ATT 6 - Addendum to the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration — Mountain View City Council, November 19, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

OCTANE FAYETTE PROJECT
2645-2655 Fayette Drive

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

ADDENDUM TO

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OCTOBER 2024
Attachment 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction and Purpose of Addendum...................................................2

2.0 Project Location........................................................................................3

3.0 Background and Approved Project...........................................................7

4.0 Revised Project Description .....................................................................7

5.0 Environmental Setting ..............................................................................9

6.0 Conclusion..............................................................................................10

7.0 CEQA Environmental Checklist ............................................................11

8.0 References and Sources..........................................................................59

9.0 Lead Agency Authors and Consultants..................................................60

FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Map ...........................................................................................4 Figure 2 Vicinity Map.............................................................................................5 Figure 3 Aerial Photograph.....................................................................................6 TABLES
Table 1 Anticipated Project Unit Mix ...................................................................7

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 Project Application and Plan Set
Attachment 2 Prior CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment 3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update
Attachment 4 Arborist Report
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 1 October 2024

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
OCTANE FAYETTE PROJECT (2645-2655 FAYETTE DRIVE)

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) ADDENDUM TO

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: Octane Fayette FILE NUMBERS: PL-2023-169, PL-2023-170
SITE ADDRESS: 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View, CA 94040
APN: 148-16-008, 148-16-009
APPLICANT: Emeric McDonald
Octane Fayette, LLC
800 El Camino Real, Suite 180
Mountain View, CA 94040
PHONE: (703) 629-1901

PROPERTY
OWNER:

Emeric McDonald
Octane Fayette, LLC
800 El Camino Real, Suite 180
Mountain View, CA 94040
Prev. Cert. EIRs/Negative Declarations:

Draft 2023 General Plan and GHG
Reduction Program EIR (SCH#2011012069);
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) 2645-2655 Fayette
Drive Residential Project (March 2020); and
Revised IS/MND 2645-2655 Fayette
Drive Residential Project (October 2020)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The project is a “builder's remedy” housing development under the housing accountability act (Gov. code §65589.5). The project proposes to develop 70 housing units within a seven-story building with a subterranean garage on the site. Twenty percent of the units (14 units) would be reserved for low-income households.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: The site is located on the southwest side of Fayette Drive, west of San Antonio Road, within northwestern portion of Mountain View. The project site is relatively flat and is approximately 0.67 acres in size. The project site is surrounded by three-story multi-family apartments to the west, four-story apartments to the south, and a public park and five-to-sevenstory multi-family residential buildings to the north (across Fayette Drive). Fayette Greenway Park, which is a park area with plantings and walkways built on the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, is immediately adjacent to site to the east, and a commercial property is located farther to the east.

DETERMINATION: As outlined in this report, the revised proposed project would not result in new significant impacts, or require substantially different mitigation measures, as compared to the previously approved project evaluated in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City in 2020. Therefore, this Addendum has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

The proposed project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act because the attached Checklist was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and found that the revised project would not result in new significant impacts, or require substantially different mitigation 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 2 October 2024 measures, as compared to the previously approved project evaluated in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Therefore, this Addendum has been prepared in accordance with Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

Prepared by: Date:

Community Development Department
All referenced documentation is available for public review at the City of Mountain View, located at 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94039 during normal business hours.

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) recognizes that between the date an environmental document is completed and the date the project is fully implemented, one or more of the following changes may occur: 1) the project may change; 2) the environmental setting in which the project is located may change; 3) laws, regulations, or policies may change in ways that impact the environment; and/or 4) previously unknown information can arise. Before proceeding with a project, CEQA requires the Lead Agency to evaluate these changes to determine whether or not they affect the conclusion in the environmental document.

In 2020, the City of Mountain View adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previous Octane Fayette project, (File Nos. PL-2018-024 and PL-2018-332), which proposed to develop the site with a six-story, 44-unit, stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The project components included the residential building, common open space landscaping, site access and parking, as well as public-right-of-way and utility improvements.

The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed changes to the approved project, particularly adding 26 residential units and increasing the height of the building to seven stories, would result in new significant impacts not previously evaluated, or increased impacts that would require new, changed, or additional mitigation.

The CEQA Guidelines (§15162) state that when an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 3 October 2024

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The CEQA Guidelines (§15164) state that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in §15162 (see above) calling for preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. The analysis presented in the following sections provides substantial evidence that the proposed, revised project would not result in new significant impacts, or require substantially different mitigation measures, as compared to the previously approved project evaluated in the prior Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This Addendum will not be circulated for public review, but will be attached to the Wastewater Conveyance System and Treatment Plant Reliability Project EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15164(c). The current project plan set submittal is provided in Attachment 1, and the prior IS/MND is provided in Attachment 2.

2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
The 0.67-acre project site is located on the south side of Fayette Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road within the P-40 (San Antonio) Precise Plan area. The project site is surrounded by three-story multi-family apartments to the west, four-story apartments to the south, and a public park and five-to-seven-story multi-family residential buildings to the north (across Fayette Drive). Fayette Greenway Park, which is a park area with plantings and walkways built on the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, is immediately adjacent to site to the east, and a commercial property is located farther to the east.

A regional map and a vicinity map of the site are shown on Figures 1 and 2, and an aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding area is shown on Figure 3.

FIGURE 1: REGIONAL MAP

PROJECT SITE
FIGURE 2: VICINITY MAP

PROJECT SITE

ALMA ST

CHARLESTON RD

EL CAMINO REAL

PORTOLA AVE

SAN ANTONIO RD

HETCH HETCHY

DEL MEDIO AVE

LOS ALTOS AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

FAYETT E DR
FIGURE 3: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
2645 & 2655

FAYETTE DRIVE

N SAN ANTONIO RD

HETCH HETCHY

DEL MEDIO AVE

FAYETTE DR
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 7 October 2024

3.0 BACKGROUND AND APPROVED PROJECT
The previously approved project planned a six story, 44 unit, stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The approved building proposed a height of 77 feet.

The residential units were envisioned to be one to three bedrooms, ranging from approximately 813 to 1,612 square feet in size. The approved project proposed a residential density of 66 dwelling units (DU) per acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.50. The total square footage of the approved building was 72,620 square feet. The approved project proposed a 13.5-foot setback from the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, a 24-foot setback from Fayette Drive, a 30-foot setback from the northern property line, and a 15-foot setback from the southern property line.1

4.0 REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The revised project is proposed as a “builder's remedy” housing development under the housing accountability act (Gov. code §65589.5). The project proposes to demolish six existing residential units and an approximately 6,900 square foot, vacant commercial building, and to construct a new seven-story, 70-unit condominium development above a subterranean parking garage. Twenty percent of the residential units (14 units) would be affordable units reserved for low-income households.

Residential Building
The currently proposed building would be a podium-style structure, with a parking garage on the first floor and the subterranean level. The building would include six stories of residential units above the garage. A leasing office, lobby area, and amenity space would also be located on the ground level, along with mechanical equipment and the trash room. A recreational podium courtyard with seating areas, landscape planting, and a spa area would be located in the central and western portion of the building on the second level. A private recreation area would also be located on the roof deck.

The proposed residential building would be approximately 150,260 square feet in size and would have a maximum height of 85 feet. The site would be developed at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.34. The breakdown of the proposed residential unit mix is shown in Table 1, below.

TABLE 1

ANTICIPATED PROJECT UNIT MIX
Studio Units 5
Junior 1 Bedroom Units 6
1 Bedroom Units 6
2 Bedroom Units 29
3 Bedroom Units 24
Total Units 70
1City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 8 October 2024 Parking and Site Access
The project proposes to provide a total of 103 parking spaces within the garage to serve the residents and guests. This will include 59 spaces on the basement level and 44 spaces on the ground floor. Fourteen of the spaces will be for electric vehicle charging. The project also proposes to provide 80 bicycle parking spaces, which would be located on the ground floor within the parking garage.

Vehicular access to the garage would be from an entrance off Fayette Drive, near the northwestern corner of the building. The project would add new public sidewalks along Fayette Drive and frontage improvements along the perimeter of the site. Pedestrian access to the site would be sidewalks and walkways around the perimeter of the building.

Landscaping and Perimeter Improvements
The project proposes to remove all 16 of the existing trees, including nine City Heritage trees on the site and to replant 27 new trees, with a minimum 24-inch box size. The proposed trees would be a mixture of approximately 16 native trees and 11 non-native trees (refer to the tree planting palette in Attachment 1). Trees will be planted along the northern, Fayette Drive frontage, and along the eastern and southeastern frontage, as well as within the podium level.

The project also proposes water-efficient landscaping, including low- and moderate-water use plants on the site. The proposed landscaping would be focused around the new building and within the courtyard on the second level. Landscape planting would be provided around the site perimeter to screen the project from adjacent land uses.

The project proposes a total of 14,872 square feet of open space area. This would include 2,386 of public open space on the ground level, a 4,434 square-foot, semi-private podium courtyard located on the second level of the building, and private open space for each unit. The courtyard on the second level would include seating, tables, a spa area, and planting areas. The project also reserves space for a potential private recreational area on the roof level, which would be located on the southeastern portion of the roof deck and would likely include seating areas and garden planters.

Grading and Earthwork
The project proposes to excavate a net of approximately 15,575 cubic yards of soil from the site.

This excavation will mainly accommodate the building foundation and the subterranean parking garage. Soil excavated from the site would be hauled away and disposed at an appropriate facility.

Utilities
Utilities and services, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, as well as power and electricity, are all currently available and serving the site area. The project proposes to replace the existing utility connections on the site with new connections and lines to serve the residential building and to connect to the existing utilities within Fayette Drive.

The proposed project would construct new storm drains which would connect to the existing storm drain system in Fayette Drive. The project would also include flow-through planters and bioretention areas to treat and reduce the amount of stormwater runoff from the site. New 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 9 October 2024 sanitary sewer lines would connect to the existing sewer line in Fayette Drive. The site would continue to be served by the California Water Service Company.

Transportation Demand Management
The project applicant has submitted a transportation demand management (TDM) program that includes a mixture of required and optional design features, programs, and services to promote sustainable modes of transportation and to reduce the vehicular demand that would be generated by the project. The applicant’s design includes bicycle storage and parking, as well as pedestrian improvements to encourage walking. The a TDM program also identifies additional programs and features that could help the project achieve a four percent (4%) peak-hour vehicle trip reduction target.2
The proposed TDM program includes the following main features:
• TDM coordinator
• Alternative Transportation Information and TDM Marketing • Transit Passes
• Bicycle Storage
In accordance with the City’s standard conditions, the property owner will be required to prepare an annual TDM report and submit it to the City in order to document the effectiveness of the TDM program measures in achieving the vehicle trip reduction goals.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The site is located on the south side of Fayette Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road within the northwestern portion of Mountain View and is approximately 0.67 acres in size. The project site is relatively flat and is currently developed with single-story residential structures, a commercial building, and landscaping. There are 18 existing trees on-site, including nine Heritage trees, as defined by the City of Mountain View Municipal Code.

The project site is surrounded by three-story multi-family apartments to the west, four-story apartments to the south, a public park and five-to-seven-story multi-family residential buildings to the north (across Fayette Drive), as well as the Fayette Greenway and a commercial property to the east.

The site is located within the P-40 (San Antonio) Precise Plan area, which generally has a maximum allowable height of 55 feet, a lot coverage of 60 percent, and an FAR of 1.85. 2 TDM Specialists Inc. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, City of Mountain View, Transportation Demand Management List of Measures. January 17, 2024.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 10 October 2024

6.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the project description, the proposed changes to the project, knowledge of the site and surroundings, the prior IS/MND and revised IS/MND prepared for the approved project, as well as the attached CEQA Environmental Checklist, the City of Mountain View has concluded that the proposed changes to the approved project would not result in any new impacts which were not previously disclosed in the prior IS/MND, nor would they result in a substantial increase in the severity or magnitude of any significant environmental impacts previously identified.

None of the triggering factors contained in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that require the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR are present as a result of the proposed changes to the project. For these reasons, a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive IS/MND has been prepared for the proposed changes to the project.

This Addendum will not be circulated for public review but will be attached to the prior IS/MND and included in the project files, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 11 October 2024

7.0 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This checklist evaluates the environmental topics under CEQA and identifies environmental factors that could be affected by the proposed project. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included following the applicable section of the checklist.

Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

1. Aesthetics. Would the
project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Section 4.1 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
Section 4.1 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. In non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings?
(Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized
area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Section 4.1 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Section 4.1 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

1.a-c. As described in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the site is located within a developed urban, residential area and is surrounded by existing development. The site is not located within a scenic vista or viewshed. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 12 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The project proposes to replace the existing residential and commercial uses on the site with a new seven-story residential building and landscaping. The building would also include nighttime and security lighting. The proposed 150,260 square foot building would be seven-stories with a height of 85 feet and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 4.34. The proposed residential development is compatible with the character of surrounding multi-family residential uses. The proposed architecture and streetscape design is intended to be compatible with the styles of both older and more recent development in the neighborhood. While the proposed building would be slightly taller and denser than the approved project and some of the other residential structures in the immediate vicinity, the site is not located within a visual corridor or viewshed, and the project would not impede views of scenic visual resources.

A final landscape plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. Implementation of an approved landscape plan would further preserve and enhance the visual quality of the project site and its surroundings.

The project site does not contain and is not located near scenic resources or highways, and therefore, would also not result in damage to any scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. For these reasons, the revised project would not have a new or substantially increased significant adverse impact on any aesthetic resources or result in visual degradation of the project area.

1.d. Existing light sources on the project site includes exterior lighting from the buildings and streetlights. Sources of daytime glare include building windows and vehicles. The proposed project would remove the existing uses and redevelop the site with a six-story condominium building, which would include exterior lighting for safety.

The City’s design guidelines for multi-family residential uses call for exterior lighting that does not produce glare and is not of intensity inappropriate for a residential environment. The revised project will be required to conform to the standard condition outlined in the prior IS/MND on the approved project, which required that at the time of building permit review, a lighting plan will be reviewed by the Community Development Department to ensure that lighting is directed downward and will not spill over onto adjacent properties or otherwise be highly visible, while providing adequate lighting for safety.

With the addition of more units and the slight increase in the height of the proposed building, the level of lighting associated with the proposed residential development would be slightly increased compared to the approved project; however, it would still be generally similar in extent and intensity to that of surrounding residential development and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. For these reasons, the revised project would not create a significant new source of substantial light or glare.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in new or more significant aesthetic impacts when compared to the approved project.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 13 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

2. Agriculture and Forestry
Resources. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Section 4.2 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Section 4.2 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
Section 4.2 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
Section 4.2 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
e. Involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
Section 4.2 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

2.a-e. The site does not contain any agricultural or forestry resources and is not designated as farmland or part of a Williamson Act contract. Specifically, there are no areas that have been classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the site area. Additionally, there are no forestlands, 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 14 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Conclusion:

The revised project would not impact agricultural resources.

3. Air Quality. Would the
project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Section 4.3 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to
an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Section 4.3 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No MM AIR-3.1
c. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
Section 4.3 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Section 4.3 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No MM AIR-3.1
e. Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Section 4.3 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

3.a. The revised project would not involve a change in land use, and therefore, would not result in new growth beyond that planned for in the City and the regional air quality plan. As documented in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the approved project was found to be generally consistent with the overall policies and standards of the City’s General Plan and proposed infill residential development within an area that is well served by transit. For these reasons, the approved project was considered consistent with the Clean Air Plan. The revised project, which 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 15 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

3.b-c. Based on the analysis in the prior IS/MND, the approved project was determined to not violate air quality standards or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.

Construction Period Emissions
As disclosed in the prior IS/MND, construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries.3 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less-than-significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions. Therefore, the approved project was required to implement the City’s standard condition of approval PL-192 to control dust and exhaust during construction.

Because the proposed building would be slightly larger than the approved project, the project would generate incrementally increased construction emissions in the short-term. These construction emissions will be generally limited to the equipment used in the demolition and production of the proposed residential building. The air quality technical analysis has been updated to evaluate the currently proposed project (see Attachment 3) and whether the changes proposed would result in any new or more significant impacts. As shown in Attachment 3, the predicted increase in construction emissions resulting from the updated project would be minimal and would remain far below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
4 As outlined in the prior IS/MND, fugitive dust and construction emissions would be offset through conformance with required City of Mountain View standard conditions of approval and best management practices (see below). The proposed project will also be required to implement the following City standard condition of approval PL-192 related to air quality during construction.

PL-192 Basic Air Quality Construction Measures
The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust emissions.

Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day;
3 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p.30-31.
4 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive Project, Mountain View, CA. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. Prepared for JHS Consulting. July 26, 2024. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 16 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Address
Impacts.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered; c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph; e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Implementation of the above standard condition of approval would ensure that construction air pollutant emissions of the revised project would not be significant. For this reason, the revised project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants from construction emissions.

Operational Period Emissions
As discussed in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, operational air emissions from the project would mainly be generated by vehicle trips from future residents. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are also typical emissions from these uses.

The operational emissions of the approved project were found to be well below the thresholds criteria published by the BAAQMD. This analysis has been updated to evaluate the revised project. As shown in Attachment 3, operational emissions from the revised project would continue to be well below the BAAQMD thresholds.5 Given the nature of the proposed residential use, project operations would not be a substantial source of toxic air contaminants and would not pose a health risk to others. Operation of the revised project would generate additional vehicle trips beyond those generated by the approved project, but this increase would be minimal would not generate new significant air emission impacts.

3.d. A construction community health risk assessment was also prepared as part of the IS/MND for the approved project, in order to address project construction impacts to nearby off-site sensitive receptors. Construction 5Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive Project, Mountain View, CA. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. Prepared for JHS Consulting. July 26, 2024.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 17 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The analysis modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which included both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, at nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEIs). The construction MEI was located in the eastern corner on the second floor (4.5 meters above ground) of the adjacent multi-family building to the southwest of the project site.

The maximum increased cancer risk from construction of the approved project exceeded the BAAQMD single-source threshold of greater than 10.0 per million. The maximum PM2.5 concentration and maximum computed HI did not exceed their respective thresholds (greater than 0.3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 concentration and greater than 1.0 for HI). 6 The prior IS/MND identified the following mitigation measure to reduce the project’s TAC impacts to nearby sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.

Prior IS/MND MM AIR-3.1: All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter emissions. Alternatively, equipment that meets U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines that include CARB certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or equivalent would be effective.

The use of equipment that is powered by electricity or alternatively fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would also meet this requirement.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 using Tier 3 engines with Level 3 DPFs was found to reduce both the project and cumulative impacts due to on-site diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment to a less than significant level.

The health risk technical analysis was updated to evaluate the currently proposed project and whether the increase in units and the larger building would result in new or more significant TAC impacts during construction. The analysis shows that the revised project would not exceed the BAAQMD single-source or cumulative thresholds for diesel exhaust or particulate matter.7 The currently proposed project would also be required by the City to implement and adhere to this same mitigation measure. For this reason, impacts of the revised project would not be significant.

3.e. The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction activity. While these emissions may be noticeable by adjacent receptors, such odors would be localized to the immediate area and would be temporary, and therefore, would not significantly impact people off-site. 6 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p.32-33.
7Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive Project, Mountain View, CA. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. Prepared for JHS Consulting. July 26, 2024.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 18 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The project proposes residential uses on the site and does not propose the use or storage of hazardous or odorous materials, and therefore, is not anticipated to generate substantial odors during the operation phase.

Conclusion:

With implementation of the City’s standard condition PL-192 and mitigation measure MM-AQ-3.1 from the prior IS/MND, project construction would not result in significant air quality impacts.

4. Biological Resources. Would
the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural
community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Have a substantial adverse
effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or
other means?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 19 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Address
Impacts.
resident or migratory fish and
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
e. Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
f. Conflict with the provisions of
an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Section 4.4 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
4a-d. The project site is developed with existing residential and commercial uses, and is located within a developed, urban area of the city. Other than the landscape trees on the site, the site does not contain biological resources. The arborist report is provided in Attachment 4. No species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species are known to occur at the site location, and no sensitive or jurisdictional habitats are present at or adjacent to the site.

Similar to the approved project, the proposed project will be required to implement the following City standard condition of approval PL-198 to avoid construction-related impacts to nesting raptors and other birds.

PL-198 Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey
To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests. The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ for active nests—with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds—if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish nodisturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no-disturbance 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 20 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The project will be required to comply with the following City’s standard tree replacement requirements outlined in the City Code and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval.

PL-139 Replacement
The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage tree with a minimum of two new trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage replacement trees.

PL-141 Street Tree Protections
All designated City street trees to remain are to be protected throughout construction activity with protection measures shown on building permit plans.

PL-142 Tree Protection Measures
The tree protection measures listed in the projects arborist report shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, six-foot chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site.

PL-143 Security Bond
The applicant shall post a security bond to ensure that replacement trees are planted and become established (one year after planting) and to compensate for the trees that were lost due to illegal removal.

4.f. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan and would not impact the implementation of any habitat plan.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the revised project will not result in new or more significant biological resources impacts.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 21 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

5. Cultural Resources. Would
the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Section 4.5 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Section 4.5 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside the formal
cemeteries?
Section 4.5 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
5a. The existing buildings on the project site are not listed on the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. The existing development on site was not identified in the Citywide Historic Properties Survey as potentially eligible for any historic register. The buildings do not meet the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources or the Mountain View Historic Preservation Ordinance, and therefore, are not listed in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory and are not considered to be historic resources. 5b-c. The site is within a developed residential area and is not considered to be archaeologically sensitive or likely to contain resources. As explained in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, a records search and literature review was completed for the 2030 General Plan. The records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and at the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Based upon the research, archaeological resources were not identified on the project site.8
Although it is unlikely that buried historic or prehistoric buried archaeological and paleontological resources are present on the site, these resources could be encountered during excavation, construction, or infrastructure improvements for the project. The project would implement the below standard conditions of approval related to the discovery of pre-historic or historic period archaeological resources and human remains (in compliance with General Plan Policies LU-11.5 and LU-11.6), should they be encountered on the site. With incorporation of the following standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in impacts to archaeological or paleontological resources.
8 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p.46-47.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 22 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

PL-194 Discovery of Archaeological Resources
• Cultural Sensitivity Training. Tribal Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the beginning of the project to aid those involved in the project to become more familiar with indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site. • Discovery of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources. If indigenous or historic-era cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S.

Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and the Tamien Nation shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and a Tamien Nation Tribal representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment.

Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls, filled wells or privies, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with a Tamien Nation Tribal representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

PL-195 Discovery of Human Remains
• Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the NAHC, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

Conclusion:

With adherence to the above standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in impacts to unknown archaeological or paleontological resources should they be discovered during excavation or construction. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 23 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

6. Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, or
wasteful use of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
Section 4.6 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

Section 4.6 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
6a. Redevelopment of the site would require the use of energy resources. However, the site is an infill site, within a developed area of the city. The project proposes to replace the existing residential and commercial buildings with a new, higher-density residential building, built to current codes and energy efficiency standards. For these reasons, the project would not entail the wasteful or inefficient use of energy resources.

As described in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, paving, and building construction and interior finishing. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy during construction. Energy would not be wasted or used inefficiently by construction equipment, as the proposed project would be required to adhere to standard measures to improve efficiency of the construction. In addition, standard construction waste management methods and processes will be required to reduce the amount of construction waste.9
6b. Infill development, such as the proposed project, is part of the City’s and State’s strategy for energy efficient development. The project would not conflict with or obstruct any plans regarding renewable energy or energy efficiency. Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the current energy efficiency standards set forth in Mountain View Green Building Code, Title 24, and CALGreen. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The project would be required to implement the City’s standard condition BID-31 to improve energy efficiency. 9Ibid. p. 53-55.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 24 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

BID-31 – Reach Codes for Multi-Family Residential (New Construction) • Photovoltaic System Requirements: Photovoltaic (PV) installation on roof area to accommodate an all-electric building to 100% of annual kWh consumption offset, as amended in MVCC Section 8.20.9 and per Table 101.10.

Conclusion:

The project would not result in significant energy impacts.

7. Geology and Soils. Would the
project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground
shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
Section 4.7 of
Prior IS/MND
Section 4.7 of
Prior IS/MND
Section 4.7 of
Prior IS/MND
Section 4.7 of
Prior IS/MND
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
No
No
b. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Section 4.7 of
Prior IS/MND No No No N/A
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 25 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

7.a. The city of Mountain View is located within the Santa Clara Valley, between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south, San Francisco Bay to the north, and the Diablo Mountains to the east. The project site is located within a seismically active region of northern California; however, no fault lines cross the property and the site is not located within an earthquake fault zone on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Therefore, therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the site is low.

As described in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the site is not located within a state-designated liquefaction hazard zone and no liquefiable soils are present on-site; therefore, liquefaction susceptibility is considered very low.
10 Because the site is flat, there is also no potential for landslides. 10 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 60.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 26 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

In order to minimize potential damage from seismic shaking, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with City of Mountain View’s requirements and guidelines for Seismic Design Category D in the California Building Code. The project shall implement specific recommendations contained in a geotechnical report prepared for the site to the satisfaction of the City of Mountain View Building Inspection Division, in accordance with the standard condition of approval listed below. Implementation of standard conditions of approval and General Plan Policies would reduce the impacts of seismically induced ground shaking on the project and reduce the risk of loss, injury, or death.

7.b. Similar to the approved project, construction would include excavation, which could result in the loss of topsoil and erosion. As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project will be required to implement the City’s standard condition of approval which mandates the completion of a Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. With implementation of this standard condition of approval, the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or a significant loss of topsoil.

7.c-d. The project site is generally flat and would not be subject to significant geologic hazards such as liquefaction, landsliding, lateral spreading, or differential settlement. For these reasons, would not result in significant or unique hazards due to these soil or geologic conditions.

As outlined in the prior IS/MND, the site does however, contain expansive soils. Soils on the site range from sandy silt fill at the surface to silty clays, sandy gravel, and hard clays at depth. The clay soils on the site have a medium to high expansion potential.

The following standard condition of approval shall be implemented to reduce the impacts of expansive soils, seismic, and seismic-related hazards (e.g., liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential settlement) on the site to a less than significant level.

PL-48 Geotechnical Report
The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures causes by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

7.e. The project proposes to connect to the existing sanitary sewer system, which is available at the site, and does not propose septic or alternative wastewater systems.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 27 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

7.f. The project site is developed with existing residential and commercial uses and is not located within an area of high paleontological sensitivity. The project does not propose substantial excavation and is not anticipated to result in any impacts to paleontological resources. The project would be required to implement the following City standard condition of approval related to the discovery of paleontological resources, should they be encountered on the site.

PL-196 Discovery of Paleontological Resources
In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Conclusion:

With implementation of the standard conditions identified above, the project would not create or exacerbate, or be subject to, significant geologic or soils hazards.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
Section 4.8 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
Section 4.8 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
8a-b. The City of Mountain View adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) and certified the General Plan and GGRP EIR in July 2012. The General Plan is the guiding document for future growth of the City. The GGRP is a complementary document and long-range plan, which implements the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic greenhouse gas reduction strategy for the purpose of tiering CEQA review.

While the project site is currently vacant and the project would add active uses to the site, the project would not involve a change in land use, and therefore, would not result in new growth beyond that planned for in the City. Infill 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 28 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Construction of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions during the short-term, however, these would be offset through conformance with standard best management practices and current energy efficiency standards set forth in Mountain View Green Building Code, Title 24, and CALGreen, as well as implementation of the standard conditions of approval described above under section 3. Air Quality above.

Operation of the project would result in a net increase in vehicle trips but would not generate significant new GHG emission impacts. The greenhouse gas technical analysis prepared for the approved project was updated to estimate the emissions associated with operation of the currently proposed project. The analysis determined that the revised project would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds.
11 Conclusion:

The project will not result in new or more significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts.

Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

9. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
11Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive Project, Mountain View, CA. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. Prepared for JHS Consulting. July 26, 2024. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 29 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Address
Impacts.
materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials into the
environment?
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
e. For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in
the project area?
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Section 4.9 of
Prior IS/MND
No No No N/A
g. Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland Section 4.9 of No No No N/A 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 30 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Historical Site Usage:

Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) report of the site completed as part of the prior IS/MND, the project site is developed with a single-family residence, a garage, a small apartment building, and a commercial building previously used by a carpet cleaning business. The project site is located in an area of multifamily residential and commercial land uses. Based on the previous Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA), none of the adjacent properties are considered to be of significant environmental concern.12 The project proposes to replace the existing vacant residential and commercial buildings with a new seven-story residential condominium building with a subterranean parking garage, built to current codes and safety standards.

The residential use is not proposed to, or anticipated to, involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The project site is not listed on any databases indicating the presence of contamination. Redevelopment of the site would not result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The project will be required to implement the City’s standard condition of approval o193 below.

PL-193 Discovery of Contaminated Soils
If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training;
b) the contractor will stockpile soil during redevelopment activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options;
c) the contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation;
d) the contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; e) the contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and f) the contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed. 12Ibid. p.72-73.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 31 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Building Materials:

Buildings constructed prior to 1978 may include asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) in building materials such as roofs, tiling, and insulation. Asbestos-containing materials are of concern because exposure to them has been linked to cancer. Due to the age of the structures on the site, building materials may contain ACMs. Therefore, an asbestos survey would be required, as well as removal of potentially friable ACMs prior to building demolition.

Lead was widely used as a major ingredient in most interior and exterior oil-based paints prior to 1950. In 1972, the Consumer Products Safety Commission limited lead content in new paint to 0.5 percent, and to 0.06 percent in 1978.

Similar to ACMs, lead may also be present in older buildings.

The existing residential and commercial buildings on the site likely contain asbestos and lead-based paint. The City’s standard condition (PL-191) for the removal and disposal of these materials would be required as part of the project.

PL-191 Hazardous Materials Contamination
To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazardous materials contamination from asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:
a) In conformance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for demolition. The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on the structures.
b) A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable ACMs, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations. c) During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.

9.d. As described in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the project site is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 (“Cortese List”) of the California Government Code. The Phase I assessment prepared for the approved project did not identify any recognized environmental conditions or contamination on the property.

9.e. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The project would be located approximately four miles from the Moffett Federal Airfield and would not interfere with the airfield operations.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 32 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

9.f-g. The project proposes residential uses within an established, infill residential area of the city. The site is not within a wildland area and is not subject to wildland fires. The project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would not increase hazards due to wildland fire risk.

Conclusion:

Implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval described above will ensure that the project does not result in hazardous materials impacts.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the Project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Section 4.10
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Section 4.10
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the
addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which
would:
i. result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or
off-site;
ii. substantially increase the
rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding
on-or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed
Section 4.10
of Prior
IS/MND
Section 4.10
of Prior
IS/MND
No
No
No
No
No
No
N/A
No
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 33 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

10.a. As described for the previously approved project, implementation would require demolition, paving, and grading of the site. These activities would temporarily increase the amount of unconsolidated materials and disturb potential pollutants. Grading activities could increase erosion and sedimentation that could be carried by runoff into natural waterways, which could increase sedimentation impacts to local creeks or the San Francisco Bay.

The site is generally flat, and redevelopment of the site would not result in substantial new or increased hydrology or drainage impacts. Overall, the project will increase the impervious surfaces on the site by 4,081 square feet, or 17 percent compared with existing conditions.

Standard conditions regarding stormwater runoff will be required by the City and will be implemented to ensure that there are no impacts to drainage or water quality during construction or operation.

Similar to the approved project, the proposed project would be required to comply with standard City conditions of approval, based on Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, to reduce water quality impacts during construction.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

FEP-03 State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 34 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

FEP-04 Construction Best Management Practices
All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system. Refer to the City of Mountain View document, “It’s in the Contract but not in the Bay” for the specific construction practices required at the job site.

FEP-05 Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan
The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high erosion areas. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.

FEP-22 Stormwater Treatment (C.3)
This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low- Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.

The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City.

FEP 25 Hydromodification Management
Post-construction stormwater runoff shall drain to approved permanent Hydromodification Management (HM) controls to mitigate increases in peak runoff flow and increased runoff volume. Projects that will decrease impervious surface area in comparison to the pre-project condition are not subject to the HM requirement.

Information related to this requirement, including the exemption criteria, is included in the City’s document entitled, “Hydromodification Management Plan Guidelines for Development Projects,” and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s manual entitled, “C.3 Stormwater Handbook: Guidance for Implementing Stormwater Requirements for New and Redevelopment Projects.” 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 35 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The City’s “Hydromodification Management Plan Guidelines for Development Projects” manual requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing requirements of the controls that will be installed. Include the Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal.

Property owners of projects that include stormwater controls constructed in accordance with this condition are required to enter into a formal recorded self-inspection and maintenance agreement with the City.

FEP-26 Stormwater Management Plan – Third-Party Engineer’s Certification The Final Stormwater Management Plan must be certified by a qualified third-party engineer that the proposed stormwater treatment controls comply with the City’s Guidelines and Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP).

FEP-10 Landscape Design
For residential and non-residential buildings, landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration.

Examples include:
a) No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent;
b) Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; c) Installing plants with low water requirements; and
d) Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones.

FEP-11 Efficient Irrigation
For residential and nonresidential buildings: common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include:
a) Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; b) Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; c) Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; d) Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and
e) Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets and driveways.

Compliance with the above City of Mountain View standard conditions will ensure that the project will not result in new or more significant impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. 10b. The project proposes infill residential development within the urban envelope, similar to the previously approved project. The project does not include installation of new groundwater wells and would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge.
10c-d. The proposed project would construct residential uses within an existing urban area, on a site that is currently developed. While redevelopment of the site would alter the on-site drainage, the project would not alter the overall drainage pattern of the area. The project would install stormwater treatment facilities, in compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit Provision C.3 requirements. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site from approximately 23,803 square feet to approximately 27,884 square feet. The project 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 36 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

As determined in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the existing storm drain system has sufficient capacity to support the development on-site. Runoff would be routed directly from the treatment facilities to the storm drainage system and would not flow off-site, except during large and infrequent storm events.13 The revised project would also be required to implement the same construction-related standard permit conditions to minimize erosion, as well as postconstruction requirements to minimize and treat stormwater runoff (per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the RWQCB’s MRP).

Compliance with the standard conditions above, and other requirements as applicable, would ensure the revised project would not result in new or substantially increased impacts. 10e. The project site is not located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard zone or an inundation area for any reservoir in the event of a complete dam failure. Based on the location of the site, the project would not result in a significant impact from flooding. The location of the site is not likely to be affected by seiches, tsunamis, or mudflow and no policies or actions are needed to further reduce the impact.

Conclusion:

With implementation of the standard conditions of approval, the proposed residential project would not result in new or more significant hydrology and water quality impacts as compared to the approved project.

