ATT 11 - Initial Study of Environmental Significance (CEQA) — Mountain View City Council, December 17, 2024 (part 1 of 10)

In ConsultaƟon with
Prepared by
November 2024
Compliance Checklist
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project
City of
Mountain View
m , DAVID J. POWERS
B m ~ =~=~=
Attachment 11
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project i Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
PROJECT NAME: 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use
Project
FILE NUMBERS:

PL-2022-259
& PL-2022-260
SITE ADDRESS: 675-685 East Middlefield Road APN: 160-60-013 APPLICANT: Prometheus Real Estate Group

PROPERTY
OWNER:

PREG Middlefield, LP
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIRS:
 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH No.: 2017082051. September 20, 2019. (Precise Plan FEIR)  City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2011012069. September 2012. (General Plan FEIR)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY:

The project proposes to demolish the existing, two-story office/research and development (R&D) buildings on-site totaling 163,638 square feet, and all associated surface parking and landscaping on-site to construct:
 Three, seven- and eight-story residential buildings (1. Market Rate North, 2. Market Rate South, and 3. Below Market Rate), which would provide a total of 836 residential units and amenities, and parking;
 A six-story, approximately 275,200 square foot office building;  An 8.5-level, aboveground parking garage structure;
 2,344 square feet of commercial/retail space; and
 A 0.52-acre (or 22,600 square feet) privately-owned publicly accessible (POPA) park.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

The approximately 10.6-acre project site is located on the northwest corner of East Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive at 675-685 East Middlefield Road in the City of Mountain View. For ease of reference, the roughly rectangular project site is bound by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail tracks to the north, residential uses to the west, East Middlefield Road to the east, and Ferguson Drive and State Route 237 (SR 237) to the south. The project site is currently developed with two, two-story, multi-tenant office/R&D buildings (totaling 163,638 square feet) that are connected by a shared corridor, surface 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project ii Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
parking, and ornamental landscaping. Surrounding land uses include office and R&D uses to the north, east, and south, and residential uses to the west of the project site.

The Mountain View 2030 General Plan land use designation for the project site is East Whisman MixedUse. The project site is located within the High Intensity Mixed-Use Character Area of the Precise Plan.

DETERMINATION: The analysis in this checklist determined that the proposed project would result in either the same or lesser impact than addressed in the Precise Plan FEIR; therefore, the standard for subsequent environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162 has not been met. The project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the preparation of this checklist pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 since the impacts of the proposed uses at the proposed intensity on the site were previously analyzed in the certified Precise Plan FEIR and General Plan FEIR.

NO ADDITIONAL IMPACT FINDING: The proposed project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, because the Checklist was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines and found that with implementation of standard City policies and conditions of approval and certain mitigation measures identified in the Precise Plan FEIR, the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more significant environmental impacts beyond those previously evaluated and disclosed in these EIRs.

Prepared by: Phillip Brennan Date: November 1, 2024
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. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project iii Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 HIstory of Environmental Review and Project Approval ....................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 2

2.1 Existing Site Conditions ......................................................................................................... 2

2.2 General Plan Designation and Zoning District ....................................................................... 6

2.3 Proposed Project ..................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Comparison with Precise Plan .............................................................................................. 14

2.5 Approvals Required .............................................................................................................. 17 Section 3.0 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................... 18

3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 20

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 22

3.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 36

3.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 42

3.5 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 45

3.6 Geology, Soils, and Minerals ................................................................................................ 48

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 53

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 55

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 61

3.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 66

3.11 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................................. 68

3.12 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................ 72

3.13 Public Services...................................................................................................................... 74

3.14 Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 78

3.15 Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 80

3.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................... 86

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 88 Section 4.0 References ..................................................................................................................... 94 Section 5.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ....................................................................................... 96

5.1 Lead Agency ......................................................................................................................... 96

5.2 Consultants ........................................................................................................................... 96 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project iv Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Figures
Figure 2.1-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.1-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.1-3: Aerial Map ....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2.3-1: Proposed Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.3-2: Proposed Project Elevations ............................................................................................. 8 Figure 3.2-1: Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors and MEIs .................................................... 29 Figure 3.2-2: Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources .......................................................... 34 Tables
Table 2.3-1: On-Site Structured Parking Summary ............................................................................. 12 Table 2.3-2: Bicycle Parking Spaces ................................................................................................... 12 Table 3.2-1: Estimated Construction Period Emissions ....................................................................... 24 Table 3.2-2: Operational Period Emissions ......................................................................................... 26 Table 3.2-3: Maximum Year Operational and Construction Period Emissions................................... 27 Table 3.2-4: Construction and Operation Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors .............................. 30 Table 3.2-5: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Project MEIs ..................................................... 32 Table 3.13-1: 2022 – 2023 School Capacity and Enrollment .............................................................. 75 Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality Assessment
Appendix B: Arborist Report
Appendix C: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D: Hazardous Materials Reports and Peer Review Memos Appendix E: Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis
Appendix F: Utility Impact Study
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 1 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

1.1 INTRODUCTION
Per Section 15183(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies.

The following environmental checklist provides information for the decision-makers and the public regarding the City’s evidence and reasoning for determining the project’s consistency with the assumptions and mitigation measures in the certified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) and East Whisman Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (Precise Plan FEIR).1

1.2 HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PROJECT APPROVAL The Precise Plan FEIR (certified in November 2019) evaluated the environmental impacts of the East Whisman Precise Plan (Precise Plan). The Precise Plan area is identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) as the East Whisman Change Area.

The Precise Plan was adopted in November 2019 and consists of City-initiated revisions to the General Plan and zoning ordinance to allow an increase in the intensity of office, commercial, hotel, and residential uses in the Precise Plan area. The Precise Plan provides a vision and guiding principles, development standards, and design guidelines for the properties in this area, in conformance with the General Plan vision for the East Whisman Change Area.

The certified Precise Plan EIR evaluated up to 2.3 million square feet of net new office uses, 100,000 net new square feet retail uses, 200 hotel rooms, and 5,000 multi-family residential units (with goal of 20 percent of the residential units being affordable). The Precise Plan includes new and enhanced parks, trail corridors, and public streets. The Precise Plan establishes an overall goal of 30 acres of publicly accessible open space to serve the projected 10,000 residents of the Precise Plan area. 1 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #:
2017082051. January 2020.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 2 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The approximately 10.6-acre project site is located at 675-685 East Middlefield Road in the City of Mountain View (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 160-60-013) on the northwest corner of East Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive. For ease of reference, East Middlefield Road is considered east of the site and Ferguson Drive is considered south of the site.

The roughly rectangular project site is bound by VTA light rail tracks to the north, residential uses to the west, East Middlefield Road to the east, and Ferguson Drive and SR 237 to the south. The project site is currently developed with two, two-story, multi-tenant office/research and development (R&D) buildings (totaling 163,638 square feet) that are connected by a shared corridor, surface parking, and ornamental landscaping. The existing buildings were fully occupied until December 2022, when the tenants of the southernmost building vacated the office space. The site remained partially occupied until March 2023, when the remaining tenants in the northernmost building vacated the site. The application for the project was submitted on December 14, 2022, and environmental review for the project began in January 2023. The analysis in this document assumes both buildings on-site are unoccupied under baseline conditions, which provides a more conservative (i.e., more impactful) analysis of environmental impacts resulting from the proposed development.

Surrounding land uses include office and R&D uses to the north, east, and south, and residential uses to the west of the project site. Regional and vicinity maps of the site are shown below on Figure 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-2, respectively, and an aerial photograph of the project site and the surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.1-3.
101
101
82 82
35 84
85 237
280
280
280
Foothill Expressway
Central Expressway
Woodside Road
San
Francisco
Bay
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Woodside
Stanford
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 2.1-1
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
01 2 3 4 .5 5 Miles
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz Morgan Hill
San José
Fremont
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz Morgan Hill
Project Site
True
Project
City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 3 Compliance Checklist November 2024
*ODG\V $YH
3RWUHUR $YH
1 :KLVPDQ 5G
7\
YH
:
$\
&
3L
R
QHHU
:D\
( 'DQD 6W
1 %HUQDUGR $YH
RQ 5G
1 :KLVPD
Q
5G
( 0LGGOHILHOG 5G
(OOLV 6W
: 0DXGH $YH
RIIHW
W Evelyn Ave
Infinity Wy
Compass Wy
E Evelyn Ave
N Mary AveNMary Ave
Central Expy
Central Expy
E Middlefield
Rd
E
Middlefield
Rd
Benecia Ave
Clyde
Ave
Clyd
e
Ave
Logue Ave
VTA Light Rail VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
U.P.R.R.
85 85
237
237
101
Stevens Creek
Easy St
Ferguson Dr
\
YH
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 200 800 1,200 2,000 Feet
Project Site True
Project
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.1-2
City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 4 Compliance Checklist November 2024
Residen
. al
Agricultural
Light
Industrial
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Park
Municipal
OperaƟons
Center
ResidenƟal
Light
Industrial
East Middlefield Road
Logue Avenue
Ravendale Drive
Maude Avenue
Pyramid Way
Infinity Way Degree Lane Circuit Way
Compass Way
East Middlefield Road
Logue Avenue
Ravend
a
le
Drive
Maude Avenue
Pyramid Way
Infinity Way Degree Lane Circuit Way
Compass Way
VTA Light Rail
237
237
Ferguson Drive Ferguson Drive
Photo Date: Mar. 2022
0 50 300 400 600 Feet
Project Boundary
Middlefield Light Rail StaƟon
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Feb. 7, 2023.

Whisman Light Rail StaƟon
Future Middlefield Park
Master Plan Project
True
Project
AERIAL MAP FIGURE 2.1-3
City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 5 Compliance Checklist November 2024
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 6 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

2.2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT

2.2.1 General Plan
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is East Whisman Mixed-Use, which allows for a mix of uses including office, commercial, lodging, residential, parks, and open space. Office development under this General Plan designation can have a maximum height of six stories, and residential development under this designation can have a maximum height of eight stories.

Development standards for this land use designation are regulated under Precise Plan standards.

2.2.2 Zoning
Under the Precise Plan, the site is designated as Mixed-Use Character Area and is located within the High-Intensity subarea, which allows a maximum Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) of 3.50 for mixed-use developments utilizing the Bonus FAR program and a maximum height of up to 95 feet. The northern portion of the parcel nearest to the Middlefield Light-Rail Station is within the High-Rise Core of the Precise Plan, which allows residential and mixed-use projects to propose building heights up to 135 feet, subject to specific Precise Plan requirements. The Precise Plan includes other development standards applicable to development in the Mixed-Use Character areas such as setbacks, open space requirements, personal storage requirements, and signage.

2.3 PROPOSED PROJECT
The project would demolish the existing two-story office/R&D buildings totaling 163,638 square feet, and all associated surface parking and landscaping on-site to construct:
• Three, seven- and eight-story residential buildings (1. Market Rate North, 2. Market Rate South, and 3. Below Market Rate) providing a total of 836 residential units (322 units in Market Rate North; 364 units in Market Rate South; and 150 in the Below Market Rate building) and on-site amenities and parking;
• A six-story, approximately 275,200 square foot office building; • An 8.5-level, aboveground parking garage structure;
• 2,344 square feet of commercial/retail space; and
• A 0.52-acre (or 22,600 square feet) privately-owned publicly accessible (POPA) park. • In addition, the project proposes a Vesting Tentative Map to create five lots, including one common lot, with one lot further subdivided into six units for condominium purposes for three garage units, two residential units, and one commercial unit.

The office building would be constructed on the northeastern corner of the project site, the parking structure would be constructed on the northwestern corner of the project site, and the residential buildings would be constructed on the southern portion of the project site. The commercial/retail space would be located within the Market Rate North residential building, south of the POPA park. These project components are described in more detail below. A conceptual site plan is shown in Figure 2.3-1, and conceptual project elevations are shown in Figure 2.3-2. The proposed mixed-use development would have maximum structure heights ranging from approximately 88 feet to up to 93 feet (top of curb to top of parapet or highest roof peak) for the residential buildings, 88 feet for the office parking garage, approximately 92 feet for the office building, and an overall FAR of approximately 2.711.

MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL NORTH A
OFFICE

MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL NORTH B
OFFICE

PARKING

MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL SOUTH B

MARKET RATE

RESIDENTIAL SOUTH A
2ND
LEVEL

COURTYARD
POPA
PARK
22,600 sf
.52 acre

EXISTING

TREE TO BE

PROTECTED

IN PLACE,
TYP.
2ND LEVEL

COURTYARD
35' TYP. 35' TYP.
155'
25' TYP.
25' TYP.
15'
25' TYP.

VISION TRIANGLE,
S.C.D., TYP.

PROPERTY LINE
TYP.

EASEMENT
S.C.D., TYP.

POPA PARK

BOUNDARY

EASEMENT
S.C.D., TYP.

PROPERTY LINE
TYP.

VISION TRIANGLE,
S.C.D., TYP.

EASEMENT
S.C.D., TYP.
10' 573'
606'-2"
587'-5"
941'-7"
10'

EXISTING

TREE TO BE

PROTECTED

IN PLACE,
TYP.

EXISTING

TREES TO BE

PROTECTED

IN PLACE,
TYP.

EXISTING

TREES TO BE

PROTECTED

IN PLACE,
TYP.

BMR

RESIDENTIAL
2ND
LEVEL

COURTYARD
6 Source: SERA Design and Architecture, Inc., August 19, 2024. 0 30 60 90 Feet
True
Project
PROPOSED SITE PLAN FIGURE 2.3-1
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project
City of Mountain View
7 Compliance Checklist
November 2024
'i .\>
Ill
JJ
/4
#
N
t/
t N
\
\
.
~, ~ n• I
\Jj
o~,ti
n µ
~ ~~
\. ltx ~ )(
•I
~
)(
=-=-::.: ~-~---
~ ~
I I t
~ <J ..
=------------~f~x--~--o---~~------~f~------~~------~~~----~~IF7 [::,---7
Source: SERA Design and Architecture, Inc., August 22, 2024.

MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "B" OFFICE BUILDING

BREEZEWAY
MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "A"

POPA PARK SERVICE STREET
T.O. CURB MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 67.08’
EWPP MAX HEIGHT 162.08’
95'-0"
92'-10"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
95'-0"89'-5"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
95'-0"
92'-10"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
88'-11"
95'-0"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
92'-10"
95'-0"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH "B" MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "B" NORTH "A"

BUILDING
LINEAR
PARK
6'-0"
MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "A" BMR RESIDENTIAL
LINEAR
PARK
6'-0"

PARKING STRUCTURE OFFICE BUILDING
SEE SHEET A305 FOR MATERIAL

NOTATIONS AND HEIGHT INFORMATION
1 3
4 2

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

SEE SHEET

NOTATION

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SEE 1/305K FOR OFFICE ELEVATION AND MATERIAL NOTATIONS SEE 1/305J FOR OFFICE ELEVATION AND MATERIAL NOTATIONS T.O. RIDGE
159’-11”
T.O. STAIR OVERRUN 159’-11” EWPP MAX HEIGHT 168’-84” EWPP MAX HEIGHT 162.08’

EWPP MAX HEIGHT
165.50’
T.O. CURB
SERVICE STREET 70.50’
T.O. STAIR
165’-5”
T.O. PARAPET
159’-5”
T.O. RIDGE
159’-11”
T.O. CURB

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD

67.08’
EWPP MAX HEIGHT 162.08’
T.O. CURB FERGUSON DRIVE 73.84’
T.O. PARAPET
163’-3”
T.O. RIDGE 159’-11”
T.O. CURB MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 67.08’
OFFICE BUILDING MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "A" MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL NORTH "B"

LANDSCAPE FEATURE
92'-10"
71'-8" 21'-2"

SERVICE
STREET
95'-0"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH "B" BMR RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE FEATURE MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH "A" 64'-8" 24'-9"
89'-5"
6'-0"
95'-0"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT
OFFICE PARKING BMR RESIDENTIAL MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH "A" MARKET RATE RESIDENTIAL SOUTH "B" PASEO

SERVICE STREET
T.O. PARAPET
163'-3"
6'-0"
24'-9" 64'-8"
95'-0"
89'-5"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT

PROPERTY LINE

X HEIGHT
.21 T.O. PAR
159' - 8"
T.O. PARAPET
1595' 5 - - 8" ' -5"

EWPP MAX HEIGHT
165.50'
6'-0"

PRECISE PLAN HEIGHT RECISE PL
T.O. STAIR OVERRUN
165’-5’
T.O. STAIR OVERRUN 169’-3’ EWPP MAX HEIGHT 168.84’
T.O. CURB FERGUSON DRIVE 73.84’
T.O. PARAPET
163’-3”
T.O. CURB

SERVICE STREET

70.50’
T.O. STAIR OVERRUN
169’-3’ EWPP MAX HEIGHT
168.84’
EWPP MAX HEIGHT T.O. RIDGE 162.08’ 159.11’
T.O. CURB

FERGUSON DRIVE

73.84’
T.O. CURB

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD

67.08’
88' -2"
95' -0"

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD - LOOKING SOUTH

FERGUSON DRIVE - LOOKING WEST

SERVICE STREET - LOOKING EAST

SERVICE STREET - LOOKING WEST

SERVICE STREET - LOOKING NORTH

LINEAR PARK - LOOKING SOUTH

LINEAR PARK - LOOKING NORTH
PROPOSED PROJECT ELEVATIONS FIGURE 2.3-2
City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 8 Compliance Checklist November 2024
------+--,,;,_~--
------~
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 9 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

2.3.1 Residential Buildings
As discussed in Section 2.3, the project would construct 836 residential units in three residential buildings: 1) Market Rate North (MRN), 2) Market Rate South (MRS), and Below Market Rate (BMR). Each residential building would include amenities on various floors and each residential unit would have personal storage space in lockers located in common areas throughout their respective buildings or within the individual apartment units. The residential buildings and proposed amenities are described in further detail below. The ground floor of each residential building would include a 200 kilowatts (kW) emergency generator powered by 320 horsepower diesel-fired engines. The generators would be tested periodically and would provide power to the buildings in the event of a power failure.

Market Rate North
The MRN residential building would be constructed on the southeastern portion of the project site. The building would be seven stories tall with a maximum building height of up to approximately 93 feet and include two levels of below ground parking. The building would contain a total of 322 units including studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments, and amenity areas located on the first, second, and seventh floors. The building would also contain 2,344 square feet of retail space that is envisioned to be used for “grab-and-go” commercial uses such as pre-packaged retail food items and beverages.

The ground-floor amenities would include the lobby and leasing office and other amenities such as coworking space and lounge areas. The second-floor amenities would include a courtyard, fitness center, and meeting rooms. Most of the courtyard area would be buffered from East Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive by the surrounding residential units on floors two through seven. The courtyard would include amenities such as a pool and spa, landscaping, and lounge furniture. The seventh floor of the MRN residential building would include a covered, outdoor amenity pavilion with landscaping on the northern corner of the building. A corridor connecting the POPA park and the paseo area between the two market rate buildings would be located adjacent to the retail space on the ground floor of the MRN residential building.

Market Rate South
The MRS residential building would be constructed on the southwestern portion of the project site.

The building would be eight stories tall with a maximum building height of up to approximately 90 feet and include one underground parking level and one at-grade podium parking level. The building would contain a total of 364 units including studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments, and amenity areas located on the first three floors, as well as the seventh and eighth floors.

The ground-floor amenities would include the building lobby and other amenities such as bicycle repair and lounge areas. The second-floor amenities would include a courtyard, resident lounge, and a club room. The courtyard area would be buffered from Ferguson Drive by the residential units on floors two through eight. The courtyard would include amenities such as walking paths, lounge furniture, landscaping, a pool, and planter beds. The seventh floor would include a private patio for residents on the southern corner with landscaped areas and seating, and a fitness room would be included on the eighth floor.

2.3.1.1 2.3.1.2
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 10 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Below Market Rate
The BMR residential building would be constructed on the western portion of the project site. The building would be eight stories tall with a maximum building height of up to approximately 90 feet and include one at-grade podium parking level. The building would contain a total of 150 belowmarket-rate units including studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom apartments with amenity areas located on the first, second and eighth floors.

The ground-floor amenities would include the lobby and leasing office and other amenities such as lounge areas. A courtyard on the ground-floor level on the south side of the building is also proposed.

This courtyard would contain landscaped areas, a children’s play structure, and a variety of seating areas. The eighth floor would include a private terrace for residents on the southern corner with landscaped areas and seating.

2.3.2 Office Building and Parking Structure
The project would construct a six-story, up to 92 foot tall (or 105 feet tall as measured to the top of the mechanical equipment on the rooftop)2
, 275,200 square foot office building on the northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to East Middlefield Road and the VTA light rail tracks. The project would also construct an 8.5 level aboveground parking structure, with a maximum building height of up to approximately 88 feet, on the northwest corner of the project site that would provide 638 parking stalls, which would be reserved for employees of the new office building, with the exception of three carshare stalls located at the ground-floor of the garage.

The office building would provide outdoor open space on multiple levels of the building. The second floor would include an outdoor plaza (above the loading zone) located between the aboveground parking structure and the office building. The third and fifth floors would include outdoor terraces which would wrap around the east corner of the building. An additional outdoor terrace would be located on the sixth floor along the building’s western side, adjacent to the VTA tracks. These outdoor open space areas would provide seating areas and raised planter beds to be utilized by office employees.

The ground floor of the office building would include a 200-kW emergency generator powered by a 320-horsepower diesel-fired engine. The generator would be tested periodically and would provide power to the building in the event of a power failure.

2.3.3 POPA Park and Paseo Walkway
The project would construct a 0.52-acre POPA park on the northern portion of the project site between the proposed office building and the MRN residential building. The POPA park would be accessible to pedestrians via the sidewalk along East Middlefield Road, as well as off Ferguson Drive via the service street and paseo. The POPA park would contain newly planted trees, seating areas, accent lighting, grass areas, and other amenities.

The project would also include an approximately 29,985 square foot publicly accessible linear park walkway between the MRN residential building and the BMR and MRS residential buildings, and an 2 The overall building height would measure up to approximately 105 feet tall to the top of the covered mechanical penthouse/screening structure on the rooftop. The additional height beyond the 95-foot maximum height limit is exempted per the provisions of Municipal Code Section SEC. 36.08.30 (e).

2.3.1.3 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 11 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
approximately 6,400 square foot publicly accessible walkway between the BMR and MRS buildings.

These walkways would include new trees, landscaping, seating areas, and open gathering spaces.

2.3.4 Site Access, On-Site Circulation, and Parking
The project site is currently accessible to vehicles via two, two-way driveways on East Middlefield Road. These driveways would be replaced with two new, two-way driveways that would be connected by a new publicly accessible service street on-site. One of the new driveways would be constructed on East Middlefield Road and the second new driveway would be constructed on Ferguson Drive. The segment of the service street accessed via the driveway on East Middlefield Road would run between the residential buildings and the non-residential buildings, and the stretch of the service street accessed via the driveway on Ferguson Drive would run parallel to the western boundary of the project site. This service street would provide direct access to the proposed aboveground office parking structure and the parking garages located within the BMR, MRN, and MRS residential buildings. Access to the office building for service and loading vehicles would be provided via a separate service road that would branch off the elbow of the service street and wrap around the parking structure to the back of the office building.

Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided via sidewalks along East Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive. Several internal walking paths on-site would connect to these sidewalks on the east and south side of the project site.

The MRN residential building would contain two levels of underground parking which would provide a total of 452 parking stalls, including 124 stalls of shared parking on the first level that would serve the residents of all residential buildings, retail patrons, park visitors, guests, and employees of the new office building, and an additional five spaces allocated for the leasing office, which would be shared after hours. The 323 stalls on the second level would be reserved for the residents of the building.

Residents would have access to the 129 office parking stalls on Monday through Friday, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 AM and all day on weekends. The leasing office spaces would be available to potential new residents on weekdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM and would be available for shared parking afterhours.

Office employees would only be permitted to park in the MRN residential building on weekdays between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Access to the parking garage levels would be provided via a driveway ramp located on the north side of the MRN residential building that would be accessible from the new service street on-site.

The MRS residential building would contain one level of ground floor podium parking and one level of underground parking, providing 359 parking stalls, all of which would be reserved for residents. Of the 359 parking stalls in the MRS residential building, 137 would be provided as mechanical stacker parking stalls. Access to parking would be provided via a driveway located on the southwest side of the MRS residential building that would be accessible from the new service street on-site.

Most of the parking for the office building would be provided in the new 8.5-level aboveground parking structure, which would include 638 parking stalls. Access to this aboveground parking structure would be provided via a driveway located on the south side of the building.

A total of 33 parking spaces would be provided for residents of the BMR building at the ground-floor level of the BMR building and would be accessed from the service street from a driveway located on 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 12 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
the west side of the building. Residents of the BMR residential building would not have access to the shared stalls located in the MRN building.

A breakdown of the parking by location and type of parking stalls is provided in Table 2.3-1 below.

Table 2.3-1: On-Site Structured Parking Summary
Carshare ADA
Accessible
ADA Accessible
EVCS
EVCS Standard Total
MRN Residential 0 12 7 61 372 452
MRS Residential 0 7 5 49 298 359
BMR Residential 1 3 2 27 33
Parking Structure 3 11 7 89 528* 638
Total 3 31 22 201 1,225 1,482
*Includes six standard-size loading stalls
In addition to the parking outlined in Table 2.3-1 above, the project would provide 19 surface parking stalls located primarily along the service street and adjacent to the proposed structures (two spaces in the loading bay behind the office) which could be used for truck loading, pedestrian drop-off, guest parking, shuttle stops, or carshare stalls.

The project would provide a total of 1,108 bicycle parking spaces. Generally, the long-term spaces would be provided within secure bike rooms on-site. The short-term spaces would be provided on racks near the entrances of each building. A summary of the bicycle parking by location and type is provided in Table 2.3-2.

Table 2.3-2: Bicycle Parking Spaces
Short-Term Spaces Long-Term Spaces Total
MRN Residential 34 324 358
MRS Residential 46 365 411
BMR Residential 18 150 168
Office Building 14 139 153
POPA 8 - 8
Retail Space 8 2 10
Total 128 980 1,108
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 13 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

2.3.5 Utility and Right-of-Way Improvements
The project would construct new lateral connections to the existing water, storm drain, fire water, and sanitary sewer mains in East Middlefield Road. The project would also construct new storm drain lateral connections to the existing mains in Ferguson Drive. Electricity lines would connect to existing and relocated electrical infrastructure on the southern portion of the project site adjacent to Ferguson Drive and an existing communications vault would remain on the northwest corner of the project site.

No connections to natural gas are proposed.

The sidewalks along the project frontages on East Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive would be reconstructed. A new crosswalk and associated stop bars would be striped at the southwest side of the East Middlefield Road and Logue Avenue intersection as part of the project. The project would also construct a buffered bike lane along the project frontage on Middlefield Road and stripe the new service street with “sharrows” to designate the street as a bicycle route.

