ATT 6 - Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration — Mountain View City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
State Density Bonus Law
The purpose of the State Density Bonus Law (DBL) is to encourage cities to offer bonuses and incentives to housing developers that will “contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments.” (Gov. Code § 65917.) The State Density Bonus Law has four distinct primary components: (1) Density Bonuses; (2) Incentives/ Concessions; (3) Development Standard Waivers; and (4) Parking Standards. Although interrelated, each component serves a different purpose and is governed by unique standards as follows:
1) Section 65915(b)(1) of the State Density Bonus Law provides that requests for a density bonus must be granted “when an applicant for a housing development seeks and agrees to construct a housing development” that meets one or more of the statute’s thresholds. The proposed General Plan designation of Mixed-Use Corridor allows residential density of 60 dwelling units per acre. The 0.67-acre project site, therefore, would have a base density of 41 dwelling units. The project proposes five Moderate Income Below Market Rate units (12.2 percent of base density) which qualifies the project for three density bonus units (7.2 percent of base density. The project, therefore, would be allowed 44 dwelling units as proposed.
2) The number of Incentives and Concessions to which a project applicant is entitled depends upon the percentage of Very Low, Low-, or Moderate-income units provided. Based on the number of Moderate-income units proposed, the project is entitled to receive one concession or incentive. The proposed conceptual development does not request any specific incentives or concessions at this time.
3) Development Standard Waivers may also be requested under the State Density Bonus Law if the standard would physically preclude the construction of the project at the densities or with the incentives permitted under the statute. There is no limit on the number of waivers that can be issued.

The proposed mixed-use project exceeds the normally allowed height and FAR standards specified within the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP). The project is providing predominantly two- and three-bedroom units and requires adequate common spaces, building systems and circulation areas, thus the project requires a 2.50 FAR rather the maximum 1.85 FAR allowed for Tier 1 projects in the Mixed-Use Corridor subarea of the San Antonio Precise Plan.

The General Plan (Mixed Use Corridor) allows for up to six stories for projects exceeding 1.85 FAR. The San Antonio Precise Plan allows a maximum height of four stories and 55 feet, but allows up to five stories and 65 feet to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Project 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 89 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
requests a height waiver to accommodate the development above 55 feet to a maximum height of 75 feet (which is to the height of the highest roof membrane). The Project requires a minimum of six stories to accommodate a 2.5 FAR with a lot coverage of approximately 40 percent.

The Precise Plan also limits the height of new development adjacent to existing residentially zoned properties to one story above the maximum height allowed by the zoning of the adjacent residential properties. The residential properties west of the project site are zoned for a maximum of three stories, limiting buildings along the west property line to four stories. Where additional height is permitted, additional stories must step back 10 feet per story. The project has a small portion on the southwest property line where the building cannot step back. Additional stepbacks on the fifth and sixth level would be provided with limited exceptions.

The project also requires waivers to setback and lot coverage provisions of the SAPP to allow for the density bonus units. The project would provide a 6.5-foot stepback from Fayette Drive instead of the 10-foot stepback required from streets the project faces in the SAPP. The project would also require modest encroachments into the 15-foot side setbacks of the project. The project also proposes lot coverage of 41.9 percent which exceeds the 40 percent lot coverage requirements of the SAPP.
4) The fourth component of the State Density Bonus Law concerns the project parking ratio. The project is not requesting any modifications to the parking requirements for the project.

The requested height and FAR standards of the SAPP and requested exceptions are summarized in Table 4.11-1 below.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 90 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.11-1: Development Standards and Exceptions
Standard Base Tier 1 Requested by
the Project
FAR 1.35 1.85 2.50
Maximum Stories 3 4* 6
Maximum Building
Height 45 55* 75
Public Benefit
Requirement
No public benefit
contribution required
Public benefit
contribution
required
Density Bonus
Waiver
* Up to 5 stories (65 feet) will be considered on a case-by-case basis if project provides significant public benefits or major open space improvements per Figure 4-2. Additional height (in feet) may be allowed if needed to accommodate commercial uses.

Source: SAPP, City of Mountain View.

Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies were adopted to promote the quality of life in neighborhoods by preserving their character in the City of Mountain View.

Policy Description
LUD 6.1 Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The City of Mountain View adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and GGRP and certified the accompanying EIR in July 2012 (State Clearinghouse #2011012069). The General Plan is the guiding document for future growth of the City and provides the City a template for future land use decisions in the City.

City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
As a long-range planning document, the General Plan outlines long-term visions, policies, and actions designed to shape future development within Mountain View. The Zoning Ordinance serves as an implementing tool for the General Plan by establishing detailed, parcel-specific development regulations and standards in each area of the City. Although the two are distinct documents, the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 91 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Mountain View General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are closely related, and State law mandates that zoning regulations be consistent with the General Plan maps and policies.

San Antonio Precise Plan
The San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) area is generally the area identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan as the San Antonio Change Area but the Precise Plan does not include a few parcels on its southeastern boundary. The SAPP provides development regulations for two main subareas: Mixed Use Center and Mixed Use Corridor. The SAPP provides guidance for circulation improvements, open space, appropriate land uses, urban design, and building form and character within this area to promote the vitality of the area as it transitions to a mixed-use center. The Mountain View City Council approved the SAPP in December 2014.

Existing Conditions
The approximately 0.67-acre project site at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road, adjacent to the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way. The project site is within the San Antonio Change Area in the Mountain View General Plan but is not currently within the boundaries of the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project is zoned High-Density Residential (R3-D).

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) 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?
Impact LU-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. (No Impact)
Examples of projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include new freeways and highways, major arterial streets, and railroad lines. The project proposes to construct a six-story condominium development, similar to the surrounding land uses, and would not include the construction of major infrastructure. Thus, development of the residential building would not physically divide an established community. (No Impact) Impact LU-2: The project would not 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. (Less than Significant Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 92 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Land use conflicts can arise from a new development or land use that would cause impacts to persons or the physical environment in the vicinity of the project site or elsewhere. Potential incompatibility may arise from placing a particular development or land use at an inappropriate location, or from some aspect of the project’s design or scope. Depending on the nature of the impact and its severity, land use compatibility conflicts can range from minor irritations and nuisance to potentially significant effects on human health and safety.

In order to develop the proposed project on the 0.67-acre site, the project proposes to rezone the site to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district P40. Rezoning would increase the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 1.05 to 1.35 for the Mixed Use Corridor subarea of the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project also proposes a community benefit which allows a further increase in FAR to 1.85 under the Tier 1 development standards. The building height would increase from two and four floors to four and five floors. Upon receipt of the State Density Bonus the project would be allowed to propose a FAR 35 percent greater than the maximum FAR allowed by the San Antonio Precise Plan.

This would grant the project a maximum allowable FAR of 2.5 and yield 10-16 additional housing units on the site.

This increase in density to approximately 66 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan High Density Residential Zone, which allows 36 to 80 dwelling units per acre. Rezoning would also result in expansion of zoning boundaries on the northeastern corner with incorporation of a neighborhood transition area. The project would assemble two existing parcels into a larger site for development.

The General Plan designation would be amended from High-Density Residential to Mixed-Use Corridor under the San Antonio Precise Plan.

The site is surrounded by similar residential developments and commercial buildings; therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental impact or create a conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
LU-1: The project would not physically divide
an established community. No Impact No mitigation required NA LU-2: The project would not 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.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 93 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

Existing Conditions
The project is located in an urban area within the City of Mountain View. Mineral resource recovery activities do not occur on or near the project site, nor does the site contain any known mineral resources.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that will be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
2) 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?
Impact MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. (No Impact)
Based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) map of mines and mineral resources, the project site is not comprised of known mineral resources or mineral resource production areas.47 47 United States Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data: Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Mineral Resources. Accessed November 1, 2019. Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 94 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents in the state or region. (No Impact) Impact MIN-2: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. (No Impact)
See discussion for Impact MIN-1. (No Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss
of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and residents of
the state.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
MIN-2: The project would not result in the loss
of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 95 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
NOISE
Environmental Setting
Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects. Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including Leq, DNL, or CNEL.48 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A-weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.

Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 1.13-1 below. There are established criteria for frequent events (more 48 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL or Ldn) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 96 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
than 70 events of the same source per day), occasional events (30 to 70 vibration events of the same source per day), and infrequent events (less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day).

These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The purpose of the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan Noise Element is to guide policies for addressing exposure to current and projected noise sources in Mountain View. The Noise Element includes a land use compatibility section which outlines acceptable outdoor noise environment standards for land use categories, as shown below in Table 4.13-2. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 97 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.13-2: Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines
The following noise element policies are intended to reduce noise impacts and would be applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
NOI 1.1 Land Use Compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 98 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
NOI 1.3 Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.

NOI 1.4 Site planning. Use site planning and project design strategies to achieve the noise level standards in NOI 1.1 (Land Use Compatibility) and in NOI 1.2 (Noise Sensitive Land Uses). The use of noise barriers shall be considered after all practical designrelated noise measures have been integrated into the project design.

NOI 1.5 Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.

NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

NOI 1.7 Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations and goals in the zoning chapter of the City Municipal Code. The City’s codes help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. Noise is also regulated through project conditions of approval, and the Mountain View Police Department and the City Attorney’s office enforce noise violations.

Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences), and/or when construction duration lasts over an extended period of time. Section 8.70.1 of the City’s Municipal Code restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.

The City of Mountain View also identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operations) in Section 21.26 of the Municipal Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), unless it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.

Existing Conditions
Noise levels in the project area are dominated by traffic on San Antonio Road and El Camino Real.

Based on the City’s General Plan Noise Contours, noise levels on the site are approximately 60 dBA Ldn.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 99 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
1) 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?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-1: The project would not 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. (Less than Significant Impact) Short Term Construction Noise Impacts
The project is required to comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code to minimize construction noise. These conditions include:
• No construction activity shall commence 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 holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. The term “construction activity” shall include any physical activity on the construction site or in the staging area, including the delivery of materials. In approving modified hours, the building official may specifically designate and/or limit the activities permitted during the modified hours. • At any time before commencement of or during construction activity, the building official may modify the permitted hours of construction upon 24-four hours written notice to the contractor, applicant, developer or owner. The building official can reduce the hours of construction activity below the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. time frame or increase the allowable hours.
• If the hours of construction activity are modified, then the general contractor, applicant, developer, or owner shall erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours. The contractor, owner, or applicant shall immediately produce any written order or permit from the building official 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 100 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
pursuant to this section upon the request of any member of the public, the police, or City staff.

Construction-related noise levels are normally highest during demolition, grading, and excavation phases, including installation of project infrastructure, such as underground utility lines. These phases of construction require heavy equipment (e.g., earth moving equipment and impact tools) that normally generate the highest noise levels during site redevelopment. Construction-related noise levels are normally less during building erection, finishing, and landscaping phases.

Hourly average noise levels generated by construction are about 72 to 88 dBA Leq for residential buildings measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a busy construction site. Constructiongenerated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors; however, ambient levels at the surrounding uses would potentially be exceeded by five dBA Leq or more during the anticipated 11 months of construction. The project will implement the following Standard Condition of Approval during construction to ensure that impacts from construction noise would be less than significant.

Standard Condition of Approval
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 and ensure exhaust mufflers are in good condition; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, construction staging areas, and construction material areas, as far as practical from sensitive receptors; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible and when located near adjoining sensitive land uses; (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment; and (f) route all construction traffic via designated truck routes where possible and prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.

With the implementation of Standard Condition of Approval, the short-term construction-noise impacts will be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact] Permanent Ambient Noise Levels
Traffic
A significant impact would be identified if traffic generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if the noise level increase is three dBA Ldn. or greater, as existing noise levels are projected to exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Traffic volumes must double to result in a perceptible (three dB) noise increase. The project proposes a six-story condominium building. Project-generated traffic would not double traffic volumes in the project area; therefore, project-generated traffic would not increase ambient noise 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 101 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
levels by three dBA Ldn or more. For this reason, the project-generated traffic noise would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact) Mechanical Equipment
Residential structures such as the one proposed for the project typically include mechanical equipment such as air conditioning, heating systems, exhaust fans, etc. The project will implement the following Standard Condition of Approval to ensure that impacts from mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant. This condition will be implemented during the building permit process where a project-specific acoustical analysis will be required as part of the permit application.

Standard Condition of Approval
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dBA during the day or 50 dBA during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.

With implementation of Standard Condition of Approval, project mechanical equipment would not substantially increase noise levels in the project area. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. The proposed project is not expected to require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration.

For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of

0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings designed to modern engineering standards, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings where structural damage is a major concern. For the purpose of this analysis, groundborne vibration levels exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit at the existing adjacent residences would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.

Table 4.13-3 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rocks drill, and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) can generate substantial vibration. The northwest and southwest project boundaries are shared with adjacent residences. The nearest residential structure is located approximately 15 feet from the northwest project boundary. The residential structures southwest of the site are at least 25 feet from the southwest project boundary. At the distance of approximately 15 feet, vibration levels have the potential to exceed the state’s 0.3 in/sec PPV limit. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 102 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Lv
at 25 feet (VdB)
Clam Shovel Drop 0.202 94
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 66
in rock 0.017 75
Vibratory Roller 0.210 94
Hoe Ram 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Note: VdB is the term used for vibration decibels. in/sec = inches per second Source: United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.

Mitigation Measure: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures to reduce construction-related vibration impacts at adjacent structures, specifically the residence adjacent to the northwest of the project site.

MM NOI-2.1: Prohibit the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment, such as vibratory rollers or excavation using clam shell or chisel drops, within 25 feet of any adjacent building.

MM NOI-2.2: Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce construction-related vibration impacts to a less than significant level by limiting the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment near adjacent buildings and designating a person responsible for investigating claims of excessive vibration. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated) Impact NOI-3: The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is not located near a private-use airport. While aircraft flyovers from Moffett Airfield would at times be audible in the project area, the project site is outside of the Airfield’s 65 dBA 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 103 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
CNEL noise contour area. For these reasons, the proposed project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. (Less than Significant Impact) Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.

Future Exterior Noise Environment
The “normally acceptable” exterior noise threshold established in the City’s General Plan for multifamily residences is 60 dBA Ldn. This noise standard would apply to the common open space areas proposed as part of the condominium development. The project proposes two common open space areas, one fronting Fayette Drive, and the other shielded by the proposed condominium building.

Given the estimated future noise levels (up to 64 dBA Ldn in the project area),49 noise levels at the common open space areas could exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn.

Future Interior Noise Environment
General Plan policies and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn apply to the proposed condominium project. Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected construction materials and methods.

Standard residential construction provides 15 dBA of exterior-to-interior noise reduction, assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. Given the estimated future noise levels of up to 64 dBA Ldn in the project area, the interior noise levels of the building could exceed 45 dBA Ldn when windows are partially open. In order to reduce the interior noise at the proposed residential units, the following conditions of approval are included in the project.