11. Land Use and Planning.

Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established community?
Section 4.11
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect?
Section 4.11
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
13 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 85-86.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 37 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Discussion:
11a-b. The project site is located within a developed, residential area of the City. The revised project proposes to replace the existing vacant residential and commercial buildings on the site with a new, seven-story residential condominium building with 70 units, instead of the previously approved six-story building with 44 units. Similar to the approved project, the replacement of the residential uses on the site with a new condominium building would not divide any community. The proposed building would be at a larger and more intense scale than the existing development on the site, however, it would generally be compatible with the multi-family residential development nature of the Middlefield Road and the multi-family apartment buildings to the north, west, and south of the site, and the commercial development to the east. Therefore, the revised project would not result in new or more significant land use compatibility impacts.

While the project is proposed under the “Builder’s Remedy” and does not conform to the existing zoning designation requirements, the project proposes an increase in residential uses within a residential area in the western part of Mountain View, in accordance with the City’s goals and policy direction. The project will not conflict with any applicable adopted land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of mitigating an environmental effect, or conflict with any applicable habitat or natural community conservation plan. For these reasons, the project would not result in significant land use and planning impacts or inconsistencies.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in new or more significant land use impacts.

12. Mineral Resources. Would
the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the
state?
Section 4.12
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site
delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Section 4.12
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
12a-b. The site is located within a developed residential area of central Mountain View. No mining operations or mineral resources are present within the project area. The site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 38 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the project would not result in mineral resource impacts.

Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

13. Noise. Would the project
result in:
a. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the
project in excess of standards
established in the local general
plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
Section 4.13
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Section 4.13
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No
MM NOI-2.1
and MM NOI2.2
c. For a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip
or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not Section 4.13
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 39 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Construction Noise
The project would result in construction noise and vibration at levels similar to other mid-rise construction projects within the City. There is nothing unique or peculiar about the project or its construction that would suggest that the project would have greater construction noise or vibration impacts than other typical mid-rise construction projects.

The prior IS/MND evaluated whether the approved project could result in significant noise impacts due to short-term construction noise. The analysis determined that, with compliance with Chapter 8 of the City’s Municipal Code and the standard conditions of approval related to construction, the approved project would not result in significant construction noise impacts.

The proposed project will also be required to implement and comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code as well as the following standard City conditions of approval to reduce construction noise:

Standard Conditions of Approval:

PL-152 Construction Noise Reduction
The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties:
a) Comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; b) Turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; c) Locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties; d) Use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and
e) Shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 40 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

PL-154 Pile Driving Noise Reduction
The following measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications if pile driving is proposed:
a) Multiple pile drivers shall be considered to expedite construction. Although noise levels generated by multiple pile drivers would be higher than the noise generated by a single pile driver, the total duration of pile driving would be reduced; and
b) Temporary noise control blanket barriers shall shroud pile drivers or be erected in a manner to shield the foundation pile holes as a standard construction noise control technique. Predrilling reduces the number of blows required to seat the pile.

PL-186 Work Hours/Construction Site Signage
No work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or any holiday unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. The general contractor, applicant, developer, or property owner shall erect a sign at all construction site entrances/exits to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours and contact information, including an after-hours contact. Violation of this condition of approval may be subject to the penalties outlined in Section 8.6 of the City Code and/or suspension of building permits.

PL-188 Notice of Construction
The applicant shall notify neighbors within 750 feet of the project site of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction. For multi-phased construction, separate notices may be required for each phase of construction. A copy of the notice and the mailing list shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of building permits.

PL-189 Disturbance Coordinator
The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after-hours contact number for emergency personnel.

Operational Noise
Resident Activity
Similar to the approved project, the revised project will increase the number of residents and activity at the site. As directed by the California Supreme Court in the Make UC A Good Neighbor v. Regents of University of California (2024) case, noise from general resident activity at the site is not considered an environmental impact.

Notwithstanding this Supreme Court case, the addition of 26 additional units and one story of construction beyond what was previously approved, would not substantially increase the noise from resident activity at the site. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 41 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Traffic Noise
The prior IS/MND evaluated whether the approved project could result in significant noise impacts due to increases in traffic noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if the project increased noise levels by three dBA Ldn in this area. In general, traffic volumes must double to result in a perceptible (three dB) noise increase. The analysis in the prior IS/MND determined that the approved project-generated traffic would not double traffic volumes in the project area and would not increase ambient noise levels by three dBA Ldn or greater. 14 For this reason, the project-generated traffic noise would result in a less than significant impact.

Mechanical Equipment
As explained in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, residential structures such as these typically include stationary sources of operational noise such as mechanical heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. Similar to the approved project, the revised project will also include such equipment, as well as an emergency generator for the elevator. Stationary equipment would be located and shielded to operate within the City’s Noise Ordinance requirements.

The revised project will be required to implement the following standard conditions of approval to ensure that impacts from mechanical equipment noise will be less than significant. This condition will be implemented during the building permit process, which is when the City will require a project-specific acoustical analysis as part of the permit application.

PL-149 Mechanical Equipment
The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB(A) during the day or 50 dB(A) during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.

PL-150 Noise Generation
All noise-generating activities (i.e., entertainment or amplified sound) are limited to interior areas only, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system shall be maintained to ensure that all windows and doors remain closed when the business is in operation.

PL-151 Interior Noise Levels
Construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn that shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.

As described in the project description, the project includes a potential recreational area on the roof deck. Operation of the roof deck would be required to adhere to the following standard condition of approval. 14 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p.100-101.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 42 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

PL-68 Roof Deck Operation
The approved hours of operation for the rooftop common area shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and shall not allow amplified music. In the event any problems arise with the hours of operation or noise, the Zoning Administrator may hold a public hearing to review common-area operations and impose new or modified conditions of approval in response to public comment received. The public hearing shall be conducted and noticed in accordance with Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 6, of the City Code.

13.b. The prior IS/MND evaluated whether the approved project would result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. That analysis determined that construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g. jackhammers, hoe rams) are used, particularly at the nearest residential uses.

The prior IS/MND for the approved project identified the following mitigation measures to reduce constructionrelated vibration impacts at adjacent structures, specifically the residence adjacent to the northwest of the project site.

Prior IS/MND 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.

Prior IS/MND 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.

The revised project will also be required to implementation the above mitigation measures to reduce constructionrelated vibration impacts to a less than significant level. Limiting the use of heavy vibration-generating construction equipment near adjacent buildings and designating a person responsible for investigating claims of excessive vibration will ensure the proposed project does not result in new construction-related vibration impacts.

13.c. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or a public airport. Aircraft flyovers from Moffett Airfield would occasionally be audible at the site, however, the site is located outside of the Moffett Airfield 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the area to excessive aircraft noise levels to excessive aircraft noise.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the currently proposed project would not result in new or substantially more significant noise levels or vibration impacts. Standard conditions and best management practices will be implemented to ensure that there are no significant noise or vibration impacts during construction or operation. With implementation of the above required standard conditions of approval and previously identified mitigation measures, the revised project would not result in new or more significant effects related to noise or vibration. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 43 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

14. Population and Housing.

Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial 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)?
Section 4.14
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Section 4.14
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:
14a. The site is developed with a single-family residence, five apartment units, and a commercial building. According to the prior IS/MND, the residents vacated the site between May 2015 and October 2015. The commercial building is also vacant.15 The project proposes to replace the six existing vacant residential units on the site with a new 70-unit residential condominium building.

Using the average rate for Mountain View of 2.32 persons per household from the California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimate report, the project would have an estimated population of approximately 162 residents.16 Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase of approximately 60 additional residents at the site as compared to the approved project. While the project would add residents to the site, it would not increase population beyond that planned for in the City’s General Plan and the Plan Bay Area 2050 and this modest addition would not strain services in the site area. The project would generally be consistent with the City’s goals and General Plan policies regarding providing housing within infill areas.

Because the site is an infill site within the urban area of the city, the project would not require the extension of roadways or other utility infrastructure to serve the proposed development. Therefore, similar to the approved project, the proposed project would not indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. 15 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 106.
16 State of California, Department of Finance. “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2024.” Accessed: July 27, 2024. Available at:
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-countiesand-the-state-2020-2024/. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 44 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Conclusion:

The project would not result in significant impacts to population or housing in the region.

Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

15. Public Services.

Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times
or other performance
objectives for any of the public
services:

Fire protection? Section 4.15
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Police protection? Section 4.15
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 45 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Schools? Section 4.15
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Parks? Section 4.15
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Other public facilities? Section 4.15
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion: The current project proposes to replace the six existing vacant residential units and the commercial use on the site with a new 70-unit residential condominium building, resulting in a net increase of 64 units as compared to existing conditions. The current project proposes 26 additional residential units and one additional story as compared to the previously approved 44-unit project. While this slight increase in units and building size could incrementally increase the need for services, this project would not change the overall type of land use or the nature of activity on the site. In addition, the proposed building would be constructed to current codes and safety standards. Therefore, the project would not significantly increase the demand for public services in the project area as compared to the approved project.

Fire Protection
Fire protection to the project site is provided by the City of Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), which serves a population of approximately 81,000 and an area of 12 square miles. While the project would replace the six existing residences on the site with 70 units, the proposed building would be constructed to current Fire Code standards and would not increase the urban area already served by the MVFD. The proposed residential development is considered infill and is consistent with the City’s goals. The MVFD does not anticipate the need to construct a new fire station to accommodate buildout of the project. For these reasons, the proposed development’s incremental demand for fire services would not result in the need to expand or construct new fire facilities.

Police Services
Police protection services are provided by the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). The MVPD consists of authorized staff of 82 sworn and 24 non-sworn personnel. The proposed residential development would be designed and constructed in conformance with current codes and reviewed by the City of Mountain View. While the project would replace the six existing residences on the site with 70 units, the proposed development is consistent with the City’s goals and projected growth. The project would not increase the urban area already served by the MVPD and would not increase or impact the City’s emergency response times. The proposed project would not substantially affect the provision of police protection, or result in the need for new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. For these reasons, the project’s incremental demand for police services would not result in the need to expand or construct new police facilities. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 46 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Schools
As documented in the prior IS/MND for the previously approved project, the 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 from the site would 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 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).17
As described in the prior IS/MND, the approved project was anticipated to generate a total of approximately 15 students, including 13 elementary and middle school students and two high school students, based on the student generation rates identified in the San Antonio Precise Plan (SAPP) EIR.18,19 Using these same generation rates, the revised project would be anticipated to generate a total of 24 new students, including 21 elementary and middle school students and three high school students.20
As required by state law (Government Code Section 65996) and the City’s standard requirements, the project proponent will be required to pay the appropriate school impact fees to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project. The project will be required to adhere to the following standard condition of approval:

BID-44 School Impact Fees
In accordance with California Government Code Section 65996, project applicants shall pay the appropriate school impact fees to the Los Altos School District and Mountain View-Los Altos High School District to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project.

Conformance with the above standard condition of approval would ensure that the revised project would not have a significant impact on school facilities.

Parks
The City of Mountain View currently owns and maintains approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. Fayette Park, which includes children’s play equipment and a field area, is located just north of the site, across Fayette Drive. In addition, Del Medio Park is located approximately 17 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 109-110.
18 Ibid p. 111-112.
19 This is based on the 2020 generation rates used in the prior IS/MND, including the Los Altos School District student generation rate (0.3 x 70 units), which equals approximately 21 elementary and middle school students, as well as the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School student generation rate (0.046 x 70 units), which equals approximately three students. 20 Ibid.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 47 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

In addition, as described further in Section 16 below, the project proposes a total of 14,872 square feet of open area, including 2,386 of public open space on the ground level, a 4,434 square foot podium courtyard with seating areas and landscape planting located on the second level of the building, private open space for each unit, as well as a potential future recreational courtyard area on the roof level.

The prior IS/MND identified that implementation of the approved project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for parkland because it would add new residents to the City; however, the analysis concluded that the increase in population would not increase the use of existing parks to a level that would lead to physical deterioration of park facilities and overcrowding.21 The increase of 26 units associated with the revised project would not alter this conclusion.

Other Public Facilities
The increase in residents at the project site associated with the revised project would incrementally increase the use and demand for libraries and other facilities in the area when compared to the approved project, however, given the relatively small number of new residents and the availability of these park facilities, the project is not anticipated to impact these services.

Conclusion:

The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of service or performance objectives for public services. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in new impacts to public services.

16. Recreation.
a. Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the facility
would occur or be
Section 4.16
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
21 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 110, 112.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 48 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

16.a-b. The City of Mountain View currently owns and maintains approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. Fayette Park, which includes children’s play equipment and a field area, is located just north of the site, across Fayette Drive. In addition, Del Medio Park is located approximately 1,200 feet north of the site on Del Medio Avenue. Del Medio Park includes children’s play equipment and a picnic area. Other nearby parks include Monroe Park, located at Monroe Drive and Miller Avenue, and Terman Park, located at Glenbrook Drive. Rengstorff Park, which is approximately 1.2 miles west of the project site, is one of two large community parks within the City. Rengstorff Park is approximately 16.9 acres in size and consists of the City’s Community Center as well as sports fields and other facilities.

In addition, the project includes a total of 14,872 square feet of open area. This would include 2,386 square feet of public open space on the ground floor, 8,052 square feet of private common open space recreational facilities for residents of the proposed condominiums, and 4,434 square feet of semi-private open space within the podium courtyard area and the recreational courtyard area on the roof level. The construction of these recreational facilities as part of the project would be in compliance with environmental regulation and would not have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

The prior IS/MND identified that implementation of the approved project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for parkland because it would add new residents to the City; however, the analysis concluded that the increase in population would not increase the use of existing parks to a level that would lead to physical deterioration of park facilities and overcrowding.22 The increase of 26 units associated with the revised project would not alter this conclusion.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will not result in new or significant impacts to recreational facilities in the site area.
22 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 110, 112.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 49 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

17. Transportation/Traffic.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system,
including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
Section 4.17
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Would the project conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Section 4.17
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
Section 4.17
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Section 4.17
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

17.a-b. At the time the prior IS/MND was prepared for the original project, the method of evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA was Level of Service (LOS), which measured intersection congestion and delay. Subsequent to the completion of the prior IS/MND, the state began implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743 on July 1, 2020 and has since required that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be used as the metric of transportation analysis under CEQA. The Mountain View City Council adopted a VMT policy, effective July 1, 2020. Therefore, an amendment to the prior IS/MND was prepared in October 2020 (and is included in Attachment 2), which evaluated the transportation impacts of the project according to the City’s newly adopted VMT policy.

The amendment to the prior IS/MND evaluate the project’s transportation impacts by comparing against the VMT thresholds of significance as established in the City policy. The analysis estimated the project VMT based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction and design measures. The City has established a VMT threshold of significance for residential uses of 15% below the Bay Area regional average. The Bay Area regional average is 13.95 daily miles per person. Thus, the VMT threshold is 11.86 daily VMT per resident, which is a 15% below the regional average. The analysis prepared for the approved project estimated the project VMT to be 9.37 daily miles per resident, which was well below the threshold of 11.86 VMT per resident. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 50 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

The addition of 26 units to the project at this location would not exceed the City’s transportation impact thresholds and would not result in a new significant VMT impact. According to the City of Mountain View’s VMT policy, residential projects located in areas of low VMT, defined as exhibiting VMT that is 15 percent or greater below the existing nine-county Bay Area regional average VMT shall be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact.

In addition, projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor, pursuant to State definitions for such facilities, are considered to have a less than significant transportation VMT impact. The project site is located within a transit priority area and is located within 0.2 miles of the El Camino Real transit corridor and near several bus stops along San Antonio Road (Routes 32, 34, 35, and SE) and El Camino Real (Routes 22, 40 and 522). The San Antonio Transit Center, is also located approximately a half-mile southeast of the project site.
23 Therefore, the project meets both of these criteria and would not result in significant transportation impacts.

It should also be noted that the project will be required to implement the proposed TDM program and conduct annual monitoring and reporting to the City, which seeks to achieve a four percent (4%) peak-hour vehicle trip reduction target. The following City standard conditions of approval will be required for this project.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

PL-155 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
The property owner is required to maintain a TDM program for the life of the project which will: achieve a minimum four percent (4%) reduction in peak-hour vehicle trips to the site. The property owner will ensure the project does not exceed its trip cap of 25 a.m. peak-hour trips and 26 p.m. peak-hour trips. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owner prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director or Designee.

Commute Alternatives/Transportation Benefits:

The applicant/owner is required to offer the following commute benefits and transportation alternatives to residents of the project for the lifetime of the project. If the property is sold to a third party, the third party shall establish a TDM program consistent with these requirements in effect at the time of sale. These alternatives are to encourage use of public transit, bike ridership, provide alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips within the City, and aid residents in getting to and from key destinations within the City.

The following mandatory transportation benefits will be implemented to achieve the project’s trip reduction target and comply with the site-specific trip cap:
23 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p. 121.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 51 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Address
Impacts.
a. Appointment of an onsite employee transportation coordinator to manage and monitor commute alternative programs (or designate a staff member to coordinate with the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA) on TDM Program activities, as needed. b. Communication of transportation options including bikeway maps, transit options, and TDM program offerings provided via on-site kiosks, welcome packets, new hire/resident orientations, digital platform(s), and resident apps.
c. Provide rideshare matching services and incentives to form employee carpool and vanpool opportunities. This shall entail providing employees with information of 511.org’s ridematching service, Merge, VTA’s vanpool subsidy, and other ridematching services, including peer-to-peer ridematching programs that utilize mobile apps to match commuters.
d. Provide a Guaranteed Ride Home program to encourage use of alternative transportation to the site.

In addition, the applicant/owners is/are required to provide the following on-site facilities:
e. Short- and long-term bicycle parking facilities consistent with VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines and the City zoning code.

Optional TDM measures may include:
f. Transit passes or transit subsidies, to all residents, such as a Clipper Bay Pass, monthly Clipper card subsidies, or a comparable transit pass program.
g. Membership for all employees to a corporate, City and/or regional micromobility/bike/scooter share program, or pooling of micromobility options in coordination with the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA). Alternatively, provide access to loaner e-bikes and helmets, maintained by the property owner, for which employees can use on an as-needed basis at no cost. h. Membership for all employees to a car-share program with vehicles stationed onsite or within a 5- minute (0.2 mile) walk, coordinated by the property owner or MTMA. i. Coordination of transportation opportunities such as “school bike trains” or “walking school bus”.

Any modification to this transportation benefits program (TDM Plan) requires review and approval by the Public Works Director or Designee.

PL-159 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Monitoring The property owner(s), or their representative, shall prepare an annual TDM report and submit it to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM program in achieving the goal of four percent (4%) peak hour vehicle trip reduction by residents within the project, including complying with the trip cap of 25 a.m. peak-hour trips and 26 p.m. peak-hour trips. The TDM report shall be prepared by an independent consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or their representative; the consultant shall work with the property’s TDM coordinator.

The TDM report will include a determination of historical resident commute methods, which shall be informed by surveying all residents living_ on the project site and through driveway traffic counts. All nonresponses to the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 52 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring
New
Analysis or
Verification?
Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Address
Impacts.
resident commute survey will be counted as a drive-alone trip. The driveway traffic counts shall be prepared and provided by an independent, licensed consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or tenant. The driveway counts and resulting data shall be included in the TDM report provided to the City. a. TDM Reporting: The initial TDM report for the project will be submitted on December 1, or the following business day thereafter if a weekend, one year after the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy Subsequent reports will be collected annually on December 1. b. Report Requirements: The TDM report shall either: (1) state that the project has achieved four percent (4%) peak-hour vehicle trip reduction or higher, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal and compliance with the site-specific trip cap; or (2) state that the project has not achieved the four percent (4%) peak-hour vehicle trip reduction target and exceeded the site trip cap, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in order to attain the TDM goal required for the project.

The existing sidewalks and pedestrian paths provide access the surrounding land uses in the area. The project also proposes sidewalk and frontage improvements around the perimeter of the site, as well as bicycle storage and parking facilities. The existing pedestrian facilities and proposed on-site improvements would be sufficient to serve the revised project.

17.c-d. The project site does not include any sharp curves or dangerous intersection areas. The revised project does not propose geometric designs for the ingress/egress that would increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or result in inadequate emergency access.

Conclusion:

Based on the above discussion, the proposed project will not result in new or more significant transportation impacts.

18. Tribal Cultural Resources.

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
X 1,2
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 53 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Section 4.17
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

18.a-b. No known tribal resources exist within the project site area. The site is within a developed residential area and is not considered to be sensitive for tribal cultural resources. The site has previously been developed and disturbed and is not anticipated to include tribal cultural resources. The prior IS/MND for the approved project determined that the development would not impact tribal cultural resources.24 The project would implement the standard conditions of approval PL-194 and PL-195 described in Section 5.5.

Cultural Resources above. With incorporation of the standard conditions of approval, the proposed project would not result in impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Conclusion:

With incorporation of the standard conditions of approval, the project would not result in impacts to tribal cultural resources.
24 City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020. p.125-127.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 54 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

19. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation
of which could cause
significant environmental
effects?
Section 4.19
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable
future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
Section 4.19
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
Section 4.19
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Generate solid waste in excess
of State or local standards, or
in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?
Section 4.19
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
e. Comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste?
Section 4.19
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 55 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Discussion:

19.a. The project site is located within an urbanized residential area of the City which is served by all needed utilities (e.g. water, electricity, sanitary sewer facilities, and storm drain facilities). Similar to the approved project, the proposed redevelopment will also require specific on-site extensions and improvements to existing utility infrastructure to serve the new residential condominium building. The project would connect to the existing utilities within Fayette Drive and would underground all existing utilities that are currently above ground.

The prior IS/MND determined that the approved project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

19.b. The prior IS/MND determined that the City of Mountain View had sufficient existing water supply to support the approved project under normal, single dry, or multiple dry water years. The incremental increase in the number of units and the size of the building for the proposed project would not result in insufficient water supply and would not change this conclusion.

19.c. Similar to the approved project, the current project would connect to the existing eight-inch public sanitary sewer main located in Fayette Drive. The prior IS/MND found that there was sufficient capacity at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) and within the City’s existing treatment allocation to serve the approved project. The incremental increase in the number of units and the size of the building for the proposed project would not result in insufficient wastewater capacity at the PARWQCP.

19.d-e. As concluded in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, the project would be served by a landfill with capacity. The current project would also be required to comply with existing local and State programs and regulations, and the City’s standard conditions regarding solid waste. The incremental increase in solid waste from the revised project would not result in new or significantly increased impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity.

Conclusion:

As documented in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, it was determined that the approved development would not exceed the City’s applicable significance thresholds related to utilities and services and would not result in the need for new or expanded facilities. Based on the findings from the prior IS/MND and the incremental increase in the size of the proposed development, the project would not contribute to additional deficiencies in the utilities and services. For these reasons, the project would not result in new or more significant effects related to utilities and services.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 56 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

20. Wildfire. If located in or near
state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a. Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Section 4.20
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds,
and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
Section 4.20
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
c. Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
Section 4.20
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
d. Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage
changes?
Section 4.20
of Prior
IS/MND
No No No N/A
Discussion:

20.a-d. The site is flat and is located within a developed, urban area. The site is not located within an area that may exacerbate fire risk or expose people or structures to significant risk. For these reasons, similar to the approved project, the currently proposed project would not result in wildfire impacts.

Conclusion:

The project would not result in wildfire impacts.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 57 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

21. Mandatory Findings of
Significance.
a. Does the project have the
potential to 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 an endangered,
rare or threatened species, or
eliminate important examples
of the major periods of
California history or
prehistory?
Prior IS/MND No No No N/A
b. Does the project have impacts
that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental
effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the
effects of probable future
projects)?
Prior IS/MND No No No MM AIR-3.1,
MM NOI-2.1,
MM NOI-2.2
c. Does the project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Prior IS/MND No No No
MM AIR-3.1,
MM NOI-2.1,
MM NOI-2.2
Discussion:

21.a. Based on the analysis in the individual sections above, the currently proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, result in impacts to sensitive species or habitats, or eliminate important examples of 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 58 October 2024 Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact
Was Analyzed
in Prior
Environmental
Documents.

California’s history or prehistory. Standard conditions of approval and best management practices and requirements will be implemented as described in the prior sections to avoid unanticipated impacts.

21.b. This document evaluates the environmental impacts of the currently proposed residential development on the site and evaluates whether the revised project will result in new or more significant impacts beyond those disclosed in the prior IS/MND for the previously approved project. The cumulative impact analysis from the prior IS/MND is hereby incorporated by reference. The analysis considered other past, pending, and probable future projects whose impacts could combine to produce cumulative impacts. It was determined that, with adherence to the identified mitigation measures and incorporation of standard conditions of approval, the approved project would not result in a cumulatively significant contribution to cumulative impacts. This conclusion would not change with the incremental increase in residential units and additional building story proposed with the current project.

The proposed project will also be conditioned to adhere to the same mitigation measures (MM AIR-3.1, MM NOI-2.1, and MM NOI-2.2) that were identified in the prior IS/MND and required of the approved project, to ensure the project will not result in new or more significant cumulative air quality or noise impacts.

21.c. As explained in the prior IS/MND for the approved project, 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. The IS/MND determined that 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 the prior IS/MND would avoid any significant impacts. No other direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings were identified. The incremental increase in residential units and the additional of another building level as proposed with the current project would not change this conclusion.

As mentioned above, the proposed project will also be conditioned to adhere to the same mitigation measures (MM AIR-3.1, MM NOI-2.1, and MM NOI-2.2) that were identified in the prior IS/MND to ensure the project will not result in new or more significant impacts to human beings.

Note: Authority cited: CEQA (Public Resources Code 21000–21189) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000–15387). 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 59 October 2024

8.0 REFERENCES AND SOURCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. 2022.

BDE Architecture. Octane Fayette Project Submittal Plan Set. January 23, 2024.

City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Adopted July 2012.

City of Mountain View. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Adopted July 2012.

City of Mountain View. Amendment to Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. March 2020.

City of Mountain View. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project. Prepared by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. October 2020.

City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2011012069). July 2012.

City of Mountain View. Mountain View Zoning Ordinance.

City of Mountain View. San Antonio Precise Plan. 2014.

City of Mountain View. VTA Model, Variation from Regional Average VMT per Capita Map (2020).

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645 & 2655 Fayette Drive Project, Mountain View, CA. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Update. Prepared for JHS Consulting. July 26, 2024.

TDM Specialists Inc. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, City of Mountain View, Transportation Demand Management List of Measures. January 17, 2024.

Urban Tree Management. Existing Conditions Arborist Report. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive, Mountain View, CA 94040. Prepared by Chris Stewart. August 3, 2023, revised October 2, 2023. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Project CEQA Addendum 60 October 2024

9.0 LEAD AGENCY AUTHORS AND CONSULTANTS
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Christian Murdock, Community Development Director
Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director Aaron Hollister, Deputy Zoning Administrator
Diana Pancholi, Acting Advanced Planning Manager
Jeffrey Tsumura, Senior Planner
JHS Consulting, LLC
John Schwarz, President/Principal
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

James Reyff, Principal
Casey Divine, Consultant
Zachary Palm, Consultant
ATTACHMENT 1

PROJECT APPLICATION AND PLAN SET
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.

JANUARY 23, 2024

OCTANE FAYETTE
2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DRIVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
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.

AP0.00
OCTANE FAYETTE SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.01
OCTANE FAYETTE SCHEMATIC PODIUM PLAN JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.02
OCTANE FAYETTE PERSPECTIVE VIEW JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.03
OCTANE FAYETTE PERSPECTIVE VIEW JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.04
OCTANE FAYETTE PERSPECTIVE VIEW JANUARY 23, 2024

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A PRIVATELY FUNDED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE. THE PROJECT IS ONE BUILDING CONSISTING OF THE ELEMENTS DESCRIBED BELOW.• A 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF 5-STORIES OF TYPE III-A WOOD FRAMED RESIDENTIAL AND RELATED AMENITY SPACES OVER 2 LEVELS OF TYPE I-A CONCRETE/METAL FRAMED GARAGE WITH AMENITY SPACES AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS.• 1 LEVEL OF TYPE I-A CONCRETE, SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE.• 70 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, SEE STATISTICS FOR MORE INFORMATION.• TOTAL PARKING CONSISTS OF A TOTAL 103 SPACES SERVING THE RESIDENTS, SEE STATISTICS FOR MORE INFORMATION.

PROJECT SITE
OWNER:OCTANE FAYETTE LLC800 W. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 180MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040P: 703.629.1901CONTACT: EMERIC J. MCDONALDARCHITECT: BDE ARCHITECTURE950 HOWARD STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103P: 415.677.0966CONTACT: JON ENNISCIVIL: KIER + WRIGHT9015 MURRAY AVE, SUITE 1532GILROY, CA 95020P: 408.727.6665CONTACT: MARK KNUDSEN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:THE GUZZARDO PARTNERSHIP181 GREENWICH STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111P: 415.433.4672 x 14CONTACT: PAUL LETTIERIJOINT TRENCH:MILLENIUM DESIGN & CONSULTING, INC.PO BOX 737ALAMO, CA 94507P: 925.783.4300CONTACT: ALFRED GIUSTITRASH CONSULTANT:AMERICAN TRASH MANAGEMENT1900 POWELL ST., SUITE #220EMERYVILLE, CA 94608P: 415.377.0644CONTACT: SCOTT BROWN

AFFORDABLE RATE RESIDENTIAL NETMARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NETRESIDENTIAL GROSSVERTICAL CIRCULATION/ CORES

LOBBY & RESIDENTIAL AMENITYHABITABLE OPEN SPACEGARAGEBUILDING UTILITIES 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.

AP0.05
OCTANE FAYETTE PROJECT INFORMATION JANUARY 23, 2024

PROJECT SUMMARY

PROJECT TEAM AERIAL VIEW
LEGEND
SAN ANTONIO DR.

FAYETTE DR.

PROJECT INFORMATION
AP0.00 SCHEMATIC SITE PLANAP0.01 SCHEMATIC PODIUM PLANAP0.02 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAP0.03 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAP0.04 PERSPECTIVE VIEWAP0.05 PROJECT INFORMATIONAP0.06 SHEET INDEXAP0.07 VICINITY MAPAP0.08 FEMA MAPAP0.09 PROJECT STATISTICSAP0.10 UNIT & AREA MATRIXAP0.11 BMR STATISTICSAP0.12 NEIGHBORHOOD/AERIAL CONTEXTAP0.13 STREETSCAPE ELEV. @ FAYETTE DRAP0.14 SETBACK DIAGRAMAP0.15 SITE CIRCULATIONAP0.16 OPEN AREA CALCULATIONSAP0.17 FAR CALCULATIONSAP0.18 GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLISTAP0.19 GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLISTAP0.20 GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLISTAP0.21 GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLISTAP0.22 GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLISTAP0.23 SHADOW STUDYARCHITECTURALAP1.00 SITE PLAN - GRADEAP1.01 SITE PLAN - FLOOR 2AP1.02 SITE PLAN - FLOOR 3-7AP1.03 SITE PLAN - ROOFAP2.00 BUILDING PLAN - BASEMENTAP2.01 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 1AP2.02 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 2AP2.03 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 3AP2.04 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 4AP2.05 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 5AP2.06 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 6AP2.07 BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 7AP2.08 BUILDING PLAN - ROOFAP3.00 ELEVATION - NORTHAP3.01 ELEVATION - EASTAP3.02 ELEVATION - SOUTHAP3.03 ELEVATION - WESTAP3.04 ELEVATION - COURTYARDAP3.05 ELEVATION - DIAGRAMSAP3.06 ELEVATION - DIAGRAMSAP3.07 AERIAL - DIAGRAMSAP3.20 BUILDING SECTION - EAST TO WESTAP3.21 BUILDING SECTION - NORTH TO SOUTHAP3.22 BUILDING SECTION - STAIR @ ELEV.AP4.00 UNIT PLANS - STUDIOAP4.01 UNIT PLANS - 1 BEDROOMAP4.02 UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMSAP4.03 UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMSAP4.04 UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMSAP4.05 UNIT PLANS - 3 BEDROOMSAP4.06 UNIT PLANS - 3 BEDROOMS E.5 EGRESS ANALYSIS - FLOOR 1E.6 EGRESS ANALYSIS - FLOOR 2E.7 EGRESS ANALYSIS - FLOORS 3-7E.8 ALLOWABLE AREAS - BASEMENTE.9 ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOOR 1E.10 ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOOR 2E.11 ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOORS 3-7ZONINGZ.1 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPZ.2 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPZ.3 DEMOLITION PLANSLIGHTINGLT2-01 LIGHTING PLAN - FLOOR 1LT2-02 LIGHTING PLAN - FLOOR 1TRASHTR0.0 TRASH ROUTE/STAGING PLANTR0.1 TRASH DISCHARGE ROOM PLANTR2.0 CHUTE DETAILS LANDSCAPEL-1.1 SCHEMATIC SITE PLANL-1.2 SCHEMATIC PODIUM PLANL-2.00 PLANTING NOTES AND LEGENDL-2.01 PLANTING DETAILSL-2.1 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN - SITEL-2.2 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN - PODIUML-3.00 IRRIGATION NOTES AND LEGENDL-3.01 WATER BUDGETL-3.1 HYDROZONE PLANL-4.1 TREE DISPOSITION PLANL-4.2 TREE DISPOSITION PLANL-5.1 TREE CANOPY STUDYL-6.1 LANDSCAPE IMAGERYL-7.0 COLOR AND FINISH SCHEDULEL-7.1 SCHEMATIC DETAILSL-7.2 SCHEMATIC DETAILSCIVILC1.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYC2.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & UTILITY - FLOOR 1C2.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & UTILITY - FLOOR 2C2.2 PROFILES & DETAILSC3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANC3.1 STORMWATER NOTES & DETAILSJOINT TRENCHJTC1 JOINT TRENCH CONCEPTUAL COMPOSITEFIRE/BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE E.1 FIRE EXHIBIT - FLOOR 1E.2 FIRE EXHIBIT - FLOOR 2E.3 ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAMSE.4 EGRESS ANALYSIS - BASEMENTAP5.00 WALL SECTION - TYP @ HETCH HETCHYAP5.01 WALL SECTION - TYP @ FAYETTEAP5.02 WINDOW DETAILSAP5.03 WINDOW DETAILSAP5.04 WINDOW DETAILSAP5.05 MATERIAL TRANSITION DETAILSAP5.06 MATERIAL TRANSITION DETAILSAP5.07 MATERIAL TRANSITION DETAILSAP5.08 MATERIAL TRANSITION DETAILSAP5.09 AWNING DETAILS @ BUILDING CORNERAP5.10 AWNING DETAILS @ LOBBY ENTRANCEAP5.11 AWNING DETAILS @ DOMUS WINDOWSAP5.12 METAL GUARDRAIL DETAILSAP5.13 GLASS GUARDRAIL DETAILSAP5.14 PV PANEL DETAILAP5.15 MECHANICAL UNITSAP5.16 CORNICE DETAILAP5.17 VENT DETAILS 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.