2.3.6 Landscaping, Heritage Trees, and Stormwater Treatment The project site currently contains 241 trees, 47 of which are protected Heritage trees under Section

32.25 of the City’s Municipal Code.3
The proposed project would remove all on-site trees except for seven (7) existing Heritage trees to be preserved: two (2) existing Heritage trees at the west corner of the project site adjacent to the VTA light rail tracks and five (5) Heritage trees along Ferguson Drive.

The completed project would provide a total of 353 trees including planting 346 replacement trees in areas surrounding the buildings and within the courtyards and paseos on-site and seven (7) existing Heritage trees to be preserved. In addition to the replacement trees, the project would plant other new landscaping, including new shrubs and groundcover, throughout the project area. The landscaping would incorporate low to moderate water use plants and California native species throughout the project site.

The proposed project would result in a decrease of impervious area by approximately 54,764 square feet (or 12 percent) compared to existing conditions due to the addition of landscaped areas, bioretention areas, and flow-through planters on-site.

2.3.7 Construction Activities
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. Construction staging would occur on-site.

Construction of the project would occur over two phases that would take a total of approximately 48 months.4

Phase One would include demolition and preparation of the entire site, construction of the service street, and construction of the MRN residential building and associated off-site improvements. This 3 A “Heritage Tree” is any tree that has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Three species, quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood) or cedrus (cedar) are considered “Heritage” if they have a circumference of 12 inches measured at 54 inches above natural grade. Source: City of Mountain View. “Municipal Code: Section 32.23 – Definitions.” Accessed February 2, 2023.
https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH32TRSHPL 4 The overall construction period could extend to 55 months; however, this analysis is conservative by evaluating a comparatively more impactful 48-month construction period. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 14 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
phase would last approximately 36 months and require excavation at a maximum depth of approximately 31 feet below ground surface. Excavation and removal of approximately 89,500 cubic yards of soil would be necessary to accommodate the proposed building foundations, underground parking levels, footings, service street, and utilities. Construction dewatering would be required for approximately 17 months while the underground parking is constructed.

Phase Two would begin approximately 18 months after the start of Phase One, and would include construction of the MRS residential building, BMR residential building, office building, aboveground parking structure, and associated off-site improvements. This phase would last approximately 30 months and require excavation at a maximum depth of 13 feet below ground surface. Excavation and removal of approximately 49,245 cubic yards of soil would be necessary to accommodate the proposed building foundations, underground parking level, footings, and utilities.

2.3.8 Green Building and Emissions Reduction Features
The proposed non-residential buildings (i.e., the office building and aboveground parking garage) would meet the intent of LEED BD+C Platinum and the residential buildings would achieve a minimum of 120 points on the Green Point Rated system by incorporating a variety of green building measures. These features would include landscaped bioretention areas, drought tolerant landscaping with high-efficiency irrigation, water efficient interior fixtures, energy efficient appliances, and solar panels on the rooftops of each building. Pursuant to the City’s Green Building Code, the buildings would be 100 percent electric and no natural gas would be used.

2.4 COMPARISON WITH PRECISE PLAN
The project would construct 836 residential units, 275,200 square feet of office uses, and 2,344 square feet for neighborhood commercial uses within the Precise Plan area. This development would be consistent with the type and scale of development envisioned in the Precise Plan for the project site by creating transit-oriented residential and office uses in a mixed-use environment and would comply with most standards in the Precise Plan.5
The project would also provide the required number of new residential units proportionate to the proposed office floor area on-site, which is consistent with the Precise Plan “jobs-housing linkage” requirement.6

2.4.1 Transportation Demand Management
The Precise Plan specifies that all new residential development with at least 100 units is required to provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan with programs and measures to reduce vehicle trips. Pursuant to the Precise Plan, the proposed residential portion of the project is required to incorporate the following TDM measures:
5 Design exceptions are permitted under the Planned Community Permit. 6 The East Whisman Precise Plan Jobs -Housing Linkage Program requires that the proposed strategies to facilitate residential development shall be roughly proportional to the net new office floor area. Each 1,000 square feet of net new office floor area should be associated with at least three housing units. The proportion may be less if affordable units are provided in excess of the City’s inclusionary requirements (1.5 units per 1,000 square feet, as specified in the Precise Plan’s development reserve set-aside), or if other housing-related policy goals are met. The project would result in a net increase in 111,562 square feet of office uses. Per the program, the project would need to provide at least 335 residential units. The project provides a total of 836 residential units. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 15 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
 TDM Plan Site Requirements: New residential development shall include the following TDM site design strategies:
o Maximum parking and carshare parking as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan o Bicycle parking as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan o Residential project over 100 units shall provide a shared, common, collaborative workspace available to residents and their guests, which can be offered in partnership with nearby residences or businesses
o Site design that supports alternative modes, such as orienting building entrances toward sidewalks, transit stops, and bicycle routes
o Accessible secure storage space for grocery and package delivery shall be provided in multifamily development
 TDM Plan Operational Requirements: The TDM plan shall include the following minimum operational measures or equivalent:
o Property managers or homeowner associations (HOAs) shall provide access to shared bicycles if a bikeshare service is not available nearby. o Property managers or HOAs shall provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, or initial leasing information. o Property managers or HOAs shall support Safe Routes to Schools programs including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking school buses and/or bike trains.
o Monetary incentives for alternative modes, such as subsidized transit passes or bikeshare for residents and/ or unbundled parking.  Parking Rationale: The TDM plan shall demonstrate that the parking provided is adequate to serve the needs of the development and shall consider the project’s trip-reduction measures.  TDM Monitoring: Annual TDM monitoring shall be conducted by a third party and paid for by the property owner(s) or their representative. It shall include parking counts to measure the peak parking demand and resulting parking rate.
 Monitoring Results: Annual monitoring results shall be submitted to the City for review. The report shall include a description of the measures in place and any new or modified measures since the last monitoring period. If the required trip-reduction standard is not met, the property manager or HOA shall submit a revised TDM plan to the City identifying new programs or polices to address the exceedance and reduce the number of vehicle trips.

The Precise Plan specifies that all office projects with new construction or additions greater than 10,000 square feet shall provide a TDM plan with programs and measures to reduce vehicle trips. Pursuant to the Precise Plan, the proposed office portion of the project is required to incorporate the following TDM measures:
 TDM Plan Site Requirements. The TDM plan shall include the following transportation demand management site design features, though other measures may be needed to reach required trip caps:
o Priority parking for carpools and vanpools.
o Bicycle parking and shower and changing facilities as defined by this chapter. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 16 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
o Maximum parking and carshare parking as defined by this chapter. o Site design that supports alternative modes, such as orienting building entrances toward sidewalks, transit stops and bicycle facilities.
 TDM Plan Operational Requirements. The TDM plan shall include the following minimum operational measures, though other measures may be needed to reach required trip caps:
o The property owner shall join the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA). Tenants may join in lieu of property owners, but if a tenant is unable to maintain membership, the property owner shall be responsible. o Monetary incentives for alternative modes, such as subsidized transit passes, bike-share or carpools.
 TDM Plan Alternative Requirements. The TDM plan may include other measures to reach required trip targets, including but not limited to:
o Shared bicycles if a bikeshare service is not available nearby. o Parking cash-out, paid parking or other parking monetization. o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Telecommute support.
o Alternative work schedules.
 Parking Rationale. The TDM plan shall demonstrate that the parking provided is adequate to serve the needs of the development and shall consider the project’s trip-reduction measures.  Implementation and Approval. The TDM Plan shall identify how the required measures will be implemented and describe and other measures proposed to meet or exceed trip reduction goals. TDM plans are required prior to project approval.  Trip Cap. In addition to the requirements in Section 1, office and research and development projects with TDM plans shall limit vehicle trips to the site. The long-term trip cap across the entire East Whisman area is an average of 0.95 AM and 0.88 PM peak-hour trips per 1,000 square feet across all office, R&D and industrial sites, which may be increased based on capacity-increasing improvements at the gateways identified in Chapter 6. This areawide average shall be implemented through site-specific trip caps, as established through the Office Trip Cap Phasing Program and Administrative Guidelines. These site-specific trip caps are subject to the following:
o Other Sites. Based on the area-wide average standard, applicants may be allowed a higher trip-cap rate if they apply their TDM program to existing buildings in addition to their development.
o Enforcement. Trip caps will be monitored and enforced. The property owner is responsible for achieving the performance measures established in the TDM Plan, including site-specific vehicle trip caps.
o Phase-in Trip Cap. The City will allow near-term flexibility in meeting the trip cap requirement. Trip-cap requirements in any given year will be established through the Office Trip Cap Phasing Program and Administrative Guidelines, which will be based on:
 The ultimate requirement above, as adjusted by any capacity-increasing improvements,
 Changes to the East Whisman area that may demonstrably result in fewer vehicle trips, such as the construction of new housing, and 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 17 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
 The peak hour vehicle trip rate of office, R&D and industrial sites without TDM programs.
 When required trip-cap rates change, all existing development with affected TDM plans shall be responsible for lowering their vehicle trips in compliance with the Phasing Program.
 Monitoring and Enforcement. Annual TDM monitoring shall be conducted by a third party and paid for by the property owner(s) or their representative. It shall include driveway counts and a survey of employee travel modes.

If the site-specific vehicle trip cap is exceeded, the property owner or representative shall submit a revised TDM plan to the City identifying new programs or polices to address the exceedance and reduce the number of site-specific vehicle trips, or identifying additional sites where the TDM program will be enforced (pursuant to Section 2(a) above).

If the following annual monitoring report indicates that despite changes to their TDM program, the site still does not comply with its vehicle trip cap, then the City may assess the employer/property owner/building manager a financial penalty. The amount of financial penalty will be determined based on the employer’s TDM program and precedent TDM penalty programs developed by the City. In determining whether a TDM penalty is appropriate, the City may consider whether the property owner has made a good-faith effort to meet the TDM goals and may allow the property owner a certain “grace period” to implement additional measures to meet their TDM goals. TDM penalties shall be collected and used at the City’s discretion and shall promote alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use in the City.

2.5 APPROVALS REQUIRED
 Development Review Permit
 Heritage Tree Removal Permit
 Planned Community Permit
 Vesting Tentative Map
 Building Permits

675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 18 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The purpose of the checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changes” or “new information” that may result in a changed environmental impact evaluation. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no relevant change in the condition or status of the impact due to its insignificance or its treatment in a previous environmental document.

Overriding considerations were adopted with the certification of an EIR that accepted the possibility of certain impacts regardless of whether mitigations could reduce them to a less-than-significant level.

Thus, certain environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist because the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the EIR Findings Document.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES:

A. Where an Impact Was Analyzed in Prior Environmental Documents This column provides a reference to the pages of the other environmental documents where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

B. Do Proposed Changes Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the changes represented by the proposed project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the prior EIR or substantial increases in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. A yes answer is required if there are new or worsened significant impacts that require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed.

C. Any New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether changed circumstances affecting the proposed project will result in new significant impacts not disclosed in the prior EIR or substantial increases of the severity of a previously identified significant impact. A yes answer is required if there are new or worsened significant impacts that require “major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration.” If a “yes” answer is given, additional mitigation measures or alternatives may be needed.

D. Any New Information of Substantial Importance Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information “of substantial importance” is available requiring an update to the analysis of a previous EIR to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigations remain valid. Any such information is only relevant if it “was not known and could not have been known with reasonable diligence at the time of the previous EIR.” To be relevant in this context, such new information must show one or more of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 19 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
(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.

If the new information shows the existence of new significant effects or significant effects that are substantially more severe than were previously disclosed, then new mitigation measures should be considered.

If the new information shows that previously rejected mitigation measures or alternatives are now feasible, such measures or alternatives should be considered again.

If the new information shows the existence of mitigation measures or alternatives that are (i) considerably different from those included in the prior EIR and (ii) able to substantially reduce one or more significant effects, then such mitigation measures or alternatives also should be considered.

E. Prior Environmental Document Mitigations Implemented or Mitigations Address Impacts.

Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether the Precise Plan FEIR provides mitigations to address effects in the related impact category. If N/A is indicated, the Precise Plan FEIR and this checklist conclude that the impact does not occur with this project and, therefore, no mitigation is needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.

Standard Mitigation Measures
Applicable Standard Mitigation Measures are listed under each environmental category.

EIR Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from previous EIRs that apply to the changes or new information are referenced under each environmental category.

Special Mitigation Measures
If changes or new information involve new impacts, special mitigations will be listed which will be included as project conditions to address those impacts. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 20 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.1 AESTHETICS
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Pages
49-50
No No No No
b. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state
scenic highway?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
49 No No No No
c. Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of public views of
the site and its
surroundings? Would the
project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
50 No No No No
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare
which would adversely
affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
50-51
No No No No

3.1.1 Existing Setting
The existing aesthetics setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The project site is located in the High Intensity Mixed-Use Character Area of the Precise Plan, which allows a maximum FAR of 3.50 and a maximum height of up to 95 feet (with an additional 10 feet above the maximum height allowed for equipment and screening). The northern portion of the parcel nearest to the Middlefield Light-Rail Station is within the High-Rise Core of the Precise Plan, which allows residential and mixed-use projects to construct building heights up to 135 feet, subject to specific Precise Plan requirements. The project site is currently developed with two, two-story, multitenant office/R&D buildings that are connected by a shared corridor, surface parking, and landscaping around the perimeter of the site and buildings. Pursuant to SB 743, the project site is located within a 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 21 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
transit priority area (TPA) based on its location within one half-mile of a major transit stop (Middlefield Light Rail Station).7

3.1.2 Discussion
a-d. The Precise Plan FEIR found that the buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the development proposed) would not result in a significant impact on aesthetic resources. As described in the Precise Plan FEIR, most of the Precise Plan area (including the project site) is considered an infill site located within a SB 743-defined TPA due to the proximity of the VTA light rail stations in and around the Precise Plan area.8 Pursuant to SB 743, “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Thus, the aesthetics impacts of the proposed project, which would be a mixed-use residential project within a transit priority area, would be less than significant.

The project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which would ensure the proposed building design and construction materials would not adversely affect the Precise Plan area’s visual quality or create new sources of light and glare. The proposed maximum building heights ranging from 88 to 93 feet would not exceed the maximum allowed building height in the Mixed-Use Character Area of the East Whisman Precise Plan area, which is 95 feet (with an additional 10 feet allowed for architectural features and elevator runs). Furthermore, the project’s lighting would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC), which minimizes light pollution that is disruptive to the environment by reducing the amount of backlight, uplight, and glare produced by luminaries. This less than significant conclusion is consistent with the conclusion in the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.1.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant aesthetic impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
7 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Transit Priority Areas (2021). Accessed January 18, 2024. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/transit-priority-areas-2021-1/explore?location=37.773000%2C122.191730%2C9.35. 8 “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 22 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.2 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
59-62
No No No MM AQ-3.1
b. 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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
62-65
No No No MM AQ-3.1
c. Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
65 No No No MM AQ-3.1
d. Result in other emissions
(such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
65-66
No No No N/A
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Air Quality Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. dated May 2, 2024. This report is attached as Appendix A.

3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The existing air quality setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. The project site previously generated air quality emissions from operations of the on-site buildings and vehicle trips by employees and visitors. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are multi-family residential units (Revela Apartments) on Infinity Way directly adjacent to the western project boundary. In addition, sensitive receptors will be located at the recently approved but not yet constructed Middlefield Park Master Plan project site located 120 feet north of the project site (see Figure 2.1-3).

3.2.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded the Precise Plan would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP) nor interfere with its implementation, and the impact would be less than significant. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 23 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
The project is consistent with the Precise Plan, including its policies. In addition, the project would not conflict with the goals of the 2017 CAP of protecting public health by progressing towards attaining air quality standards and eliminating health risk (as discussed under checklist questions b. and c.). by implementing Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1 and associated conditions of approval. The project, therefore, would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. b. The Precise Plan FEIR identified a potentially significant air quality impact (Impact AQ-3) related to construction and operational emissions of criteria pollutants and their precursors; however, this would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of MM AQ-3.1.

Precise Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure:

FEIR MM AQ-3.1: Construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification shall be required on individual projects developed under the Precise Plan once construction equipment and phasing details are available through modeling to identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable BAAQMD construction thresholds. Reductions in emissions can be accomplished through, not limited to, the following measures:
• Construction equipment selection for low emissions;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices; • Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

Construction Period Emissions
Consistent with the requirements of Precise Plan mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1, the project’s construction criteria pollutant and Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) TAC emissions were quantified in an Air Quality Assessment. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) provides annual emission estimates for the construction of projects. CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities.

On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activities include worker and truck traffic. The CalEEMod modeling of project-generated construction emissions was based on the applicant-provided schedule and equipment usage assumptions. The construction schedule assumes the earliest possible start date would be October 2025 and that the project would be built out over a period of approximately 47 months (or 1,045 construction workdays). The earliest year of operation was assumed to be 2030.

Table 3.2-1 below shows the project’s estimated average daily construction emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), coarse particulate matter (PM10) exhaust, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exhaust from construction activities and diesel exhaust. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 24 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Table 3.2-1: Estimated Construction Period Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Construction Emissions (tons/year)
2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03
2026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09
2027 1.35 2.91 0.09 0.08
2028 4.23 1.57 0.04 0.03
2029 3.49 0.23 0.01 0.01
Average Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day)
2025 (66 construction workdays) 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88
2026 (261 construction workdays) 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71
2027 (261 construction workdays) 10.032 22.30 0.65 0.61 2028 (262 construction workdays) 32.33 11.98 0.28 0.24
2029 (195 construction workdays) 35.75 2.41 0.07 0.06
BAAQMD Threshold (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment.

May 2, 2024.

As shown in Table 3.2-1, predicted construction emissions would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds during any year of construction activities.

However, 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 include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site deposit mud on local streets, which is an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider construction criteria air pollutant emissions impacts that are below BAAQMD thresholds to be less than significant with the incorporation of BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMPs) (described below as standard conditions of approval). The project would implement the BAAQMD BMPs identified in the Precise Plan FEIR as standard conditions of approval to reduce fugitive dust emissions. The project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant construction period emissions disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 25 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Standard Conditions of Approval:
• Basic Air Quality Construction Measures: The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered. • 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.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph. • 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.
• 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.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the 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 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.

Operational Period Emissions
ROG, PM, and NOX emissions from the project would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future residents and employees; however, operational emissions would also be generated by the dieselpowered emergency generators on-site and evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project at buildout.

Table 3.2-2 below shows the project’s unmitigated net average daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 during operation of the project. As discussed in Section 2.1 Existing Site Conditions, this analysis assumes that the existing buildings on-site are unoccupied, therefore, there are no existing operational emissions credited in the emissions modeling. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 26 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Table 3.2-2: Operational Period Emissions
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Scenario
2030 Annual Project Operational Emissions (tons/year)
Unmitigated
Mitigated2

10.15 9.45

2.19 -
5 -

1.31 -
BAAQMD Thresholds (tons/year) 10 10 10 10
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated2
Yes
No
No
-
No
-
No
-
2030 Daily Project Operational Emissions (pounds/day)
1 Unmitigated
Mitigated2

55.60 51.76

11.85 -

26.98 -

7.05 -
BAAQMD Threshold (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated2
Yes
No
No
-
No
-
No
-
1 Assumes 365-day operation.
2 Mitigated results represent modeled emissions with implementation of COA AQ-1.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment.

May 2, 2024.

As shown in Table 3.2-2, operational period emissions would exceed the daily and annual BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions in 2030.

During construction of the project, there would be a period where Phase One of the development is operational, and construction of Phase Two would still be ongoing. The combination of operational and construction emissions is shown simply as the sum of Phase One annual operation emissions for 2029 and the Phase Two construction emissions for 2029. That year (2029) would be the only year where construction and operational emissions would overlap. Table 3.2-3 shows the annual and average daily emissions during this period.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 27 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Table 3.2-3: Maximum Year Operational and Construction Period Emissions ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Scenario
2029 Annual Emissions (tons/year)
Unmitigated
Mitigated2

7.29 4.14

1.24 -

2.10 -

0.56 -
BAAQMD Thresholds (tons/year) 10 10 10 10
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated2
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
2029 Daily Average Emissions for days with construction (pounds/day)
1 Unmitigated
Mitigated2

56.62 24.32

7.89 -

11.55 -

3.07 -
BAAQMD Threshold (pounds/day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated2
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1 Assumes 365-day operation and 195 days of construction. 2 Mitigated results represent modeled emissions with implementation of COA AQ-1.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment.

May 2, 2024.

As shown in Table 3.2-3, the overlap of operational and construction period emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions. Consistent with Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1, the project would be able to reduce ROG emissions through the use of low- volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings as detailed in the condition of approval below.

Condition of Approval Pursuant to Precise Plan FEIR MM AIR-3.1 COA AQ-1: Require use of low interior and exterior volatile organic compounds (VOC) coatings to reduce reactive organic gases (ROG) emissions. The project shall use super-compliant volatile organic compound or VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings, that are below current BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for at least 90 percent of all interior and exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction of Phase Two and reapplications throughout the project’s operational lifetime for all buildings constructed during Phase One and Phase Two. At least 90 percent of coatings applied must meet a “super-compliant” VOC standard of less than 10 grams of VOC per liter of paint. For reapplication of coatings during the project’s operational lifetime, the tenant leases and building sales disclosures shall contain information that the project is required to use “super-compliant” VOC coatings. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 28 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
This mitigation measure applies to 90 percent of coatings since there may be some special coatings required for certain aspects of the project that cannot meet this requirement.

With implementation of COA AQ-1, the project’s ROG emissions would be reduced below the applicable BAAQMD significance thresholds as shown in Table 3.2-2 and Table 3.2-3. c. The Precise Plan FEIR identified a potentially significant air quality community risk impact (Impact AQ-3) from project construction and operations near sensitive uses, specifically from short-term construction air pollutant emissions, including criteria pollutants, toxic air contaminants, and PM2.5.

Mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1 in the Precise Plan FEIR requires future development to complete Construction Health Risk Analyses, depending on the project size and location, in compliance with the BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD Construction Health Risk Screening Table.

Health Risks from Project Construction
Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC and would pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Pursuant to Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1, a project-specific health risk assessment was completed for the project (refer to Appendix A). The assessment evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors (within 1,000 feet of the project site) from project construction emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5. For the purposes of this analysis, receptors are locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time including existing and future residential uses. As noted in Section 2.1 Existing Site Conditions, the project site is surrounded primarily by office and R&D uses; however, there are residential uses adjacent to the western border of the project site. In addition, the Middlefield Park Master Plan project, which includes residential development, has been approved 120 feet north of the project site.

The CalEEMod model was used to determine total annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) and PM2.5 dust emissions from the off-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles that would be used during project construction. Additionally, the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict construction related DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at existing receptors in the vicinity of the project. The off-site truck and passenger vehicle emission rates were calculated using the EMFAC2021 model. Modeling assumptions and results are included in Appendix A.

The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were identified at nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individual (MEI), or the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction. Results of this assessment indicated that the construction MEIs were located at three different locations within the residences to the southwest of the site: 1) the unmitigated cancer risk MEI is located in a unit on the first floor, 2) the PM2.5 concentration MEI is located at a different unit on the first floor , and 3) the mitigated cancer risk MEI is located at an adjacent unit south of the unmitigated cancer risk MEI. Figure 3.2-1 shows the location of off-site receptors and MEIs and Table 3.2-4 summarizes the health risk impacts for off-site receptors from construction and operation of the project.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 15, 2023.

Legend
UnmiƟgated DPM MEI
Generators
Receptors
Phase 1
Phase 2
Project Site
MiƟgated DPM MEI
Annual PM2.5 MEI
(UnmiƟgated and MiƟgated)
VTA Light Rail
East Middlefield Road
Pyramid Way
Infinity Way Degree Lane
Ferguson Drive
Circuit Way
VTA Light Rail
East Middlefield Road
Pyramid Way
Infinity Way Degree Lane
Ferguson Drive
Circuit Way
237
LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND MEIS FIGURE 3.2-1 City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 29 Compliance Checklist November 2024
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 30 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Table 3.2-4: Construction and Operation Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors Cancer Risk1
(per million)
Annual PM2.51
(μg/m3)
Hazard Index
Source
Project Construction (Years 0 – 5)
Unmitigated
Mitigated2

25.77 4.81

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
Operational Emergency Diesel Generators (Years 6 –
30) 0.653 <0.01 <0.01
Total/Maximum Project Impact (Years 0-30)
Unmitigated
Mitigated2

26.41 5.46

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated2
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
1 Unmitigated maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration occur at two different receptors. Unmitigated results represent modeled emissions without implementation of COA AQ-2. 2 Mitigated maximum cancer risk occurs at a receptor adjacent to the unmitigated maximum cancer risk. Mitigated results represent modeled emissions with implementation of COA AQ-2. 3 Cancer risk from generator operation at the unmitigated cancer risk MEI is 0.63 per million.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment.

May 2, 2024.

As shown in Table 3.2-4, the maximum cancer risks and maximum annual PM2.5 concentration from unmitigated construction activities at the MEI would exceed the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Therefore, consistent with Precise Plan Mitigation Measure MM AQ-3.1, the following conditions of approval shall be implemented by the project.

Condition of Approval Pursuant to Precise Plan FEIR MM AIR-3.1:

COA AQ-2: The project shall implement a feasible plan to reduce diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions by 70 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) significance levels as follows:
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 31 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise, a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 70 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination).

2. Use electric cranes and install electric power lines in order to use avoid use of diesel-powered generators.

3. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 70 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures:
• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 engines or alternatively fueled equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors,
• Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered, • Change in construction buildout plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.

Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the project’s construction cancer risk levels by 81 percent and annual PM2.5 concentration by 64 percent, which would reduce the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration below their respective BAAQMD single-source thresholds (see the “mitigated” risks identified in Table 3.2-4).

Health Risks from Project Operations
The operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic) and stationary sources (i.e., diesel generators). While these emissions would not be as intense at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors.

Vehicle traffic can be a source of TACs if traffic is made up of hundreds of diesel truck trips or 10,000 light-duty vehicles or more. The project would generate 4,875 net daily trips, with a majority of those 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 32 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
trips being from light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles (i.e., passenger vehicles). The project is not anticipated to generate large amounts of diesel truck trips. Therefore, emissions from project traffic would be considered negligible and are not evaluated further in this analysis.

The project would include four, 200 kW emergency generators powered by 320 horsepower dieselfired engines. These generators would be located on the ground floor of the office building, MRN residential building, BMR building, and MRS residential building. The generators would be tested periodically and would provide power to the buildings in the event of a power failure. This operation of the diesel generators would generate TAC emissions. Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally would not be considered to have a significant air quality health risk impact; however, modeling was still completed to evaluate health risk impacts resulting from these stationary sources.

Health Risks from Combined Project Construction and Operations As shown in Table 3.2-4 above, the maximum cancer risks and maximum annual PM2.5 concentration from unmitigated construction activities at the MEI combined with the operational emissions of the project would exceed the BAAQMD single-source thresholds. Consistent with Precise Plan FEIR MM AIR-3.1, the project would implement COA AQ-2 during construction activities to reduce health risk impacts below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Cumulative Health Risks
Construction of the project in combination with existing stationary and mobile sources of TAC emissions could affect nearby sensitive receptors. Figure 3.2-2 shows the location of nearby TAC and PM2.5 sources and Table 3.2-5 shows the project and cumulative health risk impacts on the off-site MEIs. See Appendix A for additional information regarding the evaluated cumulative sources.