Standard Condition of Approval
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 dBA Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments 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 49 City of Mountain View. 400 San Antonio Road Mixed Use Project CEQA Checklist. August 2016. Page 55. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 104 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
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.

Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
NOI-1: The project would not 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.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
NOI-2: The project would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Significant
MM NOI-2.1,
prohibit use of
heavy vibratorygenerating
construction
equipment within 25
feet of any adjacent
building.

MM NOI-2.2,
Designee to register
and investigate
vibration claims.

Less than
Significant
NOI-3: The project site is not located near a
public airport or private-use airport and would
not expose people residing at the project site
to excessive noise levels.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 105 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the statemandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis.50 The City of Mountain View Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in 2014.

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan intended support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportationrelated pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed-use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).51
ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. ABAG also develops forecasts for population, households, and economic activity in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Regional Forecast of Jobs, Population, and Housing, which is an integrated land use and transportation plan through the year 2040 (upon which Plan Bay Area 2040 is based).

Existing Conditions
Table 4.14-1 below, summarizes the existing and projected population and housing data for Mountain View. The population and housing numbers are anticipated to increase through 2040. 50 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml. 51 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Project Mapper. Accessed November 1, 2019 http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 106 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.14-1: Population and Housing in Mountain View
California
Department of
Finance, 20191
General Plan
2030 Estimate2
Plan Bay Area
2030 Estimate3
Plan Bay Area
2040 Estimate4
Population 81,992 88,570 90,500 N/A
Households/Dwelling
Units
36,422 42,240 38,510 58,500
1 California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, for January 1, 2011-2019. May 2019 2 Based on 2030 General Plan Draft EIR. September 2012. 3 Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Land Use Scenario. September 2, 2016.

Project Site
The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, five apartment units and a commercial building. The residents all vacated the site between May 2015 and October 2015. The commercial building is also vacant.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) 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)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Impact POP-1: The project would not 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). (Less than Significant Impact)
Direct Impact
The project proposes to construct a condominium building with a total of 44 residential units. In order to develop such a building, the project proposes to rezone the site from R3-D to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district P40. Rezoning the site would allow for an increase in density to approximately 66 units per acre. This is consistent with the General Plan High Density Residential Zone, which allows 36 to 80 dwelling units per acre. (Less than significant Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 107 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Indirect Impact
As discussed in Section 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems, the project does not require extension of roadways or any other utility infrastructure (water, wastewater treatment, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities) to serve the proposed development. As a result, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would demolish six vacant residential units in order to construct the proposed condominium building; however, the project would result in a net increase of 38 residences. Given that the implementation of the project would result in a net increase in residential units, the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. For this reason, the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or residents. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
POP-1: The project would not 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).

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
POP-2: The project would not displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 108 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Regional and Local
Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the county’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub-regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 109 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policy relates to public services and would be applicable to the project.

Policy Description
PSA 1.2 Design for safety. Support and promote crime prevention and fire safety strategies in the design of new developments.

Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection to the project site is provided by the City of Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), which serves a population of over 80,000 and an area of 12 square miles. The MVFD provides fire suppression and rescue response, hazard prevention and education, and disaster preparedness. In Fiscal Year 2018/2019, out of 9,682 emergency calls made to the MVFD, 6,571 of the calls were for medical aid, and 304 were for fire.52 The City of Mountain View also participates in a mutual aid program with neighboring cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Through this program, one or more of the mutual aid cities would provide assistance to Mountain View in whatever capacity was needed.

Police Protection Services
Police protection services are provided to the project site by the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). The MVPD conducts an active volunteer program (non-officers). Officers patrolling the area are dispatched from police headquarters, located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the project site.

The MVPD has a goal to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls in less than four minutes at least 55 percent of the time. Priority E and Priority 1 calls are considered the highest priority calls and signal emergency dispatch from the MVPD. Priority E calls are of higher importance, because they are often associated with violent crime incidents. MVPD has a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies would assist the MVPD in responding to calls, when needed.

Schools
The project site is located within the Los Altos School District and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District. The Los Altos School District serves grades kindergarten through eighth grade and the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District serves high-school age students.

Students in the project area attend Santa Rita Elementary School located at 700 Los Altos Avenue (approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the site), Egan Junior High School located at 100 W. Portola 52 MVFD. “Stats/Response/Annual Report”. Accessed October 31, 2019. http://mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 110 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Avenue (approximately 0.8 mile south of the site), and Los Altos High School located at 201 Almond Avenue (approximately 1.7 miles south of the site).

Parks and Open Space
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages 993.07 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The urban parks are divided among 18 mini-parks (one undeveloped), 13 neighborhood/school parks (under joint-use agreements with local school districts), five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park (Shoreline at Mountain View).53 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint-use agreements with local school districts.

Del Medio Park is the nearest public park to the project site, and is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the site on Del Medio Avenue. The park includes children’s play equipment and a picnic area. Other nearby facilities include Monroe Park at Monroe Drive and Miller Avenue and Terman Park at Glenbrook Drive.

Rengstorff Park, approximately 1.2 miles driving distance west of the project site, is one of two large community parks in the City. The park is 16.92 acres in size and includes the City’s Community Center and a number of sports fields and other facilities.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
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?
2) Police Protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other Public Facilities?
53 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 111 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact PS-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 fire protection services. (Less than Significant Impact) The project site is in an area currently served by the MVFD. The MVFD does not anticipate the need to construct a new fire station to accommodate growth anticipated in the General Plan.54 The project would be constructed to current Fire Code standards, would not increase the urban area already served by the MVFD, and would not require expansion of existing or construction of new facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-2: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 police protection services. (Less than Significant Impact) The proposed project would not substantially increase demand for police services in the project area.

MVPD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would increase the demand for police services; however, the city has policies would ensure that the City maintains adequate police staffing to serve the needs of the community. While the proposed project would intensify the use of the site, adding 44 more residential units, it is not anticipated that the project would require the construction or expansion of police facilities. In addition, the project design shall be reviewed by MVPD to ensure safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-3: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 schools. (Less than Significant Impact)
The construction of new housing units on the project site would generate approximately 15 students based on the student generation rates identified in the SAPP EIR. The Los Altos School District and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District would be required to serve an additional 13 elementary/middle school students and 2 high school students, respectively.55 To offset the project’s 54 City of Mountain View. Draft General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, Draft EIR. November 2011. Page 502-503. 55 Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School student generation rate) 0.046 x (number of proposed dwelling units) 44 = approximately 2 students.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 112 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
increase in students the payment of school impact fees would be required. As required by state law (Government Code Section 65996), the project proponent shall pay the appropriate school impact fees to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project. No expansion of existing school facilities or construction of new school facilities would be needed as a result of the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-4: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 parks. (Less than Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for parkland because it would add new residents to the City. The increased population associated with the proposed project would not contribute to the increase in use of existing parks near the project site that would potentially lead to physical deterioration of park facilities and overcrowding. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-5: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 other public facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for public facilities because it would add new residents to the City. The increased population associated with the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the increase in use of existing facilities near the project site that would potentially lead to physical deterioration of the public facilities and overcrowding. (Less than Significant Impact) Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PS-1: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
(Los Altos Elementary School District student generation rate) 0.3 x (number of proposed dwelling units) 44 = approximately 13 students.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 113 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for fire protection
services.

PS-2: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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 police protection
services.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
PS-3: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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 schools.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
PS-4: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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 parks.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
PS-5: The project would not result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, 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 other public facilities.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 114 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

RECREATION
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Existing Conditions
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages 993.07 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The urban parks are divided among 18 mini-parks (one undeveloped), 13 neighborhood/school parks (under joint-use agreements with local school districts), five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park (Shoreline at Mountain View).56 The City also maintains 10 parks under joint-use agreements with local school districts.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility will occur
or be accelerated?
56 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 115 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
2) 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?
Impact REC-1: The project would not 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. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.15 Public Services, the proposed project would include development of residential units that would have a demand on parks. However, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the use of existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact REC-2: The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact) The project would include private common open space recreational facilities for residents of the proposed condominiums. The project includes a total of 16,920 square feet of open area. Common open spaces include a roof deck atop the sixth story and two podium-level common areas created by the large setbacks of the building’s central six-story portion. The roof deck would offer a gazebo and shad trellis, barbecue, fire pit, and seating. The podium-level open spaces would include a pool, spa, outdoor lounge seating under a canopy, see-through fireplace, and a barbecue island with community table and chairs. The construction of these recreational facilities would be in compliance with environmental regulation and therefore would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
REC-1: The project would not 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.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 116 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
REC-2: The project would not include
recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 117 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

TRANSPORTATION
The following discussion is based in part on a Traffic Study prepared by Hexagon Traffic Consultants, Inc. in February 2020. A copy of this report is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in July 2017, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2040.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires the replacement of automobile delay—described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion—with VMT as the recommended metric for determining the significance of transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) approved the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 on December 28, 2018. Local jurisdictions are required to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.

Regional and Local
Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic LOS standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 118 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMPdesignated intersections.

Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following transportation-related policies from the General Plan are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
LUD 3.1 Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within

0.5 mile of public transit service and along major commute corridors.

LUD 6.5 Pedestrian and bicycling improvements. Support pedestrian and bicycling improvements and connections between neighborhoods.

LUD 8.3 Enhanced publicly-accessible bicycle and pedestrian connections. Encourage new and existing developments to enhance publicly accessible bicycle, pedestrian and transit connections.

LUD 8.5 Pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Encourage attractive pedestrian and bicycle amenities in new and existing developments, and ensure that roadway improvements address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.

LUD 17.2 Transportation Demand Management strategies. Require development to include and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.

MOB 8.3 Multi-modal transportation monitoring. Monitor the effectiveness of policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population by establishing transportation mode share targets and periodically comparing travel survey data to established targets.

City of Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan
The Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update summarizes goals for improving the bicycle network, existing and proposed facilities, and programs involving education, enforcement. The plan was developed in conformance with several other plans including the General Plan, VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Bicycle Plan, the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan, and Caltrans Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2.

City of Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan summarizes goals for the pedestrian network, existing and proposed facilities, and priority of pedestrian improvements. The plan was developed in conformance with the Mountain View 2030 General Plan.

Existing Conditions
Vehicle Access
Vehicle access to the project site is provided via Fayette Drive. The primary arterial streets that provide access to the site are San Antonio Road and Del Medio Avenue. These roadways are described below.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 119 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Fayette Drive is a two-lane street that extends northeastward from San Antonio Road to its terminus at Del Medio Avenue.

San Antonio Road is a six-lane road (not including turning lanes) with a middle divider from Central Expressway to El Camino Real. It is generally aligned north-south that extends from Highway 101 to Foothill Expressway.

Del Medio Avenue is a two-lane street that is generally aligned north-south. It extends from El Camino Real to its dead-end terminus, approximately 400 feet north of Del Medio Court.

Public Transit
The project site is located in a transit-rich area. The closest bus services are located east of the project site along San Antonio Road (Routes 32, 34, 35, and SE) and south of the site on El Camino Real (Routes 22,40 and 522). The San Antonio Transit Center, located approximately a half-mile southeast of the project site, also provides access to these routes, and can be easily accessed through The Village at San Antonio site. The San Antonio Caltrain station is about a half-mile northeast of the project site.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area consist of sidewalks along all of the surrounding streets.

Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all of the signalized intersections in the study area. Crosswalks also are provided along the north and east stop-controlled approaches of the unsignalized intersection of Del Medio Avenue and Fayette Drive.

Bicycle Facilities
Currently, bicycle facilities exist along San Antonio Road, California Street, and Showers Drive.

While El Camino Real is wide enough to accommodate bikes, bicyclists are instructed to be alert and exercise extreme caution while traveling on El Camino Real due to heavy traffic volumes.

Moreover, although none of the local streets within the project study area (e.g. Pacchetti Way, Miller Avenue, Fayette Drive) are designated as bike routes, due to their low traffic volumes, they are conducive to bicycle usage.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities?
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 120 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible land
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
4) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact TRN-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) Roadway Network
The City of Mountain View does not currently have an adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) policy.

The City’s adopted transportation policy utilizes level of service (LOS) as the metric by which the City determines the functionality of the roadway system and the effect of new development on the roadway network. The following discussion of LOS is provided as it pertains to consistency with the City’s adopted transportation policy.

For this analysis, the criteria used to determine significant operational deficiencies at signalized intersections are based on the City of Mountain View and VTA’s CMP LOS standards. The project would result in an operational deficiency at a signalized intersection if for either the AM or PM peak hour:
• If the level of service at the intersection drops below its respective level of service standard (LOS D or better for local intersections and LOS E or better for CMP intersections) when project traffic is added, or
• The intersection that operates below its level of service standard under “no project” conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds, and an increase in critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) to increase by one percent (.01) or more when project traffic is added.

For unsignalized intersections, an impact is considered significant if:
• The addition of project traffic causes the average intersection delay for all-way stopcontrolled or the worst movement/approach for side-street stop-controlled intersections to degrade to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F), and
• The intersection satisfies the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) peak-hour volume signal warrant.

The study determined the traffic effects of the project on the following intersections: Del Medio Avenue and Fayette Drive, San Antonio and Fayette Drive, and San Antonio Road and El Camino 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 121 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Real. The results of the intersection level of service analysis under existing plus project conditions show that all signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level (LOS D or better for which LOS D is the level of service standard, and LOS E or better for which LOS E is the level of service standard) during both the AM and PM peak hours (see Table 4.17-1). The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix E.

Table 4.17-1: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
Intersection Traffic
Control
Peak
Hour
Avg.

Delay
(sec)
LOS
Avg.

Delay
(sec)
LOS
Incr. in
Critical
Delay
(sec)
Del Medio
Avenue &
Fayette
Drive
All-Way
Stop
AM 8.5 A 8.5 A 0.0
PM 8.3 A 8.3 A 0.0
San Antonio
Road &
Fayette
Drive
Signal
AM 22.1 C 22.7 C 0.6
PM 22.3 C 22.8 C 0.8
San Antonio
Road & El
Camino
Real
Signal
AM 53.7 D 53.8 D 0.1
PM 49.0 D 49.1 D 0.1
The LOS under Existing Plus Project conditions would be LOS D or better for all three studied intersections for both peak hours and is considered acceptable by the City of Mountain View.