AP0.06
OCTANE FAYETTE SHEET INDEX JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.07
OCTANE FAYETTE VICINITY MAP JANUARY 23, 2024
TRUE
NORTH
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.

AP0.08
OCTANE FAYETTE FEMA MAP JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

AP0.09
OCTANE FAYETTE PROJECT STATISTICS JANUARY 23, 2024
GENERAL PROJECT DATASITE ADDRESS: 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DRIVE.

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94041
APN(S): 148-016-008
148-016-009
ZONING DISTRICT: P-40 (SAN ANTONIO PRECISE PLAN)GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIALSPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD ZONE: NONEOCCUPANCY GROUP(S): R-2 RESIDENTIAL S-2 GARAGEA ASSEMBLY
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IA AT FLOORS B1-2
TYPE IIIA AT FLOORS 3-7
EXISTING USE: RESIDENTIAL (SINGLE FAMILY): 5,711 SF
INDUSTRIAL: 5,156 SFTOTAL: 10,867 SF
PROPOSED USE: RESIDENTIALNUMBER OF STORIES: 7ACERAGE: .66687 ACSQUARE FOOTAGE: 29,049 SF# OF UNITS: 70DU PER ACRE: 104.97ALL HERITAGE TREES ON SITE INCLUDING SPECIES/SIZE: 9 TREE, REFER TO ARBORIST REPORTZONING PROJECT DATA P-40 ZONING/GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED
LOT COVERAGE:• LOT AREA: --- 29,049 SF• BUILDING COVERAGE: --- 82% PROPOSED 23,957 SF
OPEN AREA (CALCULATIONS ON SHEET AP0.16):• PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACE: --- 8,052 SF • SEMI-PRIVATE (COURTYARD AREA): --- 4,434 SF
• PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: --- 2,386 SF
• TOTAL: 11,619.4 SF 14,872 SF• ALLOWABLE MIN. OPEN AREA: 40% MIN. 51%COMMON USABLE OPEN SPACE:• SEMI-PRIVATE (COURTYARD AREA): --- 4,434 SF • PUBLIC OPEN SPACE: --- 2,386 SF
• ALLOWABLE MIN. COMMON OPEN SPACE: 175 SF/UNIT• TOTAL: 12,250 SF 6,720 SFPAVEMENT COVERAGE:• SURFACE PAVEMENT COVERAGE PER OVERALL SITE: 40% MAX. 9% 11,619.4 SF 2,517 SF
ZONING PROJECT DATA (CONT'D.)
P-40 ZONING/GENERAL PLAN PROPOSED
SETBACKS:• FRONT (FAYETTE DR) FROM CURBLINE: 24'-0" MIN. 16'-10 3/8" 34'-0" MIN. (LEVELS 5 & ABOVE)
• NORTH SIDE (FAYETTE TOWNHOUSES): 25'-0" MIN. 4'-6 7/8"• SOUTH SIDE (HETCH HETCHY): 25'-0" MIN. 5'-0"• BACK (DOMUS): 25'-0" MIN. 4'-0"BUILDING HEIGHT: 55'-0" (P-40) 84'-4 1/2"GROSS FLOOR AREAS:• BASEMENT (B1): --- 24,255 SF• FLOOR 1: --- 23,957 SF• FLOOR 2: --- 17,008 SF• FLOOR 3: --- 17,008 SF• FLOOR 4: --- 17,008 SF• FLOOR 5: --- 17,008 SF• FLOOR 6: --- 17,008 SF• FLOOR 7: --- 17,008 SF FLOOR AREA RATIO:• FLOOR AREA (BASEMENT NOT INCLUDED): --- 126,005 SF • F.A.R.: 1.85 4.34
BELOW-MARKET RATE UNITS:• 10% MIN. OF TOTAL UNITS: 7 14 (20%)CAR PARKING*ALL PARKING WITHIN PROJECT IS ASSIGNED EXCEPT FOR THE TO DELIVERY SPACES NOTED BELOW:
• STUDIO (1 PER UNIT): 5 0• 1 BEDROOM (1 PER UNIT): 12 3• 2 BEDROOM (2 PER UNIT): 70 62• 3 BEDROOM (2 PER UNIT): 36 36• GUEST (15% OF TOTAL): 19 0• DELIVERY TRUCK 0 2• TOTAL 142 103EV PARKING:• EV READY (LEVEL 2) (15%): 16 16 • EV CAPABLE (LEVEL 1) (85%): 87 87 EV ACCESSIBLE PARKING (INCLUSIVE):
• EV READY ACCESSIBLE (LEVEL 2) (2%): 2 2ACCESSIBLE PARKING (INCLUSIVE):• NON-EV ACCESSIBLE (2%): 2 2BICYCLE STORAGE:• RESIDENT (1 PER UNIT): 70 72• GUEST (1 PER 10 UNITS): 7 8RESIDENTIAL STORAGE:• RESIDENT (1 PER UNIT @ 164 CU-FT): 70 (164 CU-FT) 70 (76 CU-FT) 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.

AP0.11
OCTANE FAYETTE BMR STATISTICS JANUARY 23, 2024
Net rentable Residential by floor (excl decks) 0 1,588 2,082 2,082 2,082 1,363 498 0 9,695Net rentable residential area is measured from interior face of finish of demising walls to interior face of finish of corridor and exterior walls.TOTAL UNITS Avg SqFt 693 02333210 14 100% 9,6951 BDRM SUB-TOTAL 02222100 9 64% 7,205 A1.1 1 BDRM 719 1 1 1 3 21% 2,157A1 1 BDRM 865 1 1 1 1 4 29% 3,460A1.1 MTL 1 BDRM 715 1 1 7% 715 1 BEDROOM A1-MTL 1 BDRM 873 1 1 7% 873STUDIO SUB-TOTAL 00111110 5 36% 2,490STUDIO S1 S
T
U
DIO
498 11111 5 36% 2,490
B1 1ST 2ND 3RD 4TH 5TH 6TH 7TH ROOF Total by Type
UNIT TYPE NAME DESCRIPTION Unit Net Rentable Unit Rentable AreaFLOORS: 5 WOOD O/2 CONCRETE W/ BASEMENT BMR UNITSCONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE IIIA OVER TYPE IA Builder's Remedy Law BldgDate 8/11/23BMR UNIT SUMMARY JOB: Octane - Fayette, Mountain View 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.

AP0.12
OCTANE FAYETTE NEIGHBORHOOD/AERIAL CONTEXT JANUARY 23, 2024 A) EXISTING SITE FROM FAYETTE DR. LOOKING NORTH B) EXISTING SITE FROM FAYETTE DR. LOOKING SOUNTH C) EXISTING SITE FROM FAYETTE DR.

D) EXISTING SITE FROM HETCH HETCHY E) EXISTING SITE LOOKING SOUTH F) EXISTING SITE LOOKING EAST FAYETTE TOWN HOUSE AT FAYETTE DR.

CARMEL APARTMENTS AT SAN ANTONIO RD. THE DEAN AT SAN ANTONIO RD. DOMUS ON THE BOULEVARD KEY MAP

SITE SITE
SITE
SITE

SITE SITE
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.

AP0.13
OCTANE FAYETTE STREETSCAPE ELEV. @ FAYETTE DR JANUARY 23, 2024 SITE
GARAGE

ENTRY/ EXIT

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
5 '
-
0"
4'-6 7/8".
4'-9 3/8"4'-10 7/8"
12'-2 7/8"
4'-0"
2 5
'
-
0 "
24'-0"
25'-0"
25'-0"
16'-10 3/8"
5 '
-
0"
4'-6 3/4"
4'-9 3/8"
4'-10 7/8"
12'-2 7/8"
4'-0"
10'-4 3/4"
12'-2 1/8"
15'-11"
1 2
'
-
0 1
/4
"
15'-2 1/8"
15'-7"
10'-10 5/8"
15'-2 3/4"
11'-11"
2 5
'
-
0 "
25'-0"
25'-0"
24'-0"
AT LEVELS 5 -7
34'-0"
PROPERTY LINECURBLINEP-40 ZONING SETBACK PER LEVEL
LEGEND
0' 30' 60'
TRUE
NORTH

ENTRY / EXIT

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK

TRASH STAGING AREA

EGRESS PATHPUBLIC PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATIONVEHICULAR CIRCULATIONTRASH VEHICLE CIRCULATION LEGEND
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP0.15
OCTANE FAYETTE SITE CIRCULATION JANUARY 23, 2024
T
T
393 SF257 SF496 SF 168 SF
66 SF
288 SF 288 SF
55 SF 171 SF
55 SF
198 SF57 SF102 SF 63 SF 56 SF
66 SF
151 SF 288 SF
55 SF 72 SF
55 SF

PUBLIC OPEN SPACESEMI-PRIVATE (COURTYARD AREA)PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACEPAVEMENT AREA PRIVATE USABLE OPEN SPACEFLOOR 2 2,237 SFFLOOR 3 1,163 SFFLOOR 4 1,163 SFFLOOR 5 1,163 SFFLOOR 6 1,163 SFFLOOR 7 1,163 SFTOTAL 8,052 SFAVG. SF / UNIT 115 SFSEMI-PRIVATE (COURTYARD AREA)FLOOR 2 4,434 SFPUBLIC OPEN SPACEFLOOR 1 2,386 SFPERCENTAGE OF SITE 8%TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDEDTOTAL 14,872 SFPERCENTAGE OF AREA 51%PAVEMENT AREAAREA 2,517 SFPERCENTAGE OF SITE 9% 0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

BUILDING FLOOR AREAOPEN AREA
LOT AREAEXISTING 29,049 SFFLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS GROSS BUILDING AREABASEMENT - SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE 24,255 SFFLOOR 1 - GARAGE & AMENITIES 23,957 SFFLOOR 2 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFFLOOR 3 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFFLOOR 4 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFFLOOR 5 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFFLOOR 6 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFFLOOR 7 - RESIDENTIAL 17,008 SFTOTAL PROPOSED SF 150,260 SFFAR PROPOSED (INCLUDES GSF ABOVE GRADE) 4.34 0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

AP0.18
OCTANE FAYETTE GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLIST JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

AP0.19
OCTANE FAYETTE GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLIST JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

AP0.20
OCTANE FAYETTE GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLIST JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

AP0.21
OCTANE FAYETTE GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLIST JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

AP0.22
OCTANE FAYETTE GREENPOINT RATING CHECKLIST JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

AP0.23
OCTANE FAYETTE SHADOW STUDY JANUARY 23, 2024
SUMMER - 9AM
SUMMER - 12PM
SUMMER - 3PM
SPRING / FALL - 9AM
SPRING / FALL - 12PM
SPRING / FALL - 3PM
WINTER - 9AM
WINTER - 12PM
WINTER - 3PM
TRUE
NORTH

FAYETTE DR
(30' - 0")

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
198' - 9 1/2"
156' - 2"
136' - 6 1/4"
198' - 1 3/4"
182' - 1 3/4"
4' - 9 1/2" 127' - 0 1/2" 4' - 8 1/2"
182' - 3 1/4"
139' - 4 1/4"
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
5 '
-
0"
4'-10 7/8"
12'-2 7/8"
11'-11"
4'-10 3/4"
11'-8 7/8"
5'-1 5/8"

REFER TO CIVIL FOR SURVEY
70'-8 3/4" 70'-0"
15'-5 1/8"
6 9
-
'
1 1
1 /
2 "
6 6
-
'
6 7
/
8 "
4 '
-
2 5
/
8 "
2 5
'
-
0 "
24'-0"
25'-0"
25'-0" 16'-10 3/8"
4'-6 7/8"
4'-0"

PROPERTY LINEEXISTING LOT LINECURBLINE
LEGEND
PROPOSED SETBACK PER LEVELP-40 ZONING SETBACK PER LEVEL 0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING LOT LINECURBLINE
LEGEND
PROPOSED SETBACK PER LEVELP-40 ZONING SETBACK PER LEVEL

FAYETTE DR
(30' - 0")

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
198' - 9 1/2"
156' - 2"
136' - 6 1/4"
198' - 1 3/4"
182' - 1 3/4"
4' - 9 1/2" 127' - 0 1/2" 4' - 8 1/2"
182' - 2 1/4"
139' - 4 1/4"
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
5 '
-
0"
4'-10 7/8"
12'-2 7/8"
11'-11"
11'-8 7/8"
2 5
'
-
0 "
24'-0"
25'-0"
25'-0" 16'-10 3/8"
4'-6 7/8"
4'-0"
0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

PROPERTY LINE

EXISTING LOT LINECURBLINE
LEGEND
PROPOSED SETBACK PER LEVELP-40 ZONING SETBACK PER LEVEL

FAYETTE DR
(30' - 0")

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
198' - 9 1/2"
156' - 2"
136' - 6 1/4"
198' - 1 3/4"
15' - 7" 171' - 5 1/2"
4' - 6 3/4"
10' - 7 1/2"
115' - 4 1/2"
3 3/4"
5' - 8"
0"
170' - 11 1/2"
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
7 '
-
2"
11'-11"
11'-9 1/8"
2 5
'
-
0 "
24'-0"
25'-0"
25'-0" 16'-10 3/8"
10'-4 7/8"
15'-2 3/4"
8'-4 3/4" 3'-3 1/4"
134'-1 1/8"
AT LEVELS 5 -7
34'-0"
0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
198' - 9 1/2"
156' - 2"
136' - 6 1/4"
198' - 1 3/4"
4' - 8 1/2"
16' - 9 3/4"
106' - 8 1/2"
3' - 9 1/4"
4' - 6 1/2"
12' - 2"
135' - 3 1/4"
4' - 0 1/2" 4' - 8 1/2"
173' - 0 1/2"
11' - 7"
4'-9 7/8"
9'-1" 73'-7" 24'-7" 75'-0 3/4" 1'-1 3/4"
10'-6 1/8"
4 '
-
11 "
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
8 '
-
3 1
/2"
2 5
'
-
0 "
34'-0"
25'-0"
15'-4"
8'-8 7/8"
13'-6 3/4"
25'-0"

PROPERTY LINEEXISTING LOT LINECURBLINE
LEGEND
PROPOSED SETBACK PER LEVELP-40 ZONING SETBACK PER LEVEL 0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 1"=60' AP1.03
OCTANE FAYETTE SITE PLAN - ROOF JANUARY 23, 2024
SAN ANTONIO PRECISE PLAN:
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
1 AP3.20
____________
232 SF

PLUMBING
&

MECHANICAL
ROOM
366 SF

PLUMBING
&

MECHANICAL
ROOM
259 SF

PLUMBING
&

MECHANICAL
ROOM
101 SF

ELEVATOR
1 MACHINE
ROOM
64 SF

ELEVATOR
1 391 SF
GARAGE
AIR
INTAKE
ROOM
STAIR
2 1
AP3.21
____________
21,496 SF
GARAGE
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 18.0% 9.0%

RAMP UP
20'-0 7/8"
STAIR
1 24'-0"
26'-0"
24'-0"
24'-0"
OVERHEAD STORAGE LOCKER, (6'-0"W X 3'-0"D X 4'-3" H), TYP. 6 25'-0" '-
0"
5'-4 1/8" 12'-3 1/8"
181' - 2 1/4"
125'-9 3/8" 5'-2 5/8"
5'-0"
181'-2 1/4" 12'-0"
13'-2 7/8" 137'-11 1/8" 5'-0"
27'-9 3/8"
14'-11 1/4"
7'-11 1/2"
12'-8 3/4"
24'-7 3/8"
14'-10 3/8"
18'-4 5/8"
14'-1 3/8"
14'-4 5/8"
16'-10 1/4"
1 AP3.22
____________
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.00
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - BASEMENT 1 JANUARY 23, 2024 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
T
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
1 AP3.20
____________
938 SF
MAIN

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
STAIR
2 230 SF

PLUMBING
&

MECHANICAL
ROOM
262 SF
SPA

EQUIPMENT
ROOM
452 SF
BIKE

STORAGE
ROOM
64 SF

ELEVATOR
1 595 SF
TRASH
ROOM
1,999 SF

BUILDING
LOBBY
AREA

DELIEVERY
TRUCK

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
1 AP3.21
____________
16,488 SF
GARAGE
1,254 SF
GARAGE

9.0% 18.0%
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 RAMP DOWN
STAIR
1 285 SF
MAIL

PACKAGE
ROOM

RETAINING WALL
24'-0"
26'-0"
24'-0"
5 '
-
0"
4'-6 3/4"
4'-9 3/8"4'-10 7/8"
12'-2 7/8"
4'-0"
11'-11"
4'-10 3/4"
182'-1 3/4"
127'-0 1/2"
182'-3 1/4"
6 7/8"
139'-4 3/8"
14'-2 3/8"
18'-5 5/8"
17'-0 3/4"
26'-5 1/4"
15'-2 1/8"
47'-11 5/8"
64'-11 1/8"
35'-7 7/8"
26'-5"
21'-7"
31'-11 1/4"
14'-3 5/8"
16'-9 1/4"
18'-9 3/4"
1 AP3.22
____________

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"

WINDOW OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW

GARAGE ACCESS
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
11'-8 7/8"
5'-1 5/8"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WNDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 8'-0"
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
2 4
'
-
0 "
.

OVERHEAD STORAGE LOCKER, (6'-0"W X 3'-0"D X 4'-3" H), TYP. (72 BIKE SPACES)
(4 BIKE SPACES)
(4 BIKE SPACES)
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.01
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 1 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1,670 SF

CLUBROOM
231 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,499 SF
C1.0-MTL
715 SF
A1.1-MTL
1,733 SF
C2.0-MTL
1,211 SF
B3.0-MTL
1,003 SF
B1.0-MTL
856 SF
A1.0-MTL
1,111 SF
B4.0-MTL
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,255 SF
B2.0-MTL
1,622 SF
C3.0-MTL
1,263 SF
B2.0-MTL
731 SF

CORRIDOR

SPA AREA

COURT-YARD
55 SF
TRASH
60 SF

ELEVATOR
1 5'-0" 7'-0 1/4"
4'-6 3/4" 6'-3"
4'-9 3/8"
4'-10 7/8"
10'-8"
12'-2 7/8" 3'-8 1/8" 4'-0" 11'-2 3/4"
12'-2 1/8"
5'-1 5/8"
15'-11" 129'-5 1/4" 10'-9 3/4"
12'-0 1/4"
10'-4 3/4"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
4'-10 3/4"
10'-10 5/8"
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
32 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
6 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-6" 8'-4" 8'-0" 36'-10 1/2" 9'-9" 10'-4 1/4" 28'-6 3/4" 17'-10"
15'-5 1/2"
2'-9"
12'-5 1/8"
10'-2 1/2"
38'-7 1/2"
10'-5 1/4"
30'-8 5/8"
8'-9 5/8"
5'-9" 24'-6" 32'-0 1/8" 48'-7 1/2" 52'-3" 7'-10 7/8"
10'-3 1/4"
9'-2 7/8"
7'-10"
3'-0 1/8"
PATIO
496 SF
PATIO
257 SF
PATIO
393 SF
PATIO
288 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
PATIO
168 SF
PATIO
171 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
171'-0 1/2"

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"

WINDOW OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOWWINDOW +/- 8'-0" WINDOW +/- 8'-0" WINDOW +/- 8'-0" WNDOW +/- 8'-0" WINDOW +/- 8'-0" WINDOW +/- 8'-0" WINDOW +/- 8'-0" DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
PATIO
66 SF
21'-11 1/4" 54'-11 1/2"
6"
8'-8 5/8"
30'-6 3/8" 11'-5 1/2"
8'-2 3/4"
30'-3"
28'-1 1/8"
5'-6"
5'-6"
4'-6 3/4" 8'-8"
6'-11"
6'-3 5/8"
2'-9 1/8"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
3'-5"
2'-6"
8'-0"
2'-1 3/8"
3'-0 1/8"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN
- FLOOR 2 JANUARY 23, 2024
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,139 SF
B4.1
165 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,513 SF
C1.0
719 SF
A1.1
1,733 SF
C2.0
1,215 SF
B3.0
1,005 SF
B1.0
865 SF
A1.0
1,114 SF
B4.0
1,261 SF
B2.0
1,627 SF
C3.0
1,269 SF
B2.0
730 SF

CORRIDOR
56 SF
TRASH
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
31 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
7 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
498 SF
S1

BALCONY
198 SF

BALCONY
151 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
57 SF

BALCONY
102 SF

BALCONY
63 SF

BALCONY
72 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
11'-3 1/2"
15'-11"
12'-7 7/8"
15'-11" 128'-11 1/2" 11'-3 1/2"
12'-0 1/4"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
10'-10 5/8"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-0 1/4" 8'-4" 8'-0" 36'-10 1/2" 9'-9" 10'-4 1/4" 28'-6 3/4" 17'-10"
2'-9"
15'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8"
10'-2 3/4"
38'-7"
10'-5 1/4"
30'-5 1/4"
8'-7 1/4"
5'-9" 24'-6" 32'-4 7/8" 48'-2 3/4" 52'-3"
7'-10 7/8"
10'-9"
9'-7 3/8"
7'-10 1/2"
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
170'-6 3/4"
25'-8" 26'-7"

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"

BALCONY
66 SF

BALCONY
56 SF
21'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 8'-8 1/4"
31'-0 1/2" 10'-11 3/4" 29'-9 1/2" 20'-7"
8'-0"
6'-2"
2'-9 7/8"
5'-6"
5'-6"
6'-11"
4'-6" 8'-9"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 3'-0"
3'-5"
2'-6"
8'-2"
2'-1 1/2"
3'-0"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN
- FLOOR 3 JANUARY 23, 2024
◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,139 SF
B4.1
165 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,513 SF
C1.0
719 SF
A1.1
1,733 SF
C2.0
1,215 SF
B3.0
1,084 SF
B-1.0
865 SF
A1.0 1,022 SF
B4.0
1,260 SF
B2.0
1,627 SF
C-3.0
1,269 SF
B-2.0
738 SF

CORRIDOR
56 SF
TRASH
31 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
7 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
498 SF
S1
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
393 SF

CORRIDOR

BALCONY
198 SF

BALCONY
151 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
57 SF

BALCONY
102 SF

BALCONY
63 SF

BALCONY
72 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
12'-7 7/8"
15'-11" 128'-11 1/2" 11'-3 1/2"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-0 1/4" 8'-4" 8'-0" 28'-2" 18'-2 3/4"
2'-9"
15'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8"
10'-2 3/4"
38'-6 3/4"
10'-7 3/4"
30'-2"
8'-8 1/4"
5'-9" 24'-6" 32'-4 7/8" 48'-2 3/4" 52'-3"
7'-1 1/8"
11 3/4"
11'-2"
10'-1 3/8"
7'-10 1/2"
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
170'-6 3/4"
25'-8" 26'-7"
37'-4"
9'-0 1/2"
10'-7 1/4"

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 3'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW

OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"

WINDOW OPENING
+/- 6'-0" PATIO
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
DOMUS(4-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)

BALCONY
66 SF

BALCONY
56 SF
21'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 8'-8 1/4"
31'-0 1/2" 10'-11 3/4" 29'-9 1/2" 20'-7"
8'-0"
6'-2"
2'-9 7/8"
5'-6"
5'-10"
6'-11"
4'-6" 8'-9"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 3'-0"
3'-5"
2'-6"
8'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
3'-0"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.04
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 4 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,139 SF
B4.1
165 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,513 SF
C1.0
719 SF
A1.1
1,733 SF
C2.0
1,215 SF
B3.0
1,085 SF
B1.0
865 SF
A1.0 1,022 SF
B4.0
1,261 SF
B2.0
1,627 SF
C-3.0
1,269 SF
B2.0
738 SF

CORRIDOR
56 SF
TRASH
31 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
7 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
498 SF
S1
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
393 SF

CORRIDOR

BALCONY
198 SF

BALCONY
151 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
57 SF

BALCONY
102 SF

BALCONY
63 SF

BALCONY
72 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
12'-7 7/8"
15'-11" 128'-11 1/2" 11'-3 1/2"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-0 1/4" 8'-4" 8'-0" 28'-2" 18'-2 3/4"
2'-9"
15'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8"
10'-2 3/4"
38'-6 3/4"
10'-6 3/4"
30'-3"
8'-8 1/4"
5'-9" 24'-6" 32'-4 7/8" 48'-2 3/4" 52'-3"
7'-10 7/8"
11'-2"
10'-1 3/8"
7'-10 1/2"
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
170'-6 3/4"
25'-8" 26'-7"
37'-4"
9'-0 1/2"
10'-7 1/4"

BALCONY
66 SF

BALCONY
56 SF
21'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 8'-8 1/4"
31'-0 1/2"
10'-11 3/4"
29'-9 1/2"
20'-7"
8'-0"
6'-2"
2'-9 7/8"
5'-6"
5'-10"
6'-11"
4'-6" 8'-9"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 3'-0"
3'-5"
2'-6"
8'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
3'-0"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.05
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 5 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,139 SF
B4.1
165 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,513 SF
C1.0
719 SF
A1.1
1,733 SF
C2.0
1,215 SF
B3.0
1,085 SF
B1.0
865 SF
A1.0 1,022 SF
B4.0
1,261 SF
B5.0
1,627 SF
C-3.0
1,269 SF
B2.0
738 SF

CORRIDOR
56 SF
TRASH
31 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
7 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
498 SF
S1
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
393 SF

CORRIDOR

BALCONY
198 SF

BALCONY
151 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
57 SF

BALCONY
102 SF

BALCONY
63 SF

BALCONY
72 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
12'-7 7/8"
15'-11" 128'-11 1/2" 11'-3 1/2"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-0 1/4" 8'-4" 8'-0" 28'-2" 18'-2 3/4"
2'-9"
15'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8"
10'-2 3/4"
38'-6 3/4"
9'-6 5/8"
31'-3 1/8"
8'-8 1/4"
5'-9" 24'-6" 32'-4 7/8" 48'-2 3/4" 52'-3"
7'-10 7/8"
11'-2"
10'-1 3/8"
7'-10 1/2"
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
170'-6 3/4"
37'-4"
9'-0 1/2"
10'-7 1/4"

BALCONY
66 SF

BALCONY
56 SF
21'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 8'-8 1/4"
31'-0 1/2" 10'-11 3/4" 29'-9 1/2" 20'-7"
8'-0"
6'-2"
2'-9 7/8"
5'-6"
5'-10"
6'-11"
4'-6" 8'-9"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 3'-0"
3'-5"
2'-6"
8'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
3'-0"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.06
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 6 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
1 AP3.20
____________
1 AP3.21
____________
AP3.00
1 AP3.01
1 AP3.03
1 AP3.02
1 AP3.04
1 AP3.04
2 1,139 SF
B4.1
165 SF
STAIR
2 169 SF
STAIR
1 1,513 SF
C1.0
719 SF
A1.1
1,727 SF
C-2.0
1,206 SF
B-3.0
1,084 SF
B1.0
865 SF
A1.0 1,023 SF
B4.0
1,261 SF
B5.0
1,626 SF
C-3.0
1,269 SF
B2.0
743 SF

CORRIDOR
56 SF
TRASH
31 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
24 SF
IDF
7 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
498 SF
S1
17 SF
MECH.

SHAFT
398 SF

CORRIDOR

BALCONY
66 SF

BALCONY
198 SF

BALCONY
151 SF

BALCONY
288 SF

BALCONY
57 SF

BALCONY
102 SF

BALCONY
63 SF

BALCONY
56 SF

BALCONY
72 SF

BALCONY
55 SF

BALCONY
55 SF
1 AP3.22
____________
12'-7 7/8"
15'-11" 128'-11 1/2" 11'-3 1/2" 12'-0 1/4"
15'-7"
15'-2 3/4" 171'-0 1/2" 11'-11"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4" 31'-11 3/4" 28'-0" 6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 37'-0 1/4" 8'-4" 8'-0" 28'-2" 18'-2 3/4"
2'-9"
15'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8"
10'-1 3/4"
38'-7 3/4"
10'-6 3/4"
30'-3"
8'-8 1/4"
5'-9" 24'-5" 32'-6 7/8" 48'-1 3/4" 52'-3"
7'-10 7/8"
11'-2"
10'-1 3/8"
7'-10 1/2"
15'-2 1/8" 111'-4 1/2"
170'-6 3/4"
37'-4"
9'-0 1/2"
10'-7 1/4"
21'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 8'-8 1/4"
31'-0 1/2" 10'-11 3/4" 29'-9 1/2" 20'-7"
8'-0"
6'-2"
2'-9 7/8"
5'-6"
5'-10"
6'-11"
4'-6" 8'-9"
3'-0"
8'-1"
20'-10 3/4"
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 3'-6"
2'-5"
8'-0"
2'-1 1/2"
3'-0"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' AP2.07
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING PLAN - FLOOR 7 JANUARY 23, 2024 1 AP3.20
____________
165 SF
STAIR
2 1
AP3.21
____________
FUTURE SOLAR1396 SF
FUTURE SOLAR212 SF
169 SF
STAIR
1 FUTURE SOLAR
2810 SF
61 SF

ELEVATOR
1 POTENTIAL ROOF DECK

ROOF HVAC SYSTEM

GLASS PANEL GUARDRAIL

ROOF HVAC SYSTEM
1 AP3.22
____________
109'-7 5/8"
10'-11 3/4"
28'-10 3/4"
10'-6 1/8"
15'-7" 131'-5 1/4"
9'-1 3/4"
1 0
'
-
2 3/8
"
13'-11"
13'-6 3/4" 173'-0 1/2" 11'-7"
14'-5" 25'-6 1/4"
1'-8"
31'-11 3/4" 24'-7"
1'-9" 4'-10"
20'-5 1/2" 40'-10" 8'-4"
6'-4" 31'-10 3/4" 17'-10"
3'-1"
15'-1 1/2" 13'-1 3/8"
8'-1 3/4"
41'-11 3/4" 6'-9" 34'-6 1/2"
8'-8 1/4"
5'-9"
24'-5" 32'-1 1/8" 49'-11 1/2" 26'-4" 26'-3"
8'-2 7/8"
15'-2 1/8" 113'-0 1/2"
174'-4 1/2"
40'-8"
7'-4 1/2" 8'-11 1/4"
6'-8"
2'-5"
3'-6"
13'-11 1/4" 54'-6"
6" 10'-4 1/4"
31'-0 1/2" 9'-3 3/4" 29'-9 1/2"
26'-7"
28'-5"
23'-11 3/8" 22'-5 1/2" 33'-4 5/8"
27'-11 3/8"
28'-2 3/8"
8'-1 1/2"
6'-0" 8'-0 3/4"
6'-2 1/4" 7'-5"
9'-1 1/4"
6'-0"
7'-0 1/8" 16'-3 3/4" 14'-5 1/8"
39'-9 1/2"
6'-0" 6'-7 3/4"
6'-1"
7'-0 3/4"
7'-9 1/4"
3'-2 3/4"
1'-1 1/2"
6'-0"
6'-0 1/4"
9'-10"
6'-0 1/4"
1'-0"
33'-5 5/8" 6'-6 3/4"
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

APART-MENT BLDG)
12'-0"
17'-5"
2'-8"
8'-9 1/4" 18'-11" 18'-7" 20'-5 1/2" 6'-7" 27'-11" 31'-11 3/4" 25'-6 1/4" 12'-9" 10'-8" 182'-1 3/4"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"

BOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOOR 2"
1'-0"
10'-0" 11'-10"
2"
1'-0"

TOP OF FINISH FLOOR

BOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOOR 1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7" 1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"

LEGENDSTUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
SW7100 ARCADE WHITE SW7635 PALISADE SW9083 DUSTED TRUFFLE SW6096 JUTE BROWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A B C D

DARK GREY
E
11 MECHANICAL VENT, TYP.1213

DOWNSPOUTCOPING
1415

ELEVATOR PENTHOUSESTAIR PENTHOUSE
16 EXT. SIGNAGE LOCATION
0' 20' 40'
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. 1"=20' AP3.00
OCTANE FAYETTE PLANNING ELEVATIONS - NORTH JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"
10 1A 3 2C 2D 1A 8 8 1A 2D 9
5 9 7 9 6 3 6 1A 3
9 2'-10"
2'-8"
11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 1'-3"
6 7
84'-4 1/2"
71'-4"
CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
11 HETCH HETCHY
101'-9 1/2"
14 15

FAYETTE
TOWNHOUSE (3-STORY

APARTMENT BLDG)
16 22'-5 1/2" 12'-5 3/8" 10'-1 3/4" 38'-7 3/4" 10'-1" 31'-2 1/2" 8'-8 1/4" 6'-3" 139'-11 1/8"

LEGENDSTUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
SW7100 ARCADE WHITE SW7635 PALISADE SW9083 DUSTED TRUFFLE SW6096 JUTE BROWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A B C D

DARK GREY
E
11 MECHANICAL VENT, TYP.1213

DOWNSPOUTCOPING
1415

ELEVATOR PENTHOUSESTAIR PENTHOUSE
16 EXT. SIGNAGE LOCATION
0' 20' 40'
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. 1"=20' AP3.01
OCTANE FAYETTE PLANNING ELEVATIONS - EAST JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"
5'-0" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 1'-3"
84'-4 1/2"
71'-4"
6 10 2C 10 2D 1A 6 10 3 4 8 1A 6
8 9 3 7 5
5 10
CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
15 11 14
101'-9 1/2"
DOMUS(4-STORYAPART-MENT BLDG)
5'-2 1/2"
11'-2 3/4" 5'-9" 24'-5" 32'-1 1/8" 11'-3 1/8" 26'-2 1/4" 11'-2" 25'-8" 26'-7" 7'-10 7/8" 182'-3 1/4"

LEGENDSTUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
SW7100 ARCADE WHITE SW7635 PALISADE SW9083 DUSTED TRUFFLE SW6096 JUTE BROWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A B C D

DARK GREY
E
11 MECHANICAL VENT, TYP.1213

DOWNSPOUTCOPING
1415

ELEVATOR PENTHOUSESTAIR PENTHOUSE
16 EXT. SIGNAGE LOCATION
0' 20' 40'
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. 1"=20' AP3.02
OCTANE FAYETTE PLANNING ELEVATIONS - SOUTH JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"
1C 1B 8 9 1D 1A 10 10
5'-6" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 1'-3"
5 6
84'-4 1/2"
71'-4"
3 CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
15 15 11 14
101'-9 1/2" FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE
(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
10'-4 3/4" 8'-0" 37'-4" 9'-0 1/2" 10'-7" 15'-9 1/2" 12'-9 1/2" 21'-10" 1'-5 3/8" 127'-2 1/2"

HETCH HETCHY

LEGENDSTUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
SW7100 ARCADE WHITE SW7635 PALISADE SW9083 DUSTED TRUFFLE SW6096 JUTE BROWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A B C D

DARK GREY
E
11 MECHANICAL VENT, TYP.1213

DOWNSPOUTCOPING
1415

LEGENDSTUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
SW7100 ARCADE WHITE SW7635 PALISADE SW9083 DUSTED TRUFFLE SW6096 JUTE BROWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A B C D

DARK GREY
E
11 MECHANICAL VENT, TYP.1213

DOWNSPOUTCOPING
1415

ELEVATOR PENTHOUSESTAIR PENTHOUSE
16 EXT. SIGNAGE LOCATION
FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
BASEMENT B1
-11' - 0"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"
1B 7 8 9 1C
3'-4"
2'-2"
11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 9'-9" 1'-3" 72'-7"
84'-4 1/2"
CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
11 GARAGEGARAGE
96'-4 1/2"
15 FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE
(3-STORY APARTMENT BLDG)
54'-6" 86'-4 3/4" 21'-11 1/4" 9'-11 1/2"

TOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISH
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-0"
10'-0"
2"
1'-0"
11'-10"
2"
10'-0"
1'-0"
0' 20' 40'
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. 1"=20' AP3.04
OCTANE FAYETTE PLANNING ELEVATIONS - COURTYARD JANUARY 23, 2024 ELEVATION - COURTYARD EAST 2 ELEVATION - COURTYARD WEST 1

STUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

GLASS RAILING
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.