Table 3.2-5: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Project MEIs Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)
Hazard Index
Total/Maximum Project Impact (Years 0-30)
Unmitigated1
Mitigated2

26.41 5.46

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
SR-237, ADT 61,362 1.75 <0.01 <0.01
East Middlefield Road, ADT 14,230 0.22 0.01 <0.01
Raytheon Company (Facility ID #909, Semiconductor
and Related Device Manufacturing), MEI at 1000+ feet - - - Verizon Wireless (Smiley Tower) (Facility # 17902,
Generator), MEI at 830 feet 0.96 <0.01 <0.01
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 33 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(μg/m3)
Hazard Index
Cisco Systems (Facility #19348, Generator), MEI at 830
feet 1.04 <0.01 <0.01
Cushman & Wakefield at NortonLifeLock (Facility
#21411, Generator), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.28 <0.01 <0.01
Kilroy Realty Corporation (Facility #21845, Generator), MEI at 890 feet 1.99 <0.01 <0.01
Middlefield Park Master Plan – 1,000 feet north of MEI 7.26 0.22 <0.01 Combined Sources
Unmitigated
Mitigated

39.91 18.96
<0.80
<0.48
<0.09
<0.08
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated
No
No
No
No
No
No
1 Unmitigated results represent modeled emissions without implementation of COA AQ-2. 2 Mitigated results represent modeled emissions with implementation of COA AQ-2.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment.

May 2, 2024.

As shown in the Table 3.2-5 above, the cumulative TAC emissions would not result in a significant cumulative health risk impact. As discussed previously above, implementation BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures and the measures included in COA AQ-2 (as required per Precise Plan mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1) would reduce the construction-related cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration below their respective BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 15, 2023.

Legend
MiƟgated DPM MEI
Nearby Developments
East Middlefield Road Model
Southbay Freeway (S.R. 237)
1,000-Ō Influence Area
Project Site
Annual PM2.5 MEI
(UnmiƟgated and MiƟgated)
StaƟonary Sources
PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY TAC AND PM2.5 SOURCES FIGURE 3.2-2 City of Mountain View675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Project 34 Compliance Checklist November 2024
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 35 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Non-CEQA Health Risk Effects to Future Project Residences 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 General Plan Policy INC 20.7 that addresses existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.

In addition to evaluating potential health impacts from project construction, a health risk assessment was completed to assess the impact that the phased construction emissions from the proposed project and the existing TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors (residents) that the project would introduce. The same TAC sources identified above were used in this health risk assessment. The health risk assessment completed for the project (included in Appendix A) determined that if residents are introduced to the site during Phase One of the project, they would not be exposed to substantial health risk effects during construction of Phase Two of the project. d. The Precise Plan FEIR did not identify a significant odor impact. BAAQMD has identified a variety of land uses and types of operations that would produce emissions that may lead to odors. Land uses identified include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, composting facilities, and confined animal facility/feed lot/dairy facility. The proposed mix of uses on-site does not fall into the aforementioned categories and would not create objectionable odors.

3.2.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant air quality impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 36 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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
Wildlife (CDFW) or United
States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
78-79
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 CDFW
or USFWS?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
80 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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
80 No No No N/A
d. Interfere substantially with
the movement of any native
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
78-80
No No No N/A
e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or
ordinance?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
80-81
No No No N/A
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 37 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The existing biological resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. The project site is within a developed urban area and provides habitat and foraging opportunities for urban-adapted birds. As discussed in the Precise Plan FEIR, no natural communities or habitats for special-status plant and animal species are present within the Precise Plan area, including the project site. The primary biological resource on-site are trees. The project site contains 241 trees, including 47 Heritage trees as defined in the City’s Municipal Code.9

3.3.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to special status plant and animal species because no natural communities or habitats for special status species exist within the Precise Plan area.

As discussed in Section 3.3.1, the 241 trees on-site are the primary biological resources present. These trees, in addition to the buildings and other vegetation on-site, could provide foraging and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species. The proposed project would demolish the two existing buildings and associated surface parking areas and remove all on-site trees except for two existing Heritage trees on the western corner of the project site adjacent to the VTA light rail tracks and five Heritage trees along the perimeter of the site on Ferguson Drive.

Raptors (birds of prey) and nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) code requirements. Urban-adapted raptors or other avian nests present on or adjacent to the site could be disturbed by project construction activities 9 Mountain View Municipal Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics: a tree trunk with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade. Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 38 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
and result in the 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 and would constitute a significant impact.

In compliance with the MBTA and CDFW code, the project shall implement the following City standard condition of approval, consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, to avoid construction-related impacts to nesting birds (including raptors) and their nests.

Standard Conditions of Approval:
• 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 as follows:

The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ 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 no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ 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.

In addition, the project would comply with the Bird Safe Design measures included in the Precise Plan to diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities for birds in the area. These measures include façade treatments, occupancy sensors for non-emergency lighting, designing the site to avoid funneling flight paths towards glass façades, and avoiding transparent walls and building features. The specific standards are identified below.

Precise Plan Standards:
• Façade Treatments. No more than 10 percent of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have untreated glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground. Examples of bird-friendly glazing treatments include opaque glass, covering of clear glass surface with patterns, use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and use of external screens over nonreflective glass. • Occupancy Sensors. For non-residential development, occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights. These lights should be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10:00 PM and sunrise. • Funneling of Flight Paths. New construction shall avoid funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees towards a building façade.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 39 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
• Skyways, Walkways, or Glass Walls. New construction and building additions shall avoid building glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, transparent building corners, or landscaping behind glass (such as in atriums). New construction and building additions should minimize the use of glass at tops of buildings, especially when incorporating a green roof into the design.

With the implementation of the Precise Plan FEIR condition of approval requiring preconstruction nesting bird surveys and no-disturbance buffer zones (if needed) and incorporation of the Precise Plan bird safe design standards, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to nesting and migratory birds. The identified bird safe design features would be incorporated into the final development plans for the project, which would be reviewed by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure implementation consistent with the Precise Plan. b-c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that the Precise Plan area does not contain any streams, rivers, or wetlands; therefore, the project would not have a significant impact on any riparian areas or protected wetlands.

There is no riparian habitat or wetland on or adjacent to the site. The nearest wetlands are the freshwater ponds at Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course, approximately 0.36-mile northeast of the project site. The nearest riparian habitat is the Stevens Creek riverine habitat approximately 0.83-mile west of the project site.10 Therefore, the project would not have an impact on state or federally protected riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, or wetlands.
d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not interfere substantially with the movement of native or migratory species with incorporation of standard conditions of approval for nesting birds and implementation of Precise Plan Bird Safe Design Standards, therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

As discussed previously, the project would comply with the City’s standard condition of approval to protect nesting birds and would incorporate the Precise Plan’s Bird Safe Design standards into the project design. These measures would minimize adverse effects on native and migratory bird species by reducing the likelihood of building collision fatalities on-site. With incorporation of the condition of approval and Precise Plan standards, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on migratory bird movement. In addition, there are no waterways on-site, therefore, the project site does not support the movement of fish. The project site is currently developed and surrounded by existing urban development. For that reason, the project site is not an important area for movement for non-flying wildlife, and it does not contain any high-quality corridors allowing dispersal of such animals through the Precise Plan area.
e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in significant impacts regarding conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources with incorporation of City standard conditions of approval. 10 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. Map.

November 2019.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 40 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
As discussed previously, the proposed project would remove 234 trees on-site, including 40 Heritage trees. The project would plant approximately 346 replacement trees in areas surrounding the buildings and within the courtyards and paseos on-site. A City of Mountain View Heritage tree removal permit is required before any Heritage trees are removed. The proposed project would implement the following standard conditions of approval identified in the Precise Plan FEIR regarding tree replacement, protection, mitigation, and preservation. As a result, the project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant impact to trees or conflicts with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance than previously disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• 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. • Tree Protection Measures: The tree protection measures listed in the arborist's report prepared by and dated 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. • 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 also outline measures to be taken to preserve off-site trees.

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 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.
f. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan because the Precise Plan area is not covered by a Habitat Plan.

The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) is a conservation program that covers portions of Santa Clara County. The Precise Plan area, including the project site, is located outside the Habitat Plan area and expanded study area for burrowing owl conservation.

Nitrogen deposition contribution estimates of impacts on serpentine habitat in Santa Clara County were made as a part of the development of the Habitat Plan. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that the nitrogen emissions (based on existing and future vehicle emissions) that would result from buildout of the Precise Plan were found less than cumulatively considerable (given that buildout of the Precise Plan is a small portion of Santa Clara County’s overall emissions). The Habitat Plan accounts for the indirect impacts of nitrogen deposition (existing and future) and identifies measures to conserve and manage serpentine areas over the term of the Habitat Plan, such that cumulative impacts to this habitat and associated special-status species would not be significant and adverse. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 41 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.3.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant biological resources impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 42 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
86-87
No No No N/A
b. Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
87-88
No No No N/A
c. Disturb any human remains,
including those interred
outside the formal cemeteries?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
87-88
No No No N/A

3.4.1 Existing Setting
The existing cultural resources setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. There are no known cultural resources within the Precise Plan area, which includes the project site.11 Areas near natural water sources (e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland) are considered highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and human remains and the Precise Plan area itself is considered to be a moderately archaeologically sensitive area. The project site is approximately 2.3 from the San Francisco Bay and approximately

0.83-mile east of Stevens Creek. There are no properties listed on federal, state, or local registers within the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site).12,13,14 355-365 East Middlefield Road, located approximately 0.3-mile west of the site, has been identified as a potentially eligible historic resource; however, it has not been officially registered on federal, state, or local registers.

3.4.2 Discussion
a. There are no historic resources in the Precise Plan area listed in the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, the Precise Plan area does not contain property or parcels listed on the City’s Register of Historic Resources; therefore, the Precise 11 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.

SCH #: 2017082051. Page 72. 12 National Park Service. “National Register of Historic Places.” Accessed January 18, 2024. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm 13 California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. “California Register of Historical Resources.” Accessed January 18, 2024. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 14 City of Mountain View. “Register of Historic Resources.” Accessed January 18, 2024. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7915/638346084894870000. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 43 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in impacts to known historic resources.

The project site is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, or City’s Register of Historic Resources. In addition, the existing buildings on-site were constructed in 1982. Therefore, they are less than 50 years old and not considered to be eligible historic resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on historic resources.
b-c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that, with implementation of City standard conditions of approval, buildout of the Precise Plan would result in a less than significant impact to unknown archaeological resources and human remains. The applicable standard conditions of approval would require halting work if resources or human remains are discovered, notifying and consulting appropriate parties, and implementing measures to avoid significantly impacting the resource or human remains as outlined below.

Standard Conditions of Approval:
• Discovery of Archaeological Resources: If prehistoric, or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, 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, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
• 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.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 44 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
The project would implement the above City standard conditions of approval related to the discovery of archaeological resources and human remains identified in the Precise Plan FEIR, which are consistent with General Plan Policies LU-11.5 and LU-11.6.15 Should any archaeological resources and/or human remains be encountered on the site, these conditions would reduce impacts to those resources to a less than significant level. The project, therefore, would result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.4.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant cultural resources impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 15 General Plan Policy LUD 11.5 states Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits. General Plan Policy LUD 11.6 states Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 45 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.5 ENERGY
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
93-95
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
95 No No No N/A
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on air quality calculations completed for the project using CalEEMod. These calculations are attached to this checklist as part of Appendix A.

3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The existing energy setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. The uses on-site have used energy in the form of electricity for building operations, lighting, heating, and cooling, and gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicle trips.

3.5.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that construction and operation of development allowed under the Precise Plan would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or wasteful use of energy resources because:
• Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient, • Development would occur in an urbanized area with access to roadways, construction supplies, and workers,
• Standard BAAQMD BMPs would be implemented to restrict construction equipment idling times and prohibit unnecessary idling,
• Construction equipment with reduced emissions would be used, • Projects would comply with the City’s requirements to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 46 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
• Projects would comply with Precise Plan green building standards.16 In addition, as discussed in the Precise Plan FEIR, implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project) would result in an overall decrease in gasoline use due to the Precise Plan area’s proximity to transit, requirement for TDM plans, and mix of land uses. The annual energy demand of the Precise Plan at buildout is estimated to be approximately 156.1 million kWh of electricity, 188.2 million kBtu of natural gas, and 1.6 million gallons of gasoline.17
The project is consistent with the development analyzed in the Precise Plan FEIR and, therefore, the energy demand generated by the project was accounted for in the Precise Plan FEIR. Construction of the proposed project would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, preparation of the project site (e.g., demolition and grading), and the construction of the residential buildings (including the below ground parking structures), office building, and parking structure. The project would occur in an accessible, urbanized area, incorporate standard BAAQMD BMPs regarding equipment idling, utilize construction equipment with reduced emissions, and recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.

The proposed non-residential buildings would meet the intent of LEED BD+C Gold and the residential buildings would achieve a minimum of 120 points on the Green Point Rated system. Occupation and operation of the project would consume energy for building heating and cooling, lighting, and appliance use. Energy consumption for the proposed project was estimated using CalEEMod standard assumptions for residential, retail, and office land uses. As shown in Appendix A, the project would use approximately 14.2 million kWh of electricity annually.18 Consistent with the City’s Reach Code, the building would not include natural gas infrastructure, therefore, no natural gas would be used during project operations.

The project would be required to comply with state mandated Title 24 energy efficiency standards, California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) standards, and Mountain View Green Building Code standards; including all water efficiency and GreenPoint Rated (or equivalent) requirements.

Compliance with these standards and requirements would further decrease the potential for energy waste and increase building efficiency. For the reasons described above and consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, the proposed project would not result in the inefficient or wasteful use of energy or resources.
b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (including the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard program, SB 350, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, CALGreen standards, the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) Reduction Program, and Mountain View Green Building Code standards) because future development would implement TDM plans, obtain 100 percent carbon free electricity from SVCE, and meet or exceed the state mandated Title 24 energy efficiency standards through compliance with Precise Plan standards.
16 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2017082051. January 2020. Pages 80 to 82. 17 Ibid. Page 81. 18 Energy use estimates shown are conservative in that they do not net out the existing energy use at the site. Source:

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment. May 2, 2024. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 47 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
As required under the City of Mountain View GHG Reduction Program and Precise Plan, the project proposes TDM measures including bicycle storage, on-site shared workspaces, and TDM monitoring.

In addition, the project would obtain 100 percent GHG-emission free electricity from SCVE and comply with Precise Plan includes building standards that meet or exceed state mandated Title 24 energy efficiency standards, CALGreen standards, and Mountain View Green Building Code standards (especially with the inclusion of water efficiency and GreenPoint Rated [or equivalent] requirements).

Therefore, the project is consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR and would not obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

3.5.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant energy impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 48 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
101-102
No No No N/A
b. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
103
No No No N/A
c. 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
102-103
No No No N/A
d. Be located on expansive soil,
as defined in the current
California Building Code,
creating substantial risks to
life or property?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
102-103
No No No N/A
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 49 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

B. Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
C. Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
D. Any New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
E. Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Mitigations
Address
Impacts.
e. 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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
102-103
No No No N/A
e. Directly or indirectly destroy
a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geological feature?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
103
No No No N/A
f. 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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
103
No No No N/A
g. 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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
103
No No No N/A
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by Rockridge Geotechnical dated September 11, 2017. This report is attached as Appendix C.

3.6.1 Existing Setting
The existing geology and soils setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Major faults in the vicinity include the Monte Vista-Shannon, San Andreas, and Hayward faults which are approximately five, eight, and 11 miles away from the project site, respectively. The project site is not located in a fault rupture hazard zone; however, it is located within a county and state designated liquefaction hazard zone.19 The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo special study zone on the California Geological Survey fault zone map.20 There are no open faces near the project site where lateral spreading could occur; therefore, the potential for lateral spreading on-site is low. 19 Santa Clara County. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed February 14, 2023. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373. 20 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. 2019.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 50 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Ground surface elevations on-site range from approximately 65 to 72 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The soil on-site primarily consists of stiff to very stiff, moderately compressible fine-grained deposits with occasional zones of medium stiff clay down to depths of 37 feet below ground surface (bgs).

There are soil layers approximately one to two feet thick between depths of 15 and 42 feet bgs that could be susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake. The near surface clay soil likely has a moderate expansion potential. The project site is not located within a Santa Clara County Compressible Soils Hazard Zone.21
Groundwater was measured on-site at depths between 17 to 21 feet bgs; however, it is estimated that the highest historic ground water level in the vicinity is approximately 12 feet bgs.22 Water levels onsite may vary depending on seasonal precipitation, irrigation practices, and other climate conditions.

Although there have been no recorded fossils discovered within the City of Mountain View, soils within the Precise Plan area could have paleontological sensitivity. Based on mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology, as well as the California Department of Conservation, there have been no mineral or aggregate sources of statewide importance identified within the Mountain View city limits.23

3.6.2 Discussion
a. (i-iv) The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that potential seismic impacts to projects allowed under the Precise Plan would be reduced to a less than significant level or avoided through conformance with CBC requirements, General Plan policies, and the below standard condition of approval which requires the preparation of a design-level geotechnical investigation report and implementation of the standard engineering and design recommendations in the report to minimize seismic and seismic-related hazards (including liquefaction and lateral spreading) to a less than significant level.

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 shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be implemented as part of the project. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for back draining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design. Additionally, recommendations shall include measures (e.g., shoring walls, and waterproofing) to minimize the amount of dewatering required during construction and prevent substantial impacts to aquifers or existing wells. Specific recommendations contained in the 21 Santa Clara County. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed February 14, 2023. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdafc5769494cfe373. 22 Rockridge Geotechnical. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Due Diligence Evaluation 675 & 685 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California. Page 4. September 11, 2017. 23 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.

SCH #: 2017082051. Page 90.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 51 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
geotechnical report prepared for the future development projects shall also be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Mountain View Building Inspection Division.

Consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, and General Plan Policies PSA 4.2, PSA 5.1, PSA 5.2, PSA 5.3, PSA 5.4, and INC 2.3.24 Additionally, the project would comply with the above standard condition of approval by preparing a design-level geotechnical report and incorporating any design recommendations into the project.
b, c, d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that compliance with CBC, General Plan policies, and the City’s standard conditions of approval would ensure that soils impacts would be less than significant.

The Precise Plan area, including the project site, is located on relatively flat, stable ground and would not be exposed to slope instability, erosion, or landslide related hazards. Given this topography, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation concluded that the risk of lateral spready on-site is very low.

As discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would disturb more than one acre of soil and would therefore be subject to the requirements of the Construction General Permit to reduce runoff and pollution in runoff from construction activities, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of stormwater control Best Management Practices. Consistent with the findings in the Precise Plan FEIR, implementation of these measures and other Precise Plan standards would ensure that erosion and loss of topsoil would not occur during construction and operation of the project.

As discussed in Section 3.6.1 Existing Setting, the project site is within a State of California liquefaction hazard zone as well as a County Liquefaction Hazard Zone. The geotechnical investigation completed on-site collected samples from the thin, potentially liquefiable layers on-site to determine the liquefaction potential at the project site. The analysis of these samples concluded that several layers of soil on-site could experience liquefaction during a seismic event. Based on the soil composition, it is estimated that this could result in potential soil settlement at the surface of approximately 0.75 inches or less. The analysis also concluded that the non-liquefiable soil over the potentially liquefiable soil layers is thick enough to result in low potential for ground deformation or surficial cracking resulting from subsurface liquefaction. Consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, adherence to the CBC and the structural design recommendations in the site-specific geotechnical report would reduce the risk of liquefaction at the project site to acceptable levels.

As discussed further in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, construction dewatering would be required for approximately 17 months while the underground parking garages are constructed on-site.

The standard condition of approval above includes evaluation and implementation of measures to minimize dewatering during construction, which would prevent subsidence from the temporary construction dewatering. No permanent dewatering is required for the project as the permanent building walls for the underground levels of proposed buildings would be constructed with 24 General Plan Policy PSA 4.2: Minimize impacts of natural disasters. General Plan Policies PSA 5.1 – 5.4: Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards, Development shall comply with Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, Ensure City uses effective technology to inform the community about potential hazards and emergency response, Ensure new underground utilities are designed to meet current seismic standards. General Plan Policy INC 2.3 requires the use of available technology and earthquake resistant materials in the design and construction of all infrastructure projects.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 52 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
waterproofing materials and drainage panels.25 Soils with moderate expansion potential occur on-site, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The project would prepare a design-level geotechnical investigation report and implement the recommendations in the report to reduce the impacts of expansive soils to a less than significant level, consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR. e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in impacts related to soils incapable of accommodating a septic tank because the Precise Plan area is and would continue to be served by the City’s existing sanitary sewer system.

Consistent with the determination in the Precise Plan FEIR, the project would connect to existing City sewer lines and would not propose treatment of wastewater on-site. Therefore, the project would have no substantial impact on the project site soils’ ability to support alternative wastewater systems. f. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources with compliance with the below City’s standard condition of approval, which requires halting work in the event of a fossil discovery, examination of the find by a qualified paleontologist, and implementation of avoidance measures or a data recovery plan.

Standard Condition of Approval:
• Discovery of Paleontological Resources: In the event 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.

Consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, the project would implement the above standard condition of approval regarding the discovery of paleontological resources identified in the Precise Plan FEIR to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level. g-h. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in an impact on mineral resources as there are none present within the Precise Plan area. Implementation of the project, therefore, would not result in an impact on mineral resources.

3.6.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant geology, soils, and minerals impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 25 Rockridge Geotechnical. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Due Diligence Evaluation 675 & 685 East Middlefield Road. September 11, 2017. Page 15.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 53 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on
the environment?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
109-111
No No No N/A
b. Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation
adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
111-113
No No No N/A

3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The existing GHG setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. Subsequent to the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, in April 2022, BAAQMD adopted new CEQA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions from new development projects.

Historically, the project site generated GHG emissions primarily from fossil fuel combustion from vehicle trips.

3.7.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR found that GHG emissions-related impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and Precise Plan requirements for recycling or reusing building materials, implementation of TDM programs, compliance with Title 24 building standards, and utilization of 100 percent carbon-free electricity. Consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, the project would comply with the same regulations and City requirement and obtain 100 percent carbon free electricity from SVCE.

As noted above, subsequent to the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, BAAQMD adopted updated thresholds for GHG impacts. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, adoption of new policies and/or regulations is not considered substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR because it does not result in a new significant environmental impact, increase the severity of an environmental impact, or alter the existing mitigation measure or alternative. Therefore, for informational purposes only, the project’s consistency with the updated BAAQMD GHG threshold is discussed below. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 54 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Pursuant to the current BAAQMD thresholds of significance, if a land use project meets the following criteria, it would have a less than significant GHG impact:
• Projects must either not include natural gas appliances or plumbing, • Not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy use, • Achieve a 15 percent reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) below the regional average, and
• Include off-street electric vehicle infrastructure consistent with CalGreen Tier 2 requirements.

The project would comply with the City’s Reach Code for all-electric buildings. In addition, the nonresidential buildings would meet the intent of LEED BD+C Platinum and the residential buildings would achieve a minimum of 120 points on the Green Point Rated system by incorporating green building measures such as landscaped bioretention areas, drought tolerant landscaping with highefficiency irrigation, water efficient interior fixtures, energy efficient appliances, and solar panels on the rooftops of each building. The project would include sufficient EV charging and EV-ready parking stalls to meet CalGreen Tier 2 requirements. As discussed in Section 3.5 Energy, the project’s implementation of BAAQMD BMPs and compliance with existing regulations (CALGreen, Title 24, and MVGBC) would result in energy efficiencies. In addition, as described in Section 3.15 Transportation, the project is presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT due to its proximity to the Middlefield Light Rail Station and the implementation of a TDM Plan for residents and employees on-site. For these reasons, the project would meet current BAAQMD GHG thresholds for a less than significant GHG emissions impact.
b. As discussed in Section 3.2 Air Quality, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP. Further, the Precise Plan FEIR determined that development projects would be consistent with Plan Bay Area and the GGRP by locating development within a Priority Development Area (PDA), requiring TDM plans for projects within the Precise Plan area, and requiring projects to meet applicable green building codes (i.e., LEED Certification, GreenPoint Rated, CALGreen, Mountain View Green Building Code, Title 24). The project is located within a PDA, proposes to implement a TDM plan, and would meet applicable green building codes.

3.7.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant GHG impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 55 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
127-128
No No No N/A
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
128-132
No No No Yes, MM
HAZ-3.1
c. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
132
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
128-132
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
132-137
No No No N/A
f. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
137
No No No N/A
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 56 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

B. Do Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
C. Any New
Circumstances
Involving New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
D. Any New
Information of
Substantial
Importance
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
E. Prior
Environmental
Documents
Mitigations
Implemented
or Mitigations
Address
Impacts.
g. Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving
wildland fires?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
137
No No No N/A
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Phase II Site Investigation Report prepared by RMD Environmental Solutions dated October 28, 2022 and December 2, 2022, respectively. This section is also based, in part, on peer reviews of these documents by Cornerstone Earth Group and a separate Preliminary Soil Corrosion Screening report dated March 2, 2023 and February 17, 2023, respectively. These reports are attached as Appendix D.

3.8.1 Existing Setting
The existing hazards and hazardous materials setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

Prior to being developed with the current buildings on-site, the project site was used for primarily agricultural purposes. By 1963, several commercial/industrial buildings, greenhouses, and associated outbuildings (e.g., barns or sheds) were constructed on-site and a residence was located on the southern portion of the site. The existing office/R&D buildings on-site were constructed by 1982. The current buildings were occupied by research, telecommunication, and technology companies through 2023.

These uses typically include the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous waste. The Phase I ESA did not identify any recorded violations from on-site tenants impacting the site.26 A Phase II Site Investigation concluded that organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) have impacted the subsurface, likely from the historical agricultural use of the project site and surrounding area.

One of the sites associated with the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area (365 East Middlefield Road) is located approximately 270 feet northwest of the project site. In the 1960s and 1970s, companies involved in semiconductor, electronic, and other manufacturing and research contaminated the soil in the MEW Superfund Study Area and groundwater with volatile organic compounds (VOC), primarily trichloroethylene (TCE). The area was deemed a Superfund site, and a clean-up plan was approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1989. Three other locations adjacent to the project site (Hewlett Packard at 690 East Middlefield Road, 590 East Middlefield Road, and Microscience International at 575 East Middlefield Road) have also been listed in environmental databases for contaminating soil and groundwater with hazardous materials. All four of these sites are either cross-gradient or down-gradient from the project site and, therefore, are not 26 RMD Environmental Solutions. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 675-685 E. Middlefield Road. October 28, 2022. Page 3-4.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 57 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
considered Recognized Environmental Conditions for the project site as the pollutants would not migrate to the project site.27
Based on the site’s history and location near the MEW Superfund Study Area, on-site soil, soil vapor, and groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for contaminants. Several contaminants were measured at levels above the Tier 1 Environmental Screening Levels established by the RWQCB in the soil on-site, including total petroleum hydrocarbon diesel range (TPHd), Methylene chloride, 4,4- dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4-DDT), Dieldrin, and Toxaphene. The soil samples contained arsenic, barium, nickel, and vanadium at levels exceeding their respective residential screening levels.