Therefore, the project will not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway system. (Less than Significant Impact)
Transit Facilities
The project site is located in a transit-rich area. The closest bus services are located east of the project site along San Antonio Road (Routes 32, 34, 35, and SE) and El Camino Real (Routes 22, 40 and 522). The San Antonio Transit Center, located approximately a half-mile southeast of the project site, also provides access to these routes, and can be easily accessed through The Village at San Antonio site.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 122 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The San Antonio Caltrain station is approximately a half-mile northeast of the project site. New transit trips generated by the project can be well-served by these existing transit services. (Less than Significant Impact)
Pedestrian Facilities
Overall, the existing sidewalks and pedestrian paths provide pedestrians with safe routes to all of the surrounding land uses in the area, including the shopping center east of the site, the San Antonio Transit Center on Showers Drive, the San Antonio Caltrain station, and the bus stops on El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. The presence of The Village at San Antonio Center, a large mixed-use development east of the project site, will encourage residents to walk to the nearby retail, entertainment, and commercial areas within The Village. Existing pedestrian facilities are sufficient to service any new residents generated by the project. (Less than Significant Impact) Bicycle Facilities
None of the local streets within the project study area (e.g. Pacchetti Way, Miller Avenue, Fayette Drive) are designated as bike routes, however, they are conducive to bicycle usage due to their low traffic volumes.

The project proposes to include a bike repair station within its bicycle storage area on the upper level of the parking garage. The bicycle repair station would be complete with tools available to residents who need to repair or maintain their bicycles. Central repair stations provide a point of contact where bicyclists can share information on routes, commuting, and maintenance practices to help generate a stronger community more engaged in bicycling as a mode of transportation. The existing facilities are adequate to support bike-riders generated by the project and the inclusion of the bicycle repair station will encourage residents to ride bikes as a mode of transportation. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact TRN-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (No Impact)
Beginning on July 1, 2020, the CEQA Guidelines update that implements SB 743 will apply statewide. At the time the project transportation assessment was completed, the City of Mountain View was still in the process of preparing a VMT policy. However, a preliminary VMT analysis was conducted for informational purposes only.

Daily VMT generated by the project site was estimated using the simulated VMT per capita from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel demand forecast model. Within this part of Mountain View (Traffic Analysis Zone 365), the forecasted daily VMT is 16.02 miles per resident in the year 2020.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) published the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018. The technical advisory provided high-level recommendations on the VMT analysis methodology and significance thresholds. For residential projects, OPR’s technical advisory recommends a significance threshold that is 15 percent 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 123 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
below that of existing development but does not specify the region of existing development for evaluation.

Notwithstanding OPR’s recommended threshold, lead agencies have the discretion to choose the VMT analysis methodology and to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. Several cities (e.g. San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Los Angeles) have established VMT significance thresholds at 15 perecent below average for residential projects. The average is set at either the regional average, the citywide average, or the Planning Area average. The City of Mountain View could establish a VMT significance threshold at or below the existing citywide or countywide average VMT per resident for residential projects.

The average VMT per resident in Santa Clara County is 15.11, and the average VMT per resident in Mountain View is 14.73. Thus, the average forecasted daily VMT of 16.02 miles per resident for the project area is six percent greater than the Countywide average and 8.75 percent greater than the Citywide average VMT per resident.

While the MTC model provides the average VMT per capita for the project’s zone, that does not mean that the project’s VMT per capita would match that of the project’s zone. VMT for a specific project is affected by a number of factors including location, development density, land use diversity, multimodal infrastructure, parking policies/pricing, and TDM programs.

As previously mentioned, the City of Mountain View has not yet defined a methodology for assessing VMT nor revised its policies to require the use of VMT as its primary transportation analysis methodology. Therefore, a VMT analysis consistent with SB 743 was not required for the project. (No Impact)
Impact TRN-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant Impact) The project driveway would be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance, thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street. Any landscaping and signage would be located in such a way as to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers entering and exiting the site. The project would be in compliance with Caltrans sight distance standards. Based on the speed limit of 25 mph on Fayette Drive, the stopping sight distance would be 150 feet at a minimum. To ensure that that drivers can clearly see vehicles and bicyclists on the street, no parking zones would be established within 15 feet of either side of the parking garage driveway along Fayette Drive.

The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. Potential hazards would be further reduced with implementation of the no parking zones on either side of the parking garage driveway. (Less than Significant Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 124 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact TRN-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (No Impact) The project would be required to conform to the City’s traffic and safety regulations that specify adequate emergency access measures. In addition, the project site would be required to meet the standards set forth by the Mountain View Fire Department. Adherence to existing state and federal regulations and City of Mountain View requirements would reduce impacts. As a result, the proposed project would not create an operational safety hazard or impede emergency access. (No Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TRN-1: The project would not conflict
with a program plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes
and pedestrian facilities.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
TRN-2: The project would not conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
TRN-3: The project would not
substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
TRN-4 The project would not result in
inadequate emergency access. No Impact No mitigation required NA 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 125 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

Existing Conditions
The project site is within the territory of the Ohlone and Muwekma Indian tribes, who had settlements along creeks in the area. The project site is approximately 0.37 miles southeast of Adobe Creek.

A records search and literature review was completed for the 2030 General Plan. The records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) 57 of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and at the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).58 Based upon the research, tribal cultural resources were not identified on the project site.59 In addition, no tribes have sent written requests for notification of projects to the City of Mountain View under AB 52.
57 The NWIC is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Santa Clara County. 58 The NAHC maintains the Sacred Lands File, which includes the location of sites with cultural significance to Native American groups. 59 Results of record search and literature review on file at the City Community Development Department. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 126 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in
its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (Less than Significant Impact)
No known tribal cultural resources are present on-site. No tribes have sent written requests for notification of projects to the City of Mountain View under AB 52. As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, in the unlikely event that human remains or other TCRs are discovered during construction activities, implementation of Standard Condition of Approval listed under Impact CUL3 would reduce the project’s impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact TCR-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed under Impact TCR-1, there are no known tribal cultural resources on-site, and no tribes have sent written requests for notification of projects to the City of Mountain View under AB 52. As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, in the unlikely event that human remains or other TCRs 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 127 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
are discovered during construction activities, implementation of Standard Condition of Approval listed under Impact CUL-3 would reduce the project’s impact to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TCR-1: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource
that is listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
TCR-2: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource
that is determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 128 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following discussion is based in part on a Utility Impact Study prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler in January 2020. A copy of this report is included in Appendix F of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events. The City of Mountain View adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2016.

Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.

Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling program Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi-family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle. AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.

Local
The City of Mountain View promotes the sustainable use of its water resources through outreach and education programs, financial incentive programs, and by implementing water conservation measures 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 129 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
at City properties. Many of the City’s water conservation measures are implemented in partnership with Valley Water and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Some of the City’s conservation measures include incorporating water waste prohibitions into the City Code, monitoring water losses, providing public information and outreach programs, and implementing plumbing and rebate and retrofit programs for residential and business customers.

Existing Conditions
The project site is located in a developed area within the City of Mountain View and is currently served by existing phone, electrical, water, stormwater, wastewater, and solid waste service systems.

Water Supply
The City of Mountain View municipal water system serves 97 percent of the City of Mountain View, including the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area in which it serves and purchases water from both the SCVWD and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which are water wholesalers. The remaining three percent of Mountain View’s population is served by the California Water Service Company.

The City of Mountain View’s UWMP forecasts that water supplies will be available to meet the City’s projected future water demands during normal and wet years through at least 2040, based on General Plan growth estimates and supplier projections. During single- and multiple-drought years, the City expects reductions in available supply from the SFPUC and SCVWD. This decrease in imported water is anticipated to be made up through implementation of drought-year water conservation measures, the potential increased use of recycled water, and an increase in groundwater production (as the groundwater basin allows).

As described in the 2015 UWMP, recent updates to the plumbing code (which include requiring more water-efficient features) are expected to reduce Mountain View’s water use by two percent in 2020, and up to nine percent in 2040. Additionally, the UWMP projects that implementation of new conservation measures would reduce water use by eight percent in 2020 and 2040, from the basecase scenario.

Current and near-term water conservation measures, as identified in the UWMP, include water waste prohibitions in the Municipal Code, water system audits, leak detection and repair, metering with commodity rates and conservation pricing, public information and education programs. Other City of Mountain View water conservation programs include residential water surveys, rebates and free equipment, turf audits, plumbing retrofits, and washing machine incentives. The Mountain View City Council also adopted Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations in May 2010.

The total water use on-site from the existing development is approximately 3,408 gallons per day (gpd) (or 3.8 acre-feet per year [AFY]).

Wastewater Services
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary and storm drains in the City of Mountain View are operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the Public Works Department. The City pumps its wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 130 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Control Plant (PARWQCP) for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 million gallons per day (mgd) average annual treatment capacity. The City of Mountain View has an average annual flow capacity right of 15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. As of 2015, approximately 9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PARWQCP. The terms of Mountain View’s Basic Agreement with the City of Palo Alto require that when the City of Mountain View reaches 80 percent of the 15.1 mgd allowed by the agreement (approximately 12.08 mgd), an engineering study would be required of the City to redefine the future needs of the PARWQCP and potentially assist in future plant expansions or upgrades outlined in the Long Range Facilities Plan.

Mountain View’s sanitary sewer system is a gravity system with two sewer lift stations; one located in Shoreline Park and the other is a localized station on Pastel Lane. The system consists of gravity pipelines, pressure pipelines, and pump stations. The Shoreline Sewer Pump Station, located within the North Bayshore area conveys the majority of sanitary sewer flow generated within the City to the PARWQCP. The remaining flow not received at the SPS is discharged to the Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor that also conveys flow into the Joint Interceptor. The project site currently connects to an eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Fayette Drive, which ultimately conveys flows to the Los Altos San Antonio Interceptor.

The total wastewater generated on-site from the existing development is approximately 2,570 gpd (or

0.002 mgd).

Stormwater Drainage
The project site is located in the Adobe Creek watershed. Stormwater runoff from developed areas of the watershed, including the project site, enters Adobe Creek by way of the City’s storm sewer system. Nearly all of the project site is paved. There are no stormwater management facilities visible on the site. There is an existing 24-inch storm drain pipe along Fayette Drive.

Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the SMART station in Sunnyvale for sorting, and commercial compostables (food scraps) are transported to a composting facility located in Vernalis, California. Non-recyclable waste is transported to Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José (which is contracted to the City through 2021).
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 131 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
2) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
4) 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?
5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTL-1: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would connect to existing utilities on Fayette Drive. In addition, the project would remove two existing sewer lines and would underground all existing utilities currently above ground.

An analysis of the City’s sewer system (refer to Appendix F) determined there is insufficient capacity downstream of the project in both pre- and post-project conditions. One pipe downstream of the project site, along San Antonio Road, does not meet the maximum flow depth/pipe diameter performance criteria. This pipe is flowing 50 percent full during peak wet weather flow and is not surcharging in the model prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler. The project would be required to contribute to Capital Improvement Project #35 (CIP-35), as outlined in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study. CIP-35 proposes to upgrade the sewer service system serving the project area, including upsizing the deficient piping downstream of the project site. Improvements would be made along San Antonio Road, an existing right-of-way in a developed area. The construction impacts of 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 132 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
the proposed project, including the utility improvements, is discussed in Sections 4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Biological Resources, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, 4.13 Noise and Vibration in this Initial Study, and Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures are required for the project to reduce construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact related to expanded sanitary sewer facilities.

The project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact UTL-2: The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant Impact)
The City of Mountain View water service has sufficient existing water supply to support the proposed project under normal, single dry, or multiple dry water years. Under normal conditions, the City is not projected to experience supply shortfalls. Shortfalls of up to 12 percent are projected for single dry years and up to 14 percent for multiple dry years. Under all dry conditions, the City may need to impose water conservation measures, to achieve 10 to 20 percent reductions, per Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 35.28.

The proposed project would use approximately 4,400 gpd of water (or 4.9 AFY). In 2020, the City of Mountain View projected to have a water supply of approximately 12,307 AFY. 60 The net new
demand generated by the proposed project represents approximately 0.04 percent of the City’s total projected demand for 2020. The proposed project would include sustainable and green building design features, as required by Mountain View policies and regulations. The Mountain View City Council adopted Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations and CalGreen. These regulations include water efficiency requirements for new and renovated landscapes and construction. Since the project intends to incorporate GreenPoint Rated energy and emissions reduction features, water efficiency will be achieved through the use of low-water landscaping and water efficient plumbing fixtures.

Based on the incremental increase in water demand anticipated by the project on the overall water demand in the City and the conservation measures required of the project, the project would not result in a significant impact on water services or system demand. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact UTL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less than Significant Impact)
Sanitary sewer services would be provided for the project by connecting new sanitary sewer laterals to the existing eight-inch public sanitary sewer main located in Fayette Drive. The project would generate approximately 3,960 gpd of wastewater (or 0.00330 mgd). Given the overall capacity at 60 City of Mountain View 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 24, 2016. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 133 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
PARWQCP (40 mgd), the City’s treatment allocation at PARWQCP (15.1 mgd), and the existing wastewater collected from the City (nine mgd), there is sufficient capacity at the PARWQCP and within the City’s existing treatment allocation to serve the project. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact UTL-4: The project would not 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. (Less than Significant Impact)
Solid waste generated by the project would be transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill, where the City of Mountain View has secured landfill disposal capacity for the City’s solid waste until 2063. The landfill is permitted to receive a maximum disposal of 2,600 tons of garbage per day. According to CalEEMod solid waste generation rates61, the project would generate approximately 0.05 tons of solid waste per day.

The City of Mountain View is working to maintain a waste diversion goal of 50 percent. In addition, 65 percent of construction and demolition waste must be diverted in compliance with the Green Building Code. The proposed project would comply with the City’s diversion requirements and Green Building Code construction debris diversion requirements.

Because the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and State programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact UTL-5: The project would not be noncompliant with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and State programs and regulations, therefore, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact) Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
UTL-1: The project would not require or
result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of
Less than
Significant
No Mitigation
Required NA
61 CalEEMod assumes a per capita disposal rate of 0.42 (tons/unit/year) for residential uses in Santa Clara County.

0.42 tons/unit/year x 44 units ÷ 365 days/year = 0.05 tons/day 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 134 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

UTL-2: The project would not have
insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
UTL-3: The project would not result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the
project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s
existing commitments.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
UTL-4: The project would not 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.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
UTL-5: The project would not be
noncompliant with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 135 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

WILDFIRE
Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. The project site is not located in a FHSZ.62
Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
2) 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?
3) 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?
4) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. (No Impact) 62 California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Accessed November 1, 2019. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/firehazard-severity-zones-maps/ 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 136 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
WF: The project would not result in
wildfire impacts No Impact No mitigation required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 137 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) 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 selfsustaining 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?
2) 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.)
3) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact MFS-1: The project does not 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. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with implementation of identified Standard Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. As discussed in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, with implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, the project would not significantly impact sensitive habitats or species. As discussed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, with implementation of the identified Standard Conditions of Approval, the project would result in a less than significant impact on archaeological resources. The project would have no impact on historic or tribal cultural resources. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact MFS-2: The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 138 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Under Section 15065(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed condominium development on 2645-2655 Fayette Drive. This Initial Study also takes into account other past, pending, and probable future projects whose impacts could combine to produce cumulative impacts.