AP3.05
OCTANE FAYETTE ELEVATION DIAGRAMS JANUARY 23, 2024
NORTH ELEVATION @ FAYETTE TOWNHOMES EAST ELEVATION @ FAYETTE DR

STAGGERED BASEMIDDLETOP

MASSING TO

EMPHASIZE
CORNER

RECESSED AREAS TO BREAK UP FACADE

LARGER MASSINGS TO ANCHOR MIDDLE

HIGHER BUILDING TO EMPHASIZE CORNER

CORNICES AT TOP OF WALLS

BASEMIDDLETOP

UPGRADED

MATERIALS

AT CORNER

RECESS AT CENTRAL

COURTYARD

LARGER MASSINGS AT END OF

RESIDENTIAL WINGS

CORNICES AT TOP OF WALLS

TRANSITION

TO STUCCO
FOR NONSTREET
FACING

ELEVATION

RECESS AT END OF

BUILDING

LARGER MASSINGS AT END OF

RESIDENTIAL WINGS

STUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

AP3.06
OCTANE FAYETTE ELEVATION DIAGRAMS JANUARY 23, 2024
SOUTH ELEVATION @ HETCH HETCHY WEST ELEVATION @ DOMUS APARTMENTS

STAGGERED BASE AT CORNERMIDDLETOP

RECESSED AREA

TO BREAK UP
FACADE

CORNICES AT TOP OF WALLS

UPGRADED

MATERIALS

AT CORNER

TRANSITION

TO STUCCO
FOR NONSTREET
FACING

ELEVATION

RECESS AT END OF

BUILDING

LARGER MASSINGS TO ANCHOR MIDDLE

CORNICES AT TOP OF WALLS

FACADE STAGGERS BACK PARALLEL TO

HETCH HETCHY

MIDDLETOP

MASSING TO EMPHASIZE
CORNER

MASSING EXTENDS

OUT TO BREAK UP
FACADE

MASSING EXTENDS

OUT TO ANCHOR END

STAGGERED BASE

HIGHER BUILDING TO EMPHASIZE CORNER

STUCCO LAP SIDING BRICK VENEER BRAKE METAL
(DARK GREY)

WOOD LIKE SOFFIT METAL AND WOOD

ACCENT AWNINGS

STOREFRONT AND NANA DOORS (BLACK)

VINYL WINDOW(BLACK)

METAL RAILING(BLACK)

AP3.07
OCTANE FAYETTE AERIAL DIAGRAMS 01/23/24

EAST CORNER PERSPECTIVEWEST CORNER PERSPECTIVE

NORTH CORNER PERSPECTIVESOUTH CORNER PERSPECTIVE
FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
BASEMENT B1
-11' - 0"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"

9.0%

18.0%

9.0%
9'-9"
1'-3"
13'-0" 11'-2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 5'-6" 6'-6" B4.0 A1.0 A1.0 C1.0 C1.0 B4.1 C1.0 B4.1 C1.0 B4.1 C1.0 CLUBROOM C1.0-MTL B4.1 A1.0 B4.1 A1.0 A1.0 B4.0-MTL A1.0-MTL B4.0 B4.0 GARAGE

GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE

TYPE I-A TYPE III-A
PL PL
B4.0B4.0
IDF
FAYETTE DR.
12'-2" 5'-2"

IDFIDFIDFIDF
CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
84'-4 1/2"
10'-0" 51'-1 3/4" 10'-0"
DOMUS (4-STORY

APARTMENT BLDG)
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 6'-0"
WINDOW
+57.55' +0'-0"
+60.38' +2'-0"

TYPE III-A TYPE I-A
6'-6" 5'-6" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 1'-3"
9'-9"
PL PL
B3.0
RAMP

HETCH HETCHY
6'-0" 5'-1"
CURB
-1' - 3" (57.00')
WIN
D
O
W
+/- 4'-0" +/- 4'-0"
WINDOW
+/- 4'-0"
WINDOWFAYETTE TOWNHOUSE (3- STORY APARTMENT BLDG)
+59.72' +1'-6"
+58.7' +0'-0"
12'-0"

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
C3.0-MTL
GARAGE
GARAGE
C-3.0
B2.0B2.0
11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 9'-9" 1'-3" 84'-4 1/2"

TYPE III-A TYPE I-A

GARAGE GARAGE
PL PL
5'-1" 6'-0"

ELEVATOR
1 STAIR
1 7'-0" 5'-0"
FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE(3-STORYAPARTMENT BLDG)
WIN
D
O
W
+/- 4'-0"
WIN
D
O
W
+/- 4'-0"
WIN
D
O
W
+/- 4'-0"
+58.75' +0'-6"
+58.5' +0'-0"
12'-0"
5'-6 3/4"
17'-5"
101'-9 1/2"

HETCH HETCHY

BOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISHTOP OF FINISH FLOORTOP OF FINISH FLOORBOTTOM OF CEILING FINISH 1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-7"
10'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-0"
10'-0"
2"
1'-0"
11'-10"
2"
1'-0"
10'-0"
0' 20' 40'
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. 1"=20' AP3.22
OCTANE FAYETTE BUILDING SECTION - STAIR & ELEV. JANUARY 23, 2024 31'-6"
17'-3 1/4"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.00
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - STUDIO JANUARY 23, 2024
FLOOR 2-7
S1 - WOOD
3 5'-7 1/2" 26'-7 1/2"
26'-7 1/4"
32'-3"
15'-9 1/4" 10'-7 1/4"
26'-4 1/2"
14'-2 5/8" 9'-11 3/8" 6'-7 3/8"
30'-6 1/4" 11'-3 1/4"
41'-9 1/2"
6'-1" 23'-3 1/4" 1'-4 1/2"
30'-8 3/4"
11'-4" 10'-10 3/4" 19'-6 3/4"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.01
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 1 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7 FLOOR 2-7
A1.1 - MTL & WOOD A1.0 - MTL & WOOD
33'-8 1/2"
11'-9" 10'-2 3/4" 12'-5 3/8"
34'-5 1/8"
27'-10 1/4" 5'-8 1/2"
33'-6 3/4"
33'-6" 2'-9" 34'-0 5/8"
6'-6" 20'-5 1/2" 9'-3 1/2"
7'-0 3/4" 32'-4 1/2" 6"
39'-11 1/4"
36'-3"
31'-0 1/2" 8'-8 1/4"
39'-8 3/4"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.02
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7 FLOOR 2-7
B2.0 - MTL & WOOD B1.0 - MTL & WOOD
37'-6"
26'-2 7/8" 11'-3 1/8"
40'-4 1/2"
34'-7 1/2" 5'-9"
28'-0" 5'-8 1/2"
33'-8 1/2"
10'-5 1/4" 26'-10"
37'-3 1/4"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.03
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7 FLOOR 2-7
B4.0 - MTL & WOOD B3.0 - MTL & WOOD
5'-6" 37'-11 1/2"
43'-5 1/2"
1'-0" 31'-6"
20'-9 1/4" 11'-6"
32'-3 1/4"
32'-6"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.04
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 2 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7
B4.1 - MTL & WOOD
3 37'-4" 8'-0"
45'-4"
12'-9" 25'-6 1/4"
38'-3 1/4"
45'-3 1/4"
32'-1 1/2"
32'-0 1/8" 7'-1 3/8" 17'-4 5/8" 5'-9"
62'-3 1/8"
7" 3'-5" 17'-10" 12'-9 1/2"
34'-7 1/2"
30'-0 1/8" 32'-3"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.05
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 3 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7 FLOOR 2-7
C2.0 - MTL & WOOD C1.0 - MTL & WOOD
7'-10 7/8" 25'-7 7/8" 20'-9 3/4" 16'-10 7/8"
71'-3 3/8"
22'-10 7/8" 11'-7" 25'-8" 11'-1 1/2"
71'-3 3/8"
39'-10 1/2"
0' 4' 8' 16'
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. 1/8"=1' AP4.06
OCTANE FAYETTE UNIT PLANS - 3 BEDROOMS JANUARY 23, 2024 FLOOR 2-7
C3.0 - MTL & WOOD
FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
BASEMENT B1
-11' - 0"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"
GARAGE
B3.0-MTL
B3.0B3.0B3.0
B-3.0
2'-6"
2'-9"
11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 11'-0" B3.0 CURB -1' - 3" (57.00') 84'-4 1/2" 1'-3"
1 AP5.00
____________
0' 8' 16' 32'
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. 1/16"=1' AP5.00
OCTANE FAYETTE WALL SECTION - TYP@ HETCH HETCHY JANUARY 23, 2024

PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION WALL SECTION AT HETCH HETCHY
FLOOR 1
0' - 0" (58.25')
FLOOR 2
13' - 0"
FLOOR 3
24' - 2"
FLOOR 4
35' - 11 1/2"
FLOOR 5
47' - 9"
FLOOR 6
59' - 6 1/2"
ROOF
83' - 1 1/2"
BASEMENT B1
-11' - 0"
FLOOR 7
71' - 4"

BUILDING
LOBBY
AREA
C3.0-MTL
C3.0
C-3.0C-3.0C-3.0C-3.0
11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-9 1/2" 11'-2" 13'-0" 11'-0" GARAGE CURB -1' - 3" (57.00') 84'-4 1/2" 1'-3"
4'-4"
1 AP5.01
____________
0' 10' 21' 32'
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. 3/64"=1' AP5.01
OCTANE FAYETTE WALL SECTION - TYP@ FAYETTE JANUARY 23, 2024

PARTIAL EAST ELEVATION WALL SECTION AT FAYETTE

VINYL WINDOW
3/4" MDF SILL,

PAINTED SHIM FLAT

AND LEVEL
1/4" SEALANT JOINT
GSM SILL PAN W/END DAMS, SET INBED OF SEALANT3/8" SEALANT AND BACKER RODCASING BEADSASMWRBGYP SHEATHING PLYWD. SHEATHING

WOOD FRAMING

BRICK VENEER O/ SCRATCH ANDBROWN COAT O/ METAL LATH

WOOD FRAMING
PLYWD SHEATHINGGYP SHEATHINGWRBSASMDRIP SCREED W/WEEP HOLES (STOCKTONSSF #3)

SEALANT JOINT
J-BEAD & 1/4"

SEALANT JOINT

WRAP GWB

INTO HEAD
VINYL WINDOWBRICK VENEER O/ SCRATCH ANDBROWN COAT O/ METAL LATHGSM HEAD FLASHING W/ HEMMED EDGE SET IN SEALANT PTD. TO MATCH WINDOW 6"

VINYL WINDOW
3/4" MDF SILL,

PAINTED SHIM FLAT

AND LEVEL
1/4" SEALANT JOINTGSM SILL PAN W/END DAMS, SET INBED OF SEALANT3/8" SEALANT JOINTCASING BEADSASMCEM. PLAS. FINISHWRBGYP SHEATHING PLYWD. SHEATHING

WOOD FRAMING

WOOD FRAMING
PLYWD SHEATHINGGYP SHEATHINGWRBSASMCEM. PLAS. FINISHPLASTER SCREEDFLASHING W/ WEEPHOLES (STOCKTONSSF #3), SET INSEALANTSEALANT JOINTJ-BEAD & 1/4"SEALANT JOINT

WRAP GWB

VINYL WINDOW INTO HEAD
0' 3" 6" 9" 1'
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. 3"=1' AP5.02
OCTANE FAYETTE WINDOW DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024
VINYL WINDOW @ CEMENT PLASTER VINYL WINDOW, WOOD FRAMING @ BRICK VENEER

VINYL WINDOW
3/4" MDF SILL,

PAINTED SHIM FLAT

AND LEVEL
1/4" SEALANT JOINT
GSM SILL PAN W/END DAMS, SET INBED OF SEALANT3/8" SEALANT JOINTFIBER CEMENT TRIMSASMSEALANT JOINTLAP SIDINGWRB

PLYWOOD SHEATHING WALL ASSEMBLY SEE PLAN FOR TYPE
WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPEWRBFIBER CEM. LAP SIDINGGSM HEAD FLASHING W/ HEMMED EDGE FULLY EMBEDDED IN SEALANT O/ TRIM

FIBER CEMENT TRIM SASM

GSM HEADFLASHING, SET INSEALANT PAINTED TO MATCH WINDOW SEALANT AND BACKER RODSEALANT JOINT

WRAP GWB

VINYL WINDOW INTO HEAD

FIRE-RETARDANT WOOD

STARTER SHIM
EXPANSION JOINT FILLERW/ JOINT SEALANT ON TOPBELOW GRADEWATERPROOFINGSIDEWALK SLOPE AT 1%AWAY FROM BUILDING,MINIMUM GSM SILL PAN W.

BACK DAM AND

END DAMS O/

SEALANT BED

BACKER ROD & SEALANTALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAMEWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE

SEE STOREFRONT

SCHEDULE FOR

OFFSET/CENTER

GLAZING

LOCATIONS
1"
20°

AIRTIGHT FULL BEAD

OF SEALANT

BETWEEN WINDOW

FRAME TO BACK DAM

OF SILL PAN LEG
1" MDF WINDOW SILL,

PTD PER FINISH

SCHEDULE

CAST STONE, SCRIBED AT BOTTOM AT SIDEWALKCEMENT PLASTER MOTAR BED 6" MIN.
6 1/4"

GSM HEAD FLASHING, SET IN SEALANTWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPECEMENT PLASTER

RIGID FOAM

INSULATION, SEE TITLE
24 FOR THICKNESS DRAINAGE MAT

J-SCREEDSEE STOREFRONT SCHEDULE FOROFFSET/CENTER GLAZINGLOCATIONSALUMINUM STOREFRONTFRAMEPENETRATION WRAP

SHIM AS REQUIRED

SASM OVER GSM FLASHING BLOCKING AS REQUIREDWRB
0' 3" 6" 9" 1'
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. 3"=1' AP5.03
OCTANE FAYETTE WINDOW DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024

STOREFRONT WINDOW - BRICK VENEER VINYL WINDOW - LAP SIDING

VINYL WINDOW
3/4" MDF SILL,

PAINTED SHIM FLAT

AND LEVEL
1/4" SEALANT JOINT
WRAP GWB ONTO SILLGSM SILL PAN W/END DAMS, SET INBED OF SEALANT3/8" SEALANTJOINTJ-CAULKING BEADCORNER BEADSASMWRBCEM. PLAS. FINISHGYP SHEATHINGPLYWD SHEATHING WOOD FRAMING 1 3

WOOD FRAMING

PLYWD SHEATHING GYP SHEATHING
WRBSASMCEM. PLAS. FINISHDRIP BEADJ-CAULKING BEADGSM HEAD FLASHING, SET IN SEALANTSEALANT JOINT J-BEAD & 1/4"

SEALANT JOINT

WRAP GWB

INTO HEAD VINYL WINDOW

VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOW
3/4" MDF WINDOW

SILL, PAINTED OR AS

SPECIFIED IN

INTERIOR DRAWINGS -

GC TO BLOCK SILL

WITHOUT ANY

BENDING AT SILL
1/4" SEALANT JOINT

GSM SILL PAN W/ END

DAMS, SET IN BED OF

SEALANT
3/8" SEALANTAND BACKER RODJ MOLDINGWRB, SEE BE DRWGS GYP SHEATHING PLYWD SHEATHING

WOOD FRAMING
1 3
CORNER BEADBRICK VENEER O/ SCRATCH AND BROWN COAT O/ METAL LATH WITH 90 DEGREE OUTSIDE CORNERWALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPEDO NOT SEAL BACK OF WINDOW FIN @ SILL - PROVIDE SHIM BEHIND WINDOW FIN 1 1/2"

WOOD FRAMING

PLYWD SHEATHING

GYP SHEATHING
WRB, SEE BE DRWGSBRICK VENEER O/ SCRATCH AND BROWN COAT O/ METAL LATHSTOCKTON #5 DRIP EDGE 3/8" SELANT AND BACKER ROD
GSM HEAD FLASHING W/ HEMMED EDGE SET IN SEALANT PTD. TO MATCH WINDOW J-BEAD & 1/4" SEALANT JOINT

VINYL NAIL FIN WINDOWLEAVE JOINT OPENWALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPEFULLY EMBED WINDOW NAIL FIN IN SEALANT OVER PENETRATION FLASHING 3/8"
0' 3" 6" 9" 1'
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. 3"=1' AP5.04
OCTANE FAYETTE WINDOW DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024
RECESSED VINYL WINDOW @ BRICK VENEER RECESSED VINYL WINDOW @ CEMENT PLASTER WRB, SEE B.E.

DRAWINGS

PLASTER, SEE ELEVATIONS

DRAINAGE PLANE

PLASTER J-SCREED

PLASTER, SEE ELEVATIONS SEALANT AND BACKER ROD

WD FRAMING,BLOCKING AS REQ'D AT CONTROL JOINTS
PLASTERWALL ASSEMBLY, SEEPLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSTHIN BRICK VENEERDRAINAGE PLANE

SEALANT JOINT & BACKER RODZ-GIRT, VERTICALPLASTER J-SCREED GROUT
PLYWOOD FURWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSRAINSCREEN PANEL, SEE ELEVATIONS FOR LOCATION PLASTERWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSTHIN BRICK VENEERDRAINAGE PLANE

SEALANT JOINT & BACKER RODPLASTER J-SCREEDPLASTER
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.

AP5.05
OCTANE FAYETTE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT - PLASTER TO PLASTER 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT - BRICK VENEER TO BRICK VENEER 2
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT DETAIL - RAINSCREEN PANEL 3
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT - BRICK VENEER TO PLASTER 4

VENT STRIP
WALL ASSEMBLY, SEEPLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSWD FRAMING, PLYWOOD FURRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FOR LOCATIONS

BLOCKING AS REQ'D

VENT STRIP
WALL ASSEMBLY, SEEPLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSPLYWOOD FURRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FOR LOCATIONS

BRICK VENEERPLASTERPLASTER J-SCREED
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.

AP5.06
OCTANE FAYETTE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT - RAINSCREEN TO PLASTER. 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
VERTICAL JOINT - RAINSCREEN TO BRICK VENEER 2
WRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGS
WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEDRAINAGE PLANEPLASTERPLASTER J-SCREEDSEALANT AND BACKER RODWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSDRAINAGE PLANEPLASTERBLOCKING AS REQ'D

WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE

PLASTER
WRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGS

DRAINAGE
PLANE

GSM FLASHINGPLASTER J-SCREEDPLASTERTHIN BRICK VENEERTHIN BRICK VENEERGROUTPLASTER J-SCREEDBLOCKING AS REQ'D WRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FORLOCATIONSWALL ASSEMBLY, SEEPLAN FOR TYPEPLYWOOD FURRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FORLOCATIONS

WALL ASSEMBLY,SEE PLAN FOR TYPEPLASTER J-SCREED
WRB, SEE B.E.

DRAWINGS

PLASTERWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEDRAINAGE PLANE
WRB, SEE B.E.

DRAWINGS

DRAINAGE PLANE

PLASTERPLASTER J-SCREEDTHIN BRICK VENEERGSM HEAD FLASHING

SEALANT AND

BACKER ROD
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.

AP5.07
OCTANE FAYETTE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - PLASTER TO PLASTER 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - BRICK VENEER TO BRICK VENEER 2
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - RAINSCREEN TO RAINSCREEN 3
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - PLASTER TO BRICK VENEER 4

WALL ASSEMBLY,
SEE PLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FORLOCATIONS PLYWOOD FURWALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPE

VENT SPACE

PLASTERDRAINAGE PLANEPLASTER J-SCREEDGSM FLASHING
WRB, SEE B.E.

DRAWINGS

BLOCKING

AS REQ'D
WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEWRB, SEE B.E. DRAWINGSRAINSCREEN PANEL,SEE ELEVATIONS FORLOCATIONS PLYWOOD FUR

WALL ASSEMBLY, SEE PLAN FOR TYPEVENT SPACEPLASTER

DRAINAGE
PLANE

PLASTER J-SCREEDGSM FLASHINGTHIN BRICK VENEER
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.

AP5.08
OCTANE FAYETTE MATERIAL TRANSITIONS DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - PLASTER TO RAINSCREEN PANEL 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
HORIZONTAL JOINT - BRICK VENEER TO RAINSCREEN PANEL 2
5'-0" 2 1/2"
17'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ 8'-0" 4" 8'-0"
B.

A.
5'-0"
2 1/2"
17'-0"

EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ
8'-0"
4"
8'-0"
4"
4'-4"
4" 4"
6'-0"
4"
6'-0"
4"

EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ
13'-0"
2 1/2"
13'-0"
2 1/2"
5'-0"
4"
6'-0"
4"
6'-0"
4"

EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ EQ
2 1/2"
2'-8"
A.

B.
31'-5"
2 1/2" SEE PLAN
4X12 STEEL TUBE, PTDKNIFE PLATESTEEL TUBE, S.S.D.
4X12 STEEL TUBE, PTD
1'-0"
4X12 STEEL TUBE, PTD2X9 STEEL TUBE, PTD

SEE PLAN
1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
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.

AP5.09
OCTANE FAYETTE AWNING DETAILS @ BUILDING CORNER JANUARY 23, 2024 1/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ 7TH FLOOR UNITS 2
1/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ 7TH FLOOR STREET CORNER 1
3/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING SECTION A 3
3/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING SECTION B 4

GUTTER, SLOPE TO
DOWNSPOUT ON THE SIDEDOWNSPOUTEDGE OF CONCRETE DECKSTEEL TUBE, S.S.D.METAL PANEL, SLOPE TO GUTTERMETAL PANEL FASCIA

GUTTER, SLOPE TO DOWNSPOUT ON THE SIDEDOWNSPOUT
3/8'' / FT

SLOEP TO
GUTTER
27'-9 1/2"
26'-2"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
4'-2" 10"
6" 8"
5" 5"
2 1/2"

STEEL TUBE, SSDMETAL PANEL, SLOPE TO DRAIN

FIBER CEMENT BOARD O/ HAT CHANNEL

METAL PANEL FASCIA
KINFE PLATESTEEL TUBE, S.S.D.STEEL TUBE, S.S.D.
3/8'' / FT SLOPE TO GUTTER
2'-0"
3'-2 1/2"
FACE OF WALLSTRUCTURE BLOCKING, S.S.D.AL BRACKET & BOLT ASSEMBLY, MECHANICALLY FASTENED TO WALL, PTD1'' DIA MIN TIE ROD. PTD. CONNECTED TO WALL BRACKET & AWNING FRAME, S.S.D.1 1 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.

AP5.10
OCTANE FAYETTE AWNING DETAILS @ LOBBY ENTRANCE JANUARY 23, 2024 1/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ LOBBY - PLAN 1
3/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ LOBBY - SECTION 2
2 1/2"
1'-6"
EQ EQ
6'-0"
2 1/2"
1'-6"
4X8 STEEL TUBE, PTDKNIFE PLATESTEEL TUBE, S.S.D.
4X6 STEEL TUBE, PTD

STEEL TUBE, PTD
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.

AP5.11
OCTANE FAYETTE AWNING DETAILS @ DOMUS WINDOWS JANUARY 23, 2024 3/4" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ DOMUS WINDOWS 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
AWNING @ DOMUS WINDOWS - SECTION 2
4'-0" 4'-0"
3'-7"
T.O.FINISH
B.O.DECK
1"2" 2'-4" 2" 3" 2"
3'-7"
MAX 4''
T.O.CURB
2X4 TUBE STL TOPRAIL, HDG & PTD,WELD TO POSTS2X2 STL POST,HDG & PTD,MECHANICALLYFASTEN TO KNIFEPLATES AT WALL2X2 TUBE STL RAIL,HDG & PTD, WELD TOPOSTS2X2 TUBE STL RAIL,HDG & PTD, WELD TOPOSTS1X1 TUBE STL ,HGD & PTD, WELD TOPICKETS AND RAILS 3 AP5.12
____________
2X4 TUBE STL TOP

RAIL, HDG & PTD,

WELD TO POSTS
2X2 STL POST,

HDG & PTD,

MECHANICALLY

FASTEN TO KNIFE

PLATES AT WALL
2X2 TUBE STL RAIL,

HDG & PTD, WELD TO
POSTS
2X2 TUBE STL RAIL,

HDG & PTD, WELD TO
POSTS
1X1 TUBE STL ,

HGD & PTD, WELD TO

PICKETS AND RAILS
1" 2" 2'-4" 2" 3" 2"
43'' AFF

GSM COPING
T.O.FINISH
4"
4"
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.

AP5.12
OCTANE FAYETTE METAL GUARDRAIL DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 3/4" = 1'-0"
METAL GUARDRAIL - ELEVATION 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
SECTION - METAL GUARDRAIL 3
4'-0" 4'-0"
A
F
F
3'-7"
T.O.FINISH
B.O.DECK
6" 2" 2'-9" 2"
3'-7"
T.O.CURB
3 AP5.13
____________
2X2 TUBE STL TOPRAIL, HDG & PTD,WELD TO POSTS1.5X1.5 STL POST, HDG & PTD,MECHANICALLY FASTEN TO KNIFE PLATES AT WALL3/4'' TEMPERED GLASS PANELGLASS CLAMP, MECHANICALLY FASTEN TO POST2X2 TUBE STL BOTTOMRAIL, HDG & PTD,WELD TO POSTS NOTE: GLASS GUARDRAIL SHALL COMPLYWITH CBC 2407, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITEDTO THESE REQUIREMENTS:1. GLAZING SHALL BE TEMPERED2. IT SHALL BE 1/4" THK MIN.3. IT SHALL HAVE PASSED CPSC 16 CFR1201 OR ANSI Z97.14. IT MUST WITHSTAND LOADS SPECIFIED INCBC 1607.7 WITH A SAFETY FACTOR OF 42X2 TUBE STL TOPRAIL, HDG & PTD,WELD TO POSTS1.5X1.5 STL POST, HDG & PTD,MECHANICALLY FASTEN TO KNIFE PLATES AT WALL3/4'' TEMPERED GLASS PANELGLASS CLAMP, MECHANICALLY FASTEN TO POST2X2 TUBE STL BOTTOMRAIL, HDG & PTD,WELD TO POSTS 3'-1"
3'-7"
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.

AP5.13
OCTANE FAYETTE GLASS GUARDRAIL DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024 3/4" = 1'-0"
GLASS GUARDRAIL - ELEVATION 1
1 1/2" = 1'-0"
GLASS GUARDRAIL - SECTION 3
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.

AP5.14
OCTANE FAYETTE PV PANEL DETAIL JANUARY 23, 2024

DETAILS ARE TYPICAL, PV PANELS ARE A DEFERRED PERMIT SUBMITAL 6'-0" TYP.

TYP.
1'-6" MIN.
6'-0" TYP.

BY CONDENSER UNIT TYPE

TRANSVERSE BEAM SPACING VARIES
LONGITUDINAL BEAM, TYP.CONDENSER UNIT, TYP.TRANSVERSE BEAM, TYP.ROOF RIDGE, WHERE OCCURS SEE PLANSPIPE POST, TYP. 6'-0" CL TO CL
1'-6" MIN.

CONDENSER UNIT, SEE MECH DWGS.TRANSVERSE BEAMROOF SHEATING & ROOF ASSEMBLY, S.S.D.

CL CL
4'-0" TYP 1'-6" TYP
5'-6" TYP
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.

AP5.15
OCTANE FAYETTE MECHANICAL UNITS JANUARY 23, 2024
3/8" = 1'-0"
TYP. PLAN - ROOFTOP MECHANICAL RACKS 1
1" = 1'-0"
CONDENSER UNIT - 2 - UNIT WIDE RACK 2

DETAILS ARE TYPICAL, MECHANICAL ROOFTOP UNITS ARE A DEFERRED PERMIT SUBMITAL 1'-10"
5"
3"
DRIPTREATED2 X 6FIBER CEM.BOARD LAPSIDING5/8" DENS GLS.

SEALANTJOINTS
MEMBRANE FLSHNG.

UNDERNEATH COPING
LAPPED OVER TOP OF WRB.

PRECASTCOPING
DRIP
MORTAR

LEVELING BED

PRECAST VENEER
TREATED 2X8'S

PLYWOOD
PER STRT. DWG.

THIN BRICK VENEER
WRB
2 LAYERS DENS. GLS.

CEMENT PLST.
9"
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.

AP5.16
OCTANE FAYETTE CORNICE DETAIL JANUARY 23, 2024
3" = 1'-0"

CORNICE DETAIL

FRAMING - HEAD

STUCCO W/ MTL LATH

FRAMING - SILL
WRB O/ 9" WIDE SASM
WRB

SET NAIL FLANGE IN

CONTINUOUS BED OF

SEALANT TOP AND SIDES

WATERTIGHT SOLDERED
VENT
DRAINAGE SLOT @ HEAD

OF FRAME
12" WIDE SASM. WRAPALL AROUND OPENINGAND EXTEND UP WALLSASM 9" DOWN WALL ANDWRAP ALL AROUND OPENING 9" MIN. WIDE SASM O/

NAIL FIN AND UP WALL

A - HEAD AND SILL
9"

SAF O/ WRB
1 LAYER OF

BUILDING PAPER AS

BOND BREAKER
1/2"

FRAMING - HEAD

FRAMING - SILL
WRB O/ 9" WIDE SASM
WRB

SET NAIL FLANGE IN

CONTINUOUS BED OF

SEALANT TOP AND SIDES

WATERTIGHT SOLDERED
VENT
DRAINAGE SLOT @ HEAD
OF FRAME 12" WIDE SASM. WRAP
ALL AROUND OPENINGAND EXTEND UP WALLSASM 9" DOWN WALL ANDWRAP ALL AROUND OPENING 9" MIN. WIDE SASM O/

NAIL FIN AND UP WALL

A - HEAD AND SILL
9"

BRICK O/ SCRATCH
& BROWN COAT O/

MTL LATH

SAF O/ WRB
1 LAYER OF

BUILDING PAPER AS

BOND BREAKER
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.