Chromium was detected above the concentration to require additional Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration analysis for off-site disposal characterization considerations. Groundwater samples contained TPHd and TCE at concentrations above their respective screening levels. Benzene was the only VOC detected above the residential ESL in the soil vapor samples that were collected on-site.28 The nearest airport to the Precise Plan area is Moffett Federal Airfield, which is approximately 0.5- mile north of the project site. According to the Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), the project site is located within its Airport Influence Area (AIA) and within the mapped Part 77 182-foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield.29 The project site is not located within any of the noise contours or airport safety zones of the Moffett Federal Airfield.30

3.8.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that with compliance with federal, state, local requirements, and City of Mountain View General Plan policies, future development (including the proposed project) would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The conditions in and around the project site have not changed substantially since certification of the Precise Plan FEIR and the project proposes land uses consistent with those identified for the site and previously analyzed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

The proposed office, residential, and retail/commercial uses on-site would involve the routine use and storage of hazardous materials such as limited amounts of fuels and oils for landscaping and maintenance activities, in addition to cleaning materials. The quantities used would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. For these reasons, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR
b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that future construction and demolition activities could expose construction workers, the environment, and area residents to potentially unacceptable health risks from contaminated groundwater, soils, and soil gas, resulting in a significant impact. However, with incorporation of Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure MM HAZ-3.1, which requires the preparation 27 RMD Environmental Solutions. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 675-685 E. Middlefield Road. October 28, 2022. Pages 4-4 to 4-5. 28 RMD Environmental Solutions. Phase II Site Investigation Report– 675-685 E. Middlefield Road. December 2, 2022. Pages 4 to 8.
29 County of Santa Clara. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Moffett Federal Airfield. December 19, 2018. Figure 6. 30 Ibid. Figure 5 and Figure 7. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 58 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
of a site-specific Phase I ESA and a Site Management Plan (SMP) for all development projects with Recognized Environmental Conditions, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Precise Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure
Precise Plan FEIR MM HAZ-3.1 Prior to the start of any redevelopment activity, a propertyspecific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be completed in accordance with ASTM Standard Designation E 1527- 13 to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions, evaluate the property history, and establish if the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies shall subsequently be conducted, if warranted based on the findings of the property-specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if mitigation measures are needed to protect the health and safety of construction workers, the environment, and area residents.

At properties identified as being impacted or potentially impacted by Recognized Environmental Conditions as part of the property-specific Phase I ESA or subsequent studies, a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or other materials during construction activities. The SMP shall be prepared by an Environmental Professional and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., United States Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and/or County Department of Environmental Health) for review and approval prior to commencing construction activities. Management of site risks during earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected, shall be described. Worker training requirements, health and safety measures and soil handling procedures shall be described. The SMP shall also be submitted to the City of Mountain View Planning Division for review.

Consistent with Precise Plan FEIR MM HAZ-3.1, a Phase I ESA and Phase II were completed for the project site (refer to Appendix D). The Phase I ESA identified an SMP that had been previously prepared for the site in 2017; however, the report noted that it did not receive approval from any regulatory agency. To comply with Precise Plan FEIR MM HAZ-3.1, the SMP shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory oversight agency for review and approval. As part of the regulatory oversight agency’s review, additional sampling of the on-site soil, soil vapor, and groundwater may be required to further document the lateral and vertical extent of OCPs, lead, asbestos, and PCBs on-site. Per Precise Plan FEIR MM HAZ-3.1, the approved SMP shall be implemented by the project to protect construction workers and the environment from on-site contamination including elevated levels of contamination in the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater.

Since TCE was detected in the groundwater and benzene was detected in the soil vapor on-site at concentrations exceeding their respective ESLs, the project would construct vapor barriers consistent with the requirements of the below City standard condition of approval. The appropriate structural and engineering design features required to reduce the risk of vapor intrusion into the proposed buildings would be outlined in the SMP submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency for their review and written approval.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 59 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Standard Condition of Approval:
• Vapor Barrier: A vapor barrier shall be installed beneath all structures to mitigate any issues associated with the potential for vapor intrusion within the structure. The vapor barrier design shall be equivalent to those required for sites with known concerns in Mountain View that are also exposed to groundwater. Specifications for the vapor barrier included in the Site Management Plan shall include thickness, type, durability, and diffusion rates for VOCs of concern. The specifications shall also describe the effectiveness of the liner over the life of the building.

As noted in Section 2.3.7 Construction Activities, the project would include excavation of the subsurface portion of the building parking garage to a maximum depth of 31 feet bgs (groundwater is located approximately 17 to 21 feet bgs on-site) and would require temporary dewatering for a period of approximately 17 months. Because the MEW Superfund Study Area sites in the project vicinity are cross-gradient or down-gradient from the project site and the contaminants in those plumes are not expected to present a risk to the project site, construction dewatering activities would not result in the migration of any additional contaminants that could pose a risk to construction workers on-site. The Phase II prepared for the site determined that groundwater treatment using carbon filters would be required prior to discharging the groundwater, consistent with standard practices under a sewer discharge permit and the NPDES permit. Refer to Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality for a discussion of water quality impacts associated with dewatering effluent.

Based on the above discussion, with implementation of Precise Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-3.1, impacts associated with the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant (consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR).
c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not construct a school on a property that is subject to hazards from hazardous materials contamination, emissions, or accidental release and would not result in impacts to existing or proposed schools.

There are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. The nearest school to the project site is Vargas Elementary school, approximately 0.4-mile west of the project site. The project would construct residential, commercial, and office uses on-site, which would not constitute a substantial source of hazardous emissions and would not produce hazardous materials or hazardous waste following construction. For these reasons, the project would result in the same less than significant impact as identified in the Precise Plan FEIR.
d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan could include development on sites included on lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962; however, with implementation of the EPA-required ROD measures for properties within the MEW Study Area, VOC-related soil and vapor potential impacts from MEW contaminants to construction workers, area residents, and the environment would be less than significant. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 60 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.
31 Therefore, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that, with required coordination with the County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission and the FAA, buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in increased airport safety hazards.

As discussed in Section 3.8.1, the project site is located within the AIA and the mapped Part 77 182- foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. The project site is outside the CLUP safety zones and noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield. Based on the site location and elevation of 72 feet amsl, any obstruction (permanent or temporary) exceeding 110 feet above grade would require FAA review. The proposed maximum building height of up to 93 feet would not require notification and review by the FAA to determine potential aviation hazard. However, the project’s construction equipment (i.e., cranes) would reach a maximum potential height of 170 to 200 feet, which would be subject to FAA’s review. Compliance with FAA’s regulations would reduce aviation hazards to a less than significant level.

Based on the discussion above, the project would comply with FAA regulations and therefore, would not expose people residing or working at the project site to safety hazards or excessive noise from Airfield operations.
f. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that future development under the Precise Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan due to the City’s conformance with General Plan Policies MOB 10.1, MOB 10.2, and MOB 10.4,32 therefore impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan because the project would incorporate relevant fire code requirements and have the site plan reviewed by the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), is not located along specified evacuation or emergency routes, and would implement the TDM measures required under the Precise Plan.
g. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that future development within the Precise Plan (which includes the project site) would not expose people or structures to hazards from wildland fires because the Precise Plan area is within a developed urban area outside of wildfire hazard severity zones. This condition has not changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.8.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant hazards impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
31 California Environmental Protection Agency. Cortese List Data Resources. Accessed December 15, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/. 32 General Plan Policies MOB 10.1, MOB 10.2 and MOB 10.4 call for the City to maximize the efficiency of existing automobile infrastructure and manage streets to discourage cut through traffic, reduce travel demand through effective TDM programs, and monitoring emergency response times and review emergency response time standards. Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 61 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
146-147
No No No N/A
b. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
147
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 onor off-site;
ii. substantially increase
the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a
manner which would
result in flooding on- or
off-site;
iii. create or contribute
runoff water which
would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned stormwater
drainage systems or
provide substantial
additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood
flows?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
148-149
No No No N/A
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 62 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

3.9.1 Existing Setting
The existing hydrology and water quality setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. Since certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, in November 2021, Santa Clara Valley Water District adopted the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins which establishes recharge facilities, recycled water systems, and conservation strategies to proactively manage groundwater and surface water resources within its jurisdiction.

The project site consists of 437,970 square feet (or 95 percent) of impervious surfaces and 23,082 square feet (or five percent) of pervious surfaces. The existing pervious surface on-site consists of landscaping areas and other permeable surfaces.

The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).33 Flood Zone X is defined as an area determined to be outside the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplains, indicative of a minimal flood hazard. As discussed in Section 3.6 Geology and Soils, groundwater was measured on-site at depths between 17 to 21 feet bgs. There are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located within the project site.

3.9.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that compliance with the General Construction Permit, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) requirements, Precise Plan design guidelines and standards, and City standard conditions of approval would ensure that future project construction and post-construction runoff would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.
33 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0045H.

Effective Date May 18, 2009.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 63 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Construction of the proposed project would require demolition, excavation, grading, and paving of the project site, which could result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Since the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, it is required to comply with the State of California General Construction Permit to reduce runoff and pollution in runoff from construction activities, including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of stormwater control BMPs, including ones that would minimize water quality impacts from discharge of dewatering effluent. In addition, the project would submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).

Compliance with the General Construction Permit would ensure that all BMPs related to stormwater pollution prevention for construction projects are implemented.

The project would also be required to comply with the requirements of the MRP. Provision C.3 requires the project to incorporate site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID) -based stormwater treatment controls to reduce the pollutant loads of runoff from the project. The project would reduce and treat surface runoff on-site by increasing impervious surface area, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to landscaped areas, and installing bioretention areas throughout the project site.

The project would be consistent with the following design guidelines and standards from the Precise Plan:
• Chapter 4.3.4: Landscaping and Sustainability of the Precise Plan states that stormwater capture and treatment should be incorporated into landscaping design. The project would include flow-through planters and bioretention basins in landscaped areas throughout the project site.
• Chapter 5.3.1: Public Streetscape Design states that stormwater treatment measures may include in-street landscape areas, tree wells, planters within the parking lane, permeable pavements, and subsurface features such as tree trenches. The project would incorporate bioretention basins along the private drive on-site to capture stormwater runoff from the streets and surrounding hardscape areas.

For the reasons mentioned above, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. This is the same impact as previously disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies, interfere with sustainable groundwater management of the Santa Clara Valley subbasin, or result in other groundwater-related impacts because development would not be located on or impact recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants. The Precise Plan FEIR also concluded that temporary dewatering of groundwater would not substantially impact groundwater supplies in the region, nor would it deplete or contaminate existing aquifers relied upon for potable water uses.

Consistent with the finding of the Precise Plan FEIR, the project site is not located in a recharge area as identified by the 2021 GWMP.34 In addition, as discussed in Section 2.0 Project Description, the proposed project would decrease the amount of impervious surface on-site from 95 percent to 83 34 Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins.

November 2021. Page 2-1.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 64 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
percent compared to existing conditions. Therefore, implementation of the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge because it would not reduce the amount of surface water that is allowed to percolate on-site.

As discussed in Section 3.9.1 Existing Setting, groundwater was measured on-site at depths between 17 to 21 feet bgs. The project would require a maximum excavation depth of 31 feet to accommodate the proposed basement parking levels, foundations, and utilities on-site. Based on the required excavation depth and the known groundwater depth on the site, temporary construction dewatering would be required for the project. As discussed in Section 2.3.7 Construction Activities, dewatering would only occur on-site for approximately 17 months. However, the project could potentially include a continuous cut-off wall type shoring system that would be used in conjunction with an internal passive dewatering system operating within the excavation footprint to reduce the amount of groundwater required to be pumped from the site.35 The project would comply with the design recommendations in the design-level geotechnical investigation required as a condition of approval (see Section 3.6 Geology, Soils, and Minerals), which would include design and engineering controls to minimize the volume and duration of dewatering. For the above reasons, the project would not result in new or substantially increased impacts than those described in the Precise Plan FEIR. c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that, with implementation of the following standard City conditions of approval, as well as compliance with the MRP and Precise Plan standards and guidelines, the City’s stormwater system would adequately convey flows from buildout of the Precise Plan and result in less than significant impacts to existing stormwater drainage systems.

Standard Conditions of Approval:
• 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.
• 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. • 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. 35 Rockridge Geotechnical. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Due Diligence Evaluation 675 & 685 East Middlefield Road. September 11, 2017. Page 16.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 65 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
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.

There are no streams or rivers on-site, therefore, the proposed project would not affect the existing drainage pattern of any streams or rivers. As discussed under checklist questions a. and b., the proposed project would comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP requirement to incorporate site design, source control, and LID-based stormwater treatment controls consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR. In addition, the project would decrease the amount of impervious surface area on-site from 95 to 83 percent, thereby reducing the amount of surface runoff compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, the existing storm drain system would continue to adequately serve the project site under project conditions and the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding, or additional sources of polluted runoff, consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR. d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in increased flood hazards, increased tsunami or seiche risks, or increased risk of pollutant release due to inundation with compliance with existing Fire Department policies regarding proper storage and handling of large quantities of hazardous materials and preparation of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan.

There are no enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of water near the project site that would be subject to seiches. The project site is not located in an identified FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone or within a tsunami evacuation zone.36 As discussed in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the proposed residential, retail/commercial, and office uses would not use or store substantial quantities of hazardous materials on-site. Based on the location of the project and the fact that it would not include the use or storage of significant amounts of hazardous materials, the project would not result in a release of pollutants from flooding, seiches, or tsunamis.
e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan because there are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants in the Precise Plan area, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. As discussed previously under checklist question a., the project site is not identified in the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan as containing any recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants; therefore, the project would not impact any of these facilities.

3.9.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant hydrology and water quality impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 36 Association of Bay Area Governments. “MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map.” Accessed February 16, 2023.

Available at: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd086fc8 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 66 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Physically divide an
established community?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
156
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
156- 158
No No No N/A

3.10.1 Existing Setting
The existing land use setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

Since certification of the Precise Plan FEIR (October 2021), the Association of Bay Area Governments adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 which builds on Plan Bay Area 2040 and includes 35 strategies for housing, transportation, economic viability and the environment.

As noted in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous materials. The project site is located within the AIA and within the mapped Part 77 182-foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield.37 The project site is not located within any of the noise contours or airport safety zones of the Moffett Federal Airfield.38

3.10.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that although the Precise Plan could include new trails, streets, and the extension of existing streets, they would facilitate multimodal transportation use and break down large blocks into smaller, more walkable units, and no dividing infrastructure such as highways or railways are planned, thus, impacts would be less than significant.

The project would replace the existing office/R&D buildings with three new residential buildings (which would include limited retail/commercial uses), an office building, a parking structure, and a 37 County of Santa Clara. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Moffett Federal Airfield. December 19, 2018. Figure 6. 38 Ibid. Figure 5 and Figure 7. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 67 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
new service street on-site, consistent with the Precise Plan’s vision, and would not involve components that would physically divide an existing community (i.e., highways or railways). b. The Precise Plan was intended to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan by providing development guidelines and policies for the entire East Whisman Change Area. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that the Precise Plan incorporates standards and guidelines to minimize environmental impacts and would be consistent with land use plans, policies, and regulations including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Moffett Field CLUP, and Plan Bay Area 2040. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not conflict with the Moffett Field CLUP because the Precise Plan includes standards and guidelines to ensure that proposed building designs and heights would comply with the limits established by the CLUP. The Precise Plan FEIR also concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not conflict with the Plan Bay Area 2040 because the Precise Plan meets the intent of Plan Bay Area 2040 to focus the growth of mixed-use, transit-oriented, and infill districts in PDAs and streamline the review process for development projects.

The proposed project’s density and land use are consistent with the Precise Plan, and the designs of the proposed residential and non-residential buildings comply with Precise Plan design standards and guidelines. The project includes high density, mixed-use development proximate to the Middlefield Light Rail Station within the Whisman PDA identified in Plan Bay Area 2050. Because the mixed-use and transit-oriented, infill project would be located within a PDA, it would remain consistent with the vision for projects in PDAs that was outlined in both Plan Bay Area 2040 and Plan Bay Area 2050. 39 In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the East Whisman Mixed-Use General Plan land use designation and General Plan Policy LUD 19.1, which calls for greater land use intensity and transit-oriented developments within a half-mile of light rail transit stations.

As discussed in Section 3.10.1 Existing Setting, The maximum elevation on-site is 72 feet amsl and the tallest building proposed as part of the project would be approximately up to 93 feet tall. The proposed maximum building height of up to 93 feet would not require notification and review by the FAA to determine potential aviation hazard. However, the project’s construction equipment (e.g., cranes) would reach a maximum potential height of 170 to 200 feet and would therefore be subject to the FAA’s review. Compliance with FAA’s regulations would reduce aviation hazards to a less than significant level and ensure consistency with the Moffett Field CLUP.

3.10.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant land use and planning impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 39 Association of Bay Area Governments. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050) July 27, 2020. Accessed February 15, 2023. Available at: https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::priority-development-areas-plan-bayarea-2050/about. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 68 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.11 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
169-173
No No No N/A
b. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
173 -174
No No No Yes, MM
NOI-4.1
c. For a project located within
the vicinity of a private airstrip
or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project
expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
179
No No No N/A

3.11.1 Existing Setting
The existing noise and vibration setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The existing noise environment in the Precise Plan area results primarily from vehicular traffic along freeway and roadways (including U.S. 101, East Middlefield Road, North Whisman Road, and Ellis Street), VTA light rail pass-bys, and aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Airfield. As discussed in Section 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located outside the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for Moffett Federal Airfield. The nearest sensitive receptors are residential uses located directly adjacent to the western boundary of the project site. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 69 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.11.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in substantial short-term construction noise, or permanent noise level increases from increased traffic, or operation of mechanical equipment with implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval (listed below) and with adherence to City Code requirements.

Standard Conditions of Approval:
• Construction Noise Reduction: The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: a. comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; b. turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; c. locate stationary equipment as far as practicable 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; e. and shroud or shield impact tools and use electric powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment. • Construction Practices Noticing – Disturbance Coordinator: The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall 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 afterhours contact number for emergency personnel. • Mechanical Equipment: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dBA during the day (between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) or 50 dBA during the night (between 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) as measured at residential land uses.

A discussion of the project’s construction and operational noise impacts is provided below.

Construction Noise
Construction activities for the proposed project would be completed between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday, and would adhere to the allowable hours of construction specified in the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 8). Construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 48 months, and the project would implement the previously listed standard conditions of approval identified in the Precise Plan FEIR, which include implementing standard construction noise reduction measures and designating a disturbance coordinator to respond to and address complaints.

With implementation of the above standard conditions of approval, the Precise Plan FEIR determined that construction of future projects (including the proposed project) would have a less than significant construction noise impact.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 70 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Operational Noise
Traffic Noise
As identified in the Precise Plan FEIR, a significant permanent noise level increase would occur if the increase in traffic generated by the project would result in a noise level increase of three dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater.40 The future traffic noise from buildout of the Precise Plan was modeled and disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. Traffic noise increases above existing levels from Precise Plan-generated traffic would be one to two dBA Ldn or less at noise sensitive receptors within or adjacent to the Precise Plan area. The increase in traffic noise as a result of the Precise Plan buildout (which includes traffic from the proposed project) would be less than three dBA; therefore, the Precise Plan (as well as project) traffic noise would have a less than significant impact on noise-sensitive receptors in the area.

Mechanical Equipment Noise
General Plan Policy NOI 1.7 restricts noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance, which states that stationary equipment noise from any property must be maintained at or below 55 dBA Leq during daytime hours (i.e., between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM) and at or below 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (i.e., between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM) as measured at residential land uses.

The project would include mechanical systems (i.e., HVAC, exhaust fans, intake ventilation) on the rooftops of the proposed office and residential buildings. The project would comply with the standard condition of approval regarding mechanical equipment that was included in the Precise Plan FEIR and listed above, to reduce potential noise impacts from new mechanical equipment included in the proposed project. With implementation of this standard condition of approval, the Precise Plan FEIR determined that mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant. Therefore, the project would result in the same less than significant impact disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. b. The Precise Plan FEIR identified a less than significant vibration noise impact with implementation of mitigation measure MM NOI-4.1 below, which calls for avoiding impact pile driving, avoiding use of vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive uses, completing site-specific vibration studies and monitoring if activities are proximate to adjacent structures, and making appropriate repairs (or providing compensation) for damage.

Precise Plan FEIR Mitigation Measures:

Precise Plan FEIR MM NOI-4.1: Use drilled piles (which cause lower vibration levels) where geological conditions permit their use. In areas where project construction is anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile driving or use of vibratory rollers, in close proximity to existing structures, site-specific vibration 40 Noise is measured on a decibel scale, which serves as an index of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA. The day-night average sound level (Ldn) is the average noise level over a 24-hour period, with additional weight added to noise generated in the late-night or early-morning hours. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 71 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
studies should be conducted to determine the area of impact and to identify appropriate mitigation measures which may include the following:
• Identification of sites that would include vibration compaction activities such as pile driving and have the potential to generate ground-borne vibration, and the sensitivity of nearby structures to ground-borne vibration. Vibration limits should be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 feet of the project. A qualified structural engineer should conduct this task.
• Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions.
• Construction contingencies would be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits.
• At a minimum, vibration monitoring should be conducted during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. • When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures.
• Conduct post-survey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.

The project would be constructed in proximity to existing uses and, while no pile driving is proposed, other construction tools that could generate vibration such as vibratory rollers could be used. For this reason, the project would prepare a site-specific vibration study per Precise Plan mitigation measure MM NOI-4.1 and implement the recommendations in the study. Therefore, the project would result in the same less than significant impact construction-vibration impact as identified in the Precise Plan FEIR.
c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that impacts associated with exposure of people living or working in a project area to excessive noise from airport operations was not a CEQA impact.

Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civilian/military airport located approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site. According to the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP 2022 Aircraft Noise Contour Map, the project site is outside the 65 dBA Community Noise Equivalent level (CNEL) noise contour.

Therefore, the project would not expose future residents to excessive noise from aircraft operations.

3.11.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant noise and vibration impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 72 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area,
either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension
of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
183-185
No No No N/A
b. Displace substantial numbers
of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
185
No No No N/A

3.12.1 Existing Setting
The existing population and housing setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The growth projections for the Precise Plan are consistent with the growth projections for the area in the General Plan. According to the Precise Plan FEIR, the approved Precise Plan would result in employment growth of approximately 12,000 new jobs over existing conditions for a total of 27,360 employees at full buildout in 2030. Buildout of the Precise Plan would add 5,000 residential units, resulting in an estimated 10,750 residents.41 Currently there is one single-family residence in the Precise Plan area located on Middlefield Road. Since the adoption of the Precise Plan and certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, 2,308 residential units have been approved for development within the Precise Plan area. To date, none of those approved units have been constructed. There are no residential units on-site; however, there are two multi-family residential developments directly adjacent to the western border of the project site.

3.12.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would provide housing near an employment center and would not induce population growth by extending or expanding infrastructure beyond areas planned for development, therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 41 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #:
2017082051. January 2020. Page 172.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 73 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
As discussed in Section 2.1 Existing Site Conditions, the project site is currently developed with two office/R&D buildings. The proposed project would demolish the two, existing buildings and construct 836 residential units, 2,344 square feet of neighborhood commercial space, and a new 275,200 square foot office building. The increase in residential units on-site would generate approximately 1,798 new residents, or 16.72 percent of the total anticipated population growth for the Precise Plan area.42 Population and housing impacts from the project were previously analyzed the Precise Plan FEIR, therefore, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people because only one existing single-family residential unit was located within the Precise Plan area at the time of certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. This was found to be a less than significant impact as implementation of the project would create up to 5,000 residential units.

The project site is developed with office/R&D uses and does not contain housing; therefore, the project would not displace existing residents or housing.

3.12.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant population and housing impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 42 Resident generation estimates for the project were calculated based on the service population estimates for the Precise Plan FEIR. The project proposes 836 residential units, which is 16.72 percent of the residential development assumed in the Precise Plan. Therefore, project was assumed to generate 16.72 percent of the residents assumed.

Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH #:
2017082051. January 2020. Page 172.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 74 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

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:
a. Fire protection?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
188-193
No No No N/A
b. Police protection?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
188-193
No No No N/A
c. Schools?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
188-193
No No No N/A
d. Parks?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
188-193
No No No N/A
e. Other public facilities?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
188-193
No No No N/A

3.13.1 Existing Setting
The existing public services setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The Precise Plan area is served by the MVFD. The nearest fire station to the project site is Station Four (located approximately 0.35-miles west of the project site at 229 North Whisman Road). Police protection services are provided by the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) who operate out of the police station located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 1.5-miles west of the project site. The MVPD consists of authorized staff of approximately 90 sworn and 45 non-sworn personnel.

The Precise Plan area is located within the Mountain View Whisman School District and the Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Table 3.13-1 shows the capacity and enrollment data for schools serving the project site.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 75 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Table 3.13-1: 2022 – 2023 School Capacity and Enrollment School Capacity Enrollment3 Remaining Capacity
Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School 4921 339 153
Crittenden Middle School 1,0081 537 471
Mountain View High School 1,5462 2,220 -674
1 Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study for Mountain View Whisman School District. May 5, 2022. Appendix E.
2 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Business Services. Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. September 12, 2022. 3 California Department of Education. Data Quest, School Enrollment by Grade. Accessed August 4, 2023.

Available at: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks (13 of which are under joint use agreements with local school districts) and the Stevens Creek Trail. The nearest park is Pyramid Park, located approximately 400 feet west of the project site.

The Mountain View Public Library, located approximately 1.6-miles southwest of the project site at 585 Franklin Street, is the City’s only library.

3.13.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed project) would incrementally increase the needs for fire suppression and rescue response services; however, the MVFD does not anticipate the need to construct a new fire station to accommodate growth anticipated in the buildout of the General Plan, of which the Precise Plan is a part. Further, the Precise Plan FEIR concluded that there is existing capacity at nearby Station Four (located approximately 0.35- miles west of the project site at 229 North Whisman Road) to respond to additional service calls created by buildout of the Precise Plan (including the proposed project) and no new facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required. Consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR, the proposed project would be constructed to current Fire Code standards to increase fire safety and the project would be reviewed by the MVFD to ensure compliance with the City’s codes and standards. b. MVPD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. As noted in Section 3.12 Population and Housing, 836 new residential units are proposed, and the project would generate approximately 1,798 new residents on-site.