Resource Topics not Impacted by the Project
The project would result in no wildfire hazards and would have no impact on agricultural resources, mineral resources, historic resources or tribal cultural resources; therefore, the project has no potential to combine with other projects to result in cumulative impacts to those resources. (No Cumulative Impact)
Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The geographic area for cumulative air quality impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The project would emit criteria air pollutants and contribute to the overall regional emissions of these pollutants.

The project-level thresholds identified by BAAQMD (which the project’s impacts were compared to in Section 4.3, Air Quality) are the basis for determining whether a project has a cumulatively considerable contribution to the existing cumulatively significant air quality impact. The project’s construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions would be below BAAQMD screening criteria and thresholds for these pollutants; therefore, the project would result in a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to significant regional air quality impact. Additionally, modeling of construction TACs (refer to Table 4.3-4 in Section 4.3 Air Quality) confirmed that cumulative impacts from all sources within 1,000 feet of the site would be less than significant. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable Contribution to a Significant Cumulative Impact) Cumulative GHG Impacts
The proposed project and past, present, present and future development projects worldwide contribute to global climate change. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, change the global average temperature. Therefore, due to the nature of GHG impacts, a significant project impact is a significant cumulative impact. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project’s operational emissions would be below applicable thresholds for 2030; the project would, therefore, not result in significant GHG impact. For these reasons, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative GHG impact. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable Contribution to a Significant Cumulative Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 139 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Cumulative Hydrology and Utilities Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts is the Adobe Creek watershed. Cumulative developments near the project would be subject to similar hydrological and urban runoff conditions. All projects occurring within Mountain View would be required to implement the same Standard Conditions of Approval and measures related to construction water quality as the proposed project (including preparation of a SWPPP if disturbance if greater than one acre). In addition, all current and probable future projects that would disturb more than one acre of soil or replace/add more at least 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces would be required to meet applicable site design and runoff reduction measures where feasible and the City’s Storm Drainage Manual requirements on a project-specific basis. For these reasons, the cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would not result in significant cumulative hydrology or water quality impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
The geographic area for cumulative utility and service systems is the City boundaries. The project would incrementally contribute to cumulative demands on utilities and service systems (water, sewer, solid waste, storm drainage). Implementation of the proposed project and cumulative projects in Mountain View would not cause the City to exceed water demand projections, which are primarily based on population and employment growth.

As discussed in the Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, the landfills serving the project site and the City as a whole, have remaining capacity to serve the region through 2063. Based on the above reasons, the combined projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts to the City’s water, sewer, solid waste and storm drainage facilities. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) The project would not relocate natural gas, electricity or telecommunications facilities. The project would not combine impacts to these utility lines with other projects, therefore, no cumulative impacts to these utilities would result from the combined projects. (No Cumulative Impact) Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts
There are no state or federally protected wetlands on or adjacent to the project site. The proposed project would not impact wetlands through direct removal, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Cumulative Impact)
The geographic area for cumulative impacts to migratory wildlife would be Santa Clara County.

Construction of projects throughout the County, including the proposed project, could result in a less than significant cumulative impact on nesting birds. Each project is subject to federal, state, and local regulations (including the MBTA, Fish and Game Code, and CEQA), which would avoid and/or minimize impacts to nesting birds. The project, with the implementation of Standard Condition of Approval listed under Impact BIO-1 would comply with the MBTA and Fish and Game Code, would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to nesting birds. A tree removal permit is required from the City for the removal of any Heritage trees. Projects constructed in the City are required to mitigate for the removal of Heritage trees, and protect any trees that remain in place from potential construction damage. For this reason, the proposed project in combination with cumulative scenario projects would not result in a significant impact to trees or as a result of a tree ordinance conflict. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 140 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative population and housing impacts is defined as the City of Mountain View. The project would not remove an existing constraint on growth and development in the area. As a result, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the project site and would not result in significant cumulative population impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Cumulative Public Services Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative public services and recreation facilities is the City’s boundaries.

All of cumulative projects occurring within the City would implement conditions of approval that would reduce impacts to public services. While the proposed project would increase public services demand by constructing 44 multi-family residential units, it would not contribute considerably to cumulative impacts as a result of new physical public service facilities, because none are needed for the proposed project. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) Cumulative Land Use Impacts
The proposed project would conform to applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental impacts and would not have land use impacts that could combine with other nearby projects. For these reasons, the combined projects would result in a less than significant cumulative land use impact. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative hazardous materials impacts would be within 1,000 feet of the project. The use, storage, transportation, and disposal of maintenance chemicals of the project would be managed in accordance with existing laws and regulations that ensure herbicide and pesticide storage, and transportation to and from the cumulative sites would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) The project would not result in an aircraft hazard given the project site is not located within an AIA of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and is not located within an FAA height restriction area for new structures. The project would, therefore, not result in cumulative impacts due to aircraft hazards when combined with the impacts of other projects. (No Cumulative Impact) Cumulative Noise Impacts
Construction
The geographic area for cumulative construction noise would be within 500 feet of the project site.

The adjacent project at 400 San Antonio Road (The Dean) is anticipated to complete construction prior to commencement of construction activities on the project site. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in combined cumulative construction noise and vibration impacts. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 141 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Operation
As discussed in Section 4.13 Noise and Vibration, project vehicles traveling on surrounding roadways would not, in combination with other growth in the area, lead to substantial increases in roadway noise. Mechanical equipment in residential condominium structures, such as those proposed for the project typically include various mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning, heating systems, exhaust fans, etc. that generates operational noises; however, with the implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on permanent noise levels. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact) Cumulative Traffic Impacts
The geographic area for cumulative transportation resource impacts includes the project site and its surrounding area. The proposed project would not generate a substantial amount of new vehicle traffic trips. The project would be consistent with applicable policies regarding transportation and circulation and, therefore, would not result in a cumulative conflict with those policies. The cumulative projects would comply with current building and fire codes and be reviewed by the Fire Department to ensure adequate emergency access. For these reasons, the cumulative projects would not result in a significant cumulative impact to emergency access. (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)
Impact MFS-3: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.

Pursuant to this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals.

While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality and noise. Implementation of the best management practices, standard permit conditions, mitigation measures, and adherence to General Plan, City Code, and state and federal regulations described in these sections of the report, would avoid significant impacts. No other direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings have been identified. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 142 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:

Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Project Mapper. Accessed November 1, 2019 http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/.

Association of Bay Area Governments Resilience Program. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map.

Accessed October 31, 2019.

BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-andclimate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.

CalEPA. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed November 4, 2019. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.

California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed June 16, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm.

California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Accessed November 1, 2019. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planningengineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/ California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission.” Accessed November 4, 2018. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/.

California Department of Conservation. “CGS Information Warehouse”. Accessed October 31, 2019. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.

California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map.

September 2018.

California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, for January 1, 2011-2019. May 2019
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 143 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 15, 2019. http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “EnviroStor”. Accessed November 5, 2019. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=18640+madrone+parkway%2C+ morgan+hill+ca
California Department of Transportation. ”Scenic Highways.” Accessed October 30, 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lapliv-i-scenic-highways California Emergency Management Agency. California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Accessed October 31, 2019. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.

California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 15, 2019. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed November 4, 2019.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2018 California Gas Report. Accessed August 15, 2019. https://www.pge.com/pipeline_resources/pdf/library/regulatory/downloads/cgr18.pdf.

California Natural Diversity Database. “Quickview Tool.” Accessed October 30, 2019. https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/bios/?tool=cnddbQuick
California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” March 14, 2006.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Green Building Code. 2017.” Accessed November 4, 2019. http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/mvgbc.asp.

City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan.
http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 144 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
City of Mountain View. Draft General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, Draft EIR.

November 2011. Page 502-503.

City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan.

City of Mountain View. Municipal Code.

ERAS Environmental, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ERAS Project Number 15044.

May 2015.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #06085C0037H. May 18, 2009.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Traffic Study for Proposed Residential Development at 2645 Fayette Drive in Mountain View, California. February 11, 2020.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Condominiums Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment. January 6, 2020.

MVFD. “Stats/Response/Annual Report”. Accessed October 31, 2019. http://mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.

Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Land Use Scenario. September 2, 2016.

Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 15, 2019. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW110publ140.pdf.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.

Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones Map, Map 53. Accessed October 31, 2019.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted November 22, 2016.

Accessed October 31, 2019. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-watercomes-from/groundwater.

Schaaf & Wheeler. 2645-2655 Fayette Development Utility Impact Study. January 10, 2020.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed November 4, 2019. Available at: https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

Silicon Valley Soil Engineering. Proposed Fayette Condominiums Geotechnical Investigation. April 2015.

State of California, Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2010-2019.” Accessed: January 8, 2020. Available at:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 145 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed November 5, 2019. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.

United States Department of Agriculture. “Web Soil Survey”. Accessed October 31, 2019 https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 15, 2019. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.

United States Department of the Interior. “Memorandum M-37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Accessed March 28, 2019. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.

United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2017”.

Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” March 2019.

United States Geological Survey. “Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data: Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Mineral Resources.” Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/ Accessed November 1, 2019.

Young, Michael P. Certified Arborist, WC ISA #623. Tree Survey of 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive.

May 16, 2014.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 146 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Matthew VanHua, AICP, Senior Planner

CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Will Burns, Principal Project Manager
Connor Tutino, Researcher
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
James Reyff, President
Casey Divine, Senior Consultant
Michael P. Young, Certified Arborist
Silicon Valley Soil Engineering
Geotechnical Consultants
Sean Deivert, Project Manager
ERAS Environmental, Inc.

Hazardous Materials Consultants
David Siegel, Senior Program Manager
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Transportation Consultants
Gary Black, President
Jonathan Wong, Engineer I
Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers
Leif M. Coponen, Vice President
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 147 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOD Notice of Determination
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
For appendices, please contact
Eric Anderson
at
[email protected]
ATTACHMENT 3

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS UPDATE
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]
Memo
Date: July 26, 2024
To: John Schwarz
JHS Consulting
Los Gatos, CA
From: Zachary Palm & Jordyn Bauer
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Subject: 2645 – 2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View, CA
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update (I&R Job # 24-099) In January of 2020, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. prepared an air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment for the 2645 – 2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project located in Mountain View, California. At that time, the project was proposing to construct a six-story, 44-unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking to provide 94 parking spaces. The project has since been updated to a seven-story building that would provide 70 dwelling units and 101 parking spaces. The purpose of this memo is to provide an update to the original January 2020 analysis of this project.

Construction Period Emissions
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022 was used to estimate emissions from on-site construction activity, construction vehicle trips, and evaporative emissions.

The project land use types and size were input to CalEEMod. The CalEEMod model output along with construction inputs are included in Attachment 1.

CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
The proposed project land uses were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 1.

John Schwarz
July 26, 2024

Page 2 ends

Table 1. Summary of Project Land Use Inputs
Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet (sf) Acreage
Apartments Mid-Rise 70 Dwelling Unit 86,568* 0.67
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 101 Parking Space 37,852 *Includes dwelling unit square footage plus amenity square footage.

Construction Inputs
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while offsite activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenario, including equipment quantities, average hours per day, total number of workdays, and schedule, were based on information provided by the project applicant (included in Attachment 1). The applicant’s construction schedule provided a start date of January 2026, and the project would be built out over a period of approximately 16 months, or 331 construction workdays. The earliest full year of operation was assumed to be 2028.

Summary of Computed Construction Period Emissions
Table 2 shows the average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the updated project. Average daily emissions for the updated project were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days.

Due to the updated project construction activities occurring over more construction workdays (331 workdays) than what was analyzed in the original analysis (225 workdays), the updated average daily emissions are less than what was reported in the original analysis. As indicated in Table 2, the predicted updated project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction.

Table 2. Construction Period Emissions for Updated Project Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Total (Tons)
2026 + 2027 0.68 0.63 0.02 0.02
Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
2026 + 2027 (331 construction workdays) 4.08 3.81 0.12 0.11 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Operational Period Emissions
Operational criteria air pollutant emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are typical emissions from these types of uses. The CalEEMod model was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out.

John Schwarz
July 26, 2024

Page 3 ends

As with the construction model, CalEEMod Version 2022 was used to estimate emissions from project operation. The only change made to the operational inputs from the original analysis was the operational year. The operational year was updated from 2022 to 2028.

Table 3 shows annual and average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. The operational period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 3. Operational Period Emissions for Updated Project Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2028 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.64 0.18 0.36 0.09 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
2028 Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
1 3.50 0.96 1.96 0.52
BAAQMD Thresholds (lbs./day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Health Risk from Project Construction
In the original analysis, it was found that unmitigated risk values would exceed the BAAQMD single-source threshold, requiring mitigation measures. More specifically, DPM emissions of

0.0396 tons (79 pounds) and PM2.5 emissions of 0.0152 tons (30 pounds) were the unmitigated total emissions for each pollutant which achieved a cancer risk of 47.2 per million and an annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.22 µg/m3 at the MEI. The mitigation measures consisted of using construction equipment with Tier 3 engines and Level 3 DPF filters to reduce the cancer risk impact at the MEI since only the cancer risk exceeded the BAAQMD single-source significance threshold.

For this updated analysis, total unmitigated DPM emissions of 0.0185 tons (37 pounds) were calculated in CalEEMod using the same one-mile on-site trip distance as the original analysis. This results in a 53 percent reduction of unmitigated DPM emissions. The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk over the entire construction period.

As a result, the unmitigated cancer risk would reduce from 47.2 per million to approximately 22.0 per million.

As shown, the project’s increased cancer risk still exceeds the BAAQMD single-source significance threshold, requiring mitigation to control. This updated analysis utilizes the same Mitigation Measure AQ-1 as the original analysis, discussed above. This results in mitigated DPM emissions of 0.0038 tons (8 pounds), an 80 percent reduction from the unmitigated total DPM emissions. As a result, the cancer risk would reduce from 22.0 per million to approximately 4.4 per million, below the BAAQMD single-source significance threshold.

Unlike the increased cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration is not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. As shown in the original analysis, the project’s unmitigated annual PM2.5 concentration was 0.22 µg/m3. This was based on the year 2020 (first construction year) unmitigated annual PM2.5 emissions of 0.0142 tons (28 pounds). In this John Schwarz
July 26, 2024

Page 4 ends

updated analysis, the maximum annual PM2.5 emissions occur in the year 2026 (first construction year) at 0.0157 tons (31 pounds). This is a 10 percent increase.

However, the total annual PM2.5 concentration is a combination of the fugitive PM2.5 emissions and the maximum cancer risk concentration. Since the DPM emissions have dropped by 53 percent, this is more than enough to overcome the 10 percent increase in fugitive PM2.5 emissions, causing the unmitigated annual PM2.5 concentration to reduce to 0.16 µg/m3 . This is below the BAAQMD
single-source significance threshold. No additional mitigation is required to control annual PM2.5 emissions. The calculations for this health risk summary is provided in Attachment 2.