AP5.17
OCTANE FAYETTE VENT DETAILS JANUARY 23, 2024
3" = 1'-0"
PIPE/VENT PENETRATION THRU WALL - STUCCO 1
3" = 1'-0"
PIPE/VENT PENETRATION THRU WALL - BRICK 2
January 23, 2024 Existing metal picket fence along Fayette Park boundary January 23, 2024
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 January 23, 2024 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 Proposed 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 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 HET 5 gallon Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon 48" o.c. L POL 5 gallon Polygala fruticosa 'Petite Butterfly' Sweet Pea Shrub 24" o.c.M SAF 5 gallon Salvia spathacea Hummingbird 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 glaucus Seaside daisy 24" o.c. L CLI 1 gallon Clinopodium douglasii Yerba Buena 36" o.c. L OSD Oscularia deltoides Deltoid-leaved Dewplant 12" o.c. L OXZ Oxalis vulcanicola 'Zinfandel' Volcanic Sorrel 18" 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 MRI 5 gallon Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass 42" 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 Yes Yes VC 5 gallon Vitis californica California Grape Per Plan L Yes MDU 1 gallon Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly 24" o.c. L Yes CEA 5 gallon Ceanothus thyrsiflorus var. griseus Carmel Ceanothus 6' o.c. L Yes Yes Yes FRE 5 gallon Fremontodendron californicum Flannel Bush 8' o.c. L IRI 5 gallon Iris douglasiana Douglas Iris 36" o.c. L Yes AUU 5 gallon Arctostaphylos uva-ursi Kinnikinnick 5' o.c. L Yes FRA 1 gallon Fragaria chiloensis Beach Strawberry 18" o.c. L Yes STI 1 gallon Stipa pulchra Purple Needlegrass 18" o.c. L Yes FES 1 gallon Festuca idahoensis Idaho Fescue 18" o.c. L Yes CHE 5 gallon Ceanothus hearstiorum Hearst's Ceanothus 48" o.c. L Yes 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 DETAILS October 05, 2023 L-2.01 2x Container Width 6"
6'-6"
6"
Container
Depth Plus
One Foot Tree Staking Diagram NTS NOTES: · Trees in lawn shall not have sod or seed placed over the rootball. · Hold all mulch 6" (six inches) from trunk of tree where mulch is applied over rootball. Cut Stakes So That Stake Does Not Intrude Into Tree Canopy 2" Untreated Lodge Pole Pine Stake - 2 per tree "Gro-Strait" Rubber and Wire Tree Tie or Approved Equal. Provide two (2) Per Tree 4" Ø perforated PVC aeration tube wrapped in filter fabric. 3' deep with black slotted cap. Cap available through NDS, 800.726.1994 3" high watering basin. Ground-cover areas only Finished Grade (Top of Mulch) Rootball with Nursery Container Removed. Top of Rootball to be 1-1/2" Above Finished Grade Plant fertilizer tablets installed per manufacturer's instructions and specifications Backfill Mix - See Planting Notes Water-Settled Native Soil 6" Container Depth
+ 12" 2x Container Width
6"
typ Shrub Planting Detail NTS Plant Crown 1" Above Grade for 5 Gal Shrubs and 2" Above Grade for 15 Gal or Larger Shrubs for Settlement 3" layer of bark mulch, 6" clear of stem 2" High Watering Basin at Groundcover Areas Only Finish grade (top of mulch) Rootball Centered in Pit. Plant Fertilizer Tablets Installed Per Manufacturer's Instructions And The Specifications Backfill Mix - See Planting Notes Water-Settled Native Soil, Prior to Installing Plant 72" O.C. 48" O.C. 36" O.C. 30" O.C. 24" O.C. Plant Key (See Plant List) Quantity (or See Spacing Comments) PLANT CALLOUT SYMBOL 62.35" 40.00" 30.00" 26.00" 20.80" 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.18 0.29 18" O.C. 15" O.C. 12" O.C. 10" O.C. 9" O.C. 8" O.C. 6" O.C. SPACING 'A' PLANT QUANTITY DIAGRAM PLANT SPACING DIAGRAM A
A
A PLANTS PER SQUARE FOOT 15.60" 13.00" 10.40" 8.66" 7.79" 6.93" SPACING 'B' 5.20" 0.51 0.74 1.15 1.66 1.78 2.60 4.60 SPACING 'C' 2.60" 3.47" 3.90" 4.33" 5.20" 6.50" 7.80" 10.40" 13.00" 15.00" 20.00" 31.18" C* B Adjacent Curb, Sidewalk, Planting Bed, or Wall, where occurs. Plant Location Diagram for use when plants are spaced equidistant from each other, including all groundcover plantings and massed shrub plantings. * Where curb, sidewalk, adjacent planting bed or wall condition occurs, utilize spacing 'C' to determine plant distance from wall, sidewalk, adjacent planting bed or back of curb, where C = B/2. See Plant Spacing Diagram for maximum triangular spacing 'A'. This chart is to be used to determine number of ground cover required in a given area and spacing between shrub massings. Where shrub massings are shown, calculate shrub mass areas before utilizing spacing chart to determine plant quantities. January 23, 2024 NO
PARKING 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. January 23, 2024 0' 10' 20' 30' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 1"=20' SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN - SITE L-2.1 FAYETTE PARK

MV DOMUS

APARTMENTS PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
FAYETTE DR. 7 CER OCC 24" BOX MULTI 5 ACE RUB 36" BOX STD - POL 1 AGA Per Pot (3) - EEG - LOM-EK- MDU - BOG 6HV - LOM2FRE - EEG-EK - 50% SAF 50% 6 OSD - 50% SES 50% - SES 50% 50% 1 COP Per Pot (5) 4 ECP Mitigation tree 2PIT 2PIT 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. January 23, 2024 0' 10' 20' 30' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 1"=20' L-2.2 SCHEMATIC PLANTING PLAN - PODIUM 4 LAG IND 24" BOX STD 2 ACE JAP 36" BOX MULTI 4 PRU SAR 24" BOX STD 4 PRU SAR 24" BOX STD 1 LAU SAR 24" BOX STD - RTB
- LOM
- RTB- LOM
1 GRE
- ACC
1 COR Per Pot (7)
3 EEG3 CUR
1 4 CTS CLI 1 COR
3 EEG3 Per Pot (7) CUR
4 FAV
- MAQ
5 BAM
- ACC
- ECP 24PIT
- ACC
- ANI Per Pot (9)
1 GRE
2 GRE Mitigation tree Mitigation tree Mitigation tree Mitigation tree 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 IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS 1. Planting Areas and Method of Irrigation 2. Irrigation Equipment The contractor shall include in their bid a proposal to install individual landscape irrigation systems for the street frontage. All proposals shall meet the requirements of the outline specifications below: a. Lawn Areas - Lawn areas shall be irrigated with small turf spray sprinklers having a radius capacity of 12' to 15' and a 4" pop-up height. (Rainbird 1800 series.) b. Shrub Areas - Shrub areas shall be irrigated with drip emitters (one per shrub, two per tree). a. Point of Connection: A gate valve shall be provided under work of another section. Irrigation demand is not to exceed sixty (60) gallons per minute. Required pressure is 60 P.S.I. or more. b. Remote Control Valves: An electrically activated solenoid control valve shall control each circuit of sprinklers. Size will vary according to gpm demand of circuit. Sizes to be 3/4" through 2". Valves shall be Rainbird ECV series, anti-siphon valves Valve shall be housed in a plastic valve box set flush with grade. Pea gravel shall be installed below valve, 6" deep. Four bricks shall support the plastic valve box at the base of the box, below grade. Solenoid control wire shall be spliced using epoxy-filled waterproof splice packs. c. Controller and Wire: A solid-state controller shall control the operation of the irrigation system. The controller shall be 'Hydro Rain HR 600.' be mounted outdoors on the garage wall. The housing shall be weatherproof. Each controller station will require an underground AWG-UF 14-1 control wire to the valve location. A common wire AWG-UF 12-1 shall be connected to all valves related to a single controller. d. Pipe and Fittings i. Main line (constant pressure): 2" and smaller pipe shall be plastic PVC 1120 Schedule 40 with plastic PVC Schedule 40 solvent weld fittings, buried 18" deep. ii. Lateral lines (non-constant pressure) to sprinklers: Pipe shall be plastic PVC 1120-200 PSI with plastic Schedule 40 solvent weld fittings, buried 12" deep. e. Sleeving: All pipe under paving shall be housed in a PVC plastic pipe sleeve. Sleeving material shall be 1120-200 P.S.I. PVC plastic pipe of size adequate to accommodate necessary pipes and wiring. Sleeves shall extend beyond walk, curb, or edge of paving. Sleeves shall be installed by concrete subcontractor. f. Wye Strainer: Wye strainer shall be of plastic construction with 150 mesh PVC screen. Strainer shall be placed in a valve box below grade and connected into the lateral line downstream of the drip irrigation remote control valves. g. Trim all spray heads to eliminate overspray onto walks and building. This performance specification is intended as a brief description of the methods of irrigation to be applied to this project. This specification is not intended as a construction document. IRRIGATION NOTES 1. All planting areas are to be irrigated with an approved automatic underground irrigation system, utilizing a dedicated irrigation water meter, backflow devices, point source irrigation emitters, in accordance with the City of Mountain View Landscape Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist. Potable irrigation water will be delivered by drip irrigation devices. The system shall be designed to make efficient use of water through conservation techniques, and be in compliance with resolution 6261, as required by the State of California. 2. An application and detailed landscape irrigation plan will be submitted with the building permit submittal package. All planting and irrigation will be in compliance with the city's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 3. Irrigation Controllers shall use weather sensing technology to automatically adjust the irrigation system operation in response to real-time landscape planting demands and daily changes in weather conditions. 4. Irrigation Valves shall be aligned with planting types, sun exposure and soil conditions to allow for efficient use of irrigation water in accordance with plant material irrigation requirements, as reflected in the Hydrozone requirements. 5. Landscape Trees, Shrubs, Groundcovers have been selected to include Native California Plants, and Mediterranean Climate drought tolerant plant species for the project. 6. Landscape and Irrigation Plans, with a Project Compliance Checklist, will be submitted with the Building Permit Application, which will document the landscape and planting design specifications in compliance with the City Ordinances. 7. The final construction documents will provide the contractor with an understanding of the design intent for the maintenance of the planting areas regarding care and pruning of the site. The maintenance contractor shall furnish all labor, equipments, materials and supervision required to properly maintain the landscaped areas in an attractive condition and as described in the project maintenance specifications. 8. Irrigation system shall be designed to avoid overspray and runoff. 9. Each irrigation valve waters only one type of hydrozone. 10. Irrigation system shall be designed in accordance with local water efficient landscape ordinance. 11. Dedicated irrigation system water meter shall connect to a looped irrigation system supplyline. 12. Low precipitation rate irrigation spray heads shall be used wherever planting material and water efficient landscape ordinance will allow. 13. High efficiency drip irrigation shall be used wherever practicle within groundcover and shrub areas. 14. Dedicated irrigation zones for trees shall be designed with bubbler irrigation. 15. Valve box locations shall be in groundcover areas wherever possible. IRRIGATION NOTES AND LEGEND L-3.00 January 23, 2024 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. WATER BUDGET October 05, 2023 L-3.01 January 23, 2024 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' HYDROZONE PLAN L-3.1 FAYETTE PARK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
FAYETTE DR. KEY Low Water Use Medium Water Use High Water Use Special Landscape Area Very Low Water Use HYDROZONE LEGEND WUCOLS Category 2,722 SF 722 SF 0 SF 0 SF AREA (sf) Total Landscape Area 3,644 SF 200 SF SITE + PODIUM January 23, 2024 21 Morus alba 12 Washingtonia robusta 11 Quercus agrifolia 15 Morus alba 14 Morus alba 19 Morus alba 18 Morus alba 20 Morus alba 23 Morus alba 16 Morus alba 17 Morus alba 13 Morus alba 24 Phoenix canariensis 6 Phoenix canariensis7 Sequoia sempervirens 1 Pseudotsuga menziesii 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 REMOVEDJanuary 23, 2024 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. TREE SURVEY DATA January 23, 2024 L-4.2 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. TREE SURVEY DATA January 23, 2024 L-4.3 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 CANOPY STUDY L-5.1 TREE CANOPY TABLE AND LEGEND CATEGORY AREA (SF) % SITE SITE AREA 29,046 CANOPY AT EXISTING TO REMOVE 5,104 17.6% CANOPY AT EXISTING TO REMAIN 0 0.0% CANOPY AT PLANTING 301 1.0% CANOPY AT 5 YEARS 1,408 4.8% CANOPY AT 10 YEARS 3,053 10.5% CANOPY AT FULL GROWTH 4,507 15.5% 100% CANOPY AT PLANTING CANOPY AT 5 YEARS CANOPY AT 10 YEARS CANOPY AT 30 YEARS (FULL GROWTH) EXISTING TREE CANOPY PROPERTY LINE TREE CANOPY OF EXISTING SITE TREE CANOPY AT PLANTING TREE CANOPY AFTER 5-10 YEARS' GROWTH TREE CANOPY AT FULL GROWTH 1"=40' 20' 40' 60' January 23, 2024 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 Laurus nobilis (Saratoga Laurel) Prunus sargentii 'Columnus' (Columnar Sargent Cherry Acer rubrum (Red Maple) Acer palmatum (Japanese Maple) Spa Wall BBQ Island and Community Table Planter Pots Good Neighbor Fence Hospitality Seating Raised Planter Wave Bench Serrated Planting Edge Bike Racks Entry Fountain Glass Fence Pool Bamboo Deck Accent Wall Decorative Cobble Walkway Pavers Pool Deck Pavers Striped Accent Paving L-6.1 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY Cercis occidentalis (Western Redbud) Lagerstroemia indica (Crape Myrtle) Entry Fountain In-ground Lighting Accent Wall January 23, 2024 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. COLOR AND FINISH SCHEDULE October 05, 2023 L-7.00 Color and Finish Schedule - Site GRAPHIC TYPE SPEC DIMENSIONS COLOR / FINISH SUBMITTAL Concrete Paving - Pedestrian and Vehicular City Standard Sidewalk MANUFACTURER Decorative Gravel La Paz cobble Lyngso Garden Materials, 650.364.1730 1/2"-1" dia. IMAGE SHOP DRAWINGS Color: Natural Gray Finish: Medium Broom Finish Required Required NOTES / QUANTITY La Paz, Gray Dimensions per plan Section per details Vehicular paving sections per Civil Engineer, S.C.D. Striped Stone Paving All Natural Stone, 408.544.9600 Natural Granite Pavers 12"x24" nominal 20mm thick Color: White Required Finish: Thermal Pattern: Running bond Natural Granite Pavers Required Natural Granite Pavers Required Pedestal System Bison Innovative Products, Contact: Bison Versadjust System Pedestal Height: Install per Required manufacturer spec's. Refer to details. Pedestal FiberGrate Mesh Grate As needed Grainger Install where noted, per Required manufacturer spec's. Refer to details. Fiberglass Grate For on-structure conditions, install on fiberglass grate and pedestals, (6) per tile. Refer to Layout Plans for pattern layout. Required Required Required Required Required Planter Pots Atelier Vierkant, 877.796.0647, [email protected] Qty: Allow time for manufacture and delivery Required Bike Rack SCBR 1600-DB Embedded mount Finish: Black Finetex, fine textured Required Bench Ohio Bench, Custom Per details Required Qty: Wood: Western Red Cedar Sealant: Clear, per details Mark Richey Woodworking. Contact Pam Fullerton 978.499.3800. Maglin Site Furniture 800.716.5506. Required RZ-60 Color: Gray Texture: T14 20.9" square, 23.6" height 88 lbs (not incl. soil weight) 1 Fences and Gates Perimeter Required Required Fence 7' tall max. - Refer to Grading Plans Western Red Cedar with clear sealant Wave Bench Trash Receptacle Monsoon Bin - LB8 Slots 20 1/4" dia. x 38 3/4"H Color: Powdercoat Required Color TBD Spruce & Gander, Contact: Required Suzanne Anderson, Water Feature Black Anodized Aluminum 1/4" thick Required Required Metal Basin Decorative Cobble La Paz cobble Lyngso Garden Materials, 650.364.1730 1/2"-1" dia. La Paz, Gray Required Fountain Required System Submersible pump, overflow drain, and auto-fill aparatus Roman Fountains 12"x24" nominal 20mm thick 12"x24" nominal 20mm thick Color: Salt & Pepper Finish: Thermal Pattern: Running bond Color: Black Finish: Thermal Pattern: Running bond Qty: Allow time for manufacture and delivery Qty: PAVING SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION FURNITURE WALLS / FENCES / RAILINGS Walls 123 KEY Wood slat fence Decorative Concrete DAVIS Colors, 800.800.6856 Color: Pewter 860 Finish: Topcast #05 Dimensions per plan Required Section per details Cast in Place concrete wall Perimeter S.C.D. for height Required Wall Stone Required Slab Natural Granite Stone Forest www.stoneforest.com 3'x3'x3' slab Black, Thermal12 DAVIS Colors, 800.800.6856 Color: Pebble 641 Finish: Smooth Provide 1/2" chamfer, 45° at corners Color and Finish Schedule - Podium GRAPHIC TYPE SPEC DIMENSIONS COLOR / FINISH SUBMITTAL Concrete Paving Precast Unit Pavers MANUFACTURER Acker-stone Contact: Mike Cook, 951.674.0047 Decorative Gravel La Paz cobble Lyngso Garden Materials, 650.364.1730 1/2"-1" dia. IMAGE SHOP DRAWINGS 12x24" Precast Paver 11-3/4" x 23-3/4" Pedestrian: 60mm Required Required NOTES / QUANTITY La Paz, Gray Color: Pewter Pattern: Running bond Barbeque Island Grill Required Counter Chromica by Dekton Dekton, Contact: Consentino Required Required San Francisco, 415.355.9639 Industrial Collection - Portum 3 cm thick to 3" at Eased edges edges Required Required Porcelain Pavers Porcelain Tile - CM2 Pietre Naturali High-Tech 24"x24" nominal 20mm thick Install on fiberglass Required grate and pedestals, refer below. (4) pedestals per tile. Color: Pietra Piasentina Pattern: Stacked bond Striped Stone Paving All Natural Stone, 408.544.9600 Natural Granite Pavers 12"x24" nominal 20mm thick Color: White Required Finish: Thermal Pattern: Running bond Natural Granite Pavers Required Bamboo Decking Bison Innovative Products, Contact: Bison Bamboo Tiles 24"x24" nominal Install on pedestals, Required refer below. (4) pedestals per tile. Type: Bamboo Finish: Smooth Pattern: Running bond Pedestal System Bison Innovative Products, Contact: Bison Versadjust System Pedestal Height: Install per Required manufacturer spec's. Refer to details. Pedestal FiberGrate Mesh Grate As needed Grainger Install where noted, per Required manufacturer spec's. Refer to details. Fiberglass Grate Install on fiberglass grate and pedestals, refer below. (6) pedestals per tile. Refer to Layout Plans for pattern layout. Required Required Required Required Required Planter Pots RZ-90 Atelier Vierkant, 877.796.0647, [email protected] Color: White Texture: T14 Qty: Allow time for manufacture and delivery 32.3" square 35.4" height 275 lbs (not incl. soil weight) Required CMU with Brick Veneer Color and finish to match building Required RZ-60 Qty: Allow time for manufacture and delivery 20.9" square, 23.6" height 88 lbs (not incl. soil weight) Required 1 2 Fences and Gates Kinslo Glass Fence Kinslo, Required Required Contact: Al Aljilani, 714.568.1598, Tempered glass panels with 3x3" steel posts and top/bottom rail, per details Engineered per manufacturer. 5'-6" tall - Refer to Fine Grading Plans Pool Fence, Gate Eurowest, Contact: Tina Bianchi, 495.652.6524 12"x24" nominal 20mm thick Color: Salt & Pepper Finish: Thermal Pattern: Running bond Per architect PGS-T Series Commercial 39-Inch Built-In Natural Gas Grill With Timer - S36TNG Cutout: 36 1/2"W x 23"D x 9.5"H The BBQ Guys, 877.743.2269 Note: To meet ADA requirements Cabinets, Frame Brown Jordan Color: Painted to Brown Jordan match building Per details PAVING SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION FURNITURE WALLS / FENCES / RAILINGS Thin Veneer, per architect 8x16x8" standard block Walls 12 KEY Raised Spa Coping Single Bullnose CC-SBN 12"x24"x2" Required Waterline Tile Coastal Keystones Porcelain Mosaic Tile 6" Wide Band Tropical Thunder Daltile Required Blend CK88 Required Concrete Stair DAVIS Colors, 800.800.6856 Color: Pewter to match Accent Pavers Finish: Smooth Trowel Dimensions per plan Required Section per details Planter Walls Davis Pewter #860, Sand Kay-Tee Products, 707-576-1018 Color: White Texture: T14 Exterior Required Tile Articulo Glazed Ceramic Tile 6x18x3/8" thick Editorial White Rectangle Wave AR06 Finish: Matte Install on exposed exterior of raised spa1 January 23, 2024 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. SCHEMATIC DETAILS October 05, 2023 L-7.1 Wood Slat Fence Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4' o.c. typ. 7' On Grade (no Retaining Wall) Varies on Retaining Wall (7' max) 2x4 top board, S.C.F.S. 2x6 horizontal slats at 6" o.c., S.C.F.S. Wood screws, typ. Postermaster metal posts at 4' o.c. Avail. through masterhalco.com. Adjacent condition, per plan 4" 4" Concrete footing - slope top to drain - or retaining wall. Refer to Layout Plan for condition 1'Ø 2' 4" Notes: 1. Detail to be Reviewed by Structural Engineer prior to construction. 2. All hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized. Class II aggregate base rock sump Compacted subgrade, per Geotechnical Report Property Line Lobby Entry Fountain Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0" Note: Contractor to provide shop drawings for review by Landscape Architect. 2'-8" 3' 1' 2' 6" 1' 3" clr. Adjacent pedestal paving Metal basin, S.C.F.S. Cobble infill, S.C.F.S. Removeable fiberglass grate Stainless steel weir, 3/16" thick Granite Slab, 3'x3'x3' Concrete topping slab with #4 bar at 12" o.c. both ways, centered in pour. Fountain slab and basin attachment per manufacturer. Building wall, S.A.D. Submersible pump Drain to sewer, S.P.D. Overflow drain and auto-fill device Structural slab, waterproofing, drainage layer, and protection board, S.A.D., S.S.D., S.P.D. Planter Pot on Cobble On-Structure Scale: 3/4" = 1'-0" 12 3 Wood Slat Fence on Retaining Wall Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Notes: 1. Detail to be Reviewed by Structural Engineer prior to construction. 2. See Civil Drawings sheet C2.0 for Grades and Wall Sections. 2' max. S.C.D.
7' max. Wood Slat Fence mounted on wall Finished grade on neighboring property, S.C.D. Retaining wall, S.C.F.S., S.C.D. Adjacent condition per plan Concrete footing Class II aggregate base compacted to 95% relative compaction or per Geotechnical report Sub-grade compacted to 95% relative compaction or per Geotechnical report Property Line L-7.1
3 4
3' January 23, 2024
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. SCHEMATIC DETAILS October 05, 2023 L-7.2 12 Planter Wall On-Structure Not to Scale Glass Pool Fence Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1. Contractor to supply complete shop drawings to Landscape Architect for review prior to construction. 2. All exposed metal to be painted except for hardware. See Color and Finish Schedule. 4' o.c. typ. 4' o.c. typ. 5'-6" 2" clr 4" 2'-3" 2'-3" 6" 1/4" laminated glass, clear, eased edges HSS 3x3x1/4" posts, cap top Wall mount glass bracket, avail. through CR Laurence Adjacent paving per plan Mounting plate 3'-7" 5'-4" Structural slab, protection board, waterproofing, and drainage layer, S.A.D., S.S.D., S.P.D. TF BF/FS Podium Spa Elevation Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3'-6" 2' 5'
1'-6" 7'
1'-6" 2'-10" Spa beyond Pool fence Outdoor kitchen Screening plants 6' Steps to raised spa deck 20' 18' 6' 5' 14' Building wall 21' Typical guardrail, per architect Perimeter planter walls Pool fence Solid portion of guardrail - per architect Raised spa Decorative pots 5'-6" 3 January 23, 2024
FAYETTE DRIVE PARCEL ONE GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739039) PARCEL TWO GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739039) PARCEL THREE GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739046) FAYETTE DRIVE PARCEL ONE GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739039) PARCEL TWO GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739039) PARCEL THREE GRANT DEED (DOCUMENT NO. 22739046) SAN ANTONIO ROAD SAN ANTONIO ROAD C1.0 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. JANUARY 23, 2024 NORTH LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS GENERAL NOTES REFERENCES TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP N SITE PROPOSED BUILDING LOBBY BIKE PARKINGSOUTHERN WALL SECTION D FF 58.25 EASTERN SECTION C FF 58.25 NORTHERN SECTION B FF 58.25 WESTERN SECTION A FF 58.25 DRIVEWAY SECTION E AT GARAGE FF 58.25 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. JANUARY 23, 2024 C2.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & UTILITY (FLOOR 1) UTILITY NOTES RESPONSIBILITY TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTIMATE APPROXIMATE. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S NOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FILL: CUT: EXPORT: IMPORT: QUANTITIES FOR HIS/HER OWN USE. 25 CY 15,600 CY 0 CY 15,575 CY

FAYETTE DRIVE

EX RIGHT OF WAY LEGEND NORTH
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. JANUARY 23, 2024 UTILITY NOTES

FAYETTE DRIVE

EX RIGHT OF WAY C2.1 CONCEPTUAL GRADING & UTILITY (FLOOR 2) NORTH

3.5' NEWL/S
EX. CL
EX. STREET EASEMENT 6.0' NEW S/W PROJECT SITE OTHER SIDE OF STREET DEVELOPMENT 2.0' NEW C&G EX. ROW 25.0' EX. PL TO CL 30.0' CL TO ROW 55.0' 5.0'

EX PL 3.5' EX. L/S 2.0' EX. C&G 6.0' EX. S/W EXISTING ROADWAY 18" GUTTER PAN AC DEEPLIFT FAYETTE DRIVE EX. STREET

EASEMENT
EX. PL
EX. CL FAYETTE DRIVE
EX. STREET

EASEMENT
EX. PL
EX. CL KEY NOTES 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. JANUARY 23, 2024 C2.2 PROFILES & DETAILS TYPICAL FAYETTE DRIVE SECTION SCALE: 1"=5' 12" MIN 12"2" AC 12" FULL DEPTH AC NEW CURB AND GUTTER GRIND EX. AC 2" MIN. BETWEEN 2% - 3% AC COLD PLANE FINAL 2" LIFT ACROSS EX. PAVEMENT AC DEEPLIFT NOT TO SCALE EX. PAVEMENT 6" SS LATERAL PROFILE STA 5+37.66 TO 5+53.51 SCALE: 1"=5' H 1"=1' V 12" SD LATERAL PROFILE STA 5+72.27 TO 5+72.35 SCALE: 1"=5' H 1"=1' V DMA 01
DMA 02 C3.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TREATMENT AREA LIMITS BIOTREATMENT POND DMA DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREA TCM TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES ··· SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED 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. JANUARY 23, 2024 TABLE 1 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES FOR MEDIA FILTERS NO. MAINTENANCE TASK FREQUENCY OF TASK 1 INSPECT FOR STANDING WATER, SEDIMENT, TRASH AND DEBRIS. MONTHLY DURING RAINY SEASON 2 REMOVE ACCUMULATED TRASH AND DEBRIS IN THE UNIT DURING ROUTINE INSPECTIONS. MONTHLY DURING RAINY SEASON, OR AS NEEDED AFTER STORM EVENTS 3 INSPECT TO ENSURE THAT THE FACILITY IS DRAINING COMPLETELY WITHIN FIVE DAYS AND PER MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS. ONCE DURING THE WET SEASON AFTER MAJOR STORM EVENT. 4 REPLACE THE MEDIA PER MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS OR AS INDICATED BY THE CONDITION OF THE UNIT. PER MANUFACTURER’S SPECIFICATIONS. 5 INSPECT MEDIA FILTERS USING THE ATTACHED INSPECTION CHECKLIST. QUARTERLY OR AS NEEDED LEGEND SITE DESIGN MEASURES IMPLEMENTED

FAYETTE DRIVE
NORTH
C3.1 STORMWATER NOTES & DETAILS 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. JANUARY 23, 2024 SECTION 'H1'
14 LF
SECTION 'W1'
62 LF

SECTION 'L'
10 LF
SECTION 'D1'
59 LF
SECTION 'T1'
32 LF
(SERVICE)

DESCRIPTION
SHEET NO.

REVISION NUMBER:

SHEET OF REV DATE
PLOT DATE:

UTILITY DESIGN & CONSULTING - APPLICANT DESIGN - STREET LIGHTING P.O. BOX 737
ALAMO, CA 94507
PHONE: 925-820-8502 - FAX: 925-820-8407
OCTANE FAYETTE, LLC.
2645 FAYETTE DRIVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA
22-1498KSNKKS1"=20'10-5-23
JTC1 1
10 10-5-23
NOTE:

NOTE:

JOINT UTILITY TRENCH SECTION LEGEND
NOTE:

NORTH
AT&T
(TYPICAL)
3) CONTRACTOR TO INCLUDE COST OF TRANSITIONS IN VAULT

TRENCH TRANSITION DETAIL
TO VAULTS AS REQUIRED BY EACH UTILITY.
1) CONTRACTOR TO EXCAVATE TRANSITIONS FROM MAIN-LINE TRENCH 2) TRANSITIONS NOT SHOWN ON COMPOSITE DRAWING FOR CLARITY.

EXCAVATION COST.

P.G.& E. CATV
BEND IS 60' RADIUS WITH AN ANGLE OF 10°. USE 2-5 COUPLINGS WITH 1-5' CONDUIT SECTION FOR EACH BEND SHOWN.

BEND IS 30' RADIUS WITH AN ANGLE OF 15°. USE 3-5 COUPLINGS WITH 2-2 1/2' CONDUIT SECTIONS FOR EACH BEND SHOWN.

TYPICAL P.G.&E. PRIMARY BOX EXCAVATION USING CONDUIT "A" BEND "A" BEND "B" BEND
3' x 5'

PRIMARY BOX SIZE
4'-6" x 8'-6"
3' x 5'
4'-6" x 8'-6"
PRIMARY BOX SIZE X"B" BEND
DISTANCE (when conduit enters "A")
DISTANCE (when conduit enters "B")
24' 7' 5'
"X" "Y" "Z"
"X" "Y"
32'
32'
"Z"
7'
5'
11'
7'
24' 11' 7'

JOINT TRENCH
YX
Z
* THESE SECTIONS MAY OR

MAY NOT CONTAIN SECONDARY

SECTIONWJVULONMKTSRQPI
G*
F*
E*
D*
H*
C*
B*
A*

TG SC P OTHER X
XX X
X
XXXXX
XXXXXX
X
XXX

XX X XXXX XX
XXXXX
XXXXX
XX XX
XX
XXXX

XXXXXXXX
X
X
X

GOVERNING AGENCIES' STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS

JOINT TRENCH CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH LOCAL

MINIMUM BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS

DISTRIBUTION SERVICE

MINIMUM SEPARATION AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS (INCHES)
*MUST BE CONSIDERED A 'UTILITY' AS DEFINED IN UTILITY STANDARD S5453, "JOINT TRENCH."
**FOR EXCEPTIONS, REFER TO G.O. 128 RULE, SECTION B, ITEMS (1) AND (2). * 12"
6"
12"
G 6" CTSP

COVER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED,
MIN. COVER REQUIRED. IF MIN.

P.G.&E. AND CITY INSPECTOR TO DETERMINE METHOD OF CROSSING. * = WIDTH PER SIZE & NUMBER OF EACH UTILITY.
12" MIN. 12" MIN.

IN TRACT
JOINT TRENCH OVER WATER & S.S. & S.D.
1'

PER FIELD CONDITIONS

PER UTILITY COMPANY PER UTILITY COMPANY

PROPOSED GRADE

IN TRACT
JOINT TRENCH UNDER WATER & S.S. & S.D.*
6" 6"
12" 12"
GTCSP
OR
S.S.

ORW
S.D.

S.D.

OR
S.S.

ORW 12" MIN. 12" MIN.

PROPOSED GRADE
30" COVER PER FIELD CONDITIONS 30" COVER

PER UTILITY COMPANY PER UTILITY COMPANY
1'
PS
TCGP S
TCG
S P
GCTS P
GCT

PLANNING FOR AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION

CONSULT WITH PG&E ENGINEERING AND

VICINITY MAP - NOT TO SCALE
-PRELIMINARY PLANSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PLEASE VERIFY THE SERVICE POINTS ON THIS PLAN
MATCH YOUR CURRENT DESIGN. IF THERE ARE

DISCREPANCIES, PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT
MANAGER IN OUR OFFICE @ 925-820-8502
CONSTRUCTION NOTE:

DO NOT BURY OR ENCASE CONDUIT,

SUBSTRUCTURES OR GROUNDING

WITHOUT PG&E INSPECTION

TRENCH SECTIONS SHOW
UTILITY OCCUPANCY ONLY.

SIZE AND QUANTITY OF
CONDUITS NOT SHOWN.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

CONSTRUCTION/INSTALLATION RESPONSIBILITY TABLE
* ELEC SUBSTRUCTURES INCLUDING BOXES/PADS/CONDUIT
* ELEC FACILITIES INCLUDING TRANSFORMERS/SWITCHES/WIRE
* GAS PIPE/MATERIALS/RISERS
P.G.&E
*APPLICANT WILL TRENCH & BACKFILL ALL.
*PG&E WILL MAKE ALL "HOT" TIE-INS & SET ALL METERS.
*APPLICANT WILL INSTALL ALL TELEPHONE BOXES & CONDUIT.
*TELEPHONE COMPANY WILL INSTALL ALL TELEPHONE WIRE.
*INSTALLATION OF CATV BOXES & CONDUIT BY CATV, OR APPLICANT, TO BE DETERMINED AT THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. IF BY APPLICANT, CATV COMPANY TO DELIVER SUBSTRUCTURE MATERIAL TO THE JOBSITE.

JT CONTRACTOR & CATV COMPANY TO COORDINATE DELIVERY.

DRY UTILITY (JOINT TRENCH) INSTALLATION FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE:

FULL APPLICANT INSTALL / SHARED INSTALL

APPLICANT
(SERVICE) (SERVICE)
SECTION 'P1'
47 LF
(SERVICE)
T
T
T

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
BUILDING EXIT STAIRFIRE TRUCK CIRCULATIONFIRE EGRESS ROUTE150' FIRE HOSE REACH AT STANDPIPESWHARF HYDRANT OR STANDPIPE LEGEND
0' 40' 80'
TRUE
NORTH

BUILDING EXIT STAIR
FIRE TRUCK CIRCULATIONFIRE EGRESS ROUTE150' FIRE HOSE REACH AT STANDPIPESWHARF HYDRANT OR STANDPIPE LEGEND
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

UPDN UP
HE
TWC
TWC
HE
TWC
TWC
TWC

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF EGRESSHORIZONTAL EXITTWO-WAY COMMUNICATIONS HE
TWC
0' 60' 120'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 1"=60' E.3
OCTANE FAYETTE ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAMS JANUARY 23, 2024
FLOOR 1 - LEVEL OF DISCHARGE
FLOOR 2
FLOORS 3 - 7 BASEMENT
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
79 23,529 SF
S-2
GARAGE
300
39 40
COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 94'-0"MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL (CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 100'-0" (S-2) EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 176'-3"MAX EXIST ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE (CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 400'-0" (S-2) TRUE
NORTH

E.4
OCTANE FAYETTE EGRESS ANALYSIS - BASEMENT JANUARY 23, 2024 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
T
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
66 19,750 SF
S-2
GARAGE
300

PRIMARY USE

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
18 3,533 SF
R-2 ACCESS.

LOBBY & MAIL ROOM
200

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 74'-7''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0'' (R-2 ACCESS.)EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 74'-7''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 250'-0'' (R-2 ACCESS.) COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 26'-6''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0'' (S-2)EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 124'-7''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 400'-0'' (S-2) 22 22
18 22
TRUE
NORTH

E.5
OCTANE FAYETTE EGRESS ANALYSIS - FLOOR 1 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOADOCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
30 5,805 SF
R-2
FC-1
200

RESIDENTIAL

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
55 10,808 SF
R-2
FC-2
200

RESIDENTIAL

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 NET
112
1,670 SF
A

CLUB ROOM
15 ACCESSORY

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 NET
151
2,261 SF
A
COURTYARD (FLOOR 2 ONLY)
15 ACCESSORY

HORIZONTAL EXIT
COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 94'-10''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0''EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 94'-10''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 250'-0'' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 108'-3''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0''EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 108'-3''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 250'-0'' 28 15
28 15
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
35 6,828 SF
R-2
FC-1
200

RESIDENTIAL

OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR

OCCUPANT LOAD

OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION
AREA
SECTION 302.1
TABLE 1004.5 GROSS
54 10,695 SF
R-2
FC-2
200

RESIDENTIAL

HORIZONTAL EXIT
COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 77'-5''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0''EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 77'-5''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 250'-0'' COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL = 86'-0''MAX COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL ( CBC TABLE 1006.2.1) = 125'-0''EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 86'-0''MAX EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE ( CBC TABLE 1017.2) = 250'-0'' 27 18
27 18
0' 10' 21' 32'
TRUE
NORTH

PROJECT
NORTH
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. 3/64"=1' E.7
OCTANE FAYETTE EGRESS ANALYSIS - FLOOR 3-7 JANUARY 23, 2024 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"

FLOOR AREA ALLOWED
TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 23,529 SF

UNLIMITED

GARAGE TYPE I-A
TRUE
NORTH

E.8
OCTANE FAYETTE ALLOWABLE AREAS - BASEMENT JANUARY 23, 2024 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"

FLOOR AREA ALLOWED
TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 23,257 SF

UNLIMITED

GARAGE TYPE I-A

FAYETTE DR

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
TRUE
NORTH

E.9
OCTANE FAYETTE ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOOR 1 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
FLOOR AREA ALLOWEDTOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 6,479 SF
24,000 SF
FC-1 TYPE III-A
FLOOR AREA ALLOWEDTOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 9,889 SF
24,000 SF
FC-2 TYPE III-A
TRUE
NORTH

E.10
OCTANE FAYETTE ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOOR 2 JANUARY 23, 2024 ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆

FLOOR AREA ALLOWED
TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 6,479 SF
24,000 SF
FC-1 TYPE III-A

FLOOR AREA ALLOWED
TOTAL FLOOR AREA PROPOSED 9,889 SF
24,000 SF
FC-2 TYPE III-A
TRUE
NORTH

E.11
OCTANE FAYETTE ALLOWABLE AREAS - FLOORS 3 - 7 JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

Z.1
OCTANE FAYETTE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

Z.2
OCTANE FAYETTE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP JANUARY 23, 2024 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.