The General Plan FEIR and Precise Plan FEIR concluded that growth in the City (including the residential population growth from the proposed project) would increase the demand for police services; however, the City has policies to ensure police staffing is adequate to serve the needs of the community. While the proposed project would intensify the use of the site, the MVPD confirmed that implementation of projects consistent with the Precise Plan would not require the construction or expansion of police facilities. In addition, the project site plan would be reviewed by MVPD during 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 76 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
the building permit stage to ensure safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity.
c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would increase the demand for new school facilities in the City; however, payment of school impact fees would offset this increase in demand, resulting in a less than significant impact.

As noted under Section 3.12 Population and Housing, 836 new residential units are proposed, which would result in approximately 1,798 new residents. Based on the recent student generation rates by the school districts, the project would generate approximately 169 elementary and middle school students and 79 high school students.43
As shown in Table 3.13-1 both Vargas Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School would have adequate capacity to accommodate the projected increase in elementary and middle school students.

As of the end of the 2022 to 2023 school year, Mountain View High School is over capacity by 674 students. The school currently utilizes portable classrooms in addition to permanent education facilities to accommodate additional students.44 The construction of permanent classroom facilities is underway through Measure E bond program funding and has undergone separate environmental review. The construction of these additional facilities would result in an overall increase in capacity of 2,379 students,45 which would not be sufficient to accommodate the currently enrolled students in addition to the approximately 79 new high school students generated by the project. Capacity and enrollment numbers fluctuate over time as facilities are renovated and population trends in the City shift. It is unknown what the local school enrollment will be at the time in the future when the project is constructed and fully occupied (if approved). Consistent with General Plan Policies POS 5.3 and POS

5.4, the City continuously collaborates with school districts serving the community to provide information on development and growth trends and evaluate facility needs.

No new or expanded school facilities are proposed at this time. In the event that new or expanded school facilities are proposed, they are subject to a separate CEQA review. Per the Precise Plan FEIR and state law, the project shall pay school impact fees. Both MVWSD and MVLASD have fee programs in place and the project would be subject to payment of applicable developer fees. Payment of the adopted developer fees by the applicant would, in accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code and consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR, reduce school impacts to a less than significant level. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not substantially affect the provision of parks and open space or result in deterioration of existing facilities with payment of required park fees and/or dedication of park land by future development projects. 43 Based on the following student generation rates: Elementary and middle school students per market-rate multifamily unit: 0.124 (0.555 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022. Accessed February 17, 2023.

High school students per market-rate multi-family unit = 0.047 (0.312 per below market-rate unit) Source: Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020. Table 1. 44 Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Business Services. Mountain View Los Altos High School District. Personal Communication. September 12, 2022. and City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan:

Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 180. 45 Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration- Mountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018. Page 10. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 77 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Project-related impacts to parks (as well as other recreational facilities) are discussed in Section 3.14 Recreation below and concluded to be less than significant. e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that the growth projected in the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed project), would not trigger the City to build or operate a new library in the Precise Plan area.

The proposed project is consistent with the Precise Plan; therefore, the proposed project would result in the same less than significant impact on library services as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.13.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant public services impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 78 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.14 RECREATION
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

3.14.1 Existing Setting
The existing recreational setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The City of Mountain View owns 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks (13 of which are under joint use agreements with local school districts) and Stevens Creek Trail.

The nearest park is Pyramid Park, located approximately 400 feet west of the project site. The Precise Plan area currently does not meet the City’s standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.46

3.14.2 Discussion
a-b. While the Precise Plan area currently does not meet the City’s standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the buildout of the Precise Plan would add 30 acres of publicly accessible open space to serve the projected 10,000 residents of the Precise Plan area (which would meet the City’s standard of three acres per 1,000 residents) through payment of parkland in-lieu fees by new development and acquisition of new parkland and open space areas within non-residential developments. Therefore, the Precise Plan FEIR concluded the implementation of the Precise Plan’s Park and Open Space Strategy and payment of park impact fees would reduce park impacts to a less than significant level.
46 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.

SCH #: 2017082051. Page 177.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 79 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
As noted in Section 3.12 Population and Housing, the project would result in approximately 1,798 new residents on-site compared to existing conditions. Although the increase in residents could potentially increase the level of use of existing recreational facilities, this increase would be partially offset by the incorporation of the POPA park and common space on-site. As discussed in Section 2.3 Proposed Project, the project would construct a 0.52-acre (or 22,600-square-foot) POPA park between the MRN residential building and office building. Further, the project would include an additional approximately three acres (or 129,449 square feet) of common open space throughout the project site, including within the landscaped linear parks between the residential buildings, courtyards, and terraces. The environmental impacts associated with construction of this open space are discussed throughout this document.

The proposed outdoor common areas, including the POPA park, would partially offset the proposed project’s demand on existing parks and recreational facilities in the project area. In addition, consistent with state law (Quimby Act), the project would also pay parkland fees to offset increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities and contribute toward the City’s development of new parks and open spaces in the project area. Therefore, consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR and state law (Quimby Act), the project would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.14.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would incrementally increase the use of parks and recreational facilities; however, it would not result in a new or substantially increased parks impact compared to the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 80 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.15 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan,
ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system,
including transit, roadways,
bicycle lanes and pedestrian
facilities?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
219-244
No No No N/A
b. For a land use project, conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
244-247
No No No N/A
c. Substantially increase hazards
due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
247
No No No N/A
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
247
No No No N/A
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis (MTA) prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants dated September 30, 2024. This report is attached as Appendix E.

3.15.1 Existing Setting
The existing transportation setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. Notable changes include the City’s adoption of a nexus study and impact fee and VMT Policy. These are described below.

The City of Mountain View adopted a nexus study and impact fee in May 2022 for transportation and utilities improvements necessary to address impacts generated by development in the East Whisman Precise Plan area. As stated in the Precise Plan, development projects will contribute funding to the following transportation improvements (which were also identified in the Precise Plan FEIR):
• Signalize intersection of Ellis Street and Manila Drive • Add westbound left- and southbound right-turn lanes to US 101 Northbound Ramps and Ellis Street
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 81 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
• Add Southbound turb lane on Fairchild Drive and Ellis Street • Construct new interchange at Maude Avenue and SR 237 Ramps • Add a dedicated Eastbound right turn lane to Maude Avenue and North Mary Avenue • Add a dedicated Eastbound right turn lane to East Middlefield Road and North Whisman Road • Add an Eastbound left turn lane to East Middlefield Road and Ellis Street • Convert southbound right turn lane to shared southbound left/ right turn lane on Central Expressway and SR 85 Southbound Ramp
• Add westbound lane, Westbound turn lane and eastbound turn lanes to Central Expressway and North Mary Avenue
• Add Eastbound lane to West Evelyn Avenue and North Mary Avenue • Add dedicated northbound right, southbound right, and eastbound right turn lanes to Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road
• Close Castro Street between Moffett Boulevard and Central Expressway47 The project is responsible for contributing its fair share towards planned East Whisman area transportation improvements through payment of the development impact fee.

Additionally, on June 30, 2020, the Mountain View City Council adopted its VMT Policy, which replaces Level of Service (LOS) with VMT as the metric for determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA consistent with SB 743. The City’s VMT Policy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact and do not require further project-specific VMT analysis if the project: is located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop48 or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor; has an FAR of greater than 0.75; has reduced parking compared to the maximum parking required by the City; is consistent with Plan Bay Area; and does not replace affordable residential units with fewer units of moderate to high income.

As discussed in additional detail under checklist question b. below, the project site is located within

0.5 miles of the Middlefield Light Rail station, has an FAR greater than 0.75, and provides reduced parking below the City’s maximum; therefore, the project would screen out of the requirement for a project-specific VMT analysis, consistent with the City’s VMT Policy.

Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101 and SR 237. Local access to the project site is provided via Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, and Ferguson Drive. Existing transit services in the area are provided by VTA and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVTMA).

VTA operates bus and light rail transit services in Santa Clara County, and the MVTMA provides free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the Whisman area. The site is served by VTA Local Route 21 and MVgo Route A, with bus stops on Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road, and is located approximately 650 feet from the Middlefield Light Rail Station, which is considered a major transit stop. Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity include sidewalks and crosswalks on most surrounding roadways and at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Most of the signalized intersections near the project site include pedestrian signal heads and push buttons. 47 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2017082051. January 2020. Pages 220 to 222. 48 According to the City’s Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, existing major transit stops include the Downtown Mountain View Caltrain station, San Antonio Caltrain station, light rail stations, and/or El Camino Real transit stops. Source: City of Mountain View. Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0. February 2021. Page 47. https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2322/637957259243370000. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 82 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
The primary bicycle facilities within one mile of the project site include a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), and shared bike routes/boulevards (Class III bikeway).

3.15.2 Discussion
a.

Roadway Facilities
The Precise Plan FEIR found that development and identified improvements in the Precise Plan area would result in LOS deficiencies under existing LOS policies, improvements to address select deficiencies would be implemented, and select deficiencies would be significant and unavoidable.49 However, as noted above, consistent with SB 743, beginning on July 1, 2020, impacts to LOS can no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA.
2030 General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3
Compared to existing conditions, the project is estimated to generate 4,954 daily vehicle trips, with 514 trips during the AM peak hour, and 504 trips during the PM peak hour.50 While a project’s effect on automobile delay is no longer considered an impact under CEQA, local jurisdictions have roadway LOS standards. Per 2030 General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3, the City’s interim standard for signalized intersections is LOS D. The City does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections; however, the City strives to maintain LOS D for unsignalized intersections.

As discussed in more detail in Appendix E, the results of the LOS analysis conducted for the project show that all study intersections would operate at acceptable levels during both the AM and PM peak hours under background conditions, with and without the project. In addition, as discussed in Section

2.4.1 Transportation Demand Management, the project would implement TDM measures for the office and residential uses on-site which would reduce vehicle trips generated by the project. Furthermore, the MTA prepared for the project determined that signal modifications would not be necessary for any of the study intersections and the new Ferguson Drive/service street intersection would not meet the thresholds under project conditions to warrant installation of a traffic signal or installation of an allway stop. Based on this discussion, the project is consistent with General Plan Action Item MOB 8.1.3.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that with implementation of City and county policies and requirements (such as those related to Complete Streets), future development and transportation improvements consistent with the Precise Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle lanes and pedestrian facilities.

Pedestrian access to the project site is currently provided by sidewalks on Middlefield Road, Ferguson Drive, and other surrounding streets in the vicinity. The project would add pedestrian facilities along the new service street on-site and improve the project frontages along Middlefield Road and Ferguson 49 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pages 219 to 240. 50 The trip generation estimates and the corresponding analysis in the MTA are based on an earlier version of the project that included 858 dwelling units instead of 836. Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed project with 836 dwelling units are covered in this conservative analysis. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 83 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Drive. These sidewalks would range in width from five feet to eight feet, consistent with Precise Plan requirements. Pedestrian walkways would also be constructed between the proposed buildings and within the paseo walkway. Raised crosswalks would be installed along the internal service street, at the southwest corner of the site, and adjacent to existing property to the southwest of the site. These improvements are consistent with the planned improvements, standards, and guidelines for pedestrian facilities included in the Precise Plan. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with the Precise Plan or Access MV policies addressing pedestrian facilities.

The proposed project would add vehicle trips to Whisman Road, Ellis Street, and Middlefield Road, contributing to an increased bicycle level of stress along these roadways. However, the project would construct a buffered bike lane along the project frontage on Middlefield Road, stripe the service street with “sharrows” to designate the street as a bicycle route, and include secure, long-term bicycle storage for residents and office employees on the ground floors of the office, MRN residential building, and MRS residential building. The BMR residential building would include secure, long-term bicycle storage within the storage units located on the ground floor and on each of the upper floors of the building. Short-term bicycle parking would be installed in well-lit, highly visible locations in front of the office building lobby and in various locations surrounding the residential buildings.

The Precise Plan included bicycle facilities improvements such as the installation of buffered bike lanes on Ellis Street and Middlefield Road where the project would add vehicle trips. In accordance with the recently adopted nexus study and impact fee, the proposed project would pay a fair share contribution toward the cost of constructing planned buffered bike lane improvements in the project area. For these reasons, consistent with the Precise Plan FEIR, the project would not conflict with the Precise Plan or Access MV policies addressing bicycle facilities.

Transit Facilities
The Precise Plan FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable effect on transit vehicle operations at intersections with a deficient LOS (see Precise Plan FEIR Impact TRA-3) and found that transit operational improvements such as signal coordination and transit vehicle preemption could reduce the magnitude of congestion on transit operations and improve the overall reliability of transit in congested areas.51 However, these improvements would not fully mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. Pursuant to SB 743, LOS is no longer a significant impact under CEQA. Additionally, the Precise Plan FEIR identified that a significant impact associated with increased light rail service delay due to gate operations at the proposed Street C at-grade crossing of the light-rail tracks between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue (see Precise Plan FEIR Impact TRA-4). The Precise Plan includes mitigation measure FEIR MM TRA-4.1, requiring the removal of Street C from the Precise Plan. Consistent with Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure FEIR MM TRA-4.1, Street C was removed from the Precise Plan and replaced with a grade-separated multi-use path.

As discussed in Section 3.15.1 Existing Setting, the project site is located approximately 650 feet from the Middlefield Light Rail Station, which is considered a major transit stop. The General Plan and Precise Plan include policies to encourage an increase in the City’s transit ridership, decrease dependence on motor vehicles, and reduce transit delays. The City and VTA have not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. An analysis of the project’s contribution 51 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Page 212. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 84 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
to the transit vehicle delay disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR was completed. According to the projectspecific MTA52, the project would generate approximately 28 to 29 new riders during the AM and PM peak hours. Although it is estimated that the project would generate 4,954 new daily vehicle trips (514 AM and 504 PM trips), the project would result in a minimal increase in vehicle delay at the study intersections (less than 10 seconds per vehicle) and would not cause a noticeable change in transit travel times and vehicle delay for the bus routes in the study area.53 Therefore, the proposed project would result in a minimal contribution to the increase in transit vehicle delay at intersections with LOS deficiencies identified in the Precise Plan FEIR. In addition, implementation of the project would not disrupt existing or interfere with planned transit facilities and services. Based on the above discussion, the project would result in the same impact to transit facilities as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

In summary, the project would be consistent with roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit programs, plans, ordinances, and policies disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. b. The Precise Plan FEIR identified a significant and unavoidable project- and cumulative-level VMT impact due to Precise Plan project-generated VMT on both a citywide and countywide basis. As disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR, the Precise Plan project-level VMT per service population was calculated to be 35.93 and the Precise Plan cumulative VMT per service population was calculated to be 36.27. The proposed project’s VMT was included in the VMT calculation in the Precise Plan FEIR for the Precise Plan as a whole. For this reason, the project would contribute to the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

As noted in Section 3.15.1 Existing Setting above, since adoption of the Precise Plan and certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, City Council adopted the Mountain View VMT Policy, which establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA and for which future VMT analysis is not required. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, adoption of new policies and/or regulations is not considered substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR because it does not result in a new significant environmental impact, increase the severity of an environmental impact, or alter an existing mitigation measure or alternative.

Additionally, projects approved prior to adoption of the Mountain View VMT Policy (such as the Precise Plan, of which the current project is a part) are considered exempt from the new policy.

Nevertheless, the project is consistent with the VMT Policy as described below.

The City’s current VMT Policy (which was adopted after the Precise Plan FEIR was certified) establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA and are not required to prepare further VMT analysis.54 The project site is located within 0.5 miles of the Middlefield Light Rail station, has an FAR greater than 0.75, and 52 The number of new riders generated and the corresponding analysis in the MTA are based on an earlier version of the project that included 858 dwelling units instead of 836. Therefore, the potential impacts of the proposed project with 836 dwelling units are covered in this conservative analysis. 53 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 675-685 E. Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Development MTA. November 21, 2023. Pages 49 to 50.
54 The proximity to transit screening criterion was developed based on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects proposed within 0.5 miles of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less than significant impact on VMT. Less than significant VMT is defined as exhibiting VMT that is 15 percent or greater below the existing Nine-County Bay Area regional reference average VMT. Source: City of Mountain View. Policy Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to Comply with California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) Regarding the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Transportation Analysis. June 30. 2022. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 85 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
provides reduced parking below the City’s maximum; therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on VMT and is consistent with the City’s VMT Policy. c. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that future development under the Precise Plan would not result in project- or cumulative-level impacts due to hazards from geometric design features because the Precise Plan would result in greater connectivity of the street and multimodal network, and all proposed structures would be reviewed by MVFD for compliance with emergency access and design requirements under the City’s fire code.

The proposed project would be consistent with the land uses, design, and development standards in the Precise Plan. The project would construct a new service street that would link the main access points to the project site on Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive. The service street and driveway entrances on Middlefield Road and Ferguson Drive would be designed in accordance with the standards in the Precise Plan and the City’s Municipal Code to ensure adequate street and driveway widths, intersection sight distances, and corner visibility are provided. In addition, the final design of the project would be reviewed by MVFD for compliance with emergency access and design requirements under the City’s fire code. For this reason, the project would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
d. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that since the implementation of the Precise Plan would result in greater connectivity of the street and multimodal network and all future development would be reviewed by the MVFD for compliance with the City’s fire code regarding emergency access and design requirements, the Precise Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access.

The project is consistent with the Precise Plan and the final design of the project would be reviewed by the MVFD for compliance with the City’s fire code. For this reason, the project would result in the same less than significant impact regarding emergency access as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.

3.15.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant transportation impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 86 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.16 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section
5020.1(k)?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
264-265
No No No N/A
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section
5024.1? In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to
a California Native American
tribe.

Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
264-265
No No No N/A

3.16.1 Existing Setting
The existing Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. As part of the Precise Plan FEIR, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted to request a review of the Sacred Land Files for any evidence of cultural resources or traditional properties of potential concern that might be present on lands within or adjacent to the Precise Plan area (including the project site).

Outreach to the appropriate tribal representatives was conducted in January 2017, and no responses were received regarding any potential concerns that tribes may have regarding the Precise Plan area.

On May 28, 2021, subsequent to the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR, the Tamien Nation requested notification on all non-exempt projects pursuant to AB 52. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 87 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.16.2 Discussion
a-b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the project site) would result in less than significant impacts to TCRs with implementation of the same standard conditions of approval identified in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources of this document.

No tribal cultural resources or Native American resources were identified in the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site) as a result of email and telephone consultation and outreach completed for the Precise Plan FEIR. The project would implement the same conditions as identified in the Precise Plan FEIR. These conditions of approval are listed in Section 3.4 Cultural Resources of this document.

3.16.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially increased tribal resources impact compared to the Precise Plan FEIR.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 88 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental
Issue Area
A. Where
Impact Was
Analyzed in
Prior
Environmental
Documents.

Would the project:
a. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of
new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could
cause significant
environmental effects?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
267-279
No No No Yes, MM
UTL-1.1
b. Have insufficient water
supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably
foreseeable future
development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
267-279
No No No N/A
c. Result in a determination by
the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may
serve the project that it does
not have adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the
provider’s existing
commitments?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
267-279
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?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
267-279
No No No N/A
e. Be noncompliant with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
Precise Plan
Draft EIR
(2019) Page
267-279
No No No N/A
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 89 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on the Utility Impact Study (UIS) prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler dated April 4, 2024. This report is attached as Appendix F.

3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The existing utilities and service systems setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. Per the Precise Plan, the Mountain View City Council adopted a nexus fee study on May 24, 2022 that requires all new development within the East Whisman Precise Plan Area to pay a proportional fair-share nexus-fee to fund identified improvements including improvements to water and wastewater facilities.

Water and wastewater services in the Precise Plan area are owned and operated by the City of Mountain View. Wastewater from the Precise Plan area is gravity fed to the Shoreline Sewer Pump Station. Storm drain infrastructure in the Precise Plan area includes a network of pipes, channels, ditches, culverts, ponds and pumps that are operated and maintained by the City of Mountain View and eventually discharge to Stevens Creek.

Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once solid waste and recyclables are collected, they are transported to the SMaRT Station® in Sunnyvale for sorting and commercial compostables are transported to a composting facility in Vernalis, California while the remaining solid waste is transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José. As of January 1, 2023, Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 13.8 million tons and an estimated closing year of 2060.55

3.17.2 Discussion
a. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that future large-scale, site-specific development projects associated with implementation of the Precise Plan could result in impacts to the existing water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure; however, implementation of the below Precise Plan FEIR mitigation measure MM UTL-1.1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the Precise Plan FEIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.

Precise Plan FEIR Mitigation Measure:

Precise Plan FEIR MM UTL-1.1: The City shall require, determined on a project-by-project basis, the preparation of a site-specific utility analysis of applicable water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure systems adjacent to and downstream of the project site to identify capacity issues. The utility impact analysis will be submitted to the Planning Division as part of future project applications. The analysis will determine the proportional utility impact fees to be paid under the nexus study and will identify any other utility infrastructure improvements required as a result of individual projects.
55 Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal Communication. May 23, 2023. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 90 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Consistent with MM UTL-1.1, a UIS (see Appendix F) was prepared for the proposed project to evaluate potential impacts to the water system and sanitary sewer system.

Water System
Based on the existing uses on-site, it is estimated that the historic water demand on-site was approximately 8,700 gallons per day (gpd). The project would redevelop the site with residential, office, and retail uses which would increase the estimated water demand on-site by approximately 111,435 gpd for a total of 120,135 gpd.

Water Storage
The State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) requires cities to store enough water to meet eight hours of Maximum Day Demand (MDD) in addition to four hours of fire flow volume. The proposed project’s impact on the utility system for water storage was analyzed under future cumulative conditions. The future cumulative demand for the project is based on the City’s hydraulic model developed as part of the 2022 Water Master Plan (WMP). In the 2022 WMP model, water demands in the City are based on water projections for future years as established in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). In order to meet DDW requirements under pre-project conditions, the City must have storage capacity for 9.82 million gallons (mg) of water. The City’s maximum water storage capacity is approximately 17.3 mg, which provides sufficient storage capacity for current needs. Post-project, the required storage capacity would increase to 9.85 mg.

Implementation of the project would not require any additional increases in storage capacity, as the City’s infrastructure is capable of storing up to 17.3 mg.

Hydraulic Conveyance
The proposed project’s impact on the utility system for hydraulic conveyance was analyzed under existing conditions and cumulative conditions. The existing conditions scenario models the project’s impact on the existing condition and configuration of the City’s utility system. The cumulative condition scenario is based on future buildout of the City, future water demand projections for the year 2030 as described in the City’s 2020 UWMP, and the assumption that capital improvement projects (CIPs) identified in the City’s 2022 WMP are implemented. In either scenario, the water system must meet minimum allowable pressure levels under the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) scenario, which is 40 pounds per square inch (psi).

Under existing conditions, the performance criteria under the PHD scenario is met system-wide in both the pre- and post-project scenarios. Under future cumulative conditions, the analysis in the UIS found that the system would continue to maintain an adequate pressure level and the system hydraulic performance would not be adversely affected by the project. No new deficiencies would result from the project under existing or future cumulative conditions. Based on this analysis, the project would have a less than significant impact on pressure levels within the system.

Fire Flow
The proposed project’s impact on the utility system for fire flow was analyzed under existing conditions and cumulative conditions. Under existing conditions, the planning-level required flow rate is 3,500 gallons per minute (gpm) in both pre- and post-project scenarios. Based on the analysis in the 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 91 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
UIS, the two hydrant locations at the project site would continue to maintain adequate fire flow under existing conditions in both pre- and post-project scenarios. Post-project, the available flow rate from these hydrants would decrease slightly from 8,319 to 8,267 gpm and 8,742 to 8,681 gpm. These available flow rates would continue to meet the required rate of 3,500 gpm at both hydrant locations.

The project would not result in a significant contribution to any existing deficiencies in the vicinity.

Under future cumulative conditions, the required fire flow rate would be 3,500 gpm for both pre- and post-project scenarios. Based on the analysis in the UIS, the hydrant locations at the project site would continue to maintain adequate fire flow under future cumulative conditions in both pre- and postproject scenarios. Post-project, the available flow rate from these hydrants would decrease slightly from 8,189 to 8,173 gpm and 8,812 to 8,794 gpm. These available flow rates would continue to meet the required rate of 3,500 gpm at both hydrant locations. Based on this discussion, the project would have a less than significant impact on required fire flow rates at the project site.

Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure
Based on the existing land uses on-site, it is estimated that the historic sanitary sewer demand was 5,976 gpd. The project would redevelop the site with residential, office, and retail uses which would increase the estimated sanitary sewer demand generated on-site by approximately 86,368 gpd for a total of 92,344 gpd. Sanitary sewer capacity is analyzed under Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) by utilizing the performance criteria outlined in the City’s 2022 Sewer Master Plan (2022 SMP) to determine whether the project would cause any hydraulic deficiencies in the system. A segment of sewer system is considered to have sufficient capacity if the freeboard in the upstream manhole is greater than five feet below the ground surface under PWWF conditions.56 Once pipes are considered deficient, improvements are necessary to correct the deficiency.

Under existing conditions, the sewer system would meet the City’s performance criteria along the project flow path in both pre- and post-project scenarios. There would be no pipes with deficiencies downstream of the project site under either scenario.

The future cumulative condition assumes that all recommended CIPs in the City’s 2022 SMP have been constructed. Under these future cumulative conditions, the sewer system downstream of the project site would meet the City’s performance criteria along the project flow path in both pre- and post-project scenarios. There would be no new deficiencies downstream of the project site due to the project’s incremental increase in sewer flow under either scenario.

Stormwater Drainage Infrastructure
As discussed in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the Precise Plan FEIR concluded that with implementation of City standard conditions of approval and compliance with the MRP and Precise Plan standards and guidelines, the City’s stormwater drainage system would adequately convey flows from buildout of the Precise Plan. The proposed project would comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP requirement to incorporate site design, source control, and LID-based stormwater treatment controls consistent with the findings of the Precise Plan FEIR. In addition, the project would decrease the amount of impervious surface area on-site from 95 to 83 percent, thereby reducing the amount of surface runoff reaching the stormwater system compared to system conditions. The project would 56 Freeboard is defined as the vertical distance between the wastewater surface and the manhole. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 92 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
construct lateral connections to the existing storm drain system and would not need to further expand existing stormwater infrastructure. For these reasons, the existing storm drain system would continue to adequately serve the project site.

Electric Power and Telecommunications Facilities
Existing electricity and telecommunications utility infrastructure currently exist on-site and would continue to serve the site under the proposed project. The project would be 100 percent electric and no new natural gas connections are proposed.
b. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that although the buildout of the Precise Plan would result in an increase in water demand within the City, sufficient water supplies are available to serve buildout under the Precise Plan during normal year, as well as during drought years with implementation of Precise Plan policies and the City’s UWMP Water Shortage Contingency Plan measures. Shortfalls of 11 percent are projected for single dry years and up to 13 percent in multiple dry years. The City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan can mitigate shortfalls of up to 50 percent. As part of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the City would institute mandatory conservation measures with escalating levels of conservation requirements as the shortages in water supply increase. These measures include limiting outdoor water use, encouraging further conservation through outreach programs, and requiring the rapid repair of leaks. The entire City, including the proposed project, would be subject to these measures during dry and multiple dry years. Compliance with mandatory conservation measures in the City would ensure that sufficient water supply is maintained in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c. As described in the Precise Plan FEIR, implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed project) would not exceed the treatment capacity at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Conditions at the RWQCP have not changed since certification of the Precise Plan FEIR.