Cumulative Impact Summary
For the cumulative analysis at the project MEI, the same stationary sources identified in the original analysis are used in this updated analysis. From Table 5 in the original analysis, the unmitigated cancer risk at the MEI was 56.1 per million. Similarly, the unmitigated annual PM2.5 concentration and unmitigated hazard index were at the MEI 0.33 µg/m3 and 0.10, respectively.

With the updated construction analysis in this memo, the new unmitigated values at the MEI are as follows:
- Cancer Risk: 30.9 per million
- Annual PM2.5 Concentration: 0.27 µg/m3
- Hazard Index: 0.09
Just like in the original analysis, these values are all below their respective BAAQMD cumulativesource threshold and would decrease when Mitigation Measure AQ-1 is applied to the project’s construction.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This updated analysis utilizes the same GHG thresholds as the original analysis.

For quantified emissions, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommended a GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons or 4.6 metric tons (MT) per capita. These thresholds were developed based on meeting the 2020 GHG targets set in the scoping plan that addressed AB 32. Development of the project would occur beyond 2020, so a threshold that addresses a future target is appropriate.

Although BAAQMD has not published a quantified threshold for 2030 yet, this assessment uses a “Substantial Progress” efficiency metric of 2.8 MT CO2e/year/service population and a bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year based on the GHG reduction goals of EO B-30-15. The service population metric of 2.8 is calculated for 2030 based predictions from BAAQMD.1 The 2030
bright-line threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year is a 40 percent reduction of the 2020 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold.

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2016. CLE International 12th Annual Super-Conference CEQA Guidelines, Case Law and Policy Update. December.

John Schwarz
July 26, 2024

Page 5 ends

CalEEMod Modeling
The CalEEMod model was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully developed site under the proposed project. As mentioned above, only the operational year of the project has been updated in the operational CalEEMod model.

Service Population Emissions
The project service population efficiency rate is based on the number of future residents. For this project, the number of future residents was estimated by multiplying the total number of residential units (70 units) by the persons per household rate for Mountain View found in the California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimate report.2 Using the 2.32 persons per household 2024 estimate for Mountain View, the number of future residents and the project service population is estimated to be 162.

Operational Emissions
The CalEEMod model was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fullydeveloped site under the proposed project. As shown in Table 4, annual emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 384 MT of CO2e for the year 2028 and 374 MT of CO2e for the year 2030. Both the 2028 and the 2030 emissions would not exceed the 2030 “Substantial Progress” threshold of 660 MT of CO2e/yr. The Service Population Emissions for the year 2028 would be 2.4 and 2.3 for the year 2030, which both would not exceed the “Substantial Progress” efficiency metric of 2.8 MT CO2e/year/service population.

To be considered significant, the project must exceed both the GHG significance threshold in metric tons per year and the service population significance threshold. This project does not exceed either threshold.

Table 4. Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons for Updated Project Source Category Proposed Project
2028 2030
Area 5 5
Energy Consumption 33 33
Mobile 328 318
Solid Waste Generation 16 16
Water Usage 2 2
Total (MT CO2e/yr) 384 374
Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/yr
Service Population Emissions
(MT CO2e/year/service population) 2.4 2.3
Significance Threshold 2.8 in 2030
Significant (exceed both)? No No

2 State of California, Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024.” Accessed: July 23, 2024. Available at: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/ John Schwarz
July 26, 2024

Page 6 ends

Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod outputs for the updated project construction and operational criteria air pollutants. Also included are any modeling assumptions.

Attachment 2 includes the health risk calculations.

Attachment 1: CalEEMod Input Assumptions and Outputs

Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: 2645 - 2655 Fayette Drive (2024 Project)
See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 70 Dwelling Units 0.67 total project acres disturbed 82,118 s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y/N? (not yet known) 0 s.f. retail
0 s.f. office/commercial Project include GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP on-site? Y/N? _No___ 4,450 s.f. other, specify: Amenities IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> 37,852 s.f. parking garage 101 spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: __________ 0 s.f. parking lot 0 spaces Fuel Type: _____________
Construction Hours 7 am to 6 pm
Location in project (Plans Desired if Available): 2645 - 2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.

Hours per
day
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date: 1/1/2026 Total phase: 10 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 1/15/2026
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 4 10 4 40 Demolition Volume 1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 10 8 80 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 1 Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 10 8 80 (or total tons to be hauled) 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 10 8 160 10,867 square feet or _?_ Hauling volume (tons)
Site Preperation Start Date: 1/16/2026 Total phase: 10 Any pavement demolished and hauled? 450 tons End Date: 1/30/2026
1 Graders 187 0.41 2 10 2 20
1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 2 10 2 20
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 4 10 4 40
Grading / Excavation Start Date: 1/31/2026 Total phase: 20 End Date: 2/27/2026 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Excavators 158 0.38 1 20 1 20 Export volume = 15,575 cubic yards 1 Graders 187 0.41 2 20 2 40 Import volume = 0 cubic yards 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 2 20 2 40
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 2 20 2 40
2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 3 20 3 120
Other Equipment?
Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 2/28/2026 Total phase: 14 End Date: 3/19/2026
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 3 14 3 42
1 Excavators 158 0.38 1 14 1 14
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date: 3/20/2026 Total phase: 151 Cement Trucks? _140_ Total Round-Trips End Date: 10/19/2026
1 Cranes 231 0.29 4 151 4 604 Electric? (Y/N) _N__ Otherwise assumed diesel 2 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 151 8 2416 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) _Y__ Otherwise Assumed diesel Generator Sets 84 0.74 0 0 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) __Y__ Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0
Welders 46 0.45 0 0
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date: 8/17/2026 Total phase: 151 End Date: 3/16/2027
Air Compressors 78 0.48 0 0
1 Aerial Lift 62 0.31 8 151 8 1208
1 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 151 8 1208
Paving Start Date: 3/17/2027 Total phase: 15
Start Date: 4/7/2027
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 2 15 2 120
1 Pavers 130 0.42 1 15 1 15
1 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 1 15 1 15
1 Rollers 80 0.38 2 15 2 30
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 3 15 3 45
Other Equipment?
Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab.

Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate
Modify horepower or load factor, as appropriate
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Asphalt? _0__ cubic yards or ____ round trips?
Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Year MT
2026 + 2027 0.68 0.63 0.02 0.02 0.03 254.17
Tons 0.68 0.63 0.02 0.02 254.17
Pounds/Workdays
2026 + 2027 4.08 3.81 0.12 0.11 331
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Pounds 1350.50 1261.71 39.66 36.73 0.00
Average 4.08 3.81 0.12 0.11 0.00 331.00
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5
Year
Total 0.64 0.18 0.36 0.09
Tons/year 0.64 0.18 0.36 0.09
Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0
Pounds Per Day 3.50 0.96 1.96 0.52
Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0
Category
Project Project 2030
Mobile 328.34 317.86
Area 5.01 5.01
Energy 33.19 33.19
Water 1.58 1.58
Waste 16.14 16.14
Refrig. 0.10 0.10
TOTAL 384.35 0.00 373.88 0.00
Net GHG Emissions 384.35 373.88
Service Population 162
Per Capita Emissions 2.37 2.30
Construction Equipment
Construction Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Average Daily Emissions Workdays
Total Construction Emissions
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants
Tons
Total Construction Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
CO2e
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 1 / 74
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 2 / 74

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

3.15. Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated

3.16. Trenching (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 3 / 74

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 4 / 74

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 5 / 74

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 6 / 74

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 7 / 74

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 8 / 74

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 9 / 74

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Construction Start Date 1/1/2026
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 2645 Fayette Dr, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1719
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Gas Utility City of Palo Alto Ultilities
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise

70.0 Dwelling Unit 0.67 86,568 0.00 — 209 —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 10 / 74
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
101 Space 0.00 37,852 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-6 Use Diesel Particulate Filters
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-10-C Water Unpaved Construction Roads
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.72 5.26 0.18 0.79 0.97 0.17 0.19 0.36 2,300
Mit. 8.50 6.50 0.04 0.79 0.83 0.04 0.19 0.23 2,300
% Reduced 3% -24% 75% — 14% 75% — 35% —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 8.69 14.0 0.50 3.74 4.00 0.46 1.39 1.63 8,082
Mit. 8.47 13.1 0.11 2.64 2.75 0.11 0.86 0.97 8,082
% Reduced 3% 6% 78% 30% 31% 76% 38% 40% —
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.49 3.19 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.09 0.18 0.28 1,457
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 11 / 74
Mit. 2.36 3.59 0.03 0.52 0.54 0.02 0.14 0.16 1,457
% Reduced 5% -12% 75% 15% 24% 75% 24% 41% —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.46 0.58 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.05 241
Mit. 0.43 0.66 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 241
% Reduced 5% -12% 75% 15% 24% 75% 24% 41% —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 8.72 5.26 0.18 0.79 0.97 0.17 0.19 0.36 2,300
2027 0.21 1.37 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.05 0.04 0.09 446
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 8.69 14.0 0.50 3.74 4.00 0.46 1.39 1.63 8,082
2027 8.16 1.38 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.05 0.04 0.09 433
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.49 3.19 0.10 0.61 0.71 0.09 0.18 0.28 1,457
2027 1.21 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 78.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.46 0.58 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.05 241
2027 0.22 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.0

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 12 / 74
Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 8.50 6.50 0.04 0.79 0.83 0.04 0.19 0.23 2,300
2027 0.15 1.70 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.05 446
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 8.47 13.1 0.11 2.64 2.75 0.11 0.86 0.97 8,082
2027 8.14 1.99 0.02 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.04 0.05 433
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.36 3.59 0.03 0.52 0.54 0.02 0.14 0.16 1,457
2027 1.20 0.37 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 78.5 Annual — — — — — — — — —
2026 0.43 0.66 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 241
2027 0.22 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.0

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.96 1.63 0.09 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,403
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.29 1.70 0.08 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,253
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.50 0.96 0.03 1.93 1.96 0.03 0.49 0.52 2,322
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.64 0.18 0.01 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 384
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 13 / 74

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Area 2.84 0.74 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 895
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
Total 3.96 1.63 0.09 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,403
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Area 2.23 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
Total 3.29 1.70 0.08 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,253
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.99 0.76 0.01 1.93 1.94 0.01 0.49 0.50 1,983
Area 2.49 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 30.3 Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 14 / 74
Total 3.50 0.96 0.03 1.93 1.96 0.03 0.49 0.52 2,322
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328 Area 0.45 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 5.01 Energy < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 33.2 Water — — — — — — — — 1.58
Waste — — — — — — — — 16.1
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.10
Total 0.64 0.18 0.01 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 384

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Area 2.84 0.74 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 895
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
Total 3.96 1.63 0.09 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,403
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Area 2.23 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 15 / 74
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
Total 3.29 1.70 0.08 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,253
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.99 0.76 0.01 1.93 1.94 0.01 0.49 0.50 1,983
Area 2.49 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 30.3 Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 200
Water — — — — — — — — 9.53
Waste — — — — — — — — 97.5
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.62
Total 3.50 0.96 0.03 1.93 1.96 0.03 0.49 0.52 2,322
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328 Area 0.45 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 5.01 Energy < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 33.2 Water — — — — — — — — 1.58
Waste — — — — — — — — 16.1
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.10
Total 0.64 0.18 0.01 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 384

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 16 / 74
Off-Road
Equipment

1.30 12.0 0.48 — 0.48 0.44 — 0.44 2,231
Demolition — — — 1.09 1.09 — 0.16 0.16 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.33 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 61.1
Demolition — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 10.1
Demolition — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 98.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 1.96 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.02 0.11 0.13 1,585
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.5 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.19 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 17 / 74

3.2. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.43 11.1 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 2,231
Demolition — — — 1.09 1.09 — 0.16 0.16 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.30 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 61.1
Demolition — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.06 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 10.1
Demolition — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 98.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 1.96 0.02 0.40 0.42 0.02 0.11 0.13 1,585
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 18 / 74
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.74 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.5 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.45 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.19

3.3. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 3.28 0.15 — 0.15 0.14 — 0.14 634
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 1.77 1.77 — 0.86 0.86 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.10 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 19.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 19 / 74
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.16
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 59.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 20 / 74
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 2.87 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 634
Dust From
Material
Movement
——— 0.69 0.69— 0.33 0.33—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.09 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 19.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
——— 0.02 0.02— 0.01 0.01—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 3.16
Dust From
Material
Movement
——— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 59.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily—————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.81 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 21 / 74
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.44 4.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 786
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 1.82 1.82 — 0.86 0.86 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.22 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 43.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.13
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 22 / 74
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.14 8.86 0.09 1.80 1.89 0.09 0.49 0.58 7,177
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.48 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 394 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 65.2

3.6. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 3.88 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 786
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.71 0.71 — 0.34 0.34 —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 23 / 74
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.21 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 43.1
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.02 0.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.13
Dust From
Material
Movement
— — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.14 8.86 0.09 1.80 1.89 0.09 0.49 0.58 7,177
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.48 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 394 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.09 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 65.2 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 24 / 74

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.08 0.14 — 0.14 0.12 — 0.12 803
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.33 3.08 0.14 — 0.14 0.12 — 0.12 803
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.28 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 334
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.23 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 55.3
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.14 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 566
Vendor 0.01 0.45 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 380
Hauling < 0.005 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 524
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 25 / 74
Vendor 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 379
Hauling < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 136 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 221
Vendor < 0.005 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 158 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.8 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 36.5
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.2 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.41

3.8. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 3.76 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 803
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 3.76 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 803
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 1.57 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 334
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 26 / 74
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.29 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 55.3
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.14 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 566
Vendor 0.01 0.45 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 380
Hauling < 0.005 0.16 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 137 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.19 0.18 0.00 0.55 0.55 0.00 0.13 0.13 524
Vendor 0.01 0.48 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.03 379
Hauling < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 0.03 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 136 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.05 221
Vendor < 0.005 0.19 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 158 Hauling < 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 56.8 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 36.5
Vendor < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.2 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 9.41

3.9. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 27 / 74
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.33 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 278
Paving 0.00————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 1.33 0.05— 0.05 0.05— 0.05 278
Paving 0.00————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.06 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 12.2
Paving 0.00————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 2.02
Paving 0.00————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 168
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 155
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 28 / 74
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.66 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 278
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.66 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 278
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.07 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 12.2
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 29 / 74
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 2.02
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 168
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 155
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.88 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.14 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 30 / 74
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 1.40 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 1.40 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.38 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 80.7
Architectural
Coatings

2.15————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.07 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 13.4
Architectural
Coatings

0.39————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 113
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 31 / 74
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 105
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 28.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Architectural Coating (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 1.96 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 1.96 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02 — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 32 / 74
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.52 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 80.7
Architectural
Coatings

2.15————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 13.4
Architectural
Coatings

0.39————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 113
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 105
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 28.4
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual—————————
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 4.70 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 33 / 74
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 1.34 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.20 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 44.2
Architectural
Coatings