Z.3
OCTANE FAYETTE DEMOLITION PLANS JANUARY 23, 2024
DOMUS
(4-STORY

APARTMENT
BLDG)

ARCHITECTURE
� KIER+WRIGHT

FAYETTE TOW HOUS
O (3-STORY O o

APARTMENT BLDG)

OCTANE FAYETTE

FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK
1/32"=1'
TRUE
ORTH
JECT
RTH
LT2.01
LIGHTING PLAN - FLOOR 1 JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

0. 0 0. 0
DOMUS
(4-STORY

APARTMENT
BLDG) . 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0

0. 0.

ARCHITECTURE

0.0 0. 0
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b

0. 0.

FAY TIE TOWNHOU
o • o (3-STORY 0. 0

APARTMENT BLDG)

0. 0. 0.

0. 0 0. 0 . 0 0.0 0. 0

0. 0. 0. 0. 0.
� KIER+WRIGHT OCTANE FAYETTE

0. 0 0. 0 0. 0

0. 0. 0.

0. 0 0. 0
'o

0. 0.

0. 0 0.0 0. 0 . 0 0. 0
'o b 'o

0. 0. 0. 0. 0.

0. 0 0. 0
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
'o
b
'o
'o

0. 0.

0. 0 . 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0
. 0

0. 0. 0
1/32"=1'
LIGHTING PLAN - FLOOR 2
TRUE
ORTH
JECT
RTH
LT2.02
JANUARY 23, 2024
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.

SHEET NOTES. TRASH ROUTE PLAN. LEVEL B1. 1. STAFF SHALL TRANSPORT CONTAINERS TO TRASH STAGING AREA WITH ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK PER SCHEDULE. 2. NOTE THAT TOTER CARTS WILL BE SERVICED BY SIDE-LOAD COLLECTION VEHICLE AND CONTAINERS WILL BE SERVICED BY FRONT-LOAD COLLECTION VEHICLE. WASTE, RECYCLING, AND COMPOST SERVICE TO OCCUR ON SEPARATE DAYS. GENERAL NOTES. 1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT. 2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES. LEGEND. STAFF PATH OF TRAVEL FROM RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOM TO TRASH STAGING AREA. TRASH ROUTE / STAGING PLAN LEVEL 1 PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE: COMPACTED TRASH SERVICE: M Tu W Th F Sa Su TOTAL 0 0 12 0 0 WASTE - 2CY FL COMPACTED PAPER REC - 2CY FL COMPACTED COMPOST - 64G TOTER MC REC - 96G TOTER 5322 0 0 SCALE: 3 8" = 1'-0" TRASH COLLECTION ROOM SEE SHEET TR0.1 FRONT-LOAD COLLECTION VEHICLE STAFF PRESENT ON DAYS OF SERVICE TO MOVE BINS TO STREET WHEN TRASH TRUCK ARRIVES TO SITE FOR PICKUP. BINS NOT TO BE LEFT ON STREET OUTSIDE OF SERVICE TIME

FAYETTE DRIVE T
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
12'-0" X 18'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0"
8'-6" X 16'-0" 8'-6" X 16'-0" 938 SF MAIN ELECTRICAL ROOM STAIR 2 230 SF PLUMBING & MECHANICAL ROOM262 SF SPA EQUIPMENT ROOM 452 SF BIKE STORAGE ROOM 64 SF ELEVATOR 1 1,999 SF BUILDING LOBBY AREA DELIEVERY TRUCK DELIEVERY TRUCK FAYETTE DR FAYETTE GREENWAY PARK 16,488 SF GARAGE 1,254 SF GARAGE 9.0% 18.0% RAMP DOWN STAIR 1 285 SF MAIL PACKAGE ROOM RETAINING WALL GARAGE ACCESS DOMUS (4-STORY APARTMENT BLDG) FAYETTE TOWNHOUSE (3-STORY APARTMENT BLDG) WPMC 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. TR0.0 OCTANE - 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DR. TRASH ROUTE / STAGING PLAN 0' 10' 21' 32' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH As Indicated JANUARY 23, 2024 SHEET NOTES: TRASH COLLECTION ROOM: LEVEL B1 1. TRASH ROOM SHALL BE 2HR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION - RESTRICTED ACCESS. 2. FINISH FLOORS WITH ELASTO-DECK 6001 AL-HT DECK COATING. PROVIDE MINIMAL SLOPE AND FLOOR DRAIN. 3. FINISH WALLS WITH FRP WASHABLE WATERPROOF SURFACE 8'-0" AFF. 4. INSTALL WALL PROTECTION: 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB AT BASE OF WALLS. DO NOT INSTALL BEHIND COMPACTORS OR POWER PACKS. 5. 12'-0" ROLL-UP DOOR FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS AND 3'-0" FIRE EGRESS DOOR. 6. ROOM SHALL BE MECHANICALLY VENTILATED WITH (1) CFM/FT PER 2022 CBC. 7. (2) 30"Ø 16G GALVANIZED OR GALVANNEALED STEEL CHUTES WITH APOLLO MODEL A500 SINGLE-SIDE LATCH COMPACTORS AND 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINERS FOR WASTE AND PAPER RECYCLING DISPOSAL. CHUTES TERMINATE AT 5'-9" AFF. 8. (1) 24"Ø 16G GALVANIZED OR GALVANNEALED STEEL CHUTE WITH 96G TOTER CART FOR MIXED-CONTAINER RECYCLING. CHUTE TERMINATES AT 4'-0" AFF. 9. PP: COMPACTOR POWER PACKS FLOOR-MOUNTED AND STACKED VERTICALLY. (2) 5HP 3-PHASE, 208/230/460V. 30A DISCONNECTS 60" AFF. 10. MCP: CHUTE MASTER CONTROL PANEL SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. MUST ALLOW LOCK DOWN OF CHUTE INTAKES FOR EXCHANGING CONTAINERS AND WASHING CHUTES. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED. (3) TOTAL. 11. AC: AIR COMPRESSOR (OIL LESS) 4610AC WITH AUTOMATIC TANK DRAIN VALVE. 2 HP PEAK, TWIN TANK CAPACITY 4.6 GALLONS, VOLTAGE @ 60 HZ 110 VOLTS, CURRENT 8.5 AMPS TO POWER THE CHUTE INTAKE DOORS. (2) TOTAL. 12. OC: ODOR CONTROL UNIT SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. 13. HB: HOT AND COLD HOSE BIBB SHALL BE WALL-MOUNTED 60" AFF. 14. PROVIDE ELECTRIC PALLET TRUCK FOR TRANSFERRING CONTAINERS. 4000LB CAPACITY WITH 45.5" TURNING RADIUS. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLETS REQUIRED. 15. 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET REQUIRED FOR ALL EQUIPMENT (U.O.N.). 16. CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR: WILKINSON TYPE-A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION 90 MINUTE FIRE- RATED, HORIZONTALLY ROLLING DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165°F FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION. 17. CONSTRUCT CARDBOARD CLOSET FOR RESIDENTIAL CARDBOARD DISPOSAL AT TRASH DISCHARGE ROOM PER PLAN. PROVIDE 96G TOTER CART. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES: SIMILAR AT UPPER LEVELS 2-8 18. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULES SHALL BE 2HR FIRE-RATED WITH 2HR FIRE-RATED ACCESS DOOR. 5'-0" MIN CLEAR REQUIRED PER ADA STANDARDS - RESIDENTIAL ACCESS. POWER TO INTAKE DOORS SUPPLIED BY MCP. PROVIDE (3) 15x18 BOTTOM HINGED, NORMALLY CLOSED LOW-VOLTAGE, ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING DOORS FOR WASTE, MIXED-CONTAINER RECYCLING, AND PAPER RECYCLING AT EACH FLOOR. SEE DETAIL 2/TR2.0. 30" x 48" REQUIRED FOR FRONT APPROACH. MANAGEMENT TO PROVIDE 23-GALLON 'RUBBERMAID SLIM JIM' CONTAINER OR EQUIVALENT FOR COMPOST DISPOSAL. STAFF TO EMPTY IN CONTAINERS DAILY AT TRASH ROOM. 19. 2HR FIRE-RATED FACE WALL SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 20. PROVIDE ROUND FLOOR OPENINGS AT CONCRETE FLOORS AND SQUARED FLOOR OPENINGS AT WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION. SEE PLAN FOR DIAMETER OF OPENINGS. INSTALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME AT EACH FLOOR PENETRATION TO SECURE CHUTE. SEE DETAIL 9/TR2.0 FOR ANCHORING. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB - PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT. 2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES. CHUTE INTAKE VESTIBULE SIM AT UPPER LEVELS 2-8 TRASH COLLECTION ROOM PLAN LEVEL B1 NOTE: SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL DIMENSIONS NOT NEEDED FOR PLACEMENT OF TRASH EQUIPMENT. SCALE: 18" = 1'-0" PROJECTED COLLECTION SCHEDULE: COMPACTED TRASH SERVICE: M Tu W Th F Sa Su TOTAL 0 0 12 0 0 WASTE - 2CY FL COMPACTED PAPER REC - 2CY FL COMPACTED COMPOST - 64G TOTER MC REC - 96G TOTER 5322 0 0 SCALE: 18" = 1'-0" SECTION A-A SECTIONS AT TRASH COLLECTION ROOM 9 TR2.0 TYP LEVEL B1 (S.A.D.) SCALE: 18" = 1'-0" 30"Ø GALV. STEEL CHUTE (2) TOTAL, SEE NOTE 7 24"Ø GALV. STEEL CHUTE (1) TOTAL, SEE NOTE 8 96G CART MC REC FLOOR BY OTHERS, TYP SEE NOTE 2 (S.A.D.) WASTEAPOLLO MODEL A500 SSL COMPACTOR (2) TOTAL, CONTAINERS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY LEVEL 1 (S.A.D.) CHUTE DISCHARGE DOOR, SEE NOTE 16 PAPER REC HB OC MCP MCP MCP SPARE 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER WASTE 3'-0" FIRE EGRESS DOOR STRIPED ACCESS WAY SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY (S.A.D.) 120V 15A SERVICE OUTLET, TYP U.O.N. 12'-0" WIDE ROLL-UP DOOR WALL PROTECTION TYP, SEE NOTE 4 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL BY OTHERS TYP (S.A.D.) SEE NOTE 3 96G TOTER MC REC 64G CART COMPOST 64G CART COMPOST 64G CART COMPOST 64G CART COMPOST 96G TOTER MC REC 96G TOTER MC REC A36 L112" x 112" x 14 x 3'-4" LONG FLOOR SUPPORT FRAMES (2) 30"Ø GALV STEEL CHUTES W/ 34"Ø FLOOR OPENINGS, SEE NOTE 20 MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS (4) TOTAL AT EA FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME8 TR2.0 SIM COMPOST CORRIDOR SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY (S.A.D.) 3'-0" VESTIBULE ACCESS DOOR (3) 15x18 B.H. NORMALLY CLOSED LOW- VOLTAGE E.I. AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOORS, TYP SEE NOTE 18 (1) 24"Ø GALV STEEL CHUTE W/ 28"Ø FLOOR OPENING, SEE NOTE 20 WPMC 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER WASTE W FD ELEC. PALLET TRUCK SEE NOTE 14 PMC 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER PAPER REC 30A DISCONNECT (2) TOTAL STACKED PP AC A-A- 96G TOTER CARDBOARD (2) 30"Ø GALV STEEL CHUTE W/ APOLLO MODEL A500 SSL COMPACTOR (1) 24"Ø GALV STEEL CHUTE W/ 96G TOTER CART FOR MC RECYCLING 3'-0" VESTIBULE ACCESS DOOR SPARE 2CY FL COMPACTOR CONTAINER PAPER REC 96G TOTER MC REC 96G TOTER MC REC 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. TR0.1 OCTANE - 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DR. TRASH DISCHARGE ROOM PLAN 0' 10' 21' 32' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH As Indicated JANUARY 24, 2024 NOTES: 1. 2HR FIRE-RATED FACE WALL SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. FOR SOUND PROOFING PURPOSES, DOUBLE STUD-WALLS ARE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED SPACES. INTERIOR OF SHAFT SHALL BE TAPED TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKING INTO OCCUPIED SPACES. 2. INTAKE DOOR NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. NOTES: 1. REFER TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT LISTED. 2. (4) MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PAD ASSEMBLIES PER FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME. NOTES: 1. 2019 CBC - 11B-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 2. 2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. NOTES: 1. ATTACHMENT OF ALL BLOCKING, CURBS, AND OTHER ROOF COMPONENTS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MANUFACTURER. 2. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ALL WORK BY OTHERS. 3. SUPPLIED BY VENDOR - INSTALLED BY ROOFER. CONC SLAB WHERE OCCURS (S.S.D.) 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS (BY OTHERS) DISCHARGE LEVEL ANCHOR BOLTS W/ NEOPRENE GROMMETS. PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME CL A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) NO CONTACT BTWN GYP BOARD, FRAMING & CHUTE. SEAL GAP W/ FLEXIBLE ACOUSTIC RATED FIRE CAULKING AT PENETRATION THROUGH WALL & SHAFT, ALL AROUND 5 1 2 4 2 6 3 D & S UNIT (NTS) INSTALLED BEHIND F.O. WALL 15x15 ACCESS DOOR (NTS) INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO ERECTING WALL 8 9 TYP RESIDENTIAL LEVEL CL CONC SLAB WHERE OCCURS (S.S.D.) A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM F.O. WALL, SEE DETAILS ABOVE FOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS 7 CL 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) TAPE INTERIOR OF CHUTE SHAFT TO PREVENT ODOROUS AIR LEAKS CONC SLAB WHERE OCCURS (S.S.D.) A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN TYP 9-FIRE-RATED ACOUSTIC FLEXIBLE SEALANT ROOF LEVEL ROOF FRAMING / ASSEMBLY BY OTHERS (S.S.D.) VENT CAP BY OTHERS SEE NOTE 3 CL CURB BY OTHERS SEE NOTE 3 RISER BY OTHERS SEE NOTE 3 NOTES: 1. PROVIDE HIGH PRESSURE CHUTE WASHDOWN NOZZLE. 2. FILL SANITATION TANK WITH CONCENTRATED DISINFECTING SOLUTION. THE SYPHON HOSE SHOULD REACH THE BOTTOM OF THE SOLUTION CONTAINER. TO FLUSH WITH CLEAR WATER, TURN HANDLE TO THE ON POSITION. FACTORY SETTING OF THE PROPORTIONING VALVE IS FOR 50-GALLONS PER GALLON OF DISINFECTING SOLUTION. 3. NOTE THAT THE ACCESS DOOR AND D & S UNIT ARE SHOWN OUTSIDE OF CHUTE SHAFT FOR CLARITY. ALL WASHDOWN EQUIPMENT WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN CHUTE SHAFT, ABOVE THE HIGHEST INTAKE. (1) D & S UNIT PER CHUTE. 4. 2019 CBC - 11B-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 5. 2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. 6. SUPPLIED BY VENDOR - INSTALLED BY PLUMBER. FLUSHING SPRAY HEAD BELOW CHUTE VENT AND ABOVE TOP CHUTE INTAKE DOOR FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST INTAKE, LOWEST INTAKE & EVERY OTHER FLOOR BETWEEN COAT CHUTE W/ SOUNDCOAT DAUBERT V-DAMP 3680 OR EQUIVALENT; MATCH THICKNESS OF METAL COAT CHUTE W/ SOUNDCOAT DAUBERT V-DAMP 3680 OR EQUIVALENT; MATCH THICKNESS OF METAL PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME RIM JOISTS BY OTHERS (S.S.D.) PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR BY OTHERS (S.S.D.) ASTM A307 516-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY 15- 15- DUCTILE IRON HOUSING BRIDGE-BEARING QUALITY NEOPRENE PROVIDE MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS BELOW FRAME DUCTILE IRON HOUSING BRIDGE-BEARING QUALITY NEOPRENE CONC SLAB WHERE OCCURS (S.S.D.) 3 8"Ø x 3" RED HEAD OR HILTI KB3 POST-INSTALLED CONCRETE ANCHOR BOLT, (2) TOTAL EA ASSEMBLY ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS REPORT A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN TYPE III / V FLOOR CONNECTION TYPE I FLOOR CONNECTION ASTM A307 516-18UNCx1 CAP SCREW W/ STANDARD WASHER & NEOPRENE GROMMET, (1) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY A36 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, SEE PLAN NOTES: 1. INTAKE DOOR AND TRIM SHALL BE REMOVED FOR DOOR MAINTENANCE. 2. BOTTOM HINGED DOORS ARE SELF-CLOSING, NOISELESS, AND SELF-LATCHING. UL CLASSIFIED 90 MINUTE FIRE-RATED DOOR AND FRAME ASSEMBLY AND A TEMPERATURE RISE OF 250° F MAX IN 30 MINUTES. 3. MAX OPENING FOR INTAKE DOOR IS 14" FROM FACE OF FINISHED WALL. 4. 2019 CBC - 11B-404.3.5 HEIGHT: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE LOCATED NO HIGHER THAN 48 INCHES AND NO LOWER THAN 15 INCHES ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR MEASURED TO THE CENTER OF THE GRIP. 5. 2019 CBC - 11B-309.4 OPERATION: CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS. 6. 18x18 AIR ASSIST ACCESS DOOR IS LARGEST DOOR THAT ATM WILL DESIGN FOR CHUTE INTAKE. 7. ATM WILL NEVER DESIGN A 24x24 INTAKE DOOR AS THESE DOOR SIZES HAVE LED TO FATALITIES. WILKINSON TYPE-A, B-LABEL CONSTRUCTION 90 MINUTE FIRE- RATED, HORIZONTALLY ROLLING DOOR, HELD OPEN BY 165°F FUSIBLE LINK, SHOWN IN CLOSED POSITION 14"Ø x 4" HEX HEAD LAG SCREW (2) TOTAL PER ASSEMBLY PLUMBING SCHEMATIC LEGEND: 1. 3 4"Ø DOMESTIC HOT WATER INLET WITH VACUUM BREAKER. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR). 2. QUARTER-TURN GATE VALVE (SHUT-OFF AND BYPASS), (2) TOTAL. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR). 3. PLUMBING DESIGN, MATERIALS, AND INSTALLATION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR). 4. 24-VDC SOLENOID VALVE (OPTIONAL). NOT NEEDED FOR MANUAL OPERATION. (NOT USED HERE). 5. D & S UNIT: 1-GALLON CONTAINER, MOUNTING BRACKET, AND PROPORTIONAL VALVE AT REMOTE LOCATION. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR). 6. FLUSHING SPRAY HEAD BELOW CHUTE VENT. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY PLUMBING SUBCONTRACTOR). 7. FIRE SPRINKLER INTERMEDIATE 12" IPS - 155°F, PENDANT GLASS BULB SPRINKLER. FIRE SPRINKLER AT HIGHEST INTAKE, LOWEST INTAKE, AND EVERY OTHER FLOOR BETWEEN, TO BE STARTED FROM HIGHEST INTAKE - CONNECTION BY OTHERS. (SUPPLIED/MOUNTED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. PLUMBED BY FIRE SPRINKLER SUBCONTRACTOR). 8. SIDE-HINGED, UL RATED 90 MINUTE B-LABEL ACCESS DOOR. (SUPPLIED BY CHUTE SUBCONTRACTOR. INSTALLED BY FRAMING SUBCONTRACTOR OR GC). 9. SATIN CHROME PULL-HANDLE. (SUPPLIED/INSTALLED BY CHUTE MANUFACTURE). WALL ASSEMBLY PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) EPOXY TO LAP OVER CURB AND EXTEND UPWARD UNDER WALL PANEL 6" (S.A.D.) EPOXY COVE BASE AND EPOXY FLOORS PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) CONCRETE SLAB (S.S.D.) 12"Hx6"W CONCRETE CURB WALL PROTECTION, SEE NOTE 4 WALL PANEL PER SCHEDULE (S.A.D.) 1 WALL PROTECTION CONCRETE CURB SCALE: NTS CHUTE VENT AT ROOF LEVEL CHUTE AIR & SOUND ISOLATION 5 FIRE SPRINKLER & SANITATION UNIT AT HIGHEST INTAKE 6 CHUTE SHAFT AT INTAKE UPPER LEVELS 8 FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING TYPE I AND TYPE III CONSTRUCTION 9 14 15 SCALE: NTS CHUTE SHAFT DETAILS PLAN VIEWS 2 CHUTE INTAKE DOOR AT UPPER LEVELS SHEET NOTES. 24"Ø & 30"Ø CHUTE DETAILS 1. 16-GAUGE GALVANIZED OR GALVANNEALED STEEL. 2. 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL ASSEMBLIES ENCASING CHUTE SHAFT. FACE WALL SHALL NOT BE ERECTED UNTIL CHUTES HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. 3. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND/OR STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY ALL INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO ATM'S SCOPE OF WORK PER AGREEMENT. 4. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB AND SHALL BE PROVIDED BY MANUFACTURER. GENERAL NOTES: 1. ANY DESIGNS OR SOLUTIONS SHOWN IN DRAWING, EITHER DIRECT OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY CLARIFIED AS EXAMPLES AND SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE DESIGNS FOR CONSTRUCTION. THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO SUPPLEMENT THE SUBMITTAL PACKAGE FROM ARCHITECT. 2. ANY PARTIAL INFORMATION, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS OF WORK SHOWN IN DRAWINGS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK, SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO SATISFY THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ARCHITECT SHALL BE PROMPTLY NOTIFIED OF ANY INCONSISTENCIES AND/OR DISCREPANCIES. SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS FRONT VIEW (WITH TRIM: 16 GA. 430 S.S.) 15x18 BOTTOM-HINGED, NORMALLY CLOSED LOW-VOLTAGE ELECTRICALLY INTERLOCKED, AUTOMATIC OPENING INTAKE DOOR FRONT VIEW (WITHOUT TRIM) PLAN VIEW SECTION VIEW RED OPEN BUTTON SATIN CHROME PULL HANDLE W/ THUMB LATCH *FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST LEVEL OF BUILDING *WHEN CALCULATING NUMBER OF FIRE SPRINKLER HEADS FOR EVERY OTHER FLOOR, ALWAYS START WITH HIGHEST LEVEL *FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT HIGHEST LEVEL OF BUILDING EXAMPLE OF BUILDING VERTICAL SECTION VIEW *FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD AT LOWEST LEVEL OF BUILDING LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 HIGHEST LEVEL NOTES: 1. TYPE I FLOOR: TO PREVENT CONCRETE BREAK-OFF, VERIFY MINIMUM DISTANCE WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 2. ARCHITECT SHALL VERIFY ALL FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME ANCHORING CONNECTIONS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACOUSTICS REPORT. TYPE I SHAFT TYPE III / V SHAFT 24"Ø 304 STAINLESS STEEL CHUTE W/ 28"Ø FLOOR OPENING (1) TOTAL 1"Ø EMT FOR LOW VOLTAGE POWER 12"Ø EMT TO WASHDOWN SOLENOID ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE (OPTIONAL) 3 4"Ø CONDUIT FOR AIR COMPRESSOR SPRINKLER RISER - TBD BY FIRE SPRINKLER DESIGNER WATER LINE FOR WASHDOWN RISER IF NOT PROVIDED ABOVE HIGHEST INTAKE TBD BY PLUMBING *SOUND CONSULTANT TO VERIFY DETAILS AND UPDATE AS NECESSARY* WPMC WPMC 24"Ø 304 STAINLESS STEEL CHUTE W/ 28"Ø FLOOR OPENING (1) TOTAL MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS (4) TOTAL AT EA FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME MASON BRA-RED SOUND ISOLATION PADS (4) TOTAL AT EA FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME 30"Ø GALVANIZED OR GALVANNEALED STEEL CHUTE W/ 34"Ø FLOOR OPENING (2) TOTAL 30"Ø GALVANIZED OR GALVANNEALED STEEL CHUTE W/ 34"Ø FLOOR OPENING (2) TOTAL A36 L112" x 112" x 14 x 3'-4" LONG FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, TYP A36 L112" x 112" x 14 x 3'-4" LONG FLOOR SUPPORT FRAME, TYP (2) LAYERS OF 5 8" THICK SHEET ROCK (OR EQUIVALENT) RECOMMENDED FOR 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL (2) LAYERS OF 5 8" THICK SHEET ROCK (OR EQUIVALENT) RECOMMENDED FOR 2HR FIRE-RATED WALL 3" 2" 3/16" 1-3/8" 1-3/8"1-5/8" 1-5/8" 4-1/4" 2-1/2" 2-1/2" 34" 34" NOTES: 1. ALL HARDWARE PLATED 2. REFER TO MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED. MASON BRA-RED MOUNT ISOMETRIC VIEW NOTES: 1. POUR RINGS WILL VARY BASED ON THICKNESS OF FLOOR SLAB. 2. SUPPLIED BY CHUTE MANUFACTURER - INSTALLED BY CONCRETE CONTRACTOR. A36 L18"x1"x1" STIFFENERS TACK WELDED TO INSIDE OF POUR RING - REMOVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF CHUTE 12-GAUGE GALVANIZED SHEET METAL POUR RINGS PLAN VIEW 13 SCALE: NTS CHUTE INTAKE DOOR: 14" MAX OPENING FROM F.O. WALL, SEE DETAILS ABOVE FOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS 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. TR2.0 OCTANE - 2645 & 2655 FAYETTE DR. CHUTE DETAILS JANUARY 24, 2024 ATTACHMENT 2

PRIOR CEQA INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
March 2020
2645-2655 Fayette Drive
Residential Project
Prepared by the
In Consultation with
Attachment 1

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City File Number: PL-2018-024 and PL-2018-332
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 1 of 1 March 2020
0BEnvironmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Air Quality
Impact AIR-3: The project
would not expose sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations with
mitigation incorporated.

EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3
engines that include CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel
Particulate Filters (DPF) or equivalent would be
effective. The use of equipment that is powered by
electricity or alternatively fueled equipment (i.e.,
non-diesel) would also meet this requirement.

Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project
All measures will be required
as part of demolition and
development permits. All
measures will be printed on all
construction documents,
contracts, and project plans
prior to issuance of permits.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department.

Prior to and during
any construction
activities, as
specified.

Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-2: The project
would not result in generation
of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise
levels with mitigation
incorporated.

MM NOI-2.1: Prohibit the use of heavy vibrationgenerating 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.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department.

During any
construction
activities, as
specified.

SOURCE: City of Mountain View. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. March 2020.

City of Mountain View 1 Amendment to Initial Study
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential October 2020
Initial Study Amendment
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
October 2020

1. Purpose
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential project.

The Initial Study was circulated for public review and comment in March 2020. The Initial Study analyzed the environmental effects of rezoning the site from the R3-D zone to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district P40, in order to develop the site with a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking.

Since circulation in March 2020, several changes to the project have been made. This Initial Study Amendment describes the proposed changes to the project and analyzes the potential for these changes to result in new or greater environmental impacts than those previously discussed in the Initial Study circulated March 2020.

2. Description of Proposed Changes to the Project
a) General Plan Amendment
The project originally proposed to amend the site’s General Plan land use designation from HighDensity Residential to Mixed-Use Corridor under the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project will no longer include a General Plan amendment.
b) Affordable Housing Units
The City of Mountain View’s Below-Market-Rate Housing Program distinguishes three income categories of affordable housing:
• Moderate-Income – the level of gross income for Santa Clara County as published periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, generally defined as between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size.
• Low-Income – the level of gross income for Santa Clara County as published periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, generally defined as between 50 percent and 80 percent of the area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size.
• Very Low-Income – the level of gross income for Santa Clara County as published periodically by the State Department of Housing and Community Development, generally defined as less than 50 percent of the AMI, adjusted for household size.

City of Mountain View 2 Amendment to Initial Study
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential October 2020
The project originally proposed to include five affordable housing units, all as moderate-income units. While the project will maintain the same number of affordable housing units, there will instead be four very-low income units and one low-income unit instead of five moderate-income units. c) Potential Multimodal Improvements
The City of Mountain View’s Public Works Department may require one of the following multimodal improvements as a condition of approval for the project:
• Addition of sharrows (shared lane markings) on Fayette Drive • Addition of a crosswalk across Fayette Drive, connecting the Hetch-Hetchy linear park (between El Camino Real and Fayette Drive) with the park to be dedicated by The Dean Apartments directly across the street.

3. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Changes to the Project The discussion below describes the environmental impacts of the currently proposed project, as they compare with the findings of the Initial Study circulated in March 2020. The revised project description may have impacts to the environmental subjects discussed below. All other subject areas were considered and found not to be potentially impacted by the revised project description. a) Land Use Impacts
The project would not amend the General Plan designation; thus, the project site would remain designated as High Density Residential. As noted in the Initial Study, the project at 66 units per acre is consistent with the General Plan High Density Residential designation which allows 36 to 80 units per acre. The height guideline for High Density Residential is up to five stories tall. The project would be six stories tall, however, the project is eligible for a density bonus that would allow the project to build an additional story. Therefore, the project would not have any new or greater land use impacts than those previously discussed in the Initial Study circulated in March 2020. b) Population and Housing Impacts
The project proposes to include four very-low income units and one low-income unit instead of five moderate-income units as described in the Initial Study. The project would not change the total number of units to be constructed, therefore, the project would not have any new or greater population and housing impacts than those previously discussed in the Initial Study circulated March 2020.

City of Mountain View 3 Amendment to Initial Study
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential October 2020
c) Transportation Impacts
VMT Analysis
At the time of the Initial Study’s circulation, level of service (LOS) was still being used as the metric of transportation impacts under CEQA. However, statewide implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 743 on July 1, 2020 has since required that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be used as the metric of transportation analysis under CEQA. The City Council, therefore, adopted a VMT policy, effective July 1, 2020. Thus, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (Hexagon) prepared an updated VMT analysis (August 2020) to address the revised project description and new VMT policy.

The project-level impact analysis under CEQA uses the VMT metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts by comparing against the VMT thresholds of significance as established in the Mountain View transportation analysis policy. The Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool is used to estimate the project VMT, based on the project location, type of development, project description, and proposed trip reduction measures, if any. Mountain View has established a VMT threshold of significance for residential uses of 15% below the Bay Area regional average. The Bay Area regional average is 13.95 daily miles per person. Thus, the VMT threshold is 11.86 daily VMT per resident, which is a 15% below the regional average.

The project VMT estimated by the tool is 9.37 daily miles per resident. The project VMT would be below the threshold of 11.86 VMT per resident. Therefore, the project’s VMT impact is considered less than significant.

In Hexagon’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) report prepared for the Initial Study, the average VMT per resident for this project area was reported to be 16.02 miles per resident, which is six percent greater than the Countywide average (15.11) and 8.75 percent greater than the citywide average (14.73) VMT per resident. This analysis was completed using the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) travel demand forecast model.

By comparison, the Santa Clara Countywide Evaluation Tool shows a significantly lower VMT per capita than the MTC forecast model. The difference in the analysis is that the MTC forecast model is not specifically designed to model VMT in Santa Clara County or Mountain View. Therefore, the VMT analysis from the Santa Clara County VMT Evaluation Tool was used to reanalyze the project more accurately.

Additionally, the project is approximately 0.2 miles from a major transit corridor, El Camino Real.

Projects that are located within one-half mile of a major transit corridor could be screened out from a VMT analysis. Similar projects could be screened out from a VMT analysis based on Mountain View’s screening criteria; however, the project requires a Zoning amendment and, therefore, required VMT analysis.

City of Mountain View 4 Amendment to Initial Study
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential October 2020
Multimodal Improvements
Hexagon concluded that implementation of the multimodal improvements would not affect the prior conclusions of the TIA report completed for the project. The identified multimodal improvements would be constructed on the project site or on existing paved roadway and would not result in any additional environmental impacts than those described in the circulated Initial Study.

Therefore, the project would not have any new or greater transportation impacts than those previously discussed in the Initial Study circulated in March 2020.

4. Conclusion
The currently proposed project would not result in any new or substantially greater impacts than previously identified in the circulated Initial Study for the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential project.

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Description: The project proposes to rezone an approximately 0.67-acre site from the R3-D zone to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district (P40), in order to develop the site with a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The General Plan designation would be amended from HighDensity Residential to Mixed-Use Corridor under the San Antonio Precise Plan.

The project site is not included on sites listed in the hazardous materials databases pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).

Project Location: The approximately 0.67-acre project site is located at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive (Accessor Parcel Numbers: 148-016-008, 148-016-009) in the City of Mountain View.

Initial Study/Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been prepared for the proposed project and the analysis has determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts with implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended to the City Council. The public review period for the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is from March 6, 2020 to March 25, 2020 at 5:00 p.m.

Consideration/Adoption: The date for the required consideration and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been tentatively scheduled for April 21, 2020. We encourage you to regularly check the City’s website to confirm the date and time of project hearings at the following web address:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/ceqa/default.asp Information: All information regarding the proposed project, the Initial Study, Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all documents referenced in the environmental analysis are available for review in the City of Mountain View’s Community Development Department, 500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View, CA 94039-7540. Written comments regarding the project may be sent to Matthew VanHua, AICP, Senior Planner, at the mailing address listed above or via email at [email protected].

If you challenge any decision to this request in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public meeting or hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public meeting or hearing.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View March October 2020

REVISED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

REVISED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
I. INTRODUCTION
A. LEAD AGENCY AND ADDRESS
Community Development Department
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
B. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Matthew VanHua, AICP, Eric Anderson, Senior Principal Planner Community Development Department
City of Mountain View
(650) 903-6119 6306
C. PROJECT SPONSOR AND ADDRESS
Octane Fayette, LLC
800 W El Camino Real #180
Mountain View, CA 94040
D. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING
General Plan: High-Density Residential
Zoning: High-Density Residential
E. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project proposes to rezone the site from the R3-D zone to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district (P40), in order to develop the site with a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The General Plan designation would be amended from High-Density Residential to Mixed-Use Corridor under the San Antonio Precise Plan.