The proposed project is consistent with the development and growth assumptions for the site analyzed in the Precise Plan FEIR and would, therefore, generate wastewater consistent with the assumptions analyzed in the Precise Plan FEIR. Thus, the proposed project would result in the same less than significant wastewater impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. d-e. The Precise Plan FEIR concluded that although future developments would result in an increase in solid waste generation above existing conditions, there is sufficient capacity at Kirby Canyon Landfill to serve the Precise Plan and therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, the Precise Plan FEIR found that the Precise Plan would not conflict with existing statutes and regulations governing solid waste.

The proposed project is consistent with the Precise Plan and its solid waste generation accounted for in the Precise Plan FEIR analysis, which determined there would be sufficient landfill capacity.

Conditions at Kirby Canyon Landfill have not changed since certification of the Precise Plan FEIR. As of January 2023, Kirby Canyon Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 13.8 million cubic yards and an estimated closure year of 2060.57 In addition, consistent with the analysis in the Precise Plan FEIR, the project would be consistent with the General Plan Policy INC 11.1 through INC 11.4, 57 Azevedo, Beck. Technical Manager, Waste Management, Inc. Personal Communication. May 23, 2023. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 93 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
California mandated 50 percent waste diversion, and CALGreen standards during operation and achieve a 65 percent construction waste recycling requirement during construction.58

3.17.3 Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant utilities and service systems impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan FEIR. 58 General Plan Policies INC-11.1 through INC- 11.4 call for waste diversion, recycling, and composing to ensure all municipal solid waste generated within the city is collected, transported, and disposed of in a manner that protects public health and safety.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 94 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
SECTION 4.0 REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments. “MTC/ABAG Hazard Viewer Map.” Accessed February 16, 2023.
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfc d086fc8
---. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050) July 27, 2020. Accessed February 15, 2023. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/MTC::priority-development-areas-plan-bay-area2050/about.

California Department of Education. “Data Quest, School Enrollment by Grade.” Accessed August 4, 2023. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed December 15, 2023. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report.

January 2020. SCH #: 2017082051.
---. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012.
---. Mountain View Register of Historic Places. September 20, 2017. Accessed February 14, 2023. https://www.livablemv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/MV-Local-Historic-RegistryList.pdf. ---. Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0. February 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33964 ---. “Municipal Code: Section 32.23 – Definitions.” Accessed February 2, 2023. https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITH CO_CH32TRSHPL
---. Policy Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to Comply with California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) Regarding the Use of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Transportation Analysis. June 30. 2022.

Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. Environmental Document Review – 675-685 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California. March 2, 2023
County of Santa Clara. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Moffett Federal Airfield. December 19, 2018. ---. “Geologic Hazard Zones.” Accessed February 14, 2023. https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ef8100336234fbdaf c5769494cfe373.
675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 95 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. 2019.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0045H. Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. 675-685 E. Middlefield Road Mixed-Use Development MTA. September 30, 2024.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 675-685 East Middlefield Mixed-Use Development Air Quality Assessment. May 2, 2024.

Mountain View Whisman School District. Level I Developer Fee Study. Appendix E. May 5, 2022.

Accessed February 17, 2023.

Mountain View/Los Altos Union High School District. Draft Mitigated Negative DeclarationMountain View High School Expansion Project (SCH Number 2011092006). November 2018.

Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District. Level 1 Developer Fee Study. July 27, 2020.

RMD Environmental Solutions. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment – 675-685 E. Middlefield Road. October 28, 2022.

RMD Environmental Solutions. Phase II Site Investigation Report– 675-685 E. Middlefield Road.

December 2, 2022.

Rockridge Geotechnical. Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation to Support Due Diligence Evaluation 675 & 685 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California. September 11, 2017.

Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2021 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2021.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. “National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands.” Map. November 2019.

Personal Communication
• Aguilar, Irene. Assistant to the Associate Superintendent, Business Services. Mountain View Los Altos High School District. September 12, 2022.
• Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. May 23, 2023. 675-685 East Middlefield Road Mixed-Use 96 Compliance Checklist City of Mountain View November 2024
SECTION 5.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

5.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Christian Murdock, Community Development Director
Amber Blizinski, Assistant Community Development Director Rebecca Shapiro, Deputy Zoning Administrator
Phillip Brennan, Senior Planner

5.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Principal Project Manager
Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist
SavATree Consulting Group
Arborist Consultants
Leonardo Tuchman, Certified Arborist
Cornerstone Earth Group
Geotechnical and Hazardous Materials
Consultants
Ron Helm, Senior Principal Geologist
Stephen Ohlsen, Project Engineer
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Transportation Consultants
Kai-ling Kuo, Senior Associate
Jocelyn Lee, Engineer
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Air Quality Consultants
Zachary Palm, Consultant
Jordyn Bauer, Staff Consultant
RMD Environmental Solutions
Hazardous Materials Consultants
Kirsten Duey, Principal Engineer
Benjamin McVeigh, Senior Geologist
Doug Whichard, Senior Scientist
Rockridge Geotechnical
Geotechnical Consultants
Schaaf & Wheeler
Utility Consultants
Leif Coponen, Vice President
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, California 94931
Tel: 707-794-0400 Fax: 707-794-0405
www.illingworthrodkin.com [email protected]
Memo
Date: October 31, 2024
To: Nick Towstopiat
Project Manager – David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

San Jose, CA
From: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Zachary Palm
Subject: 675-685 East Middlefield Road Below Market Rate Building Construction Changes I&R# 23-018
The 675-685 East Middlefield Road project located in Mountain View, California is a mixed-use project that would be constructed in two phases. As originally proposed, Phase 1 construction would include construction of the service street and the Market Rate North (MRN) and Below Market Rate (BMR) buildings. Phase 2 would include the construction of an office building with associated parking structure and Market Rate South (MRS) building. The project is now proposing to construct 22 fewer units than analyzed previously, increase the overall gross square footage of the project by approximately 39,000 square feet, and construct the BMR building during Phase 2. This adjustment would not change the impact findings described in Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.’s (I&R) most recent air quality analysis dated May 2024.

Construction Period Emissions
The most recent air quality analysis found that project construction period emissions were all below significance threshold levels without mitigation and would have a less-thansignificant impact. The closest criteria pollutant emission quantity to a BAAQMD significance threshold were daily construction reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions during year 2029. The vast majority of these emissions were from architectural coatings being applied to building surfaces. Since the BMR building was to receive its coatings in 2027 and 2028, those emissions would now likely occur in 2028 and 2029 during the architectural coating phase of Phase 2.

ROG emissions are based on the square footage of the building and larger buildings require more coatings. The BMR building accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total square footage that was to be constructed in Phase 1. Even with an increase of 30 percent to the highest year of ROG emissions (year 2029), the project would still not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold. This approach is conservative as it assumes all of the BMR coatings would be applied in a single year rather than spread between two calendar years as the construction schedule implies.

APPENDIX A
Nick Towstopiat
October 31, 2024

Page 2 ends

On a percentage basis, all other criteria pollutants have daily (and yearly) emission quantities further below a BAAQMD significance threshold than daily ROG emissions in 2029.

Operational Period Emissions
As shown in the most recent air quality analysis, operational ROG emissions (and maximum Phase 2 construction plus Phase 1 operational ROG emissions) exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold, requiring the inclusion of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 (COA AQ-1 in the City's Compliance Checklist for the project). With the inclusion of this measure, ROG emissions were reduced to a level below the significance threshold and the impact was found to be less-thansignificant. Operational ROG emissions are based on the square footage of the total project.

Since the square footage of the total project is not affected by shifting the construction of the BMR building to Phase 2, any reanalysis would yield the same results from the prior analysis and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.

Project Health Risks
The project’s health risk analysis found that the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration would exceed the BAAQMD single-source significance thresholds, requiring the inclusion of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (included as a City standard condition of approval for implementing basic air quality construction measures in the City's Compliance Checklist for the project) and Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (COA AQ-2 in the City's Compliance Checklist for the project). With the inclusion of these measures, both the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration were reduced to levels below the significance thresholds and the impact was found to be less-than-significant. No cumulative-source thresholds would be exceeded.

Cancer risk is a cumulative risk that is affected by diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions produced over the entire construction period. Constructing the BMR building in Phase 2 of the project would not substantially affect cancer risk from construction activity because no additional DPM emissions are generated from this change. In fact, pushing the BMR construction DPM emissions into later years could reduce the construction cancer risk since those emissions would occur during years of child exposure parameters instead of infant exposure parameters as originally modeled.

While grading of the BMR building would also shift into Phase 2, this would not be enough to trigger new mitigation measures since the majority of Phase 2 earthwork emissions occur from grading of the office building with associated parking structure and of the MRS building. Furthermore, since this change would spread out the annual PM2.5 emissions more than what was previously analyzed, the resulting concentration would decrease when compared to the prior analysis.

Finally, the analysis of on-site receptors (new project residents) found that there were no impacts exceeding any BAAQMD single-source or cumulative source threshold. Since the occupation of the MRN building would occur in the final year of Phase 2 construction, and since that building would not be downwind of the BMR construction site, the analysis at on-site receptors would be unaffected by this change.
675-685 EAST MIDDLEFIELD

MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Mountain View, California
January 24, 2024
Revised May 2, 2024
Prepared for:

Nick Towstopiat
Project Manager
David J Powers & Associates Inc.
1871 The Alameda Suite 200
San José, CA 95126
Prepared by:

Zachary Palm
Jordyn Bauer
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Project#: 23-018
1 Introduction
This report addresses the potential air quality and health risk impacts associated with the proposed mixed-use development located at 675-685 East Middlefield Road in Mountain View, California.

Air quality impacts would be associated with the construction of the new buildings and infrastructure and operation of the project. Air pollutant emissions were estimated using appropriate computer models. In addition, the potential health risks associated with construction and operation of the project and the impact of existing toxic air contaminant (TAC) sources affecting the nearby and proposed sensitive receptors were evaluated. The analysis was conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).1 Project Description
The 10.58-acre project site is currently occupied by two vacant buildings and an associated surface parking lot. The project proposes to demolish the vacant buildings to construct three new sevenand eight-story residential buildings with a total of 858 units and associated parking, a six-story office building totaling approximately 277,600 square feet (sf), an 8.5 level above ground parking garage with 638 parking spaces, and 2,344-sf of commercial/retail space. The project is proposed to be built in two phases. Phase 1 will include the construction of the Market Rate North (MRN) and Below Market Rate (BMR) buildings which includes the 2,344-sf retail space, 494 residential units, and a parking garage with 453 parking spaces. Phase 2 includes the office building, the office parking structure, and Market Rate South (MRS) building which includes 364 residential units and 358 parking spaces. The 214,020-sf parking garage will have a total of 638 parking spaces. The project proposes to include four 200-kW diesel backup generators. Construction for Phase 1 is expected to begin in October 2025 and be completed by September 2028 and construction for Phase 2 is expected to begin in April 2027 and be completed by September 2029.

The project site is located within the East Whisman Precise Plan area.

Setting
The project is located in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

Ambient air quality standards have been established at both the State and federal level. The Bay Area meets all ambient air quality standards with the exception of ground-level ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

Air Pollutants of Concern
High ozone concentrations in the air basin are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form ozone concentrations. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce ambient ozone concentrations. The highest ozone concentrations in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys downwind of existing air pollutant sources. High ozone concentrations aggravate 1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022 CEQA Guidelines, April 2023. 2 respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduced lung function, and increase coughing and chest discomfort.

Particulate matter is another problematic air pollutant in the air basin. Particulate matter 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 (or cumulative) emissions and localized emissions. High particulate matter concentrations aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, reduce lung function, increase mortality (e.g., lung cancer), and result in reduced lung function growth in children.

Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality, often because they cause cancer. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, 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). Because chronic exposure of TACs can result in adverse health effects, they are regulated at the regional, State, and federal level.

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about threequarters of the cancer risk from TACs (based on the Bay Area average). According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health effects from diesel exhaust exposure a complex scientific issue. Some of the chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the CARB, and are listed as carcinogens either under the State's Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs. Health risks from TACs are estimated using the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) risk assessment guidelines, which were published in February of 2015 and incorporated into BAAQMD’s CEQA guidance.2

Sensitive Receptors
There are groups of people 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, people 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. For cancer risk assessments, infants and small children are the most sensitive receptors, since they are more susceptible to cancer causing TACs. Residential locations are assumed to include infants and small children. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are the multi-family residences adjacent to the southwest. This project would introduce new sensitive receptors (i.e., residents) to the area.
2 OEHHA, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

February.
3 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets nationwide ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and emission standards for mobile sources, which include on-road (highway) motor vehicles such trucks, buses, and automobiles, and non-road (off-road) vehicles and equipment used in construction, agricultural, industrial, and mining activities (such as bulldozers and loaders). The EPA also sets nationwide fuel standards.

In the past twenty years, the EPA has established a number of emission standards for on- and nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and other equipment. This was done in part because diesel engines are a significant source of NOX and particulate matter (PM2.5) and because the EPA has identified DPM as a probable carcinogen. Implementation of the heavy-duty diesel on-road vehicle standards and the non-road diesel engine standards are estimated to reduce particulate matter and NOX emissions from diesel engines up to 95 percent in 2030 when the heavy-duty vehicle fleet is completely replaced with newer heavy-duty vehicles that comply with these emission standards.3
In concert with the diesel engine emission standards, the EPA has also substantially reduced the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuels. The sulfur contained in diesel fuel is a significant contributor to the formation of particulate matter in diesel-fueled engine exhaust. The current standards limit the amount of sulfur allowed in diesel fuel to 15 parts per million by weight (ppmw). Ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD), as it is referred to, is required for use by all vehicles in the U.S.

All of the above federal diesel engine and diesel fuel requirements have been adopted by California, in some cases with modifications making the requirements more stringent or the implementation dates sooner.

State Regulations
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has set statewide ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and emission standards for on-road and off-road mobile sources that are more stringent than those adopted by the EPA. Several of these regulatory programs affect medium and heavyduty diesel trucks that represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways. These regulations include the solid waste collection vehicle (SWCV) rule, in-use public and utility fleets, and the heavy-duty diesel truck and bus regulations. In 2008, CARB approved a regulation to reduce emissions of DPM and NOX from on-road heavy-duty diesel fueled vehicles.4 The
regulation requires affected vehicles to meet specific performance requirements between 2014 and 2023, with all affected diesel vehicles required to have 2010 model-year engines or equivalent by 3 USEPA, 2000. Regulatory Announcement, Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. EPA420-F-00-057. December. 4 Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onrdiesel/onrdiesel.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2014. 4 2023. Advanced Clean Cars and Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) that will require new all new cars and light trucks sold in California will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

CARB has also adopted and implemented regulations to reduce DPM and NOX emissions from inuse (existing) and new off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles (e.g., loaders, tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, off-highway trucks, etc.). The regulations apply to diesel-powered off-road vehicles with engines 25 horsepower (hp) or greater. The regulations are intended to reduce DPM and NOX exhaust emissions by requiring owners to turn over their fleet (replace older equipment with newer equipment) or retrofit existing equipment in order to achieve specified fleet-averaged emission rates. Implementation of this regulation, in conjunction with the Federal off-road equipment engine emission limits for new vehicles, has significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.

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 Vehicles5. 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, a significant component of the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment. Many of the measures of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan have been approved and adopted, including the Federal on-road and non-road emission standards for new diesel engines, as well as adoption of regulations for ULSD fuel in California.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
BAAQMD has jurisdiction over an approximately 5,600-square mile area, commonly referred to as the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). The District’s boundary encompasses the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, including Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Napa County, southwestern Solano County, and southern Sonoma County.

BAAQMD is the lead agency in developing plans to address attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS and CAAQS. The District also has permit authority over most types of stationary equipment utilized for the proposed project. The BAAQMD is responsible for permitting and inspection of stationary sources; enforcement of regulations, including setting fees, levying fines, and enforcement actions; and ensuring that public nuisances are minimized.

BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area.6 The program
examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program has been implemented in three phases that includes an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement 5 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 6 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/communityair-risk-evaluation-care-program. 5 programs to estimate concentrations of TAC, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.

Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses has been used to develop emission reduction activities in areas with high TAC exposures and high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at-risk communities in the Bay Area. Seven areas have been identified by BAAQMD as impacted communities. They include Eastern San Francisco, Richmond/San Pablo, Western Alameda, San José, Vallejo, Concord, and Pittsburgh/Antioch. The project site is not within a BAAQMD CARE area.

Overburdened communities are areas located (i) within a census tract identified by the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), Version 4.0 implemented by OEHHA, as having an overall score at or above the 70th percentile, or (ii) within 1,000 feet of any such census tract.7
The BAAQMD has identified several overburdened areas within the air district’s boundaries. However, the project site is not within an overburdened area as the Project site is scored at the 8th percentile on CalEnviroScreen.8 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
In June 2010, BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA. In 2023, the BAAQMD revised the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines that include significance thresholds to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The current BAAQMD guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements including thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information. They include assessment methodologies for criteria air pollutants, air toxics, odors, and GHG emissions, as shown in Table

1.9 Air quality impacts and health risks are considered potentially significant if they exceed these thresholds.

7 See BAAQMD: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/reg-2-permits/2021- amendments/documents/20210722_01_appendixd_mapsofoverburdenedcommunities-pdf.pdf?la=en. 8 OEHAA, CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Maps https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2023. 2022 CEQA Guidelines. April. 6 Table 1. BAAQMD CEQA Significance Thresholds
Criteria Air Pollutant
Construction Thresholds Operational Thresholds
Average Daily Emissions
(lbs./day)
Average Daily
Emissions
(lbs./day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
ROG 54 54 10
NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (Exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (Exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or 20.0 ppm (1-hour average)
Fugitive Dust
Construction Dust Ordinance
or other Best Management
Practices (BMPs)*
None
Health Risks and
Hazards
Single Sources/
Individual Project
Combined Sources (Cumulative from all
sources within 1000-foot zone of influence)
Excess Cancer Risk >10 in a million OR
Compliance with
Qualified
Community
Risk Reduction
Plan
>100 in a million OR
Compliance with
Qualified
Community
Risk Reduction
Plan
Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Incremental annual PM2.5 >0.3 µg/m3 >0.8 µg/m3
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.
* BAAQMD strongly recommends implementing all feasible fugitive dust management practices especially when construction projects are located near sensitive communities, including schools, residential areas, or other sensitive land uses.

Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2022
The BAAQMD recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and consider impacts from dust (i.e., fugitive PM10 and PM2.5) to be less than significant if BMPs are implemented.

Basic Best Management Practices: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction.

During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. The contractor shall implement the BMPs that are required of all projects:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 7 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.

3. 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.

4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).

5. 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.

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

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

8. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

9. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

BAAQMD strongly encourages enhanced BMPs for construction sites near schools, residential areas, or other sensitive land uses. Enhanced measures include:
• Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities.
• Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. • Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.
• Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site. • Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

BAAQMD Rules and Regulations
Combustion equipment associated with the proposed project that includes new diesel engines to power generators would establish new sources of particulate matter and gaseous emissions.

Emissions would primarily result from the testing of the emergency backup generators. Certain 8 emission sources would be subject to BAAQMD Regulations and Rules. The District’s rules and regulations that may apply to the project include:
• Regulation 2 – Permits
Rule 2-1: General Requirements
Rule 2-2: New Source Review
Rule 2-5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants
• Regulation 6 – Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions Rule 6-3: Wood-Burning Devices
• Regulation 9 – Inorganic Gaseous Pollutants
Rule 9-1: Sulfur Dioxide
Rule 9-7: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, And Process Heaters Rule 9-8: Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Monoxide from Stationary Internal Combustion Engines
Permits
Rule 2-1-301 requires that any person installing, modifying, or replacing any equipment, the use of which may reduce or control the emission of air contaminants, shall first obtain an Authority to Construct (ATC).

Rule 2-1-302 requires that written authorization from the BAAQMD in the form of a Permit to Operate (PTO) be secured before any such equipment is used or operated.

Rule 2-1 lists sources that are exempt from permitting.

New Source Review
Rule 2-2, New Source Review (NSR), applies to all new and modified sources or facilities that are subject to the requirements of Rule 2-1-301. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of such sources and to provide mechanisms by which no net increase in emissions will result.

Rule 2-2-301 requires that an applicant for an ATC or PTO apply Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to any new or modified source that results in an increase in emissions and has emissions of precursor organic compounds, non-precursor organic compounds, NOx, SO2, PM10, or CO of 10.0 pounds or more per highest day. Based on the estimated emissions from the proposed project, BACT will be required for NOx emissions from the diesel-fueled generator engines.

Rule 2-5 applies to new and modified sources of TAC emissions. BAAQMD evaluates the TAC emissions in order to evaluate potential public exposure and health risk, to mitigate potentially significant health risks resulting from these exposures, and to provide net health risk benefits by improving the level of control when existing sources are modified or replaced. Toxics BACT (or TBACT) is applied to any new or modified source of TACs where the source risk is a cancer risk greater than 1.0 in one million and/or a chronic hazard index greater than 0.20. Permits are not 9 issued for any new or modified source that has risks or net project risks that exceed a cancer risk of 10.0 in one million or a chronic or acute hazard index of 1.0.

Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxic Control Measure
The BAAQMD administers the CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) for Stationary Diesel engines (section 93115, title 17 CA Code of Regulations). The project’s stationary sources will be new stationary emergency stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 hp.

These limits vary based on maximum engine power. All engines are limited to PM emission rates of 0.15 g/hp-hour, regardless of size. This ACTM limits engine operation 50 hours per year for routine testing and maintenance.

Offsets
Rule 2-2-302 requires that offsets be provided for a new or modified source that emits more than 10 tons per year of NOx or precursor organic compounds.

Prohibitory Rules
Regulation 6 pertains to particulate matter and visible emissions. Although the engines will be fueled with diesel, they will be modern, low emission engines. Thus, the engines are expected to comply with Regulation 6.

Rule 6-3 applies to emissions from wood-burning devices. Effective November 1, 2016, no person or builder shall install a wood-burning device in a new building construction.

Rule 9-1 applies to sulfur dioxide. The engines will use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15 ppm sulfur) and will not be a significant source of sulfur dioxide emissions and are expected to comply with the requirements of Rule 9-1.

Rule 9-7 limits the emissions of NOx CO from industrial, institutional and commercial boilers, steam generators and process heaters. This regulation typically applies to boilers with a heat rating of 2 million British Thermal Units (BTU) per hour.

Rule 9-8 prescribes NOx and CO emission limits for stationary internal combustion engines. Since the proposed engines will be used with emergency standby generators, Regulation 9-8-110 exempts the engines from the requirements of this Rule, except for the recordkeeping requirements (9-8-530) and limitations on hours of operation for reliability-related operation (maintenance and testing). The engines will not operate more than 50 hours per year, which will satisfy the requirements of 9-8-111.

BACT for Diesel Generator Engines
Since the generators will be used exclusively for emergency use during involuntary loss of power, the BACT levels listed for IC compression engines in the BAAQMD BACT Guidelines would apply. These are provided for two separate size ranges of diesel engines:
10 I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition >50hp and <1.000hp: BAAQMD applies BACT 2 emission limits based on the ATCM for stationary emergency standby diesel engines larger than 50 brake-horsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges from 3.0 to 3.5 grams per horsepower hour (g/hp-hr). The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.15 g/hp-hr per CARB’s ACTM.

I.C. Engine – Compression Ignition <999hp: BAAQMD applies specific BACT emission limits for stationary emergency standby diesel engines equal or larger than 1,000 brakehorsepower (BHP). NOx emission factor limit is subject to the CARB ACTM that ranges from 0.5 g/hp-hr. The PM (PM10 or PM2.5) limit is 0.02 g/hp-hr. POC (i.e., ROG) limits are 0.14 g/hp-hr.

City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions to reduce exposure of the City’s sensitive population to exposure of air pollution, toxic air contaminants, and GHG emissions. The following goals, policies, and actions are applicable to the proposed project:

Climate Change
INC 12.1: Emissions reduction target. Maintain a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.

INC 12.2: Emissions reduction strategies. Develop cost-effective strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

INC 12.3: Adaptation strategies. Develop strategies for adapting to climate change in partnership with local and regional agencies.

Air Quality
INC 20.1: Pollution prevention. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

INC 20.2: Collaboration. Participate in state and regional planning efforts to improve air quality.

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.

11 East Whisman Precise Plan
In 2019, the City Council adopted the East Whisman Precise Plan, or EWPP, to implement the 2030 General Plan goals and policies for the area allowing new residential land uses and expanded commercial land uses, open spaces, and multi-modal connectivity in the area. The General Plan identifies East Whisman as a highly sustainable, transit-oriented employment center with a diversity of land uses. The EWPP includes development standards, such as building setbacks and height limits, allowed land uses, urban design guidelines, locations for new public open space, and other public improvements for the area.

The EIR for the EWPP computed air pollutant emissions associated with build-out of the plan. The increase in emissions was estimated at about 29 tons of ROG, 43 tons of NOx, 10 tons of PM10 and 4 tons of PM2.5. These increases in emissions were considered less than significant since the rate of increased vehicle miles travelled (VMT) was less than the increase in population growth and the project would not interfere with implementation of the 2017 BAAQMD CAP measures.

The EIR evaluated sources of TACs both in and near the EWPP that included freeways such as U.S. 101 and State Route 237, as well as busy local roadways and stationary sources. Impacts from U.S. 101 in terms of increased in cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentrations and health hazards were not found to be significant at the proposed Project site with the following exceptions:

1. Within 75 feet of E. Middlefield Road.

2. Within 45 feet of Ellis Street.

3. Near stationary sources permitted by BAAQMD.

Significant impacts were identified that required construction emissions analysis and health risk assessments to show EWPP projects would not cause significant health risks to existing sensitive receptors or expose new sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs and PM2.5.

AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AIR-1: 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? The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the NAAQS and the CAAQS. The area is also considered non-attainment for PM10 under the CAAQS, but not the NAAQS. 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, PM2.5 and PM10, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. The O3 precursor pollutant thresholds are for ROG and NOx, while PM10, and PM2.5 have specific thresholds. The thresholds apply to both construction period emissions and operational period emissions.

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

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

CalEEMod Inputs
Land Use Inputs
The proposed project would be constructed in two phases: Phase 1 would include the retail use, Market Rate North, and Below Market Rate residential and Phase 2 would include the Market Rate South, Office Building, and Office Parking Garage. Separate CalEEMod runs were conducted for each phase. The land uses for each construction phase were entered into CalEEMod as described in Table 2.