1.18 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.32
Architectural
Coatings

0.21 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 34 / 74
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 103
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.14. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 1.96 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 301
Architectural
Coatings

8.02 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.29 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 44.2
Architectural
Coatings

1.18 — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 35 / 74
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 7.32
Architectural
Coatings

0.21 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 103
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.3 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 36 / 74
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.49 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 127
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.87
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.81 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 39.5
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 37 / 74

3.16. Trenching (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.70 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 127
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.87
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.81 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 39.5
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.53 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 38 / 74
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 39 / 74
Enclosed Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 with Elevator
Total 0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.11 0.73 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,199
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.06 0.85 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,067
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.18 0.14 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 328

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 40 / 74
Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.25
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.15
Total — — — — — — — — 0.40

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 41 / 74
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.25
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.15
Total — — — — — — — — 0.40

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 42 / 74
Apartments Mid
Rise
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 43 / 74

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.04 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Consumer
Products

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.62 0.05 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 17.4
Total 2.84 0.74 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 895
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.04 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Consumer
Products

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — —
Total 2.23 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.58 Consumer
Products

0.34 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.42
Total 0.45 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 5.01 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 44 / 74

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.04 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Consumer
Products

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.34 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.58
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 1.58

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 46 / 74
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.58
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 1.58

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 47 / 74
Daily, Winter — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 16.1
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 16.1

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 48 / 74
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 16.1
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 16.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — 0.62
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — 0.62
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.10
Total — — — — — — — — 0.10

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 49 / 74
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — 0.62
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.62
Total — — — — — — — — 0.62
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.10
Total — — — — — — — — 0.10

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 50 / 74
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 51 / 74
Daily, Winter — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 52 / 74
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 53 / 74
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 54 / 74

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 55 / 74
Avoided—————————
Subtotal—————————
Sequestered—————————
Subtotal—————————
Removed—————————
Subtotal—————————
——————————
Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Avoided—————————
Subtotal—————————
Sequestered—————————
Subtotal—————————
Removed—————————
Subtotal—————————
——————————
Annual—————————
Avoided—————————
Subtotal—————————
Sequestered—————————
Subtotal—————————
Removed—————————
Subtotal—————————
——————————

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 56 / 74
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 1/1/2026 1/15/2026 5.00 10.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 1/16/2026 1/30/2026 5.00 11.0 — Grading Grading 1/31/2026 2/27/2026 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 3/20/2026 10/19/2026 5.00 152 — Paving Paving 3/17/2027 4/7/2027 5.00 16.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/17/2026 3/16/2027 5.00 152 — Trenching Trenching 2/28/2026 3/19/2026 5.00 14.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 2.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 33.0 0.73
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 57 / 74
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 2.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 2.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Aerial Lifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Architectural Coating Forklifts Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 1.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 36.0 0.38

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 148 0.41 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 367 0.40 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 2.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 58 / 74
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 1.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 33.0 0.73
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 2.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 2.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 1.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 3 1.00 2.00 36.0 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 3 1.00 1.00 89.0 0.36 Architectural Coating Aerial Lifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.31 Architectural Coating Forklifts Diesel Tier 3 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 3 1.00 3.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Tier 3 1.00 1.00 36.0 0.38

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 21.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 59 / 74
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck—— HHDT
Grading————
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 97.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck—— HHDT
Building Construction————
Building Construction Worker 66.3 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.7 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 1.85 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck—— HHDT
Paving————
Paving Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck—— HHDT
Architectural Coating————
Architectural Coating Worker 13.3 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck—— HHDT
Trenching————
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor— 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck—— HHDT
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 60 / 74

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 21.5 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 97.3 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 66.3 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.7 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 1.85 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 61 / 74
Architectural Coating Worker 13.3 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 175,300 58,433 0.00 0.00 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,867 —
Site Preparation — — 2.75 0.00 —
Grading — 15,575 5.00 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 62 / 74

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2026 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
2027 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
381 344 286 132,130 2,941 2,655 2,211 1,020,582
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Apartments Mid
Rise
381 344 286 132,130 2,941 2,655 2,211 1,020,582
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 63 / 74

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 36
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 34
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 36
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 34
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 64 / 74
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
175300.19999999998 58,433 0.00 0.00 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 238,802 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 616,285
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
139,728 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 65 / 74
Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 238,802 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 616,285
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
139,728 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 2,538,648 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 2,538,648 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 51.7 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 51.7 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 66 / 74

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.15.2. Mitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 67 / 74

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 68 / 74

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.55 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 69 / 74
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 70 / 74
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 13.6
AQ-PM 16.1
AQ-DPM 87.7
Drinking Water 61.4
Lead Risk Housing 39.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 29.6
Traffic 72.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 62.0
Groundwater 35.0
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 50.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 1.61
Cardio-vascular 4.44
Low Birth Weights 22.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 71 / 74
Education 33.9
Housing 24.9
Linguistic 64.4
Poverty 14.3
Unemployment 41.8

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 83.2157064
Employed 93.31451302
Median HI 75.45232901
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 98.10085975
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 63.67252663
Transportation —
Auto Access 26.17733864
Active commuting 85.82060824
Social —
2-parent households 59.74592583
Voting 87.68125241
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 11.77980239
Park access 10.40677531
Retail density 93.51982548
Supermarket access 94.25125112
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 72 / 74
Tree canopy 81.80418324
Housing —
Homeownership 9.303220839
Housing habitability 42.89747209
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.68330553 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 80.52098037
Uncrowded housing 28.82073656
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 98.9734377
Arthritis 96.4
Asthma ER Admissions 99.2
High Blood Pressure 91.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 71.8
Asthma 95.7
Coronary Heart Disease 97.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 88.2
Cognitively Disabled 66.4
Physically Disabled 93.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 98.8
Mental Health Not Good 96.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 95.6
Obesity 93.1
Pedestrian Injuries 64.7
Physical Health Not Good 98.5
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 73 / 74
Binge Drinking 48.9
Current Smoker 96.9
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 95.4
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 28.2
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 62.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 20.0
Traffic Density 44.4
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 12.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 89.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 14.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 89.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View BMPs T3 DPF 2027 Detailed Report, 7/23/2024 74 / 74
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information Mountain View default clean energy provider is Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Land Use Total lot acreage, square footages (combined residential + amenities), and number of parking spaces provided by filled out construction worksheet.

Construction: Construction Phases Provided construction dates from filled out construction worksheet.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Equipment quantity and hours provided by filled out construction worksheet.

Construction: Trips and VMT Demolition = 450 tons of pavement demo'd and hauled (9 trips/day), Building Construction = 140 concrete truck round trips (1.85 trips/day).

Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust Air District BMPs- 15 mph. Required by Mountain View BMPs.

Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

2. Emissions Summary -HRA

2.2 Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2026 8.6796440 4.7380035 0.1735624 0.0694060 0.2429684 0.1597322 0.0168170 0.1765493 1244.08804636596372027 0.2037550 1.3416896 0.0503305 0.014130740.0644612 0.0463040 0.0033122 0.0496163 296.0462865201872 Daily - Winter (Max)2026 8.6683945 12.390241 0.4801766 1.9168651 2.0887759 0.4418383 0.8902467 1.0487480 2356.722758123184 2027 8.1570846 1.3552933 0.0503305 0.014130740.0644612 0.0463040 0.0033122 0.0496163 312.2194786016082 Average Daily2026 2.478201342.5427403 0.0943252 0.2160832 0.3104085 0.0868229 0.0858753 0.1726982 631.4673436640475 2027 1.2059537 0.2577231 0.0068766 0.0019524 0.0088290 0.0063264 0.0004569 0.0067834 58.77509098819499Annual2026 0.452271740.4640501 0.0172143 0.0394352 0.0566495 0.0158451 0.0156722 0.0315174 104.54662501355214 2027 0.2200865 0.0470344 0.0012549 0.0003563 0.0016112 0.0011545 0.0000834 0.0012379 9.730887051143132

2. Emissions Summary - HRA

2.3 Construction Emissions by Year, MitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2026 8.4603417 5.9790087 0.0382363 0.0694060 0.1076423 0.0347724 0.0168170 0.0515894 1244.08804636596372027 0.150181241.669821140.0107446 0.014130740.0248754 0.0098435 0.0033122 0.0131558 296.0462865201872 Daily - Winter (Max)2026 8.4490922 11.520496 0.0730460 1.1150954 1.1881415 0.0661567 0.3637828 0.3913414 2356.722758123184 2027 8.1343721 1.9678118 0.0153357 0.014130740.0248754 0.0141473 0.0033122 0.0163432 312.2194786016082 Average Daily2026 2.3425576 2.9417054 0.0180023 0.1228325 0.140834840.0163468 0.0412883 0.0576351 631.4673436640475 2027 1.200271740.3620069 0.0027218 0.0019524 0.0046742 0.0025079 0.0004569 0.0029649 58.77509098819499 Annual2026 0.4275167 0.5368612 0.0032854 0.0224169 0.0257023 0.0029833 0.0075351 0.0105184 104.54662501355214 2027 0.2190495 0.0660662 0.0004967 0.0003563 0.0008530 0.0004576 0.0000834 0.0005410 9.730887051143132

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.1 Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition
Demolition Worker 12.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 21.5 1 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck HHDT
Site Preparation
Site Preparation Worker 7.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 97.35 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction Worker 66.29784 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.686942799999999 1 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 1.85 1 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 20 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating Worker 13.259568 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck HHDT

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.2 Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition
Demolition Worker 12.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 21.5 1 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck HHDT
Site Preparation
Site Preparation Worker 7.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 97.35 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck HHDT
Building Construction
Building Construction Worker 66.29784 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 13.686942799999999 1 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction Hauling 1.85 1 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 20 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck HHDT
Architectural Coating
Architectural Coating Worker 13.259568 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck HHDT
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 1 / 27
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 2 / 27

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 3 / 27

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 4 / 27

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 5 / 27

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 6 / 27

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Operational Year 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 2645 Fayette Dr, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1719
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Gas Utility City of Palo Alto Ultilities
App Version 2022.1.1.26

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise

70.0 Dwelling Unit 0.67 86,568 0.00 — 209 —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 7 / 27
Enclosed Parking 101 Space 0.00 37,852 0.00 — — —
with Elevator

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.86 1.55 0.08 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,332
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.21 1.61 0.08 2.07 2.15 0.08 0.53 0.60 3,188
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.41 0.88 0.03 1.93 1.96 0.03 0.49 0.52 2,258
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.62 0.16 < 0.005 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 374

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.01 0.65 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,128
Area 2.84 0.74 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 895
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 8 / 27
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 200
Water———————— 9.53
Waste———————— 97.5
Refrig.———————— 0.62
Total 3.86 1.55 0.08 2.07 2.16 0.08 0.53 0.61 3,332
Daily, Winter
(Max)
—————————
Mobile 0.97 0.77 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,002
Area 2.23 0.69 0.06— 0.06 0.06— 0.06 878
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 200
Water———————— 9.53
Waste———————— 97.5
Refrig.———————— 0.62
Total 3.21 1.61 0.08 2.07 2.15 0.08 0.53 0.60 3,188
Average Daily—————————
Mobile 0.91 0.69 0.01 1.93 1.94 0.01 0.49 0.50 1,920
Area 2.49 0.04 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 30.3
Energy 0.01 0.16 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 200
Water———————— 9.53
Waste———————— 97.5
Refrig.———————— 0.62
Total 3.41 0.88 0.03 1.93 1.96 0.03 0.49 0.52 2,258
Annual—————————
Mobile 0.17 0.13 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 318 Area 0.45 0.01 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 5.01
Energy < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 33.2 Water———————— 1.58
Waste———————— 16.1
Refrig.———————— 0.10
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 9 / 27
Total 0.62 0.16 < 0.005 0.35 0.36 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 374

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

1.01 0.65 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,128
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 1.01 0.65 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,128
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.97 0.77 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,002
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.97 0.77 0.01 2.07 2.09 0.01 0.53 0.54 2,002
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.17 0.13 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 318
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.17 0.13 < 0.005 0.35 0.35 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 318

4.2. Energy
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 10 / 27

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.90
Total — — — — — — — — 2.43
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.25
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.15
Total — — — — — — — — 0.40

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 11 / 27
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.01 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 198
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 32.8

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.61 0.05 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 17.4
Total 2.84 0.74 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 895
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 12 / 27
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.04 0.69 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 878
Consumer
Products

1.85 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.34 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.06 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 1.42
Total 0.45 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 5.01

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 13 / 27
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 9.53
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 9.53
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.58
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 1.58

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 97.5
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 97.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 14 / 27
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 16.1
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 16.1

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 15 / 27
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 16 / 27
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 17 / 27
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 18 / 27
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Apartments Mid Rise 2,538,648 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 20 / 27

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 51.7 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

5.16.2. Process Boilers
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 21 / 27
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 22 / 27
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.55 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 23 / 27
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 13.6
AQ-PM 16.1
AQ-DPM 87.7
Drinking Water 61.4
Lead Risk Housing 39.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 29.6
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 24 / 27
Traffic 72.1
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 62.0
Groundwater 35.0
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 50.1
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 1.61
Cardio-vascular 4.44
Low Birth Weights 22.6
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 33.9
Housing 24.9
Linguistic 64.4
Poverty 14.3
Unemployment 41.8

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 83.2157064
Employed 93.31451302
Median HI 75.45232901
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 98.10085975
High school enrollment 100
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 25 / 27
Preschool enrollment 63.67252663
Transportation —
Auto Access 26.17733864
Active commuting 85.82060824
Social —
2-parent households 59.74592583
Voting 87.68125241
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 11.77980239
Park access 10.40677531
Retail density 93.51982548
Supermarket access 94.25125112
Tree canopy 81.80418324
Housing —
Homeownership 9.303220839
Housing habitability 42.89747209
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 75.68330553 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 80.52098037
Uncrowded housing 28.82073656
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 98.9734377
Arthritis 96.4
Asthma ER Admissions 99.2
High Blood Pressure 91.8
Cancer (excluding skin) 71.8
Asthma 95.7
Coronary Heart Disease 97.4
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.5
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 26 / 27
Diagnosed Diabetes 96.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 88.2
Cognitively Disabled 66.4
Physically Disabled 93.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 98.8
Mental Health Not Good 96.5
Chronic Kidney Disease 95.6
Obesity 93.1
Pedestrian Injuries 64.7
Physical Health Not Good 98.5
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 48.9
Current Smoker 96.9
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 95.4
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 45.9
Elderly 73.9
English Speaking 28.2
Foreign-born 91.6
Outdoor Workers 62.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
Impervious Surface Cover 20.0
Traffic Density 44.4
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices—
24-099 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View 2030 Op Detailed Report, 7/18/2024 27 / 27
Hardship 12.4
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 89.5

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 14.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 89.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Characteristics: Utility Information Mountain View default clean energy provider is Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Land Use Total lot acreage, square footages (combined residential + amenities), and number of parking spaces provided by filled out construction worksheet.