The project site is not included on sites listed in the hazardous materials databases pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View March October 2020
F. LOCATION OF PROJECT
The approximately 0.67-acre project site is located at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive (Accessor Parcel Numbers: 148-016-008, 148-016-009) in the City of Mountain View.

II. MITIGATION MEASURES
Air Quality
MM AIR-3.1: All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter emissions.

Alternatively, equipment that meets U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines that include CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or equivalent would be effective. The use of equipment that is powered by electricity or alternatively fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would also meet this requirement.

Noise and Vibration
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.

III. DETERMINATION
In accordance with local procedures regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study recommends the following determination:

The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the implementation of the required mitigation measures, and therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required.

The Initial Study incorporates all relevant information regarding potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required.

IV. FINDINGS
Based on the findings of the Initial Study, the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons:
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Mountain View March October 2020
A. As discussed in the preceding sections, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate historic or prehistoric sites.

B. As discussed in the preceding sections, both short-term and long-term environmental effects associated with the proposed project will be less than significant.

C. When impacts associated with the adoption of the proposed project are considered alone or in combination with other impacts, the project-related impacts are insignificant.

D. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a result of the proposed project.

E. This determination reflects the independent judgment of the City. ____________________________________________ _________________________ Name/Title Date
Eric Anderson
Principal Planner
October 16, 2020
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project i Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................1 Section 2.0 Project Information .........................................................................................................2 Section 3.0 Project Description..........................................................................................................6 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ...........................................13 Aesthetics..............................................................................................................................14 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .....................................................................................20 Air Quality............................................................................................................................24 Biological Resources............................................................................................................37 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................45 Energy...................................................................................................................................50 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................56 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................................64 Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................................70 Hydrology and Water Quality ..............................................................................................79 Land Use and Planning.........................................................................................................88 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................93 Noise.....................................................................................................................................95 Population and Housing......................................................................................................105 Public Services ...................................................................................................................108 Recreation...........................................................................................................................114 Transportation.....................................................................................................................117 Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................125 Utilities and Service Systems .............................................................................................128 Wildfire...............................................................................................................................135 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................137 Section 5.0 References...................................................................................................................142 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants.....................................................................................146 Lead Agency.......................................................................................................................146 Consultants .........................................................................................................................146 Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations......................................................................................147 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project ii Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Figure 2.4-1: Regional Map...................................................................................................................3 Figure 2.4-2: Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................................4 Figure 2.4-3: Aerial Map .......................................................................................................................5 Figure 3.0-1: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................7 Figure 3.0-2: Conceptual Elevation Plan ...............................................................................................8 Figure 3.0-3: Conceptual Elevation Plan ...............................................................................................9 Figure 3.0-4: Grading and Utility Plan ................................................................................................10 Tables
Table 4.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants....................................................................................24 Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds..........................................................29 Table 4.3-3: Construction Period Emissions.....................................................................................30 Table 4.3-4: Operational Period Emissions.......................................................................................32 Table 4.3-5: Project Construction Community Risk Impacts at MEI ...............................................33 Table 4.3-6: Combined Community Risk Impacts at MEI................................................................34 Table 4.3-7: Community Risk Impact to New Project Residences...................................................35 Table 4.4-1: Summary of Existing Trees...........................................................................................39 Table 4.6-1: Annual Project Energy Demand ...................................................................................54 Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons ..............................................68 Table 4.11-1: Development Standards and Exceptions.......................................................................90 Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria........................................................................96 Table 4.13-2: Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines......................................................................97 Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment................................................102 Table 4.14-1: Population and Housing in Mountain View................................................................106 Table 4.17-1: Existing Plus Project Intersection Level of Service Summary ...................................121 Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment
Appendix B: Arborist Report
Appendix C: Geotechnical Report
Appendix D: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project iii Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Appendix E: Traffic Study
Appendix F: Utility Impact Study
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 1 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City Mountain View, California.

The project proposes to rezone the site from the R3-D zone to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district (P40), in order to develop a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 20-day public review and comment period.

During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 20-day public review period should be sent to:

Matthew VanHua, AICP
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540

CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, The City of Mountain View will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting. The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions.

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City of Mountain View will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)). 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 2 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

PROJECT TITLE
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential

LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Matthew VanHua, AICP
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540

PROJECT APPLICANT
Octane Fayette, LLC
800 W El Camino Real #180
Mountain View, CA 94040

PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 0.67-acre site is located at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive (Accessor Parcel Numbers:
148-016-008, 148-016-009). A regional map and vicinity map of the project site are shown on Figure

2.4-1 and Figure 2.4-2. An aerial photograph with surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.4-3.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
148-016-008, 148-016-009

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
The project site is located within the San Antonio Change Area in the Mountain View General Plan, but it is not currently included in the San Antonio Precise Plan area. The site is zoned R3-D, HighDensity Residential. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
3 Inititial Study
March 2020
Alma Street
Central Expressway
Foothill Expressway
Junipero Serra Boulevard
aP ge M il R l
oad
aS n A t n
no
oi oR da
Alma Street
Central Expressway
Foothill Expressway
Junipero Serra Boulevard
Page Mill Road
aS n nA ot oi n oR da
82 82
85 85
237
101
101
280
280
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Mountian View
Sunnyvale
Palo Alto
Menlo Park
Los Altos
Mountian View
Sunnyvale
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.4-1
01 .5 5 Miles
Pacific
Ocean
San José
Fremont
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
San José Sunnyvale Sunnyvale
Fremont San Mateo San Mateo
Redwood City Redwood City
Livermore Livermore
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
Project Site Project Site
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
4 Inititial Study
March 2020
Ryan Lane
Mil el r C ourt
oL s A otl s A venue
Santa Rita Court
Larsens Landing
De M l
ed oi A venue
Fayette Drive
Miller Avenue
California Street
aS n nA ot i n o oR da
El Camino Real
Ryan Lane
Miller Court
Los Altos Avenue
Santa Rita Court
Larsens Landing
Del Medio Avenue
Fayette Drive
aP cc eh tt W i
ya Pacchetti Way
Miller Avenue
California Street
San Antonio Road
El Camino Real
82 82
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.4-2
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS0’50’ 200’ 300’ 400’
Project Site
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
5 Inititial Study
March 2020
Fayette Drive
aS n nA ot i n o oR da
El Camino Real
De M l
ed oi A venue
Fayette Drive
San Antonio Road
El Camino Real
Del Medio Avenue
He ct h H e ct hy Hetch Hetchy
Residential
Residential
Future Park
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Mixed-Use
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.4-3 Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Oct. 31, 2019. Photo Date: Aug. 2018 0’ 25’ 100’ 150’ 200’ 300’
Project Boundary
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 6 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT OVERVIEW AND LOCATION
The approximately 0.67-acre project site is located at 2645-2655 Fayette Drive (Accessor Parcel Numbers: 148-016-008, 148-016-009) in the City of Mountain View. 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).

Assuming the project site has an east-west alignment, the project site is surrounded by three-story apartments to the west, four-story apartments to the south, a future park and a five-to-seven-story apartment building to the north (across Fayette Drive), and a commercial lot to the east.

The project proposes to rezone the site from the R3-D zone to the San Antonio Precise Plan zoning district (P40), in order to develop the site with six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The General Plan designation would be amended from High-Density Residential to Mixed-Use Corridor under the San Antonio Precise Plan. The project components including the residential building, common open space landscaping, site access and parking, public-right-of-way and utility improvements, and construction details are described below.

A conceptual site plan, conceptual elevation plan, and grading and utility plan of the project are shown on Figure 3.0-1 through Figure 3.0-4.

PROJECT COMPONENTS
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning
The project site is located within the San Antonio Change Area in the Mountain View General Plan, but it is not currently included in the San Antonio Precise Plan area. The site is zoned R3-D, HighDensity Residential. The San Antonio Change Area is defined by its mix of commercial and residential uses that are intended to be included in the San Antonio Precise Plan. The R3-D zone permits multiple-family housing including apartments, condominium development, rowhouse development, townhouse development, small-lot single-family development and similar and related compatible uses.

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. As discussed in Section 4.11 Land Use and Planning, 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. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
7 Inititial Study
March 2020
5' 10' 20'
25'
48'
LOBBY

CLUBHOUSE

PARKING
ACCESS
DN

STAIRS TO
GARAGE
3BR
2BR
2BR
15'
16'

EGRESS PATH

TRASH STAGING
P
MC
W
3BR
3BR
22'
24'
15'
MPOE
MAIL
15'
2BR
VENT

SHAFT ELEVATOR
STAIRS #1
STAIRS #2

COVERED
PATIO

ADJACENT
4-STORY

APARTMENT
25'

HETCH-HETCHY

FAYETTE DR
1000 SF
95 SF
255 SF
71 SF
93 SF
480 SF

RESTROOMRESTROOM
66 SF66 SF
297 SF
820 SF

DRIVEWAY SLOPE PROFILE
UP

PACKAGE LOCKER
UP
IDF
5' 1'-6"
MAIL
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
PATIO
24'
15'
25'
24'
14'-6"
13'-6"
TRASH
ROOM
255 SF
30'
6' SIDEWALK
4' PLANTING STRIP
Source: Studio T Square., 10/11/2019.

POOL
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.0-1
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
8 Inititial Study
March 2020
LOBBY
UNITS ABOVE UNITS GARAGE ACCESS 3 STORY APARTMENT HETCH HETCHY

COURTYARD EGRESS

SIDEYARD
75'-6"
+57.5' +58'
ELEVATOR OVERRUN IS ± 8' TALLER THAN LAST ELEVATOR STOP FAYETTE DR UNITS COURTYARD CLUB HOUSE UNITS ABOVE 4 STORY APARTMENT UNITS REARYARD STOOPS 4' PLANTING STRIP
6' SIDEWALK
73'-6"
+57.5'
ELEVATOR OVERRUN IS ± 8' TALLER THAN LAST ELEVATOR STOP 5' PUE
Northeast Elevation
Northwest Elevation
LEVEL 6 +60'-0"LEVEL 5 +49'-0"LEVEL 4 +38'-0"LEVEL 3 +27'-0"LEVEL 2 +16'-0"LEVEL 1 + 3'-0"TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING +72'-0"TOP OF PARAPET +75'-6" TOP OF PARAPET +75'-6"TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING +72'-0"LEVEL 6 +60'-0"LEVEL 5 +49'-0"LEVEL 4 +38'-0"LEVEL 3 +27'-0"LEVEL 2 +16'-0"LEVEL 1 + 3'-0" LEVEL 6 +58'-0"LEVEL 5 +47'-0"LEVEL 4 +36'-0"LEVEL 3 +25'-0"LEVEL 2 +14'-0"TOP OF PARAPET +73'-6"TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING +70'-0"LEVEL 6 +58'-0"LEVEL 5 +47'-0"LEVEL 4 +36'-0"LEVEL 3 +25'-0"LEVEL 2 +14'-0"LEVEL 1 +1'-0"TOP OF PARAPET +73'-6"TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING +70'-0"LEVEL 1 +1'-0" CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-2
Source: Studio T Square., 10/2/2018.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
9 Inititial Study
March 2020

REARYARD UNITS LOBBY UNITS ABOVE FAYETTE DR FUTURE CITY PARK 4' PLANTING STRIP
5' PUE
6' SIDEWALK
77' 0"
+59.5'
+58'
ELEVATOR OVERRUN IS ± 8' TALLER THAN LAST ELEVATOR STOP Southeast Elevation
Southwest Elevation
TOP OF PARAPET +77'-0"LEVEL 6 +59'-6"
LEVEL 5 +48'-6"
LEVEL 4 +37'-6"LEVEL 3 +26'-6"LEVEL 2 +15'-6"LEVEL 1 +2'-6"TOP OF ROOF +74'-6"TOP OF PARAPET +77'-0"TOP OF ROOF +74'-6"LEVEL 6 +59'-6" LEVEL 5 +48'-6"
LEVEL 4 +37'-6"LEVEL 3 +26'-6"LEVEL 2 +15'-6"LEVEL 1 +2'-6" TOP OF GUARDRAIL +73’-6” TOP OF ROOF SHEATHING +70’-0”
LEVEL 6 +58’-0”LEVEL 5 +47’-0”LEVEL 4 +36’-0”LEVEL 3 +25’-0”LEVEL 2 +14’-0”LEVEL 1 +1’-0” CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.0-3
Source: Studio T Square., 10/2/2018.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project
City of Mountain View
10 Inititial Study
March 2020
Source: Studio T Square., 10/11/2019.

LEGEND
NOTES

PROPOSED

BUILDING
RESPONSIBILITY TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTIMATEAPPROXIMATE. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'SNOTE: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
FILL:CUT:EXPORT:IMPORT:

QUANTITIES FOR HIS/HER OWN USE.
0 CY
11100 CY

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
0 CY
11100 CY
LOBBY
GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN FIGURE 3.0-4
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 11 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The proposed 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 the San Antonio Precise Plan boundary approximately 155 feet and the incorporation of a neighborhood transition area on the western boundary of the site. 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.

Residential Building
The residential building would be a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The building would be 77 feet tall. The residential units would have one to three bedrooms and would range from approximately 813 to 1,612 square feet. The proposed project would result in a residential density of approximately 66 dwelling units (DU) per acre and a FAR of 2.50. The total square footage of the proposed building would be 72,620 square feet. The project proposes a 13.5-foot setback from the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, a 24-foot setback from Fayette Drive, an approximate 30-foot setback from the northern property line, and a 15-foot setback from the southern property line.

Common Open Space and Landscaping
There are 18 existing trees on-site, including nine Heritage trees, as defined by the City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Chapter 32, Article 2). Seven of the of the nine Heritage trees would be removed prior to construction. One of the remaining Heritage trees would be relocated on-site. The project would be required to obtain a Heritage Tree Removal Permit from the city of Mountain View, Forestry & Roadway Division for the removal of the Heritage trees. New landscaping would be planted throughout the project site, including 16 new trees. An additional four street trees would be planted on the Fayette Drive frontage. Shrubs, perennials, and grass areas will also be part of the new landscaping. The project would also include three common open spaces, one on the roof deck and two on the ground-level, totaling approximately 9,500 square feet in size. The roof deck would offer a gazebo and shade trellis, barbecue, fire pit, and seating. The ground-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.

Green Building Measures
Per the Mountain View Green Building Code, the proposed project would adhere to the Residential Mandatory Measures of the 2016 California Green Building Code (CALGreen) and a score of at least 50 points using the multifamily Green Point checklist established by Build It Green. The project proposes to score 110 points on the GreenPoint checklist.

Site Access and Parking
A 22-foot wide driveway adjacent to Fayette Drive would provide vehicular access to the site. The driveway would provide direct access to two levels of underground garage parking. The underground parking garage levels would provide a total of 94 vehicle parking spaces as well as 48 bicycle parking spaces.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 12 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Pedestrian access would be provided by a six-foot sidewalk along Fayette Drive. A private egress path along the southern and western border of the site would provide further pedestrian circulation for residents.

Public Right-Of-Way and Utility Improvements
The project has a strong, pedestrian-oriented design with conveniently located pathways from the street, and the project design locates an attractive outdoor recreation area adjacent to the future public park on the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way parcel to provide for a safer and more visually appealing public space. Pedestrian-scaled design elements such as projecting porches and canopies along Fayette Drive further enhance the streetscape.

The project would connect to existing sewer, natural gas, electrical, water, and storm drain utilities on Fayette Drive and would be required to make any improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. All above-ground utilities would be placed below ground. On-site stormwater treatment would occur through the use of flow-through planters.

Construction
Construction, which includes demolition, site preparation, and construction of the project, is estimated to take approximately 11 months to complete, possibly starting in September 2020 and concluding in July 2021. Approximately 11,100 cubic yards of soil would be exported.

USES OF THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION This Initial Study/MND provides decision makers in the City of Mountain View (the Lead Agency), responsible agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in considering the proposed project. It is intended that this Initial Study be used for discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These discretionary actions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• General Plan Amendment
• Rezoning
• Vesting Tentative Map
• Development Review Permit
• Grading Permit
• Demolition Permit
• Heritage Tree Removal Permit
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 13 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND

IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:

4.1 Aesthetics

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

4.3 Air Quality

4.4 Biological Resources

4.5 Cultural Resources

4.6 Energy

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.11 Land Use and Planning

4.12 Mineral Resources

4.13 Noise

4.14 Population and Housing

4.15 Public Services

4.16 Recreation

4.17 Transportation

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems

4.20 Wildfire

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, Impact AIR-3 answers the third checklist question in the Air Quality section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM AIR-3.1 refers to the first mitigation measure for the third impact in the Air Quality section. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 14 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

AESTHETICS
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically vehicle miles traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if:
• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and • The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area.1 SB 743 also states that aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.

Further, it clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. There are no state-designated scenic highways in Mountain View.

Interstate 280 from the San Mateo County line to State Route (SR) 17, which includes segments in Mountain View, is an eligible, but not officially designated, State Scenic Highway.2 1 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-ofway from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: Office of Planning and Research. “Changes to CEQA for Transit Oriented Development – FAQ.” October 14, 2014. Accessed April 26, 2019. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/transit-oriented.html. 2 California Department of Transportation. ”Scenic Highways.” Accessed October 30, 2019. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 15 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to visual and aesthetic resources applicable to the proposed project include the following.

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

LUD 6.3 Street presence. Encourage building facades and frontages that create a presence at the street and along interior pedestrian paseos or pathways.

LUD 9.1 Height and setback transitions. Ensure that new development includes sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.

LUD 9.3 Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces:
• Encourage strong pedestrian-oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street.
• Encourage pedestrian-scaled design elements such as stoops, canopies and porches. • Encourage connections to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
• Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses. • Locate parking lots to the rear or side of buildings. • Encourage building articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest. • Promote and regulate high-quality sign materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
• Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.

LUD 9.6 Light and glare. Minimize light and glare from new development City of Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36) sets forth specific design guidelines, height limits, building density, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements.

The Zoning Ordinance promotes careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City’s development review process includes the review of preliminary plans, the consideration of public input at and by the Development Review Committee (DRC), Zoning Administrator, Environmental Planning Commission (EPC), and the City Council. The City’s Planning Division reviews private and public development applications for conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to zoning, urban design, subdivision, and CEQA.

The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for large development projects and makes final decisions for permits and variances, and the DRC reviews the architecture and site design of new development and provides project applicants with appropriate design comments/direction. The development review process ensures the architecture and urban design of new developments would protect the City’s visual environment. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 16 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Existing Conditions
Project Site
The 0.67-acre project site is located on Fayette Drive between Del Medio Avenue and San Antonio Road, adjacent to the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way. The project site is located in a transit priority area due to its proximity to major bus routes on San Antonio Road and El Camino Real and the San Antonio Caltrain station.

The site is composed of two parcels currently developed with a single-family residence, five apartment units, and a commercial building. The existing buildings are in poor condition and currently vacant. There are 18 trees on-site.

Surrounding Area
Surrounding land uses include three-story apartments to the northwest, four-story apartments to the southwest, a future park space to the northeast, and a commercial lot to the southeast. Landscaped areas consisting of trees, shrubs, and grasses are located along the Fayette Drive frontage. The project site and surrounding area are essentially flat and only visible from Fayette Drive. The site is not located on a scenic view corridor; nor is it visible from a designated or eligible State scenic highway. No scenic vistas or scenic resources are located on site.

Light and Glare
Streetlights and other lighting are found throughout the area in the vicinity of the project. Sources of light and glare in the surrounding area are those typical in developed urban areas, including headlights, streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, and reflective surfaces such as windows.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
2) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? 3
If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
3 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 17 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
4) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Impact AES-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (No Impact)
As mentioned in Section 4.1.1.2, Surrounding Area, the site does not contain any scenic view corridors or scenic resources. For this reason, the project would not impact scenic resources or a scenic vista. (No Impact)
Impact AES-2: The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (No Impact)
There are no rock outcroppings at the project site. The project site is not be located within or adjacent to a state-designated scenic highway. The project site does not contain historic buildings and, therefore, the project would not impact historic buildings within a scenic highway. For these reasons, the project would not result in substantial damage to scenic resources. (No Impact) Impact AES-3: The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. The project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is surrounded by three- to four-story apartments, a future park space, and a commercial lot. The proposed residential development would be a six story, 44 unit stacked flat condominium building with two levels of underground parking. The building would be approximately 75 feet tall. The proposed residential development is compatible with the character of surrounding multi-family residential uses. The proposed architecture and streetscape design is intended to be compatible with the styles of both older and more recent development in the neighborhood.

The project will be subject to the Development Review approval process prior to submittal of construction drawings for a building permit. This review and approval process includes a Development Review Committee (DRC) public hearing to receive a recommendation on the design, followed by an Environmental Planning Commission public hearing and public hearings before the Zoning Administrator and City Council. This review would ensure that the proposed design and construction materials are consistent with community standards for multi-family development, including consistency with site design, building orientation, architectural design and setbacks. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 18 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The project design proposes to relocate two of the existing Heritage trees on-site and plant 14 new trees. Any trees removed for the project would be replaced per City standards. A final landscape plan would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to project construction. Implementation of an approved landscape plan would further preserve and enhance the visual quality of the project site and its surroundings. For these reasons, the proposed project would not detract from or degrade the visual character of the immediate area. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact AES-4: The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Existing light sources on the project site includes exterior lighting from the buildings and streetlights.

Sources of daytime glare include building windows and vehicles. The proposed project would remove the existing uses and redevelop the site with a six-story condominium building, which would include exterior lighting for safety.

The City’s design guidelines for multi-family residential uses call for exterior lighting that does not produce glare and is not of intensity inappropriate for a residential environment. At the time of building permit review, a lighting plan will be reviewed by the Community Development Department to ensure that lighting is directed downward and will not spill over onto adjacent properties or otherwise be highly visible, while providing adequate lighting for safety.

The level of lighting associated with residential development would likely be slightly increased compared to existing conditions; however, it would be similar in extent and intensity to that of surrounding residential development and would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. For these reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. (Less than Significant Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AES-1: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No Impact No mitigation required
Not
Applicable
(NA)
AES-2: The project would not substantially
damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic
highway.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
AES-3: The project would not substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 19 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
surroundings. The project would not conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality.

AES-4: The project would not create a new
source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 20 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is called Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on-site or in the project area.4
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses.

In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses.5 Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources.6 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be affected are located on or adjacent to a project site.7
4 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 5 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. 6 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).
7 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed November 1, 2019. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 21 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Existing Conditions
The project site is not used for agricultural purposes and is not the subjects of a Williamson Act contract. No land adjacent to the project site is used for agricultural production. The land in the project vicinity is designated for and zoned as High-Density Residential. The land on and adjacent to the site is not forest land or zoned for timberland production.

There are four farmland categories in the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping Program: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and Farmland of Local Importance. According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map, the project site is Urban and Built-Up, which is defined as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel. 8 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
5) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
8 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map. September 2018. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 22 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact AG-1: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. (No Impact)
The project proposes to construct a six-story condominium development at the project site. The site is designated by the California Resources Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as Urban and Built-Up, and therefore, would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. (No Impact) Impact AG-2: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project site is not subject to the Williamson Act contract. The project would, therefore, not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
Impact AG-3: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (No Impact)
The project site is not zoned for forest land or timberland. For this reason, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (No Impact)
Impact AG-4: The project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
The project site is not designated as forest land. For this reason, the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact) Impact AG-5: The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
The project site is not designated agricultural or forest land and is located in an urban area with no agricultural or forestry land nearby. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest uses. (No Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 23 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AG-1: The project would not convert Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
AG-2: The project would not conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
AG-3: The project would not conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
AG-4: The project would not result in a loss
of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
AG-5: The project would not involve other
changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 24 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based in part on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin in January 2020. A copy of this report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed related to six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), and lead.9 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health effects are summarized in Table 4.3-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.

Table 4.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
O3
Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high
temperature stationary combustion,
atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) and
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels,
construction activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric chemical
reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially dieselfueled; industrial sources, such as chrome platers; dry cleaners and
service stations; building materials
and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive
disorders
High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NOX.

These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O3 levels. 9 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 25 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources.

PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They include but are not limited to criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury).10 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.

Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead. 10 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed June 16, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 26 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant.

Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in additional to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off-road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.11
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.
11 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-qualityplans/current-plans. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 27 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies were adopted to promote clean, breathable air and control sources of air pollution in the City of Mountain View.

Policy Description
INC 20.1 Pollution prevention. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

INC 20.6 Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

INC 20.7 Protect sensitive receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.

INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

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.

MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT.

MOB 10.2 Reducing travel demand. Promote effective Transportation Demand Management programs for existing and new development.

Existing Conditions
The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the federal Clean Air Act and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.

The project site is currently occupied by vacant residential and commercial buildings. Any existing emissions are considered negligible.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 28 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:
2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
4) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Thresholds of Significance
As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds referenced in this analysis are identified in Table 4.3-2. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 29 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Daily
Emissions
(pounds/year)
Annual Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust
Dust Control
Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (within a 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) Health Hazard Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources Excess Cancer Risk >10 per one million >100 per one million Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Incremental Annual
PM2.5
>0.3 µg/m3 >0.8 μg/m3 (average)
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. *BAAQMD does not have a recommended post-2020 GHG threshold.

Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant Impact) BAAQMD is the regional agency responsible for overseeing compliance with State and Federal laws, regulations, and programs within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). As previously stated, BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is 2017 CAP. The primary goals of the Clean Air Plan are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The BAAQMD has also developed CEQA guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating the significance of air quality impacts. In formulating compliance strategies, BAAQMD relies on planned land uses established by local general plans.

Land use planning affects vehicle travel, which in turn affects region-wide emissions of air pollutants and GHGs.

The 2017 CAP includes control measures that are intended to reduce air pollutant emissions in the Bay Area either directly or indirectly. Plans must show consistency with the control measures listed within the Clean Air Plan. At the project-level, there are no consistency measures or thresholds. The proposed project would not conflict with the latest Clean Air planning efforts because the project 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 30 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
would have emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds (see Impact AIR-2 below), would be an urban infill development, and would be located near transit with regional connections. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact AIR-2: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Less than Significant Impact)
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate emissions from construction and operation of the project assuming full build-out conditions. The project land use types and size, and anticipated construction schedule were input to CalEEMod. The model output from CalEEMod along with construction and operational inputs can be found in Appendix A.

Construction Period Emissions
CalEEMod provided annual emissions for construction including both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The project construction schedule and equipment usage assumes the project would take 11 months to construct. Average daily emissions were computed by dividing the total construction emissions by the number of construction days. Table 4.3-3 shows average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 4.3-3, the construction period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds.

Table 4.3-3: Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Total Construction Emissions (tons) 0.6 tons 1.1 tons <0.1 tons <0.1 tons Average Daily Emissions (pounds/day)1 5.5 lbs./day 9.5 lbs./day 0.4 lbs./day 0.3 lbs./day BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Note: Assumes 225 construction workdays
Construction activities, particularly during site preparation and grading, would temporarily generate fugitive dust in the form of PM10 and PM2.5. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider these impacts to be less-than-significant if best management practices are implemented to reduce these emissions.

Standard Condition of Approval: The project will implement the following measures to control dust and exhaust during construction.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 31 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
BASIC AIR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MEASURES: The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additional measures may be identified by the BAAQMD or contractor as appropriate, such as:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The project, with the implementation of the above Standard Condition of Approval, would reduce construction criteria air pollutant emissions to a less than significant level by controlling dust and exhaust, limiting exposed soil surfaces, and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria air pollutants from construction emissions. (Less Than Significant Impact) Operational Period Emissions
Operational air emissions from the project would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future residents. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are also typical emissions from these types of uses. CalEEMod was used to calculate emissions from operation of the proposed project. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 32 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Vehicle trip generation rates were input to the model using the daily trip generation rate provided by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (see Section 4.17 Transportation). There would be limited electricity-related air pollutant emissions because Silicon Valley Energy began providing 100 percent carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses, with over 98 percent participation in Mountain View. However, a 10 percent non-participation rate was assumed to be conservative when calculating operational emissions. Emissions from water/wastewater use were estimated using the water demand and sewer flow rates provided by Schaaf & Wheeler. The CalEEMod results are summarized below in Table 4.3-4.

Table 4.3-4: Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2022 Project Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.4 tons 0.3 tons 0.2 tons 0.1 tons BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No
2022 Project Operational Emissions (lbs./day)
1 2.2 lbs. 1.5 lbs. 1.1 lbs. 0.3 lbs.

BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Notes: 1 Assumes 365-day operation.

As shown in Table 4.3-4, operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds. The project, therefore, would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of regional criteria pollutants due to project operations. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact AIR-3: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Temporary project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. A construction community health risk assessment was prepared to address project construction impacts on the surrounding off-site sensitive receptors.

Operation of the project is not expected to be a source of TAC or localized air pollutant emissions, as the project would not generate substantial truck traffic or include stationary sources of emissions, such as generators powered by diesel engines. Auto traffic generated by the project would be spread out over a broad geographical area and not localized.

Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. The primary community risk impact issue associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM2.5. Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individuals (MEIs). The construction MEI was located in the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 33 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
eastern corner on the second floor (4.5 meters above ground) of the adjacent multi-family building to the southwest of the project site. The maximum increased cancer risk from construction exceeds its BAAQMD single-source thresholds of greater than 10.0 per million. The maximum PM2.5 concentration and maximum computed HI do not exceed their respective thresholds of greater than

0.3 µg/m3 for PM2.5 concentration and greater than 1.0 for HI. Table 4.3-5 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the MEI.

Table 4.3-5: Project Construction Community Risk Impacts at MEI Source
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction Unmitigated
Mitigated

47.2 (infant)

5.5 (infant)

0.22 0.04

0.03 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceeds Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure: The project would implement the mitigation measures listed below to reduce TAC impacts to nearby sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.

MM AIR-3.1: All diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter emissions. Alternatively, equipment that meets U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines that include CARBcertified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters (DPF) or equivalent would be effective.

The use of equipment that is powered by electricity or alternatively fueled equipment (i.e., non-diesel) would also meet this requirement.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 using Tier 3 engines with Level 3 DPFs would reduce on-site diesel exhaust emissions from construction equipment by 88 percent. With mitigation, the computed maximum increased lifetime residential cancer risk from construction at the MEI location, assuming infant exposure, would be 5.5 in one million or less. The mitigated cancer risk, therefore, would no longer exceed its respective significance threshold. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Cumulative Community Health Risk at Construction MEI
Cumulative TAC impacts are assessed by predicting the combined community risk impacts of the project construction and nearby sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site. TAC sources include rail lines, highways, busy surface streets (>10,000 average daily trips or ADT), and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project area indicates El Camino Real and San Antonio Road are the only roadways in the vicinity of the site exceeding 10,000 ADT. As shown in Table 4.3-6, three stationary sources of TACs were also identified within 1,000 feet of the project site. Table 4.3-6 identifies both the project and cumulative community risk impacts at the 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 34 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
sensitive receptors most affected by construction of the project (i.e. the MEI). Without mitigation, the project’s community risk from project construction activities would exceed the maximum cancer risk single-source significance threshold. The combined annual cancer risk, PM2.5 concentration, and Hazard risk values, which includes unmitigated and mitigated, would not exceed their respective cumulative thresholds. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures AIR-3.1, the project construction’s cancer risk would no longer exceed the single-source significance threshold. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Table 4.3-6: Combined Community Risk Impacts at MEI
Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Maximum
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
Single-Source Risk
Project Construction Unmitigated
Mitigated

47.2 (infant)

5.5 (infant)

0.22 0.04

0.03 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Cumulative-Source Risks
El Camino Real/S.R. 82 at 450 feet east,
Link 244 (6ft elevation)

7.3 0.06 0.02
San Antonio Road (north-south) at 475 feet west
ADT 26,136

1.4 0.04 <0.03
Plant #100914 (GDF) at 1,000 feet <0.1 -- <0.01
Plant #109042 (GDF) at 1,000 feet <0.1 -- <0.01
Plant #23116 (Generator) at 820 feet -- <0.01 --
Cumulative Total Unmitigated
Mitigated
<56.1
<14.4
<0.33
<0.15
<0.10
<0.08
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Cumulative Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
No
No
No
No
No
No
Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable by adjacent receptors; however, the odors would be localized and temporary and would not affect people off-site. For these reasons, 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 35 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant long-term or short-term odor impacts, affecting a substantial number of people. (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 air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.

Operational Community Health Risk Impacts – New Project Residences In addition to evaluating health impact from project construction, a health risk assessment was completed to assess the impact that existing TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors that the project would introduce. The same TAC sources identified above were used in this health risk assessment. All health risk results are listed in Table 4.3-7. TAC sources included in the community risk impact included major roadways and stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Table 4.3-7: Community Risk Impact to New Project Residences Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Maximum
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
El Camion Real/S.R. 82 at 500 feet east,
Link 244 (6 ft. elevation)

6.6 0.06 0.02
San Antonio Road (north-south) at 425 feet west
ADT 26,136

1.5 0.04 <0.03
Plant #100914 (GDF) at 885 feet <0.1 -- <0.01
Plant #109042 (GDF) at 1,000 feet <0.1 -- <0.01
Plant #23116 (Generator) at 800 feet -- <0.01 --
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
Cumulative Total <8.3 <0.11 <0.07
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
As shown, the annual cancer risks, annual PM2.5 concentrations, and Hazard Indexes are all below their respective BAAQMD single-source and cumulative significance thresholds. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 36 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
AIR-1: The project would not conflict with
or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
AIR-2: The project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
AIR-3: The project would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. Significant
MM AQ-3.1,
reduction in
constructionrelated TACs
Less than
Significant
AIR-4: The project would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of
people.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 37 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based in part on an Arborist Report prepared by Michael P. Young, Certified Arborist in May 2014. A copy of this report is included in Appendix B of this IS.

Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. The taking and killing of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited by the MBTA when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds.12 Nesting birds are considered special-status species and are protected by the USFWS. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800. The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control 12 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. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 38 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) covers approximately 520,000 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the Cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), USFWS, and CDFW. The Habitat Plan is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to biological resources and are applicable to the project include the following.

Policy Description
LUD 10.2 Low impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant features.

INC 16.3 Habitat. Protect and enhance nesting, foraging and habitat for special-status species and other wildlife.

INC 16.6 Built environment habitat. Integrate biological resources, such as green roofs and native landscaping, into the built environment.