Table 2. Construction Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod
Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet Acreage
Phase 1 – Market Rate North & BMR Building (2025-2028)
Apartments Mid Rise 494 Dwelling Unit 528,771
Strip Mall 2.34 1,000-sf 2,344 5.14
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 453 Parking Spaces 181,477 Phase 2- Market Rate South, Office Building, Office Parking Garage (2027 - 2029) General Office Building 277 1,000-sf 277,600

5.44 Apartments Mid Rise 364 Dwelling Unit 445,183
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 638 Parking Spaces 214,020 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 358 Parking Spaces 123,437 Construction Inputs
CalEEMod computes annual emissions for construction that are based on the project type, size, and acreage. The model provides emission estimates for both on-site and off-site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while offsite activity includes worker, hauling, and vendor traffic. The construction build-out scenarios, including equipment list and schedule, were provided by the project applicant (included in Attachment 1). The construction schedules assumed that the earliest possible start date would be October 2025 and the project would be built out over a period of approximately 47 months or 1,045 construction workdays. The earliest year of operation was assumed to be 2030.

Construction Truck Traffic Emissions
Construction would produce traffic in the form of worker trips and truck traffic. The traffic-related emissions are based on worker and vendor trip estimates produced by CalEEMod and haul trips that were computed based on the amount of demolition material to be exported, soil imported and/or exported to the site and the estimate of amount of concrete truck trips to and from the site, 13 and the amount of asphalt to and from the site. CalEEMod provides daily estimates of worker and vendor trips for each applicable phase. Daily haul trips for demolition and grading were developed by CalEEMod using the provided demolition and soil import/export volumes. The number of total asphalt round haul trips was provided for the project but the total amount of concrete was estimated and converted to daily one-way trips, assuming two trips per delivery.

Summary of Computed Construction Emissions
Average daily emissions were annualized for each year of construction by dividing the annual construction emissions by the number of active workdays during that year. Table 3 shows the unmitigated annualized average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust during construction of the project. As indicated in Table 3, predicted unmitigated annualized project construction emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds during any year of construction.

Table 3. Construction Period Emissions - Unmitigated
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Construction Emissions Per Year (Tons)
2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03
2026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09
2027 1.35 2.91 0.09 0.08
2028 4.23 1.57 0.04 0.03
2029 3.49 0.23 0.01 0.01
Average Daily Construction Emissions Per Year (pounds/day) 2025 (66 construction workdays) 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88
2026 (261 construction workdays) 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71
2027 (261 construction workdays) 10.32 22.30 0.65 0.61
2028 (262 construction workdays) 32.33 11.98 0.28 0.24
2029 (195 construction workdays) 35.75 2.41 0.07 0.06
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
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 include disturbed soils at the construction site and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site deposit mud on local streets, which is an additional source of airborne dust after it dries. The BAAQMD recommends all projects include a “basic” set of best management practices (BMPs) to manage fugitive dust and considers impacts from dust (i.e., fugitive PM10 and PM2.5) to be less-than-significant if BMPs are implemented to reduce these emissions.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include basic BMPs (listed above) to control dust and exhaust during construction.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-1
The measures above are consistent with BAAQMD-recommended basic BMPs for reducing fugitive dust contained in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For this analysis, only 14 the basic set of BMPs are required as the Project emissions and PM2.5 impacts were below the BAAQMD thresholds. Enhanced BMPs would be required as mitigation if air quality impacts were found to be significant.

Operational Period Emissions
ROG, PM, and NOX emissions from the project would be generated primarily from autos driven by future residents and employees and the diesel-powered emergency generators. Evaporative emissions from architectural coatings and maintenance products (classified as consumer products) are also typical ROG emission sources from these types of land uses. CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions from operation of the proposed project assuming full build-out.

CalEEMod Inputs
Land Uses
All project land uses were combined and input to CalEEMod for the operational period modeling in the year 2030. Inputs are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4. Operational Land Uses Entered into CalEEMod
Project Land Uses Size Units Square Feet Acreage
Apartments Mid Rise 858 Dwelling Unit 1,249,154
Strip Mall 2.34 1,000-sf 2,344 5.14
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 453 Parking Spaces 181,477 General Office Building 277 1,000-sf 277,600
Unenclosed Parking with Elevator 638 Parking Spaces 214,020 5.44 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 358 Parking Spaces 123,437 Model Year
Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the higher the emission rates utilized by CalEEMod. The earliest year of full operation would be 2030 if construction begins in 2025. Emissions associated with build-out later than 2030 would be lower.

Traffic Information
CalEEMod allows the user to enter specific vehicle trip generation rates. Therefore, the projectspecific daily trip generation rate provided by the traffic consultant was entered into the model.10 The project would produce approximately 5,408 daily trips. When accounting for the Housing/Office Internal Capture, Housing/Retail Internal Capture, Transit Reduction, and Passby Reduction, the project would produce 4,875 net daily trips. The daily trip generation was calculated using ITE trip generation rates, the size of the project land uses, and the adjusted total 10 Email Correspondence from Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., October 25, 2023, 675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_for DJP.
15 automobile trips after reductions. The Saturday and Sunday trip rates were derived by multiplying the ratio of the CalEEMod default rates for Saturday and Sunday trips to the default weekday rate with the project-specific daily weekday trip rate. The default trip lengths and trip types specified by CalEEMod were used.

Energy
Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the default electricity provider for Mountain View. SVCE purchases carbon-free electricity and partners with PG&E to deliver this electricity over existing power lines that they maintain. SVCE provides 100-percent carbon-free energy and customers in the City of Mountain View are automatically enrolled in the SVCE GreenStart default program, which offers electricity that is carbon-free and with 50 percent of the power from renewable sources.11
The City of Mountain View adopted the Mountain View Green Building Code and Reach Code amendments in November 2019 that prohibits the use of natural gas infrastructure in new residential, hotel, office, and most retail-type buildings.12 This ordinance applies to any new construction starting January 1, 2020. Natural gas use for the project land uses was set to zero and assigned to electricity use in CalEEMod.

Project Generators
The project would include four emergency generators. The generators would each be 200 kilowatts (kW) powered by a 320 horsepower (hp) diesel-fired engine. The generators would be located on level one in the office building, the north residential building, the below market rate south building, and the south residential building. The generators would be tested periodically and power the buildings in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generators would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes as well as non-testing purposes per BAAQMD’s newest Guidelines. CARB and BAAQMD requirements limit these engine operations to 50 hours each per year for testing and maintenance, and new BAAQMD Guidelines recommend including 100 hours each year for non-testing and non-maintenance operations.

During testing periods, the engines would typically be run for less than one hour. The engines would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, nonAgricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources. The emissions from the operation of the generator were calculated using the CalEEMod model.
11 See: https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/ 12 City of Mountain View, 2019. Web:
https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_green_building_and_rea ch_codes.asp
16 Wood-Burning Devices
CalEEMod default inputs assume new residential construction would include wood-burning fireplaces and stoves. The project would not include wood-burning devices, as these devices are prohibited by BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 3.13 Therefore, the number of woodstoves and woodburning fireplaces in CalEEMod were set to zero.

Other Inputs
Default model assumptions for emissions associated with solid waste generation and water use were applied to the project. Wastewater treatment was estimated to be 100% aerobic conditions to represent City wastewater treatment plant conditions. The project site would not send wastewater to on-site septic tanks or facultative lagoons.

Existing Uses
The existing site is occupied by two vacant buildings and associated parking. As a result, an existing use CalEEMod run was not created for the project since the existing use of the site generates no emissions.

Summary of Computed Operational Emissions
Annual emissions were predicted using CalEEMod and daily emissions were estimated assuming 365 days of operation. Table 5 shows unmitigated average daily operational emissions of ROG, NOX, total PM10, and total PM2.5 during operation of the project. Operational period ROG emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold. No other operational criteria pollutant emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the project’s ROG emissions would no longer exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold.

Table 5. Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Unmit Mit Unmit Unmit Unmit
2030 Annual Project Operational Emissions
(tons/year) 10.15 9.45 2.19 5.00 1.31
BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No
2030 Daily Project Operational Emissions
(pounds/day)
1 55.60 51.76 11.98 27.38 7.16
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No
Notes: 1Assumes 365-day operation.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/dotgov/files/rules/regulation-6- rule-3/documents/20191120_r0603_final-pdf.pdf?la=en
17 Summary of Operational and Construction Emissions
There would be a period where Phase 1 of the Project is operational and construction of Phase 2 would occur at the same time. The combination of operational and construction emissions are shown simply as the sum of Phase 1 emissions for 2029 annual operation and the Phase 2 construction emissions for 2029. Calendar year 2029 is the only year where construction and operational emissions would overlap. Table 6 shows the annual and average daily emissions during this period. The overlap of operational and construction period emissions would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG emissions. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the project’s ROG emissions would no longer exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold.

Table 6. Maximum Year Operational and Construction Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Unmit Mit Unmit Unmit Unmit
2029 Annual Emissions (tons/year) 7.29 4.14 1.24 2.10 0.56 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons /year) 10 tons 10 tons 10 tons 15 tons 10 tons Exceed Threshold? No No No No No
2029 Daily Average Emissions for days with
construction (pounds/day)
1 56.62 24.32 7.89 11.55 3.07
BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds/day) 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 54 lbs. 82 lbs. 54 lbs.

Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No No
Notes: 1Assumes 365-day operation and 195 days of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require use of low interior and exterior VOC coatings to reduce ROG emissions.

The project shall use super-compliant volatile organic compound or VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings, that are below current BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for at least 90 percent of all interior and exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction of phase 2 and reapplications throughout the project’s operational lifetime. At least 90 percent of coatings applied must meet a “super-compliantʺ VOC standard of less than 10 grams of VOC per liter of paint. For reapplication of coatings during the project’s operational lifetime, the tenant leases and building sales disclosures shall contain information that the project is required to use “super-compliant” VOC coatings. This mitigation measure applies to 90 percent of coatings since there may be some special coatings required for certain aspects of the project that cannot meet this requirement.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-2
Super-compliant architectural coatings are provided by some of the most popular manufacturers, including Behr, Benjamin Moore, Dunn Edwards, Rust-Oleum, and Sherwin-Williams.14 It is assumed that interior and exterior paint applications could be feasibly controlled through this mitigation measure. Through Mitigation Measure AQ-2, construction ROG emissions during 14 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Super Compliant Architectural Coatings, available at https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant-coatings. 18 phase 2 would decrease by about 90 percent during the year with the highest emissions. During operation, the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce total ROG emissions by 7 percent or 0.70 tons per year for operation (3.84 pounds per average day).

Impact AIR-2: Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Project impacts related to increased health risk can occur either by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. This project would introduce new sources of TACs during construction (i.e., on-site construction and truck hauling emissions) and operation (i.e., mobile and stationary sources).

Project construction activity would generate dust and equipment exhaust that would affect nearby sensitive receptors. The project would include the installation of emergency generators powered by diesel engines and would generate some traffic consisting of mostly light-duty gasolinepowered vehicles.

Project impacts to existing sensitive receptors were addressed for temporary construction activities and long-term operational conditions. There are also several sources of existing TACs and localized air pollutants in the vicinity of the project. The impact of existing sources of TACs was assessed in terms of the cumulative risk which includes the project contribution, as well as the risk on the new sensitive receptors introduced by the project.

Health Risk Methodology for Construction and Operation
Health risk impacts were addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations, and by computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The risk impacts from the project are the combination of risks from construction and operation sources.

These sources include on-site construction activity, construction truck hauling, emergency generator operation, and increased traffic from the project. To evaluate the increased cancer risks from the project, a 30-year exposure period was used, per BAAQMD guidance,15 with the sensitive receptors being exposed to both project construction and operation emissions during this timeframe.

The project increased cancer risk is computed by summing the project construction cancer risk and operation cancer risk contributions. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI values are not additive but based on the annual maximum values for the entirety of the project. The project maximally exposed individual (MEI) is identified as the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s construction and operation.

The methodology for computing health risks impacts is contained in Appendix E of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. TAC and PM2.5 emissions are calculated, a dispersion model used to estimate ambient pollutant concentrations, and cancer risks and HI calculated using DPM concentrations.

15BAAQMD, Appendix E of the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 2023 19 Modeled Sensitive Receptors

Receptors for this assessment included locations where sensitive populations closest to the project would be present for extended periods of time (i.e., chronic exposures). This includes the existing residences surrounding the site, as shown in Figure 1. Residential receptors are assumed to include all receptor groups (i.e., third trimester, infants, children, and adults) with almost continuous exposure to project emissions. While there are additional sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, the receptors chosen are adequate to identify maximum impacts from the project.

Health Risk from Project Construction
The primary health risk impact issues associated with construction projects are cancer risks associated with diesel exhaust (i.e., DMP), which is a known TAC, and exposure to high ambient concentrations of dust (i.e., PM2.5) DPM poses both a potential health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. A health risk assessment of the project construction activities was conducted that evaluated potential health effects to nearby sensitive receptors from construction emissions of DPM and PM2.5.
16 This assessment included dispersion modeling to predict the offsite concentrations resulting from project construction, so that lifetime cancer risks and non-cancer health effects could be estimated.

Construction Emissions
The CalEEMod model provided total uncontrolled annual PM10 exhaust emissions (assumed to be DPM) for the off-road construction equipment and for exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles.

Total DPM emissions were estimated to be 0.16 tons (319 pounds) and 0.08 tons (163 pounds) for phase 1 and phase 2. Fugitive dust emissions (PM2.5) to be 0.43 tons (857 pounds) and 0.20 tons (409 pounds) for phase 1 and phase 2. The on-road emissions are a result of haul truck travel during grading activities, worker travel, and vendor deliveries during construction. A trip length of one mile was used to represent vehicle travel while at or near the construction site. It was assumed that the emissions from on-road vehicles traveling at or near the site would occur at the construction site.

Dispersion Modeling
The U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model was used to predict DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) in the vicinity of the project construction area. The AERMOD dispersion model is a BAAQMD-recommended model for use in modeling analysis of these types of emission activities for CEQA projects.17 Emission sources for the construction site were grouped into two categories: exhaust emissions of DPM and fugitive PM2.5 dust emissions.

16 DPM is identified by California as a toxic air contaminant due to the potential to cause cancer. 17 BAAQMD, Appendix E of the 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 2023 20 Construction Sources
Combustion equipment DPM exhaust emissions were modeled as an array of point sources to reflect construction equipment and trucks operating at the site. These sources included nine-foot release heights (construction equipment exhaust stack height) that were placed at 23 feet (7 meter) intervals throughout the construction site. This resulted in 351 individual point sources being used to represent mobile equipment DPM exhaust emissions in the construction area. The total DPM emissions were divided into each of the point sources that were spread throughout the project construction site. In addition, the following stack parameters were used: a vertical release, a stack diameter of 2.5 inches, an exhaust temperature of 918˚F, and an exit velocity of 309 feet per second. Point source plume rise is calculated by the AERMOD dispersion model. Emissions from vehicle travel on- and off-site were also distributed among the point sources throughout the site.

The array of point sources used for the modeling are shown in Figure 1.

For modeling fugitive PM2.5 emissions, a near-ground level release height of 7 feet (2 meters) was used for the area source. Fugitive dust emissions at construction sites come from a variety of sources, including truck and equipment travel, grading activities, truck loading (with loaders) and unloading (rear or bottom dumping), loaders and excavators moving and transferring soil and other materials, etc. All of these activities result in fugitive dust emissions at various heights at the point(s) of generation. Once generated, the dust plume will tend to rise as it moves downwind across the site and exit the site at a higher elevation than when it was generated. For all these reasons, a 7-foot release height was used as the average release height across the construction site.

Emissions from the construction equipment and on-road vehicle travel were distributed throughout the modeled area sources. Figure 1 shows the project construction site and receptors.

AERMOD Inputs and Meteorological Data
The modeling used a five-year meteorological data set (2013-2017) from Moffett Federal Airfield prepared for use with the AERMOD model by the BAAQMD. Construction emissions were modeled as occurring Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., when the majority of construction activity is expected to occur. Annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from construction activities during the 2025-2029 period were calculated at nearby sensitive receptors using the model. Receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters), 15 feet (4.5 meters), 25 feet (7.6 meters) were used to represent the breathing height on the first through third floors of nearby multi-family residences.18
Summary of Construction Health Risk Impacts
The maximum increased cancer risks were calculated using the modeled TAC concentrations combined with BAAQMD CEQA guidance for age sensitivity factors and exposure parameters.

Age-sensitivity factors reflect the greater sensitivity of infants and small children to cancer causing TACs. Third trimester, infant, child, and adult exposures were assumed to occur at all residences during the entire construction period.
18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 21 Non-cancer health hazards and maximum PM2.5 concentrations were also calculated. The maximum modeled annual PM2.5 concentration was calculated based on combined exhaust and fugitive concentrations. The maximum computed HI value was based on the ratio of the maximum DPM concentration modeled and the chronic inhalation DPM reference exposure level of 5 µg/m3.

The modeled maximum annual DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were identified at nearby sensitive receptors to find the MEIs. Results of this assessment indicated that the construction MEIs were located at three different receptors. The MEIs were located at receptors in a multi-family building southwest of the project site, with the unmitigated cancer risk MEI located on the first floor (5 feet above ground) of a unit to the southwest and the PM2.5 concentration MEI located on the first floor (5 feet above ground) at a different unit to the southwest. Once mitigation was applied, the cancer risk MEI moved to a unit that is adjacent to the unmitigated cancer risk MEI. The location of the MEIs and nearby sensitive receptors are shown in Figure 1. Table 7 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities. Attachment 3 to this report includes the emission calculations used for the construction modeling and the cancer risk calculations.

Figure 1. Locations of Project Construction Site with Phases, Project Generators, OffSite Sensitive Receptors, and Maximum TAC Impact Locations (MEIs)

22 Health Risks from Project Operation
Operation of the project would have long-term emissions from mobile sources (i.e., traffic) and stationary sources (i.e., diesel generators). While these emissions would not be as intensive at or near the site as construction activity, they would contribute to long-term effects to sensitive receptors.

Project Traffic
Diesel powered vehicles are the primary concern with local traffic-generated TAC impacts. This project would generate 5,408 daily trips or 4,875 net daily trips19 with a majority of the trips being from light-duty gasoline-powered vehicles (i.e., passenger cars). The project is not anticipated to generate large amounts of truck trips that would involve diesel vehicles. Projects with the potential to cause or contribute to increased cancer risk from traffic include those that have high numbers of diesel-powered on road trucks or use off-road diesel equipment on site, such as a distribution center, a quarry, or a manufacturing facility, may potentially expose existing or future planned receptors to substantial cancer risk levels and/or health hazards. This is not a project of concern for mobile sources. Emissions from project traffic are considered negligible and not included within this analysis.

Project Stand-By Diesel Generators
The project would include four emergency generators. The generators would be 200 kilowatts (kW) powered by 320 horsepower (hp) diesel-fired engines. The generators would be located on level one in the office building, the north residential building, the below market rate south building, and the south residential building. The location of the modeled generators is shown in Figure 2.

Operation of the diesel generators would be a source of TAC emissions. The generators would be tested periodically and power the system in the event of a power failure. For modeling purposes, it was assumed that the generators would be operated for testing and maintenance purposes as well as non-testing purposes per BAAQMD’s newest Guidelines. CARB and BAAQMD requirements limit these engine operations to 50 hours each per year for testing and maintenance, and new BAAQMD Guidelines recommend including 100 hours each year for non-testing and nonmaintenance operations. During testing periods, the engines would typically be run for less than one hour. The engines would be required to meet CARB and EPA emission standards and consume commercially available California low-sulfur diesel fuel. Additionally, the generators would have to meet BAAQMD BACT requirements for IC Engine-Compression Ignition: Stationary Emergency, non-Agricultural, non-direct drive fire pump sources.

The diesel engines would be subject to CARB’s Stationary Diesel Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) and require permits from the BAAQMD, since they will be equipped with an engine larger than 50-HP. BACT requirements would apply to the generators that would limit DPM emissions. As part of the BAAQMD permit requirements for toxics screening analysis, the engine emissions will have to meet Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (BACT) and 19 Email Correspondence from Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc., October 25, 2023, 675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_for DJP.
23 pass the toxic risk screening level of less than ten in a million. The risk assessment would be prepared by BAAQMD. Depending on results, BAAQMD would set limits for DPM emissions (e.g., more restricted engine operation periods). Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will not be considered to have a significant air quality health risk impact.

Dispersion Modeling
To estimate potential increased cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the generator, the same AERMOD dispersion model was used to compute the maximum annual DPM concentration at off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., nearby residences). Emissions of DPM were based on PM10 exhaust emissions predicted by CalEEMod for operation of the project generator.

The same receptors, breathing heights, and meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the generator modeling. Stack parameters (stack height, exhaust flow rate, and exhaust gas temperature) for modeling the generator were based on BAAQMD default parameters for emergency generators.20 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year).

To calculate the increased cancer risk from the generator at the MEIs, the cancer risks were adjusted for exposure duration to account for the MEIs being exposed to construction for the first 5 years of the 30-year period. The operational exposure duration was adjusted for 25 years of exposure since receptors would be exposed to 5 years of construction before the generators would be operational. Table 7 lists the health risks from the stand-by generators at the location of MEIs.

The emissions and health risk calculations for the proposed generators are included in Attachment

2. Summary of Project-Related Health Risks at the Off-Site Project MEIs The cumulative risk impacts from a project are the combination of construction and operation sources. For this project, these sources include the on-site construction activity and emergency generators. The project impact is computed by adding the construction cancer risk for an infant to the increased cancer risk for the project operational conditions for the generator at the MEIs over a 30-year period. The project MEIs are identified as the sensitive receptors that are most impacted by the project’s construction and operation.

At the MEI locations, the MEIs would be exposed to 5 years of construction cancer risks and 25 years of operational cancer risks. Unlike the increased maximum cancer risk, the annual PM2.5 concentration and HI risks are not additive but based on an annual maximum risk for the entirety of the project.

Project risk impacts are shown in Table 7. The unmitigated maximum cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentration would exceed the BAAQMD single-source threshold. As a result, further measures are required under Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to reduce the impacts below BAAQMD 20 The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document, BAAQMD, San Francisco Dept. of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Dept., December 2012 24 single-source thresholds. Implementation of the additional mitigation measure would cause the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration to fall below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Table 7. Construction and Operation Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors Source Cancer Risk1
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
1 (µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction (Years 0 – 5) Unmitigated
Mitigated2

25.77 (infant)

4.81 (infant)

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
Operational Emergency Diesel Generators (Years 6 – 30) 0.653 <0.01 <0.01 Total/Maximum Project Impact (Years 0-30) Unmitigated
Mitigated

26.41 5.46

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated2
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Notes: 1 Unmitigated maximum cancer risk and PM2.5 concentration occur at two different receptors. 2 Mitigated maximum cancer risk occurs at a receptor adjacent to the unmitigated maximum cancer risk. 3 Cancer risk from generator operation at the unmitigated cancer risk MEI is 0.63 per million.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Use construction equipment that has low diesel particulate matter exhaust emissions.

Implement a feasible plan to reduce DPM emissions by 70 percent such that increased cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations from construction would be reduced below TAC significance levels as follows:

1. All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 emission standards for PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise,
a. If use of Tier 4 equipment is not available, alternatively use equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve a 70 percent reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment; alternatively (or in combination).

2. Use electric cranes and install electric power lines in order to use avoid use of dieselpowered generators.

3. Alternatively, the applicant may develop another construction operations plan demonstrating that the construction equipment used on-site would achieve a reduction in construction diesel particulate matter emissions by 70 percent or greater. Elements of the plan could include a combination of some of the following measures:
• Implementation of No. 1 above to use Tier 4 engines or alternatively fueled equipment,
• Installation of electric power lines during early construction phases to avoid use of diesel generators and compressors,
25 • Use of electrically-powered equipment,
• Forklifts and aerial lifts used for exterior and interior building construction shall be electric or propane/natural gas powered,
• Change in construction build-out plans to lengthen phases, and • Implementation of different building techniques that result in less diesel equipment usage.

Such a construction operations plan would be subject to review by an air quality expert and approved by the City prior to construction.

Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure AQ-3
CalEEMod was used to compute emissions associated with this mitigation measure assuming that all equipment met U.S. EPA Tier 4 Interim engine standards, used electric cranes and generators, and BAAQMD basic BMPs were included. With these implemented, the project’s construction cancer risk levels (assuming infant exposure) would be reduced by 81 percent to 4.81 per million and the annual PM2.5 concentration would be reduced by 64 percent to 0.18 μg/m3 . As a result, the
project’s construction risks and hazards would be reduced below the BAAQMD single-source thresholds.

Cumulative Health Risks of all TAC Sources at the Off-Site Project MEIs Cumulative health risk assessments look at all substantial sources of TACs located within 1,000 feet of a project site (i.e., influence area) that can affect sensitive receptors. These sources include freeways or highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD.

A review of the project area using BAAQMD’s geographic information systems (GIS) screening tools indicated that two roadways (Southbay Freeway/ State Route 237 (S.R. 237) and East Middlefield Road) and eight stationary sources within the 1,000-foot influence area could have cumulative health risk impacts at the MEIs. However, two of these sources will be removed when the project is constructed, and another is over 1,000 feet away. Figure 2 shows the location of the sources affecting the MEIs. Health risk impacts from these sources upon the MEIs are reported in Table 8. Details of the modeling and health risk calculations are included in Attachment 3.

26 Figure 2. Project Site and Nearby TAC and PM2.5 Sources 27 Highways – Southbay Freeway (S.R. 237)
The project MEIs are located near S.R.237. A refined analysis of the impacts of TACs and PM2.5 to the MEI receptors are necessary to evaluate potential cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations from S.R. 237. A review of the traffic information reported by Caltrans indicates that S.R. 85 traffic includes 59,000 vehicles per day (based on an annual average)21 that are about 5.4 percent trucks, of which 2.6 percent are considered diesel heavy duty trucks and 2.8 percent are medium duty trucks.22
Local Roadways – East Middlefield Road
A refined analysis of potential health impacts from vehicle traffic on East Middlefield Road was conducted since the BAAQMD GIS roadway screening tool indicated that the health risk concentrations were high from this roadway. The refined analysis involved predicting emissions for the traffic volume and mix of vehicle types on the roadway near the project site and using an atmospheric dispersion model to predict exposure to TACs. The associated cancer risks are then computed based on the modeled exposures.

Traffic Emissions Modeling
This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for traffic on S.R. 237 and East Middlefield Road using the Caltrans version of the CARB EMFAC2021 emissions model, known as CT-EMFAC2021. CT-EMFAC2021 provides emission factors for mobile source criteria pollutants and TACs, including DPM. Emission processes modeled include running exhaust for DPM, PM2.5 and total organic compounds (TOG), running evaporative losses for TOG, and tire and brake wear and fugitive road dust for PM2.5. All PM2.5 emissions from all vehicles were used, rather than just the PM2.5 fraction from diesel powered vehicles, because all vehicle types (i.e., gasoline and diesel powered) produce PM2.5. Additionally, PM2.5 emissions from vehicle tire and brake wear from re-entrained roadway dust were included in these emissions.

DPM emissions are projected to decrease in the future and are reflected in the CT-EMFAC2021 emissions data. Inputs to the model include region (Santa Clara County), type of road (freeway and major/collector), traffic mix assigned by CT-EMFAC2021 for the county, adjusted for the local truck mix on S.R. 237 and truck percentage for non-state highways in Santa Clara County (3.51 percent)23 for the local roadways, year of analysis (2025 – construction start year), and season (annual).