Operations: Water and Waste Water Wastewater treatment 100% aerobic - no septic tanks or lagoons.

Attachment 2: Project Health Risk Calculations
2645 - 2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View, CA
- Construction Health Impact SummaryMaximum Impacts at MEI Location - Unmitigated (Modeled) Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - Unmitigated (Calculated) Maximum Concentrations Maximum Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Year (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3) Year (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3) 2020 0.11626 0.0998 20.7 0.3 0.02 0.22 2026 0.0543 0.1098 9.7 0.2 0.01 0.162021 0.16123 0.00688 26.5 0.5 0.03 0.17 2027 0.0753 0.0076 12.4 0.2 0.02 0.08 Total -- 47.2 0.8 -- Total -- 22.0 0.4 --
Maximum 0.1612 0.0998 - - 0.03 0.22 Maximum 0.1612 0.0998 - - 0.02 0.16 Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation (Modeled) Maximum Impacts at MEI Location - With Mitigation (Calculated) Maximum Concentrations Maximum Maximum Concentrations Maximum Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Exhaust Fugitive Cancer Risk Hazard Annual PM2.5 Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Emissions PM10/DPM PM2.5 (per million) Index Concentration Year (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3) Year (μg/m3) (μg/m3) Infant/Child Adult (-) (μg/m3) 2020 0.01155 0.02516 2.1 0.03 0.002 0.04 2026 0.0109 0.1098 1.9 0.03 0.00 0.122021 0.02094 0.00688 3.4 0.06 0.004 0.03 2027 0.0151 0.0076 2.5 0.04 0.00 0.02 Total -- 5.5 0.09 -- Total -- 4.4 0.1 --
Maximum 0.0209 0.0252 - - 0.004 0.04 Maximum 0.0209 0.0252 - - 0.00 0.12 - Tier 3 DPF 3 Mitigation - Tier 3 DPF 3 Mitigation
ATTACHMENT 4

ARBORIST REPORT
650-321-0202 | PO Box 971 Los Gatos CA 95031 | urbantreemanagement.com

Existing Conditions Arborist Report
2645-2655 Fayette Dr.

Mountain View, CA 94040
Inspection Date:

August 3, 2023
Revised: October 2, 2023
Prepared by: Chris Stewart
Project Arborists: Chris Stewart
contractor’s license # 755989
certified arborist WC ISA #WE-13682A

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ASSIGNMENT……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………1 SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….1 SURVEY METHODS……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….…………2 TREE RATINGS TABLE…………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…………….3 TREE DISPOSITION CATEGORIES………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 LOCAL REGULATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………3-4 SURVEY AREA OBSERVATIONS AND DISCUSSION….……………………..…………………………….…….………..4 TREE HEALTH…………………………………………………..………………………………………….………………….4 TREE STRUCTURE…………………………………………….………………………………………….….………………4 RECOMMENDED REMOVALS…………………………………………………………………………..………..……………4-5 SITE IMAGES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..5 RISK TO TREES BY CONSTRUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………….5 TREE PROTECTION PLAN……………………………………………………………………………….……………………….6-7 DISCLAIMER AND CERTIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE………………………………………………………………..7 TREE DATA TABLE…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………….8-9 TOPOGRAPHICAL MAP WITH TREE NUMBERS………………………………………………………………………….10 TREE DISPOSITION PLAN………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 PLANTIMG NOTES AND LEGEND………………………………………………………………………………………………12 1 Assignment
It was our assignment to physically inspect all trees onsite based on a topographical map provided by the design team. We were to map, tag and compile data for each tree and write an inventory/survey report documenting our observations on the site’s existing conditions.

Summary
This survey provides a numbered map and complete and detailed information for each tree surveyed. The complete list of trees and all relevant information, including their health and structure ratings, their “protected/significant” status, a map, and recommendations for their care can be found in the data sheet that accompanies this report.

There are 16 trees included in this report with 13 trees protected under the City of Mountain View’s tree protection ordinance. During our survey, none of the trees were rated “A” condition, none of the trees were rated “B” condition, none of the trees were rated “C” condition, and 16 trees were rated “D” condition.

A - Retain, condition warrants long-term preservation.

B - Preservable, tree is a benefit and may be worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

C- May be preservable but is not worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

D – Recommend removal due to existing condition, structure and/or construction limits.

The existing site will be demolished, and a proposed multi-unit building will be constructed on this property. All of the existing trees will not survive construction impacts and need to be removed.
2 Survey Methods
The trunks of the trees were measured using an arborist’s diameter tape at 54” above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. The canopy height and spread are estimated using visual references only.

The condition of each tree is assessed by visual observation only from a standing position without climbing or using aerial equipment. No invasive equipment is used. Consequently, it is possible that individual tree(s) may have internal (or underground) health problems or structural defects, which are not detectable by visual inspection. In cases where it is thought further investigation is warranted, a “full tree risk assessment” is recommended. This assessment may be inclusive of drilling or using sonar equipment to detect internal decay and include climbing or the use of aerial equipment to assess higher portions of the tree.

All the trees surveyed were examined and then rated based on their individual health and structure according to the following Tree Ratings Table. For example, a tree may be rated “good” under the health column for excellent/vigorous appearance and growth, while the same tree may be rated “fair/poor” in the structure column if structural mitigation is needed.

The health of an individual tree is rated based on leaf color and size, canopy density, new shoot growth, and the absence or presence of pests or disease.

Individual tree structure is rated based on the growth pattern of the tree (including whether it is leaning); the presence or absence of poor limb attachments (such as co-dominant leaders); the length and weight of limbs; and the extent and location of apparent decay. For each tree, a structural rating of “fair” or above indicates that the structure can be maintained with routine pruning such as removing dead branches and reducing end weight as the tree grows. A “fair/poor” rating indicates that the tree has significant structural weaknesses and corrective action is warranted. The notes section for that tree will then recommend a strategy/technique to improve the structure or mitigate structural stresses. A “poor” structural rating indicates that the tree or portions of the tree are likely to fail and that there is little that can constructively be done about the problem other than removal of the tree or large portions of the tree. Very large trees that are rated “fair/poor” for structure AND that are near structures or in an area frequently traveled by cars or people, receive an additional **CONSIDER REMOVAL** notation under recommendations. This is included because structural mitigation techniques do not guarantee against structural failure, especially in very large trees. Property owners may or may not choose to remove this type of tree but should be aware that if a very large tree experiences a major structural failure, the danger to nearby people or property is significant. 3 Tree Ratings Table
Rating Health Structure
Good excellent/vigorous flawless
Fair/good no significant health concerns very stable
Fair showing initial or temporary
disease, pests, or lack of vitality.
measures should be taken to
improve health and appearance.
routine maintenance needed such as
pruning or end weight reduction as tree
grows
Fair/poor in decline, significant health issues significant structural weakness(es), mitigation needed, mitigation may or may
not preserve the tree
Poor dead or near dead hazard
Tree Disposition Categories
Each tree onsite has been categorized for its suitability for preservation relative to its existing condition. Factors such as tree health, condition, age, planting location, species, and structure are all considered to determine if each tree is suitable for preservation. Each tree in the survey (Tree Data Table) has been assigned one of the following categories:

A - Retain, condition warrants long-term preservation.

B - Preservable, tree is a benefit and may be worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

C- May be preservable but is not worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

D – Recommend removal due to existing condition and/or structure.

If trees with poor structure or less than ideal conditions are retained, they may require further assessments, monitoring, access restrictions, maintenance, or eventual removal. More thorough conversations about impacts and specific preservation plans can be reported as the project evolves.

Local Regulations Governing Trees
Mountain View’s City Code (Chapter 32, Article II) defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics:
 A tree trunk with a circumference of forty-eight inches (48") or more, measured at fiftyfour inches (54") above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork.
4  Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches (12”) or more, measured at fifty-four inches (54”) above natural grade. o Quercus (oak)
o Sequoia (redwood)
o Cedrus (cedar)
 A grove(s) of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council.

Survey Area Observations and Discussion
The property is located in downtown Mountain View on a flat rectangular lot with no elevation change. The predominant tree on this property is the White mulberry (Morus alba) tree. There were 6 distinct tree species identified during this tree survey. All of the trees onsite will be removed due to construction limits as they will not survive construction impacts.

Tree Health on this Property
The health of the trees in the survey area ranged from “fair/good” to “fair/poor”. Most of the trees on this property received a “fair” rating for health. Individual issues and recommendations for each tree are listed under the “Notes” column on the accompanying data sheet.

Tree Structure on this Property
Tree structure in the survey area ranged from “fair/good” to “fair/poor.” The majority of trees surveyed received “fair” structural ratings.

Ideally, trees are pruned for structure when young and are properly maintained to reduce endweight and correct structural weaknesses as they grow. This practice prevents the growth of codominant leaders, epicormic sprouts, and excessively long, lateral branches that are prone to breakage. As mentioned above, the property would benefit from a pruning maintenance program to help correct the structure of the trees, reduce dead and diseased wood accumulation, and prevent future limb or codominant leader failures.

Recommended Removals Based on Health/ Structure/Construction Limits Details of each individual tree are located in the Tree Data table belown on pages 10 and 11.

Protected Removals (Permit is required to remove these trees) Tree #1 is a Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) with DBH of 29.” Tree #6 is a Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis) with a DBH of 29.” Tree #7 is a Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) with a DBH of 58” 5 Tree #11 is a Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a DBH of 27.” Tree #12 is a Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) with a DBH of 25.” Tree #13 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 15.” Tree #17 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 18.” Tree #21 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 17.” Tree #24 is a Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis) with a DBH of 27.” Unprotected Removals (Permit is not required to remove these trees) Tree #14 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 12.” Tree #15 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 13.” Tree #16 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 13.” Tree #18 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 9.” Tree #19 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 13.” Tree #20 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 10.” Tree #23 is a White mulberry (Morus alba) with a DBH of 14.” Site Images
Tree #1 Tree #6 Tree #24
Risks to Trees by Construction
Besides the above-mentioned health and structure-related issues, the trees at this site could be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems; the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation; or the routing of construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root dieback. It is therefore essential that Tree Protection Fencing be used as per the Architect’s drawings. In constructing underground utilities, it is essential that the location of trenches be done outside the drip lines of trees except where approved by the Arborist. 6 Tree Protection Plan
Protective fencing is required to be provided during the construction period to protect trees to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective.

Fencing is recommended to be located 8-10 times (8x-10x) the DBH in all directions from the tree. DBH for each tree is shown in the attached data table. The minimum recommendation for tree protection fencing location is 6x the DBH, where a larger distance is not possible. There are areas where we will amend this distance based upon tree condition and proposed construction.

In my experience, the protective fencing must:
a. Consist of chain link fencing and have a minimum height of 6 feet. b. Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. c. Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. d. Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment.
e. Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed, unless approved be a Certified Arborist. f. Tree protection signage shall be mounted to all individual tree protection fences.

Based on the existing development and the condition and location of trees present on site, the following is recommended:

1. The Project Arborist is Chris Stewart (408) 313-1937. The Project Arborist should supervise any excavation activities within the tree protection zones of these trees.

2. Any roots exposed during construction activities that are larger than 2 inches in diameter should not be cut or damaged until the Project Arborist has an opportunity to assess the impact that removing these roots could have on the trees.

3. The area under the driplines of trees should be thoroughly irrigated to a soil depth of 18 inches every 2 weeks during the dry months.

4. Mulch should cover all bare soil within the tree protection fencing. This material must be 6-8 inches in depth after spreading, which must be done by hand. Coarse wood chips are preferred because they are organic and degrade naturally over time.

5. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of protected trees, unless specifically approved by a Certified Arborist. For trenching, this means:
a. Trenches for any underground utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of protected trees, unless approved by a Certified Arborist. Alternative methods of installation may be suggested. b. Landscape irrigation trenches must be located a minimum distance of 10x the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees unless otherwise noted and approved by the Arborist.

6. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected trees.

7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees.
7 8. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection.

9. Landscape irrigation systems must be designed to avoid water striking the trunks of trees, especially Oak trees.

10. Any pruning must be done by a Company with an Arborist Certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998.

11. Any plants that are planted inside the driplines of oak trees must be of a species that is compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of oak trees. Plants compatible with California native oaks can be found in The California Oak Foundation’s 1991 publication “Compatible Plants Under & Around Oaks.” This publication details plants compatible with California native oaks and is currently available online at:
http://californiaoaks.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/CompatiblePlantsUnderAroundO aks.pdf.

Disclaimer and Certification of Performance
Urban Tree Management locates our Tree Inventory Numbers in approximate locations, for visual reference only. Field verification of tree locations and tree numbers is required before any actions are taken. Trunk diameters, locations, and species are not necessarily accurate on topographic maps. Urban Tree Management, Inc. does not create topographic survey maps and cannot be held liable for information therein.
+ + + + +
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge and that this report was prepared in good faith. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.

Respectfully,
Chris Stewart
WC ISA Certified Arborist WE-13682A

TREE SURVEY DATA
2645/2655 Fayette Dr Mountain View, CA 94040
8/3/2023
KEY
Good-G
Fair - Good-FG
Fair-F
Fair - Poor-FP
Poor-P
TAG NO. COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT BREAST
HEIGHT"

H'/W' HEALTH STRUCTURE PROTECTED (X) TREE DISPOSITION
1 Douglas Fir 29 72'/35' FP F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 2 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
3 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
4 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
5 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
6 Canary Island Palm 29 40'/18' F FP x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 7 Coast redwood 58 95'/45' FG FG x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 8 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
9 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
10 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
11 Coast Live Oak 27 40'/45' FG F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 12 Mexican Fan Palm 25 65'/12' F F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 13 White Mulberry 15 38'/40' F F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 14 White Mulberry 12 30'/30' F F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 15 White Mulberry 13 35'/28' fp F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 16 White Mulberry 13 40'/25' fp F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 17 White Mulberry 18 42'/35' F FP x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 18 White Mulberry 9 40'/25' F F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 19 White Mulberry 13 40'/30' F F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 20 White Mulberry 10 40'/28' F F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 21 White Mulberry 17 38'/30' FP F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 22 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
23 White Mulberry 14 35'/30' F F D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 24 Canary Island Palm 27 40'/22' F F x D RR, removal due to construction limits, tree will not survive construction impacts 25 removed removed prior to my inspection on 8/3/2023
0 0
0 D= Recommend removal due to existing condition and/or structure/construction limits 16 16 PROTECTED TOTAL 9

KEY TO ACRONYMS
RR - Recommend Tree Removal based upon Health or Structure of tree.

Prop - Steel prop in concrete footing recommended to help support a tree/limb.

Cable - Recommend a steel cable(s) be installed to help support a weakly attached limb(s).