Mountain View Tree Preservation Ordinance
The City of Mountain View tree regulations protect all trees designated as Heritage trees (Chapter 32, Article 2). A Heritage tree is defined as any one of the following:
• A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade;
• A multi-branched tree which has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork. • Any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 39 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
• A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.

A tree removal permit is required from the City of Mountain View for the removal of Heritage trees.

Existing Conditions
Special-Status Plants
According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there is one special-status plant species that has been recorded to occur within the Mountain View topographic quadrangle. However, this federally endangered plant, the California seablite (Suaeda californica), is unlikely to occur onsite due to a lack of suitable habitat, lack of quality soil, and high level of activity and disturbance within project boundaries.

Special-Status Wildlife Species
According to the CNDDB, there are seven special-status wildlife species that have been recorded to occur within the Mountain View topographic quadrangle. All seven of these species are unlikely to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. The site is located in a residential area that has been highly altered by building development. Landscaping on the project site is sparse and does not serve as wildlife habitat to any special-status species. The property does not contain a wildlife nursery site, sensitive habitats, or waters/wetlands, nor is it suitable as a wildlife corridor. The nearest waterway is Adobe Creek and it is approximately 0.37 miles northwest of the project site.

Trees
Based on the arborist report, there are a total of 18 trees on-site. The trees include one douglas fir, one redwood, one coast live oak, one Mexican fan palm, 11 white mulberry, two Canary Island palm, and one plum (refer to Appendix B). As summarized in Table 4.4-1 below, nine of the on-site trees are Heritage trees.

Table 4.4-1: Summary of Existing Trees
Total Number of Existing Trees 18
Total Number of Non-Heritage Trees 9
Heritage Trees 9
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 40 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) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW
or USFWS?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Impact BIO-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant Impact) There are 16 on-site trees that would be removed at part of the project as well as two trees that will be relocated on-site. The trees could provide nesting habitat for special status bird species, including migratory birds and raptors. Nesting birds are among the species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 41 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Construction of the project during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impact.

Construction activities such as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor onsite or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact.

In compliance with the MBTA and the CDFW code, the proposed project shall implement the following City Standard Conditions of Approval, to reduce or avoid construction-related impacts to nesting raptors and their nests. (Less than Significant Impact) Standard Condition of Approval
NESTING BIRD AVOIDANCE: To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31, to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, pre-construction surveys shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than two days prior to these activities, to locate any active nests. The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500 feet of active nests—with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds— if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31.

If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the project applicant, in coordination with City staff as appropriate, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with CDFW (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends.

If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.

Impact BIO-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (No Impact) There are no sensitive habitats, including riparian habitat or areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, or unusual or regionally restricted habitat types on the site. For these reasons, the proposed development of the project site would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. (No Impact)
Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 42 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
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 Impact)
Impact BIO-4: The project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (No Impact)
Because the project site is surrounded by urban development, the site provides minimal dispersal habitat for native wildlife and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As discussed in the responses to Impacts BIO-2 and BIO-3, there are no riparian or wetland habitats on or adjacent to the site. The project would, therefore, not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, nor interfere with established corridors or wildlife nursery sites. (No Impact) Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project proposes to remove eight Heritage trees on-site prior to construction. Two additional Heritage trees on-site would be relocated. A City of Mountain View tree removal permit would be required before any trees could be removed from the site under a development permit. To reduce impacts due to the loss of Heritage trees and reduce the potential for impacts to trees to remain in place, the following measures are included in the project as standard City conditions of approval.

Standard Conditions of Approval
REPLACEMENT: The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage tree with a minimum of two new trees, for a total of 14 replacement trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage replacement trees. The project would plant a total of 14 new trees on site.

TREE PROTECTION MEASURES: Tree protection measures shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, six-foot chain-link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree to be retained on or immediately adjacent to the project site.

TREE MITIGATION AND PRESERVATION PLAN: The applicant shall develop a tree mitigation and preservation plan to avoid impacts on regulated trees and mitigate for the loss of trees that cannot be avoided. The plan shall outline measures to be taken to preserve offsite trees, such as a non-continuous footing near trees or shifting the proposed wall location to avoid trees and tree roots. Routine monitoring for the first five years and corrective actions for trees that consistently fail the performance standards shall be included in the tree mitigation and preservation plan. The tree mitigation and preservation plan shall be 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 43 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
developed in accordance with Chapter 32, Articles I and II, of the City Code, and subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to removal or disturbance of any Heritage trees resulting from project activities, including site preparation activities.

SECURITY BOND: The applicant shall post a security bond to ensure that replacement trees are planted and become established (one year after planting) and to compensate for the trees that were lost due to illegal removal.

With the implementation of the above Standard Conditions of Approval, project construction would not conflict with a tree ordinance or result in a significant impact to trees identified for preservation. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) The project site is not within the area of an applicable HCP or NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact) Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
BIO-1: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or
USFWS.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
BIO-2: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
BIO-3: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
BIO-4: The project would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or
No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 44 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites.

BIO-5: The project would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance.

Less than
Significant
Impact
No mitigation
required NA
BIO-6: The project would not conflict with
the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 45 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.13 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified. 13 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. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 46 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to visual and aesthetic resources applicable to the proposed project include the following.

Policy Description
LUD 11.5 Protect important archaeological and paleontological sites. Utilize the development review process to identify and protect archaeological and paleontological deposits.

LUD 11.6 Protect Human Remains. Utilize the development review process to identify and protect human remains and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance
Division 15, Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources of the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources. Division 15, Section 36.54.55 establishes the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, and sites that are considered during the development review process. The Mountain View Register has similar criteria for listing as the CRHR.

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.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 47 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
A records search and literature review was completed for the 2030 General Plan. The records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) 14 of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and at the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).15 Based upon the research, archaeological resources were not identified on the project site.16
Buildings on the project site are not listed on the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources. The existing development on site was not identified in the Citywide Historic Properties Survey as potentially eligible for any historic register.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence, five apartment units, and one commercial building. All of the buildings on-site are vacant. The properties are not listed or eligible for listing as historic resources. As a result, there are no structures determined eligible, or pending on the California Register of Historical Resources located on the project site; and no significant or potentially significant local, state, or federal cultural resources/historic properties (e.g., landmarks, points of interest, etc.) are located on the project site. Based on the historic properties listing in the City’s General Plan, the project site is not adjacent to any historic properties and the project would have no impact on historic resources. (No Impact)
Impact CUL-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact)
14 The NWIC is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for Santa Clara County. 15 The NAHC maintains the Sacred Lands File, which includes the location of sites with cultural significance to Native American groups.
16 Results of record search and literature review on file at the City Community Development Department. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 48 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Although the likelihood of encountering buried cultural resources is low, the disturbance of these resources, if they are encountered during excavation and construction, could create an impact. The project will be required to comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, which include measures to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown cultural resources. (Less than Significant Impact) Standard Condition of Approval
DISCOVERY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: If prehistoric, or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100 feet of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and wall, filled wells or privies, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.

If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Impact CUL-3: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant Impact) The project is not located in an archaeologically sensitive area. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during construction activities, implementation of Standard Permit Condition would reduce the project’s impact on human remains to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)
Standard Condition of Approval
DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS: In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50-foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the NAHC, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American.

If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains, and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 49 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
CUL-1: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
CUL-2: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
CUL-3: The project would not disturb any
human remains, including those interred
outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 50 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
ENERGY
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years, and the 2019 Title 24 updates will go into effect on January 1, 2020. 17 Compliance
with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.

California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. The most recent update to CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2020, and covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog17 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission.” Accessed November 4, 2019. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 51 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings.18 Local
Mountain View Green Building Code
At the local level, the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC includes energy efficiency standards that exceed the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third-party organization, but requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system.19 For residential projects proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires that those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CALGreen requirements.

Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,881 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2017, the most recent year for which this data was available. 20 Out of the 50 states, California is
ranked second in total energy consumption and 48th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent (1,416 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19 percent (1,473 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1,818 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 40 percent (3,175 trillion Btu) for transportation.20 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

The project site is currently developed with a single family residence, five apartment units and one commercial building. All of the buildings on-site are vacant. Prior to being vacated, energy use primarily consisted of gasoline for vehicle trips to and from the site. Electricity was also used for lighting and residential appliances, natural gas for heating and cooling, and operations within the commercial building and residential units.

Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2018 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (77 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 23 percent. In 2018, a total of approximately 16,668 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.21 18 California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm. 19 City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Green Building Code. 2017.” Accessed November 4, 2019. http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/mvgbc.asp. 20 United States Energy Information Administration. State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2017. Accessed November 4, 2019. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2. 21 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed November 4, 2019. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 52 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View.
22 SVCE sources the electricity and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free.

Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 2017, approximately 1.4 percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state production, while the remaining supply was imported from other western states and Canada.23 In 2016, residential and commercial customers in California used 29 percent of the state’s natural gas, power plants used 32 percent, and the industrial sector used 37 percent. Transportation accounted for one percent of natural gas use in California. In 2017, Santa Clara County used approximately 3.5 percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.24
Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2017, 15 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.25 The average fuel economy for lightduty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 24.9 mpg in 2018. 26 Federal
fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was subsequently revised to apply to cars and light trucks model years 2011 through 2020. 27,28
22 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed November 4, 2019. Available at:
https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs. 23 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 24 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 15, 2019. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx. 25 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. 26 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” March 2019. 27 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 15, 2019. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa. 28 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/PLAW-110publ140.pdf. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 53 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) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact EN-1: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (Less than Significant Impact) Energy Efficiency During Construction
The anticipated construction schedule assumes that the project will be built over a period of approximately 10 months, starting in September 2020 and concluding in July 2021. The construction phase would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, paving, and building construction and interior finishing. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy during construction. Energy would not be wasted or used inefficiently by construction equipment, as the proposed project would include several measures to improve efficiency of the construction (e.g., limiting idling time or use U.S. EPA tiered equipment). In addition, construction waste management methods and processes will be employed to reduce the amount of construction waste. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Estimated Energy Use of the Proposed Project
The proposed development would consume energy (in the form of electricity and natural gas), primarily from heating and cooling, lighting, appliances, electronics, and water heating. Operational energy would also be consumed during each vehicle trip generated by future residents.

Table 4.6-1 below summarizes the estimated energy use of the proposed project. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 54 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Table 4.6-1: Annual Project Energy Demand
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Gasoline*
(gallons/yr)
Townhouse/Condo 221,999 823,812 24,695
Enclosed Parking with
Elevator
277,952 -- --
Total 499,951 823,812 24,695
Note: * Gasoline demand was calculated by dividing the project’s estimated VMT (614,902) by the average economy for light duty vehicles (24.9 mpg).
kWh/yr = Kilowatt-hour per year; kBTU/yr = kilo-British thermal unit per year Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Condominiums Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment. January 6, 2020 Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs.

Based on CALEEMod assumptions and a traffic study conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. (see section 4.17 Transportation), the total annual VMT for the project would be approximately 614,902 per year.29 Using the average fuel economy estimates (24.9 mpg), the proposed project would result in consumption of approximately 24,695 gallons of gasoline per year.

New automobiles purchased by future occupants of the proposed project would be subject to fuel economy and efficiency standards applied throughout the State of California, which means that over time the fuel efficiency of vehicles associated with the project site would improve. The project is located in a transit priority area with access to major bus routes and the San Antonio Caltrain Station within 0.5-mile of the project site. The proximity of the project to transit may further reduce the VMT resulting from the project.

The proposed project would consume approximately 499,951 kWh per year of electricity and approximately 823,812 kBTU of natural gas per year. The project would be built to CALGreen requirements and Title 24 energy efficiency standards, as well as the Mountain View Green Building Code which would improve the efficiency of the overall project. The Mountain View Green Building Code requires residential projects to include GreenPoint Rated energy and emissions reduction features, such as:
• Low-water landscaping
• Water efficient plumbing fixtures
• Title 24 compliance
• Low-emission flooring material
• Use of recycled insulation material
• EnergyStar appliances
Given the proximity of the project to transit and adherence to current building codes, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less than Significant Impact)
29 VMT per day per capita was determined to be 16.02. CalEEMod assumes 2.39 persons per household in Mountain View. 16.02 VMT/day/person x 44 units x 2.39 persons x 365 days/yr = 614,902 VMT per year for the project. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 55 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact EN-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (No Impact)
Electricity for the proposed project would be provided by SVCE. The proposed development would be constructed in compliance with the current energy efficiency standards set forth in Mountain View Green Building Code, Title 24, and CALGreen. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (No Impact) Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
EN-1: The project would not result in a
potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy, or wasteful use of
energy resources, during project construction
or operation.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
EN-2: T The project would not conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 56 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based in part on a geotechnical investigation prepared by Silicon Valley Soil Engineering in April 2015. A copy of this report is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake-related hazards.

California Building Standards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 57 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor.

Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies promote the use of appropriate design and construction to minimize the impacts of geologic hazards and are applicable to the project.

Policy Description
PSA 5.1 New development. Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.

PSA 5.2 Alquist-Priolo zones. Development shall comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

City of Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. The City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Geotechnical investigation reports, as required by the CBC, would be reviewed by the City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance.

Existing Conditions
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to cretaceous age. Overlaying the bedrock at substantial depths are marine and terrestrial sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age.

Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The major earthquake faults in the project area are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 6 miles southwest of the site, and 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 58 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
the southeast extension of the Hayward Fault and the main Hayward Fault, which are located approximately 11 to 13 miles northeast of the site, respectively. These regional faults are capable of generating earthquakes of at least 7.0 in magnitude. The smaller Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is located approximately 5 miles southwest of the project site.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has reported that the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003) has estimated that there is a 62 percent probability that one or more major earthquakes would occur in the San Francisco Bay Area between 2002 and 2031.

A moderate to major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is most likely to generate the strongest ground shaking at the site.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose watersaturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state during ground shaking. During ground shaking, such as during earthquakes, cyclically induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures within the soil voids, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soils may lose shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations and/or flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath foundations or sloping ground.

The project site is not located within a state-designated liquefaction zone.30 Soil Conditions
The geotechnical investigation sampled soils on the site to a depth of 41.5 feet. Soils on the site range from sandy silt fill at the surface to silty clays, sandy gravel, and hard clays at depth. Clay soils on the site have a medium to high expansion potential.

Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings during the excavating operation. Groundwater levels are known to fluctuate as a result of seasonal changes and hydrogeological variations such as groundwater pumping and/or recharging. The highest expected groundwater would be 15 feet below the ground surface.

Paleontological or Geological Features
The project site is flat and has been developed for many years and does not contain any unique geologic features.
30 California Department of Conservation. “CGS Information Warehouse”. Accessed October 31, 2019. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 59 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) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
- Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that will become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
current California Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are
not available for the disposal of wastewater?
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (Less than Significant Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 60 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area which has a 72 percent probability of experiencing at least one magnitude 6.7 earthquake during the next 30 years.

The project site would experience intense ground shaking in the event of a large earthquake. No known faults occur beneath the project site. The project site is not located within an earthquake fault zone on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map and, therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the site is low.

The project site is not located within a state-designated liquefaction hazard zone; thus, liquefaction susceptibility is very low, and no liquefiable soils are present on-site.31,32,33 Since the soils on site are not prone to liquefaction, the probability of lateral spreading is low.

A site-specific, design-level geotechnical report would be prepared prior to construction in order to ensure project safety and compliance with local and state policies. Additionally, the project would implement the following Standard Condition of Approval.

Standard Condition of Approval
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project.

Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures causes by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for back-draining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

By conforming to standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques outlined in the City of Mountain View’s Building Division and California Building Code, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects; nor would the project exacerbate existing geological hazards on the project site such that it would impact (or worsen) off-site geological and soil conditions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant Impact)
31 Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones Map, Map 53. Accessed October 31, 2019. 32 Association of Bay Area Governments Resilience Program. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Accessed October 31, 2019.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 61 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The proposed project’s construction activities would include excavation, resulting in the loss of topsoil and potentially resulting in substantial erosion. As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project shall be required to implement Standard Condition of Approval by completing a Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan.

Through the implementation of the Standard Condition of Approval, the proposed project would avoid soil erosion and would not cause a significant loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact GEO-3: The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. (Less than Significant Impact)
With the implementation of the standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques outlined in the California Building Code (refer to Standard Condition of Approval listed under Impact GEO-1), the project site would not be located on an unstable geological unit that would result in subsidence or collapse of the proposed project. The project site and area are not subject to landslides and have a low potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading. Therefore, compliance with Standard Permit Condition would ensure that the project would not exacerbate existing geological hazards on the site such that it would impact off-site geological and soil conditions. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Less than Significant Impact)
Surface soils on the site have a high expansion potential. 34 Fluctuations in soil moisture can cause
expansive soils to shrink and swell, thereby compromising the integrity of foundations, pavements, and exterior flatwork. The project would comply with Standard Condition of Approval listed under Impact GEO-1. Standard engineering practices, including the standard permit condition outlined above, would ensure that the future site improvements are designed properly to account for soilsrelated hazards on the site. With implementation of the standard permit condition, expansive soils onsite would not exacerbate risks to life and property, and the project would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-5: The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. (No Impact)
The project site is located within an urbanized area of Mountain View where sewers are available to dispose of wastewater from the project site. The site would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (No Impact)
34 United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 31,2019. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 62 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. (Less than Significant Impact) No paleontological resources have been identified. The proposed project would excavate to a depth of approximately 30 feet below ground surface to construct the two levels of garage parking. While discovery of any paleontological resource is unlikely, it is always a possibility during excavation. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered during construction activities, implementation of Standard Condition of Approval would reduce the project’s impacts to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)
Standard Condition of Approval
DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project site during any phase of construction, all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet shall cease and the City’s Community Development Director notified immediately. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find and prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is implemented. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Upon completion of the paleontological assessment, a report shall be submitted to the City and, if paleontological materials are recovered, a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEO-1: The project would not directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault;
strong seismic ground shaking; seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
GEO-2: The project would not result in
substantial erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 63 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEO-3: The project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of
the project, and potentially result in on- or
off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
GEO-4: The project would not be located
on expansive soil, as defined in the current
California Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
GEO-5: The project would not have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
GEO-6: The project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geological
feature.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 64 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based in part on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin in January 2020. A copy of this report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities.

Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • CH4 is commonly created by off-gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.

An expanding body of scientific research supports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend.

Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur.

Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 65 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2E (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a course for reducing per-capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high-density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).

Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the nearterm, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG impacts developed by BAAQMD within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 66 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

Local
2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012. The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long-range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emission reductions, to meet the requirements of AB

32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030.

Implementation of the policies in the 2030 General Plan programmatically, and as a part of the City’s development permitting process, also provide for meeting standards for energy efficiency, recycling, and water conservation, consistent with laws and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.

Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns. The project site is currently vacant which limits GHG emissions from the site.

Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs?
Significance Thresholds
The City of Mountain View’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GGRP) established a City-wide efficiency target of 4.5 MT of CO2e per service population/year for 2030. However, this is a threshold that applies to the combination of both existing and new growth. A different threshold is applied for only new growth/development. The City’s GGRP does not identify such a quantifiable 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 67 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
GHG thresholds; therefore, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines thresholds are used as a basis for a threshold.

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 projections from BAAQMD.35 The 2030 brightline threshold of 660 MT CO2e/year is a 40 percent reduction of the 1,100 MT CO2e/year threshold for 2020.

Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
GHG emissions associated with development of the proposed project would occur over the shortterm from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust and worker and vendor trips. There would also be long-term operational emissions associated with vehicular traffic within the project vicinity, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal.

Emissions for the proposed project are discussed below and were analyzed using the methodology recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Emissions were predicted using CalEEMod.

Construction Emissions
GHG emissions associated with construction were computed to be 206 MT of CO2e for the total construction period. These are the emissions from on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions, though BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that GHG emissions would occur during construction.

BAAQMD also encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction where feasible and applicable.

Operational Emissions
The CalEEMod model, along with the project vehicle trip generation rates, was used to estimate daily emissions associated with operation of the fully developed site under the proposed project. As shown in Table 4.8-1, annual emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project are predicted to be 264 MT of CO2e for the year 2022 and 224 MT of CO2e for the year 2030. Both the 2022 and the 2030 emissions would not exceed the 2030 “Substantial Progress” threshold of 660 MT of CO2e/yr.

The project’s service population is estimated to be 105 assuming 2.39 persons per household in 35 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2016. CLE International 12th Annual Super-Conference CEQA Guidelines, Case Law and Policy Update. December.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 68 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Mountain View consistent with the California Department of Finance estimates. 36 The Service Population Emissions for the year 2022 would be 2.5 and 2.1 for the year 2030, which both would not exceed the “Substantial Progress” efficiency metric of 2.8 MT CO2e/year/service population.

Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons Source Category
Proposed Project
2022 2030
Area 2 2
Energy Consumption 52 52
Mobile 199 159
Solid Waste Generation 10 10
Water Usage 1 1
Total (MT CO2e/yr) 264 224
Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/yr
Service Population Emissions
(MT CO2e/year/service population)

2.5 2.1
Significance Threshold 2.8 in 2030
Significant (exceed both)? No No
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 and, therefore, the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed development would be constructed in compliance with the current energy efficiency standards set forth in Mountain View Green Building Code, Title 24, and CALGreen. The proposed project’s operational GHG emissions would not exceed the City’s GGRP significance threshold, therefore, the project would be consistent with state and local plans and policies pertaining to GHG emission reductions. (Less than Significant Impact)
36 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 69 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GHG-1: The project would not generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the environment.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Less than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 70 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based in part on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by ERAS Environmental, Inc. in May 2015. A copy of this report is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study.

Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. Federal regulations and policies related to development include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.

Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 71 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Santa Clara County. The project is not on the Cortese List.37
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property. Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off-site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of nonfriable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement.

The EPA phased out use of friable asbestos products between 1973 and 1978. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.

Removal of older structures with lead-based paint is subject to requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead-based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment protocol methodology for managing materials with PCBs in applicable 37 CalEPA. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed November 4, 2019. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 72 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.38 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Local
Certified Unified Program Agency
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Program. The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations under the Unified Program as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Through a formal agreement with the HMCD, the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) implements hazardous materials programs for the City of Mountain View as a Participating Agency within the Unified Program. The MVFD coordinates with the HMCD to implement the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Management Plan and to ensure that commercial and residential activities involving classified hazardous substances are properly handled, contained, and disposed.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies related to hazards and hazardous materials and would be applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
PSA 3.2 Protection from hazardous materials. Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials through prevention and enforcement of fire and life safety codes.

PSA 3.3 Development review. Carry out development review procedures that encourage effective identification and remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from environmental contamination.

Existing Conditions
The project site is developed with a single-family residence, a garage, a small apartment building, and a commercial building previously used by a carpet cleaning business. The project site is located in an area consists of commercial and residential land use. Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA), none of the adjacent properties are considered to be of significant environmental concern.
38 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 73 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
On-Site Contamination
Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint
Based on the age of the buildings (1960’s), it is possible that asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs are present.

Former Underground Storage Tank (UST)
A Phase II investigation was completed on the commercial portion of the site in 2000. Two soil borings were drilled to collect soil and groundwater samples near a former UST and a carpet cleaning machine. No gasoline hydrocarbons were found near the former UST; however, 30 μg/Kg of the pesticide dieldrin was detected in a shallow soil sample which may be a remnant from the past orchard use of the property. The concentration of dieldrin exceeds the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for groundwater protection of 2.3 μg/Kg but is below the human health ESL for direct contact 34 μg/Kg.

Nearby Off-Site Sources of Contamination
A standard federal and state environmental records search was conducted to identify known and likely leak sites that could potentially pose a threat to environmental conditions under the project site.

A total of three nearby sites were listed on the databases as known or likely contamination sites:
• 400 San Antonio Road - This site was listed on the Emergency Response Notification System database. The site is approximately 1/8 mile to the north (down-gradient). Based on the distance and location, this site is not considered likely to pose a threat to subsurface environmental conditions beneath the project site.
• 660 San Antonio Road - This site was listed on the Spills, Leaks, Investigation & Cleanup (SLIC) Program database. The site is approximately 1/8 mile to the south. The site is a former dry-cleaning site. Based on the distance, this site is not considered likely to pose a threat to the subsurface environmental conditions beneath the project site. • Another unnamed site was listed on the SLIC database more than a 1/3 mile to the east. The site is not in a direction up gradient and based on distance and location this site is not considered likely to pose a threat to the subsurface environmental conditions beneath the project site.

Airport Safety
The proposed project site is approximately three and a half miles from the Moffett Federal Airfield, the closest airport to the project site. The project site is not within the safety zones or planning areas for this airport.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 74 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone or the Wildland Urban Interface.39 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
4) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as
a result, will it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) Impair implementation of, or physically
interfere with, an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland fires?
39 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 75 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)
Operation of the proposed project would likely include the on-site use and storage of cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals in small quantities. The small quantities of cleaning supplies and maintenance chemicals used on-site would be comparable to the operations of adjacent residential uses and would not pose a risk to adjacent land uses. (Less Than Significant Impact) Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
On-Site Soils
The commercial portion of the project site previously contained a UST; however, no evidence of petroleum hydrocarbons were identified in soils on the property. The pesticide dieldrin which is potentially associated with prior agricultural uses of the property was found in excess of RWQCB ESLs for groundwater. The project will implement the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, described below, to ensure the project does not result in significant hazardous materials impacts.

Standard Conditions of Approval
TOXIC ASSESSMENT: A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit application. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site, or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are approved by: the City’s Hazardous Materials Division of the Fire Department; the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction.

No building permits will be issued until each agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or an approved site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.

DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will ensure the contractor employs engineering controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) contractor employees working on-site will be certified in OSHA’s 40-hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; (b) contractor will stockpile soil during redevelopment activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options; (c) contractor will monitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation; (d) contractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks; (e) contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and (f) contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 76 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prepare a soil and groundwater management plan for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the SCCDEH must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits.

With the implementation of the City Standard Conditions of Approval, the impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, and PCBs
Based on the estimated age of the existing on-site buildings, asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP) paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), may be present in some building materials. Building demolition could result in the release of these materials to the environment. The project will, however, be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws, which require an asbestos building survey, a LBP survey, and PCB survey be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs, PCBs, and/or LBP on the structures proposed for demolition.

Demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Sections 1528 and 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos and PCBs. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are also subject to BAAQMD regulations. To comply with these regulatory requirements, a registered asbestos abatement contractor will be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable ACMs, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. Materials containing LBP will be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing leadbased paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (No Impact)
There are no existing or planned schools within one quarter mile of the project site. The nearest school to the site is Ellen Fletcher Middle School located at 655 Arastradero Rd, approximately 0.6 mile west of the site. The project would, therefore, not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials/substances within one-quarter mile of a school. (No Impact) 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 77 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Impact HAZ-4: The project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (No Impact)
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant Government Code Section 65962.5.40 (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-5: The project would not be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (No Impact) The proposed project site is approximately three and a half miles from Moffett Federal Airfield, the closest airport to the project site. The project site is not within the safety zones or planning areas for this airport. Therefore, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing in the project area. (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would be constructed in accordance with current building and fire codes to ensure structural stability and safety in the event of a seismic or seismic-related hazard. The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City of Mountain View Emergency Operations and Evacuation Plans. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact)
The project site is within the City limits and is not within a State of California Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or the City’s wildland and urban interface. 41 Therefore, the project would not expose
people or structures to wildfire hazards. (No Impact)
40 CalEPA. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed November 5, 2019. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.

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 State Water Resources Control Board. “GeoTracker.” Accessed November 5, 2019. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. 41 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 78 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-1: The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-2: The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-4: The project would not be located on a
site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-5: The project would not be located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport. The
project would not result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-6: The project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HAZ-7: The project would not expose people
or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 79 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100- year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.

The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in 2015 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (copermittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.42 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment 42 MRP Number CAS612008
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 80 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post-construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g. rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development-related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks.

Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimized size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.43 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as source control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition.

As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration, and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance.
43 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 81 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies related to hydrology and water quality and would be applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
INC 8.4 Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.

INC 8.5 Site-specific stormwater treatment. Require post-construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.

INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

POS 9.1 Sustainable design. Promote sustainable building materials, energy- efficient and water-efficient designs, permeable paving and other low-impact features in new public buildings.

Existing Conditions
Hydrology and Drainage
The City of Mountain View Public Works Department operates and maintains the storm drainage system in the City. There is an existing 24-inch diameter storm sewer main beneath the project site.

There are no stormwater treatment features currently on the project site; stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces is collected by inlets and conveyed directly to the storm sewer system.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non-point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

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.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 82 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
Groundwater
The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Santa Clara Subbasin.

The regional topographic gradient is generally northeast towards the San Francisco Bay. 44 Flooding and Other Hazards
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located within Zone X. Flood Zone X consists of areas of 0.2 percent chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas of protected levees from one percent annual chance flood.45 A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site that in the event of a seiche would affect the site.

A tsunami is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. Due to the immense volumes of water and energy involved, tsunamis can devastate coastal regions. The project site does not lie within a tsunami inundation hazard area.46
Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
44 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted November 22, 2016. Accessed October 31, 2019. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes-from/groundwater.

Groundwater recharge area = Area that supplies water to an aquifer in a groundwater basin. 45 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #06085C0038H. May 18, 2009.
46 California Emergency Management Agency. California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Accessed October 31, 2019. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps. 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 83 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:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
Construction Water Quality Impacts
Implementation of the project would require demolition, paving, and grading of the site. These are activities that would temporarily increase the amount of unconsolidated materials and disturb potential pollutants. Grading activities could increase erosion and sedimentation that could be carried by runoff into natural waterways, which could increase sedimentation impacts to local creeks or the San Francisco Bay. However, the project is less than one acre; therefore, a SWPPP would not be required. With implementation of the following measures, which are required by the City as standard conditions of approval and are based on RWQCB requirements, impacts to water quality during construction would be less than significant.

Standard Condition of Approval
BUILDING DEMOLITION: The applicant shall submit a PCB Screening Assessment to the City prior to demolition of any buildings. The assessment shall include sampling of priority building materials consistent with the method outlined in “Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBsContaining Materials before Building Demolition.” If sampling shows PCB concentrations greater than 50 parts per million (ppm), the applicant shall follow applicable federal and State requirements for notification and abatement of PCB materials prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 84 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate:
− Silt fences around the site perimeter;
− Gravel bags surrounding catch basins;
− Filter fabric over catch basins;
− Covering of exposed stockpiles;
− Concrete washout areas;
− Stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and − Vegetation, hydroseeding or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas.

Post-Construction
Construction of the project would result in the replacement of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. As a result, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the MRP. In order to meet these requirements, the proposed project would include LID-based stormwater treatment controls (e.g., bioretention treatment areas). Stormwater runoff from the site would drain into the stormwater treatment controls. The proposed treatment controls would be numerically sized and would have sufficient capacity to treat the runoff from the roofs, podium decks, hardscape, and driveway areas entering the storm drainage system consistent with the NPDES requirements.

The following measures, based on RWQCB requirements and required as Standard Conditions of Approval, have been included in the project to reduce stormwater runoff impacts from project implementation:

Standard Condition of Approval
STORMWATER: The project shall comply with the requirements of the MRP, as well as other local, state, and federal requirements. The project shall comply with provision C.3 of the MRP, which provides performance standards for the management of stormwater for new development, and any new requirements. The installation of on-site trash capture devices will also be required.

LANDSCAPE DESIGN: Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include:
− No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent;
− Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; − Installing plants with low water requirements; and
− Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones.

EFFICIENT IRRIGATION: Common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include:
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 85 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
− Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; − Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers;
− Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; − Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and − Use of flow reducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets and driveways.

OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS (INCLUDING GARBAGE ENCLOSURES): Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following:
− Paving the area with concrete or other nonpermeable surface; − Covering the area; and
− Sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in outdoor storage areas.

With the implementation of the Standard Conditions of Approval, based on RWQCB requirements, the impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is located in a confined area of the Santa Clara Plain Subbasin. The project does not include installation of new groundwater wells and would not deplete groundwater supplies. The proposed project would result in 24,118 square feet (85 percent) of impervious surfaces and 4,112 square feet (15 percent) of pervious surfaces. The project would comply with MRP requirements to include LID-based stormwater treatment controls (e.g., bioretention treatment areas). For these reasons, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of any waterway. The project would be required to comply with stormwater treatment requirements for on-site treatment and retention of surface runoff using numerically sized 2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 86 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
treatment measures, as described under Impact HYD-1. As a result, the project would not substantially change drainage patterns such that off-site impacts or flooding would occur.

The existing storm drain system has sufficient capacity to support the existing development on-site.

Runoff would be routed directly from the treatment facilities to the storm drainage system and would not flow off-site, except during large and infrequent storm events. The project would be required to implement the construction-related standard permit conditions to minimize erosion, as well as postconstruction requirements to minimize and treat stormwater runoff (per the requirements of Provision C.3 of the RWQCB’s MRP).

With implementation of standard City conditions of approval and compliance with Provision C.3 of the RWQCB’s MRP the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to existing stormwater drainage systems. (Less than Significant Impact) Impact HYD-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Less than Significant Impact) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The project site is located within Zone X, in an area with reduced flood risk due to levee.

Standard Condition of Approval
AO FLOOD ZONE: The site is located within Special Flood Hazard Zone AO, depth 1 foot, and must comply with the drainage and flood control requirements of the City Code. The elevation of the lowest floor of the building must be at least 2 feet above the highest adjacent grade (HAG) OR the applicant must file a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) with FEMA to obtain a new base flood elevation (BFE), in which 1 ft. above the new BFE must be achieved. The HAG is defined as the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of the structure. Applicant shall obtain a Flood Development Permit from the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the building or Foundation Permit. It is recommended that this permit be obtained before the design of the building plans in order to avoid potential redesign of the building.

With the implementation of Standard Condition of Approval, the impacts will be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Tsunami and Seiche
The project site is not located within a designated tsunami inundation zone.The proposed project would, therefore, not risk release of pollutants due to tsunami, or seiche zones. (No Impact) Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 87 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020
The project would comply with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development and Post-Construction Requirements. The project would not impact groundwater recharge and would not conflict with the SCVWD’s 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with implementation of a water quality or groundwater management plan. (No Impact)
Conclusion
Impact
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HYD-1: The project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HYD-2: The project would not substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HYD-3: The project would not substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or
off-site; create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood
flows.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HYD-4: The project would not risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation in flood
hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.

Less Than
Significant
No mitigation
required NA
HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.

No Impact No mitigation
required NA
2645-2655 Fayette Drive Residential Project 88 Initial Study City of Mountain View March 2020

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

Mountain View City Council
November 19, 2024