectural Historian Ashley Losco, MSHP completed archival research and authored this report. Senior Architectural Historian Steven Treffers, MHP, provided senior oversight. GIS Analyst Allysen Valencia prepared the figures found in the report. Ms. Murphy, Ms. Losco, and Mr.
Treffers meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and Architectural History (36 CFR, Part 61).
Brief Historical Context
In the days of the Spanish colonization, Mountain View was part of the La Purisima Concepción Rancho and Rancho San Antonio. During this time, much of the Santa Clara Valley was used for cattle grazing.
After the adoption of the State constitution in 1849 and establishment of Santa Clara County in 1851, the Fremont Township included, what are today, the City of Mountain View and its neighbor, the City of Los Altos. In the 1860s and 1870s, valley lands were used for wheat and grain. Mountain View developed initially as a station stop along a stagecoach route along San Francisco-San Jose Stage Road, now El Historical Resources Assessment
334 San Antonio Road Project