RCE - Root Collar Excavation: excavating a small area around a tree that is currently buried by soil or refuse above buttress roots, usually done with a hand shovel.

EWR - End Weight Reduction: pruning to remove weight from limb ends, thus reducing the potential for limb failure(s).

SP - Structural pruning - removal of selected non-dominant leaders in order to balance the tree.

CD - Codominant Leader, two leaders with a narrow angle of attachement and prone to failure.

LCR-Live Crown Ratio.

DWR - Dead Wood Removal pruning recommended.

TOTAL TREES
A = Retain, condition warrants long-term preservation
B = Preservable, tree is a benefit and may be worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

C = May be preservable but is not worthy of extensive effort or design accommodation.

NOTES, RECOMMENDATIONS
Address:
declining; measures should be taken to improve health
and appearance
in decline: significant health issues
dead or near dead
Health
Ratings for health and structure are given separately for each tree according to the table below. IE, a tree may be rated "Good" under the health column For excellent, vigorous appearance and growth, while the same tree may be rated "Fair, Poor" in the structure column if structural mitigation is needed. excellent, vigorous
no significant health concerns
hazard
Structure
flawless
very stable
routine maintenance needed
mitigation needed, it may or may
not preserve this tree
Inspection Date:
1 of 2

TREE SURVEY DATA
TAG NO. COMMON NAME DIAMETER AT BREAST
HEIGHT"

H'/W' HEALTH STRUCTURE PROTECTED (X) TREE DISPOSITION NOTES, RECOMMENDATIONS

TREE ORDINANCE
Mountain View’s City Code Chaper 32, Article II, defines a “Heritage Tree” as any tree that has a trunk with a circumference of forty-eight inches (48") or more measured at fifty-four inches (54") above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Three species, quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood) or cedrus (cedar) are considered “Heritage” if they have a circumference of twelve inches (12") measured at fifty-four inches (54") above natural grade.

Common Name Latin Name
Douiglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia
Canary Island palm Phoenix canariensis
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens
White mulberry Morus alba
Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta
Disclaimer: Urban Tree Management locates our Tree Inventory Numbers in approximate locations, for visual reference only. Field verification of tree locations and tree numbers is required before any actions are taken. Trunk diameters, locations, and species are not necessarily accurate on topographic maps. Urban Tree Management, Inc. does not create topographic survey maps and cannot be held liable for information therein. 2 of 2

2019 21 23 18 24 16 15 14 13 11 12 7 1 17 6 All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. OCTANE - 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DR. October 05, 2023 0' 10' 20' 30' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 1"=20' TREE DISPOSITION PLAN L-4.1 FAYETTE PARK

MV DOMUS

APARTMENTS PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
FAYETTE DR. KEY TYPE QTY0 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN TREE PROTECTION FENCING TREE DISPOSITION LEGEND EXISTING HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED 9 Note: Refer to Planting Palette, sheet L-2.00, and Planting Plan, sheets L-2.1 and L-2.2, for tree mitigation quantities and location. REPLACEMENT RATIO: 9 HERITAGE TREES REMOVED x 2 2:1 MITIGATION RATIO = 18 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED 7 NON-HERITAGE TREES REMOVED x 1 1:1 MITIGATION RATIO = 7 REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED 25 TOTAL REPLACEMENT TREES REQUIRED 27 REPLACEMENT TREES PROPOSED EXISTING TREE 7 TO BE REMOVED All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original, and unpublished work of the architect and may not be duplicated, used or disclosed without the written consent of the architect. OCTANE - 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DR. PLANTING NOTES AND LEGEND August 11, 2023 L-2.00 PLANTING NOTES THE FOLLOWING SIX (6) NOTES ARE FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY 1. The contractor is required to submit plant quantities and unit prices for all plant materials as a part of the bid. 2. Assume 15 gallon plant for any unlabelled or un-sized tree; 5 gallon plant for any unlabelled or un-sized shrub; and 4" pots @ 12" o.c. (not flats) for any unlabelled ground cover. All planting beds, except for lawns, are to receive ground cover plant installation in addition to the shrubs and trees shown on the plans. 3. The planting areas shall be ripped to a depth of 8" to reduce compaction. The native subgrade soil shall be treated with 100 lbs of gypsum/1000 sf and leached to improve drainage and reduce the soil interface barrier. Contractor shall coordinate this work with other trades. This is subject to the final recommendations of the soils test (see below) and review by the Landscape Architect and the Owner. 4. All planting areas are to receive Super Humus Compost by BFI (408.945.2844; www.bfi.com) at the rate of 6 cubic yards/1000 square feet, evenly tilled 6" deep into the soil to finish grade. All planting areas shall have 6-20-20 Commercial Fertilizer at 25lbs/1000 square feet evenly distributed into the soil. This is subject to the final recommendations and review of the soils test (see below) by the Landscape Architect and the Owner. 5. Planting pits are to be backfilled with a mixture of 50% native soil and 50% amended native soil. 6. The General Contractor is to provide an agricultural suitability analysis for on-site rough graded soil and any imported topsoil. Recommendations for amendments contained in this analysis are to be carried out before planting occurs. Such changes are to be accompanied by equitable adjustments in the contract price if/when necessary. See specifications for testing procedure. 7. All work shall be performed by persons familiar with planting work and under supervisions of a qualified planting foreman. 8. Plant material locations shown are diagrammatic and may be subject to change in the field by the Landscape Architect before the maintenance period begins. 9. All trees are to be staked as shown in the staking diagrams. 10. All tree stakes shall be cut 6" above tree ties after stakes have been installed to the depth indicated in the staking diagrams. Single stake all conifers per tree staking diagram. 11. Plant locations are to be adjusted in the field as necessary to screen utilities but not to block windows nor impede access. The Landscape Architect reserves the right to make minor adjustments in tree locations after planting at no cost to the Owner. All planting located adjacent to signs shall be field adjusted so as not to interfere with visibility of the signs. 12. The Landscape Architect reserves the right to make substitutions, additions, and deletions in the planting scheme as felt necessary while work is in progress. Such changes are to be accompanied by equitable adjustments in the contract price if/when necessary and subject to the Owner's approval. 13. The contractor is to secure all vines to walls and columns with approved fasteners, allowing for two (2) years growth. Submit sample of fastener to Landscape Architect for review prior to ordering. 14. All planting areas, except lawns and storm-water treatment zones (as defined by the civil engineer), shall be top-dressed with a 3" layer of recycled wood mulch, "Wonder Mulch" by Vision Recycling (510.429.1300; www.visionrecycling.com) or approved equal. Planter pots shall be top-dressed with "Colored Lumber Fines" mulch by Vision Recycling. Mulch shall be brown in color. Submit sample to Landscape Architect for review prior to ordering. Hold all mulch six (6) inches from all plants where mulch is applied over the rootball. 15. All street trees to be installed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the City of Mountain View. Contractor to contact the city arborist to confirm plant type, plant size (at installation), installation detailing and locations prior to proceeding with installation of street trees. Contractor is to obtain street tree planting permit from the city, if a permit is required, prior to installation of street trees. Contractor is to consult with the Landscape Architect during this process. 16. The lawn shall be sod or seeded (as noted) and consist of a drought tolerant hard fescue blend such as Pacific Sod "Medallion Dwarf with Bonsai", installed per manufacturer's recommendations and specifications. The mix shall consist of the following proportions of grass species: 100% Bonsai Double Dwarf fescue. Available through: Pacific Sod 800.542.7633 17. Trees planted in lawn areas shall have a 12" diameter cutout for trimming purposes. 18. Plants shall be installed to anticipate settlement. See Tree and Shrub Planting Details. 19. All trees noted with 'deep root' and those planted within 5'-0" of concrete paving, curbs, and walls shall have deep root barriers installed per manufacturer's specifications. See specifications and details for materials, depth of material, and location of installation. 20. The Landscape Contractor shall arrange with a nursery to secure plant material noted on the drawings and have those plants available for review by the Owner and Landscape Architect within thirty (30) days of award of contract. The Contractor shall purchase the material and have it segregated and grown for the job upon approval of the plant material. The deposit necessary for such contract growing is to be born by the Contractor. 21. The project has been designed to make efficient use of water through the use of drought tolerant plant materials. Deep rooting shall be encouraged by deep watering plant material as a part of normal landscape maintenance. The irrigation for all planting shall be limited to the amount required to maintain adequate plant health and growth. Water usage should be decreased as plants mature and become established. The irrigation controllers shall be adjusted as necessary to reflect changes in weather and plant requirements. 22. The Landscape Contractor shall verify the location of underground utilities and bring any conflicts with plant material locations to the attention of the Landscape Architect for a decision before proceeding with the work. Any utilities shown on the Landscape drawings are for reference and coordination purposes only. See Civil Drawings. 23. The design intent of the planting plan is to establish an immediate and attractive mature landscape appearance. Future plant growth will necessitate trimming, shaping and, in some cases, removal of trees and shrubs as an on-going maintenance procedure. 24. Install all plants per plan locations and per patterns shown on the plans. Install all shrubs to ensure that anticipated, maintained plant size is at least 2'-0" from the face of building(s) unless shown otherwise on the plans. Refer to Plant Spacing Diagram for plant masses indicated in a diagrammatic manner on the plans. Refer to Plant Spacing Diagram for spacing of formal hedge rows. 25. Contractor to provide one (1) Reference Planting Area for review by Landscape Architect prior to installation of the project planting. The Reference Planting Area shall consist of a representative portion of the site of not less than 900 (nine hundred) square feet. Contractor to set out plants, in containers, in the locations and patterns shown on the plans, for field review by the Landscape Architect. The Reference Planting Area will be used as a guide for the remaining plant installation. 26. The Maintenance Period(s) shall be for 60 (sixty) days. Portions of the installed landscape of a project may be placed on a maintenance period prior to the completion of the project at the Owner's request and with the Owner's concurrence. 27. Contractor to verify drainage of all tree planting pits. See Planting Specifications. Install drainage well per specifications and Tree Planting Detail(s) if the tree planting pit does not drain at a rate to meet the specifications. 28. Contractor shall remove all plant and bar code labels from all installed plants and landscape materials prior to arranging a site visit by the Landscape Architect. 29. Versi-Cell drainage board or approved equal is to be installed in all on-structure planters and all pre-cast planters/pots as shown in the drawings. Material available through: Tournesol Siteworks, 800.542.2282. Allow 4 weeks lead time for ordering product. All drainage board shall be completed covered with filter fabric as shown in the drawings and per manufacturer's specifications. 30. All tree rootballs shall be irrigated by water jet during the sixty (60) day maintenance period established by specifications. This irrigation shall occur each time normal irrigation is scheduled. 31. The Landscape Contractor shall, as a part of this bid, provide for a planting allowance for the amount of $5,000.000 (Five Thousand Dollars) to be used for supplying and installing additional plant material as directed by the Landscape Architect and approved by the Owner in writing. The unused portion of the alllowance shall be returned to the Owner at the beginning of the maintenance period. PLANTING PALETTE 5 M LAG IND 24" BOX Lagerstroemia indica 'Tuscarora' Crape Myrtle 4 L RTB 5 gallon Rosmarinus o. 'Tuscan Blue' Tuscan Blue Rosemary 30" o.c. L TREES KEY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMOM NAME QTY WUCOLS PRU SAR 24" BOX Prunus sargentii 'Columnaris' Columnar Cherry Total Trees 27 ACC 5 gallon Acacia cognata 'Cousin Itt' Cousin Itt dwarf acacia 36" o.c. L AGA 15 gallon Agave parryi var. huachucensis Huachua Agave 42" o.c. VL ALY 5 gallon Alyogyne huegelii 'Mood Indigo' Blue Hibiscus 48" o.c. L ANI 5 gallon Anigozanthos hybrid 'Bush Red' Kangaroo Paw 18" o.c. L Yes COP 5 gallon Cordyline australis 'Seipin' Cordyline Pink Passion 48" o.c.

M FAV 5 gallon Fatsia japonica Japanese aralia 36" o.c.M ILE 5 gallon Ilex vomitoria 'Pride of Houston' Pride of Houston yaupon holly 24" o.c. L IRI 5 gallon Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris 36" o.c. L POL 5 gallon Polygala fruticosa 'Petite Butterfly' Sweet Pea Shrub 24" o.c.M SAF 5 gallon Salvia greggii 'Purple' Purple Autumn Sage 24" o.c. L LOM 1 gallon Lomandra longifolia 'Breeze' Dwarf Mat Rush 30" o.c. L SES 1 gallon Sesleria autumnalis Autumn Moor Grass 18" o.c.M CUR 4" pot Curio rowleyanus String-of-pearls 4" o.c. L ECP Echeveria shaviana 'Pink Frills' pink frills echeveria 12" o.c. L EK 1 gallon Erigeron karvinskianus Santa Barbara daisy 24" o.c. L MPC 1 gallon Myoporum parvifolium Creeping Myoporum 36" o.c. L OSD Oscularia deltoides Deltoid-leaved Dewplant 12" o.c. L OXZ Oxalis vulcanicola 'Zinfandel' Volcanic Sorrel 18" o.c. L SA 1 gallon Sedum album White Stonecrop 6" o.c. L SR 1 gallon Sedum reflexum Reflexum Stonecrop 6" o.c. L HV 5 gallon Hardenbergia v. 'Happy Wanderer' Purple Lilac Vine M CTS 5 gallon Coprosma 'Tequila Sunrise' Tequila Sunrise Mirror Plant 24" o.c. L EEG Echeveria elegans White Mexican Rose 12" o.c. L AHM 5 gallon Arctostaphylos dens. 'Howard McMinn' Howard McMinn Manzanita 48" o.c. L Yes BOG 1 gallon Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' Blue Grama Grass 18" o.c. L Yes NOTES: 1. WUCOLS value (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species) per WUCOLS IV, 2014 edition. 2. Plants selected for suitability to Western Climate Zone 15. CA NATIVE MAQ GRE 5 gallon Grevillea 'Superb' Superb Grevillea 36" o.c. L 5 gallon Berberis aquifolium 'Compacta' Compact Oregon Grape SHRUBS KEY SIZE BOTANICAL NAME COMMOM NAME SPACING WUCOLS GRASSES GROUNDCOVERS VINES 36" o.c.M Yes Per Plan CA NATIVE ACE RUB 36" BOX Acer rubrum Red Maple LAU SAR 24" BOX Laurus nobilis 'Saratoga' Saratoga Bay Laurel 1 L ACE JAP 36" BOX Acer japonica Japanese Maple 2 M MDU 1 gallon Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly 24" o.c. L 4" pot 4" pot 4" pot 4" pot PIT 5 gallon Pittosporum tob. 'Variegata' Variegated Mockorange 36" o.c. L BAM 5 gallon Bambusa m. 'Golden Goddess' Golden Goddess Bamboo 48" o.c. L 8 M CER OCC 24" BOX Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud 7 VL Yes Yes

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Mountain View City Council
November 19, 2024