To estimate TAC and PM2.5 emissions over the 30-year exposure period used for calculating the increased cancer risks for sensitive receptors at the MEI, the CT-EMFAC2021 model was used to develop vehicle emission factors for the year 2025 (construction start year). Emissions associated with vehicle travel depend on the year of analysis because emission control technology requirements are phased-in over time. Therefore, the earlier the year analyzed in the model, the 21 Caltrans. 2021. 2021 Traffic Volumes California State Highways. 22 Caltrans. 2021. 2021 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State Highway System. 23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, Version 3.0. May. Web: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en 28 higher the emission rates utilized by CT-EMFAC2021. Year 2025 emissions were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions over the time period that cancer risks are evaluated since, as discussed above, overall vehicle emissions, and in particular diesel truck emissions, will decrease in the future.

The ADT volumes and truck percentages were based on Caltrans data for S.R. 237. Traffic volumes were assumed to increase 1 percent per year for a total of 61,362 vehicles. Hourly traffic distributions specific to these segments of S.R. 237 were obtained from Caltrans Traffic Census Program.24 The fraction of traffic volume each hour was calculated and applied to the 2025 average daily traffic volumes estimate to estimate hourly traffic emission rates for S.R. 237. An average travel speed of 55 mph for traffic on S.R. 237 was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs.

The ADT for East Middlefield Road was calculated based on traffic data provided by the project’s traffic consultant.25 Assuming a 1 percent per year increase, the predicted ADT on East Middlefield Road was 14,230 vehicles. Average hourly traffic distributions for Santa Clara County roadways were developed using the EMFAC model,26 which were then applied to the ADT volumes to obtain estimated hourly traffic volumes and emissions for each roadway. An average travel speed of 35 mph for traffic on East Middlefield Road was used for all hours of the day based on posted speed limit signs on the roadway.

This analysis involved the development of DPM, organic TACs, and PM2.5 emissions for future traffic on S.R. 237 and East Middlefield Road and using these emissions with an air quality dispersion model to calculate TAC and PM2.5 concentrations at the project MEI receptor locations.

Maximum increased lifetime cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations for the receptors were then computed using modeled TAC and PM2.5 concentrations and BAAQMD methods and exposure parameters.

Dispersion Modeling
Dispersion modeling of TAC and PM2.5 emissions was conducted using the EPA AERMOD air quality dispersion model, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for this type of analysis.27 TAC and PM2.5 emissions from traffic on S.R. 237 and East Middlefield Road within 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated. Vehicle traffic on the roadways was modeled using a series of area sources along a line (line area sources); with line segments used for travel on the roadways in opposing directions. The same meteorological data and off-site sensitive receptors used in the previous construction site dispersion modeling scenario were used in the roadway modeling. Other inputs to the model included road geometry, hourly traffic emissions, and receptor locations.

Annual TAC and PM2.5 concentrations using 2025 emissions from traffic on each roadway were calculated using the model. Concentrations were calculated at the project MEIs with receptor 24 https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census 25 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. File: 675-685 E Middlefield Volume Summary_2023-11-20 for DJP.xlsx 26 The Burden output from EMFAC2007, a previous version of CARB’s EMFAC model, was used for this since the current web-based version of EMFAC2021 does not include Burden type output with hour by hour traffic volume information.
27 BAAQMD. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012 29 heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) to represent the breathing heights on the first floor of residents in the multi-family residences.

Computed Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Impacts
The cancer risk, PM2.5 concentration, and HI impacts from S.R. 237 and East Middlefield Road on the off-site MEIs are shown in Table 8. Figure 2 shows the roadway links modeled and receptor locations where concentrations were calculated. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion modeling, and cancer risk calculations for the receptors with the maximum cancer risk from traffic on both roadways are provided in Attachment 3.

Construction Risk Impacts from Nearby Developments
A review of the City of Mountain View’s Development Projects webpage December 2023 update indicates that the following planned or approved projects are located near the proposed project28:
- 400 Logue Avenue – This project is located approximately 1,100 feet from the proposed project and over 1,900 feet from the project MEIs. This project is approved to develop an 8-story, 408-unit residential building, a 36,000-sf Transfer of Development Rights from the Los Altos School District TDR Program, and a Heritage Tree Removal Permit. The project is currently approved and could have construction that overlaps with the construction of this proposed project. However, given the distance from the 400 Logue Avenue to this project and this project’s MEIs, the impacts from 400 Logue Avenue are considered negligible and not included within this analysis. - Middlefield Park Master Plan – This project is located at the northeast corner of West Middlefield Road and Ellis Street and north of West Maude Avenue between Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue. Only the portion of Middlefield Park Master Plan located along Ellis Street north of East Middlefield Road is within 1,000 feet of the proposed project.

This project was analyzed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. and is currently approved for construction. As a result, construction of the portion of the Middlefield Park Master Plan within 1,000 feet of this proposed project could overlap with this project’s construction period.

The mitigated construction risks and hazard impact values for Middlefield Park Master Plan was available from its air quality technical report. For the purpose of this analysis, it was conservatively assumed the entire construction period from the proposed project would overlap with the Middlefield Park Master Plan construction schedule. However, given the distance between the project MEIs and Middlefield Park Master Plan (about 1,000 feet) and since only a portion of the total Middlefield Park Master Plan project is within 1,000 feet of this proposed project, the impacts upon the MEI from that project are halved. This approach likely provides an overestimate of the community risk and hazard levels because it assumes that maximum impacts from the nearby development occurs concurrently with the proposed project at the proposed project’s MEI. The 28 City of Mountain View Development Update – December 2023, web:
https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/8025/638374711524970000 30 mitigated construction risks reported in that air quality assessment were included in the cumulative risks Table 8.

BAAQMD Permitted Stationary Sources
Permitted stationary sources of air pollution near the project site were identified using BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources 2021 GIS map website.29 This mapping tool identifies the location of nearby stationary sources and their estimated risk and hazard impacts, including emissions and adjustments to account for new OEHHA guidance. Eight sources were identified using this tool, six diesel generators and two generic sources. However, when looking up the location of source #15088, it was located far outside of the 1,000-foot influence area. Sources #21100 and #24326 will be removed as part of the proposed project. As a result, only five sources were analyzed. The BAAQMD GIS website provided screening risks and hazards for the remaining sources.

Therefore, a stationary source information request was not required to be submitted to BAAQMD.

The screening risk and hazard levels provided by BAAQMD for the stationary sources were adjusted for distance using BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Diesel Internal Combustion Engines and Generic Sources. Health risk impacts from the stationary source upon the MEIs are reported in Table 8.

Source #19348 Cisco Systems
Source #19348, Cisco Systems, is a data center facility. Screening risks provided by BAAQMD were used with the Distance Adjustment Multiplier Tool for Generic Sources to account for the distance between source and receptor. Cisco Systems is located at 364 Ferguson Drive which is approximately 830 feet southwest of the project site. Adjustments to the screening risk values were made based on this distance from Cisco Systems to the project MEIs. However, screening risk values exceeded the BAAQMD single-source significance threshold for cancer risk so refined modeling using the AERMOD dispersion model was required.

Dispersion Modeling
To estimate potential increased cancer risks and PM2.5 impacts from operation of the Cisco generator, the same AERMOD dispersion model was used to compute the maximum annual DPM concentration at off-site sensitive receptors (i.e., nearby residences). Emissions of DPM for this source were gathered from the California Emissions Inventory Data Analysis and Reporting System (CEIDARS) for the 2021 calendar year. The same receptors, breathing heights, and meteorological data used in the construction dispersion modeling were used for the Cisco generator modeling. Stack parameters (stack height, exhaust flow rate, and exhaust gas temperature) for modeling the generator were based on BAAQMD default parameters for emergency generators.30 Annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations were modeled assuming that generator testing could occur at any time of the day (24 hours per day, 365 days per year). 29 BAAQMD, Web:
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=845658c19eae4594b9f4b805fb9d89a3 30 The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Document, BAAQMD, San Francisco Dept. of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Dept., December 2012 31 A 30-year exposure period was used in calculating cancer risks assuming the residents would include third trimester pregnancy and infants/children and were assumed to be in the new residential areas for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. Table 7 lists the health risks from the stand-by Cisco generator at the location of MEIs. The emissions and health risk calculations for the proposed generators are included in Attachment 3.

Summary of Cumulative Risks at the Project MEIs
Table 8 reports both the project and cumulative health risk impacts at the sensitive receptors most affected by project construction (i.e., the MEIs). The project’s unmitigated construction maximum cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration exceeds the BAAQMD single-source threshold. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 and AQ-2, the project’s cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration would be lowered to a level below the single-source threshold. The cancer risk, annual PM2.5 concentration, and HI, unmitigated and mitigated, do not exceed the cumulativesource thresholds.

Table 8. Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Project MEIs Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Impacts
Total/Maximum Project Impact (Years 0-30) Unmitigated
Mitigated

26.41 5.46

0.50 0.18

0.02 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Cumulative Impacts
SR-237, ADT 61,362 1.75 0.03 <0.01
East Middlefield Road, ADT 14,230 0.22 0.01 <0.01
Raytheon Company (Facility ID #909, Semiconductor and
Related Device Manufacturing), MEI at 1000+ feet - - -
Verizon Wireless (Smiley Tower) (Facility # 17902,
Generator), MEI at 830 feet 0.96 <0.01 <0.01
Cisco Systems (Facility #19348, Generator), MEI at 830
feet 1.04 <0.01 <0.01
Cushman & Wakefield at NortonLifeLock (Facility
#21411, Generator), MEI at 1000+ feet 0.28 <0.01 <0.01
Kilroy Realty Corporation (Facility #21845, Generator), MEI at 890 feet 1.99 <0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Temporary Construction Sources
Middlefield Park Master Plan – 1,000 feet north of MEI 7.26 0.22 <0.01 Combined Sources Unmitigated
Mitigated

39.91 18.96
<0.80
<0.48
<0.09
<0.08
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated
No
No
No
No
No
No

32 Non-CEQA: On-site Health Risk Assessment of TAC Sources - New Sensitive Receptors In addition to evaluating health impact from project construction, a health risk assessment was completed to assess the impact that the phased construction emissions from the proposed project and the existing TAC sources would have on the new proposed sensitive receptors (residents) that the project would introduce. The same TAC sources identified above were used in this health risk assessment.31 BAAQMD’s recommended thresholds for health risks and hazards, shown in Table 1, are used to evaluate on-site exposure. Figure 3 shows the on-site sensitive receptors in relation to the project’s phased construction and nearby TAC sources. All on-site health risk results are listed in Table 9. Attachment 3 includes the dispersion modeling and risk calculations for TAC source impacts upon the proposed on-site sensitive receptors.

Project Phased Construction
Project residents could occupy a building once it has completed construction. Therefore, it was assumed that Phase 1 buildings would have sensitive receptors during the construction of Phase 2.

The construction analysis for the project residents was conducted in the same manner as described above for the off-site cancer risk and PM2.5 MEIs. Receptors were placed within each affected residential area and were spaced every 23 feet (7 meters). Project impacts were modeled at receptor heights used to represent the first through third residential levels of the respective buildings.

Maximum increased cancer risks were calculated for the residents at the project site using the maximum modeled TAC concentrations. A 30-year exposure period was used in calculating cancer risks assuming the residents would include third trimester pregnancy and infants/children and were assumed to be in the new residential areas for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. Maximum construction impacts would occur at the second-floor level as shown in Figure 3. The project construction health risk impacts at the project sites are shown in Table 9. Details of the on-site construction emission calculations, dispersion modeling, and cancer risk calculations are contained in Attachment 2.

Local Highways & Roadways – Southbay Freeway (S.R. 237) & East Middlefield Road The highway and roadway impacts on new project residents was conducted in the same manner as described above for the off-site MEIs. However, year 2030 (operational year) emission factors were conservatively assumed as being representative of future conditions, instead of 2025 (construction year). An analysis based on 2030 resulted in an increased ADT on S.R. 237 of 64,312 vehicles and 14,920 vehicles on East Middlefield Road.
31 We note that to the extent this analysis considers existing air quality issues in relation to the impact on future residents of the Project, it does so for informational purposes only pursuant to the judicial decisions in CBIA v.

BAAQMD (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386 and Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473, which confirm that the impacts of the environment on a project are excluded from CEQA unless the project itself “exacerbates” such impacts.
33 On-site receptors were placed throughout the project site with a spacing of 7 meters (23 feet).

Roadway impacts were modeled at receptor heights of 5 feet (1.5 meters) and 16 feet (4.9 meters) and 26 feet (7.9 meters) representing sensitive receptors on the first, second, and third floors of the proposed buildings. The portion of the roadways included in the modeling is shown in Figure 3 along with the project site and receptor locations where impacts were modeled.

Maximum increased cancer risks were calculated for the residents at the project site using the maximum modeled TAC concentrations. A 30-year exposure period was used in calculating cancer risks assuming the residents would include infants and adults were assumed to be in the new apartments for 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. The highest impacts from the combined roadways occurred at a receptor on the first floor in the southern corner of the multi-family building. Cancer risks associated with the roadways are greatest closest to the roadways and decrease with distance from the roads. The roadway impacts at the project site are shown in Table

9. Details of the emission calculations, dispersion modeling, and cancer risk calculations are contained in Attachment 3. As shown in Figure 3, the max TAC impacts occur at two different receptors for East Middlefield Road. The maximum cancer risks occur at a receptor on the second floor (16 feet above the ground) that borders East Middlefield Road while the annual PM2.5 concentration MEI occurs at an adjacent receptor on the first floor (5 feet above the ground).

Construction Risk Impacts from Nearby Developments
Since construction of the Middlefield Park Master Plan is assumed to overlap with construction of this proposed project, the operational risks from the Middlefield Park Master Plan are included in the screening analysis for the new project sensitive receptors. The risk values from the operational sources at the Middlefield Park Master Plan were available from their technical documents.

Stationary Sources
The stationary source screening analysis for the new project sensitive receptors was conducted in the same manner as described above for the project MEIs. Table 9 includes the health risk assessment results for the stationary sources.

Source #19348 Cisco Systems
The dispersion modeling for Cisco Systems Source #19348 for the new project sensitive receptors was conducted in the same manner as described above for the project MEIs. Table 9 includes the health risk assessment results for this stationary source.

Summary of Cumulative Health Risks at the Project Site
Health risk impacts from the existing and TAC sources upon the project site are reported in Table

9. The risks from the singular TAC sources are compared against the BAAQMD single-source threshold. The risks from all the sources are then combined and compared against the BAAQMD cumulative-source threshold. As shown, none of the sources exceed the single-source or cumulative-source thresholds.
34 Table 9. Impacts from Combined Sources to Project Site Receptors Source Cancer Risk
(per million)
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Phase 2 Construction Impacts Unmitigated 2.68 0.02 <0.01 SR-237, ADT 64,312 2.78 0.07 <0.01
East Middlefield Road, ADT 14,920 1.61 0.18 <0.01
Raytheon Company (Facility ID #909, Semiconductor and
Related Device Manufacturing), Project Site at 910 feet <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Verizon Wireless (Smiley Tower) (Facility # 17902,
Generator), Project Site at 1,055 feet 0.09 <0.01 <0.01 Cisco Systems (Facility #19348, Generator), MEI at 1,055 feet 1.40 <0.01 <0.01
Cushman & Wakefield at NortonLifeLock (Facility #21411, Generator), Project Site at 770 feet 0.50 <0.01 <0.01
Kilroy Realty Corporation (Facility #21845, Generator), Project Site at 260 feet 2.13 <0.01 <0.01
Cumulative Nearby Development’s Operational Risks
Middlefield Park Master Plan Operational Risks 3.06 0.02 <0.01 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No
Combined Sources Unmitigated 14.26 <0.34 <0.09
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated No No No

35 Figure 3. Locations of Project Site, On-Site Residential Receptors, Roadway Models, Stationary Sources, and Maximum TAC Impacts

36 Supporting Documentation
Attachment 1 includes the CalEEMod output for project construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions. Also included are any modeling assumptions.

Attachment 2 is the construction health risk assessment. AERMOD dispersion modeling files for these assessments, which are quite voluminous, are available upon request and would be provided in digital format.

Attachment 3 includes the cumulative health risk calculations, modeling results, and health risk calculations from sources affecting the MEI.

Attachment 1: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs
Air Quality/Noise Construction Information Data Request Project Name: Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR Building DEFAULTS See Equipment Type TAB for type, horsepower and load factor Project Size 496 Dwelling Units 5.14 total project acres disturbed Total project acreage includes MRN, BMR & private road 509,872 s.f. residential Pile Driving? Y/N?
2,545 s.f. retail
s.f. office/commercial
Project include on-site GENERATOR OR FIRE PUMP during project OPERATION (not construction)? Y/N? ____
s.f. other, specify: IF YES (if BOTH separate values) --> 194,492 s.f. parking garage 449 spaces Kilowatts/Horsepower: __________ s.f. parking lot spaces Fuel Type: _____________
Construction Days (i.e, M-F) to Location in project (Plans Desired if Available):

Construction Hours am to pm

DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.

Hours per
day
HP
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date: 10/1/2025 Total phase: 88 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 1/31/2026
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 8 88 8 41628 Demolition Volume 3 Excavators 158 0.38 8 88 8 126804 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 2 Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 88 8 139110 (or total tons to be hauled) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0 Building demolition all in phase 1 = 242,650 (two-story footprint) Other Equipment? Demolition & site preparation of phase 2 included in phase 1 project Asphalt & concrete demolished all in phase 1 = 303,750
Site Preparation Start Date: 2/1/2026 Total phase: 41
End Date: 3/30/2026
Graders 187 0.41 0 0
3 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 41 8 97219
4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 41 8 47088
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date: 4/1/2026 Total phase: 109 End Date: 8/31/2026 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 109 8 52355 Export volume = 89,500 cubic yards 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 109 8 66856 Import volume = 5,000 cubic yards 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 109 8 86154
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 0
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 109 8 93888
Other Equipment?
Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 9/1/2026 Total phase: 22 End Date: 9/30/2026
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 22 8 6317
1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 22 8 10567
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date: 10/1/2026 Total phase: 261 Cement Trucks? _Est 369_ Total Round-Trips End Date: 9/30/2027
1 Cranes 231 0.29 7 261 7 122391 Electric? (Y/N) Y Otherwise assumed diesel 3 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 261 8 111499 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) N Otherwise Assumed diesel 1 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 261 8 129790 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) Temp Power 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 7 261 7 196713
1 Welders 46 0.45 8 261 8 43222
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date: 10/1/2027 Total phase: 261 End Date: 9/30/2028
1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 6 261 6 58631
Aerial Lift 62 0.31 0 0
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date: 6/1/2026 Total phase: 66
Start Date: 8/31/2026
2 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 6 66 6 3992
1 Pavers 130 0.42 8 66 8 28829
2 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 6 66 6 37636
2 Rollers 80 0.38 6 66 6 24077
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 66 8 18950
Other Equipment?
Additional Phases Start Date: Total phase:

Start Date:
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab.

Construction Hours am to pm

DO NOT MULTIPLY EQUIPMENT HOURS/DAY BY THE QUANTITY OF EQUIPMENT Quantity Description HP Load Factor Hours/day
Total
Work
Days
Avg.

Hours per
day
HP
Annual
Hours Comments
Demolition Start Date: 00/00/00 Total phase: 0 Overall Import/Export Volumes End Date: 00/00/00
1 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 Demolition Volume 3 Excavators 158 0.38 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 Square footage of buildings to be demolished 2 Rubber-Tired Dozers 247 0.4 0 0 #DIV/0! 0 (or total tons to be hauled) Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 #DIV/0! 0 Demolition is completed in its entirety as part of phase ` Other Equipment?
Site Preparation Start Date: 00/00/00 Total phase: 0
End Date: 00/00/00
Graders 187 0.41 #DIV/0! 0
3 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
4 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0 #DIV/0! 0
Other Equipment?
Grading / Excavation Start Date: 4/1/2027 Total phase: 109 End Date: 8/31/2027 Soil Hauling Volume
1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 109 8 52355 Export volume = 49,245 cubic yards? 1 Graders 187 0.41 8 109 8 66856
1 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 0.4 8 109 8 86154
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 0.73 0 0
3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 8 109 8 93888
Other Equipment?
Trenching/Foundation Start Date: 9/1/2027 Total phase: 22 End Date: 9/30/2027
1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 97 0.37 8 22 8 6317
1 Excavators 158 0.38 8 22 8 10567
Other Equipment?
Building - Exterior Start Date: 10/1/2027 Total phase: 261 Cement Trucks? _Est. 640_ Total Round-Trips End Date: 9/30/2028
1 Cranes 231 0.29 7 261 7 122391 Electric? (Y/N) Y Otherwise assumed diesel 3 Forklifts 89 0.2 8 261 8 111499 Liquid Propane (LPG)? (Y/N) N Otherwise Assumed diesel 1 Generator Sets 84 0.74 8 261 8 129790 Or temporary line power? (Y/N) Temp Power 3 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 7 261 7 196713
1 Welders 46 0.45 8 261 8 43222
Other Equipment?
Building - Interior/Architectural Coating Start Date: 10/1/2028 Total phase: 260 End Date: 9/30/2029
1 Air Compressors 78 0.48 6 260 6 58406
Aerial Lift 62 0.31 0 0
Other Equipment?
Paving Start Date: 8/1/2029 Total phase: 43
Start Date: 9/30/2029
Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 0.56 0 0
2 Pavers 130 0.42 8 43 8 37565
2 Paving Equipment 132 0.36 8 43 8 32694
2 Rollers 80 0.38 8 43 8 20915
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 0.37 0 0
Other Equipment?
Additional Phases Start Date: Total phase:

Start Date:
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
#DIV/0! 0
Equipment types listed in "Equipment Types" worksheet tab.

Equipment listed in this sheet is to provide an example of inputs Complete one sheet for each project component It is assumed that water trucks would be used during grading Add or subtract phases and equipment, as appropriate
Modify horsepower or load factor, as appropriate
Complete ALL Portions in Yellow
Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Year MT Year MT Year MT
2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.02 194.39 2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.02 194.39 20252026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09 0.47 1024.87 2026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09 0.47 1024.87 20262027 1.35 2.91 0.09 0.08 0.35 1423.88 2027 1.17 1.34 0.04 0.03 0.10 754.68 2027 0.18 1.57 0.05 0.05 0.24 669.20 2028 4.23 1.57 0.04 0.03 0.14 1007.57 2028 2.83 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 71.10 2028 1.40 1.47 0.04 0.03 0.12 936.462029 3.49 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02 109.70 2029 2029 3.49 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.02 109.70 Tons 9.45 8.50 0.26 0.24 3760.40 Tons 4.38 5.22 0.17 0.16 2045.05 Tons 5.06 3.28 0.09 0.08 1715.36Pounds/Workdays Pounds/Workdays Pounds/Workdays 2025 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88 66 2025 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88 66 2025 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2026 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71 261 2026 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71 261 2026 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2027 10.32 22.30 0.65 0.61 261 2027 8.97 10.25 0.28 0.26 261 2027 1.79 15.97 0.49 0.46 197 2028 32.33 11.98 0.28 0.24 262 2028 28.91 0.99 0.02 0.01 196 2028 10.70 11.24 0.27 0.23 262 2029 35.75 2.41 0.07 0.06 195 2029 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2029 35.75 2.41 0.07 0.06 195 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Pounds 18894.04 17004.28 522.00 477.52 0.00 Pounds 8767.94 10444.70 340.97 314.43 0.00 Pounds 10126.10 6559.58 181.03 163.09 0.00 Average 18.08 16.27 0.50 0.46 0.00 1045.00 Average 11.18 13.32 0.43 0.40 0.00 784.00 Average 15.48 10.03 0.28 0.25 0.00 654.00 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5Year Year Year Total 10.15 2.19 5.00 1.31 Total 3.81 1.00 2.10 0.55 Total 7.29 1.24 2.10 0.56Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Total Tons/year 10.15 2.19 5.00 1.31 Tons/year 3.81 1.00 2.10 0.55 Tons/year 7.29 1.24 2.10 0.56 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Pounds Per Day 55.60 11.98 27.38 7.16 Pounds Per Day 20.86 5.49 11.48 3.01 Pounds Per Day 56.62 7.89 11.55 3.07 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Existing Use Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Tons
Total Construction Emissions
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Tons
Average Daily Emissions Workdays
Total Construction Emissions
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated
Average Daily Emissions Workdays
Phase 1 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Tons
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Emissions
Phase 2 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Tons
Construction Equipment
Total Construction Emissions
Average Daily Emissions Workdays
Total Construction Emissions
Total Construction Emissions
Max Construction + Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Tons
Existing Use Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated
Tons
Existing Use Emissions
Net Annual Operational Emissions
Average Daily Emissions
Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Unmitigated ROG NOX PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Fugitive CO2e Year MT Year MT Year MT
2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.02 194.39 2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.03 0.02 194.39 20252026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09 0.47 1024.87 2026 0.30 2.94 0.10 0.09 0.47 1024.87 20262027 1.25 2.61 0.05 0.05 0.23 1394.86 2027 1.17 1.34 0.04 0.03 0.10 754.68 2027 0.08 1.27 0.01 0.01 0.13 640.18 2028 3.10 1.35 0.01 0.01 0.14 921.10 2028 2.83 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 71.10 2028 0.27 1.26 0.01 0.01 0.13 850.00 2029 0.34 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.02 109.70 2029 2029 0.34 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.02 109.70 Tons 5.07 8.03 0.20 0.18 3644.92 Tons 4.38 5.22 0.17 0.16 2045.05 Tons 0.69 2.80 0.03 0.03 1599.88Pounds/Workdays Pounds/Workdays Pounds/Workdays 2025 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88 66 2025 2.49 25.77 0.97 0.88 66 2025 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2026 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71 261 2026 2.28 22.51 0.77 0.71 261 2026 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2027 9.60 19.99 0.37 0.35 261 2027 8.97 10.25 0.28 0.26 261 2027 0.84 12.90 0.12 0.12 197 2028 23.67 10.33 0.11 0.09 262 2028 28.91 0.99 0.02 0.01 196 2028 2.04 9.59 0.10 0.08 262 2029 3.45 2.85 0.05 0.05 195 2029 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2029 3.45 2.85 0.05 0.05 195 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Pounds 10142.42 16053.05 401.17 367.47 0.00 Pounds 8767.94 10444.70 340.97 314.43 0.00 Pounds 1374.48 5608.35 60.20 53.04 0.00 Average 9.71 15.36 0.38 0.35 0.00 1045.00 Average 11.18 13.32 0.43 0.40 0.00 784.00 Average 2.10 8.58 0.09 0.08 0.00 654.00 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5 Unmitigated ROG NOX Total PM10 Total PM2.5Year Year Year Total 9.45 2.19 5.00 1.31 Total 3.81 1.00 2.10 0.55 Total 4.14 1.28 2.10 0.55Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Total Tons/year 9.45 2.19 5.00 1.31 Tons/year 3.81 1.00 2.10 0.55 Tons/year 4.14 1.28 2.10 0.55 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Threshold ‐ Tons/year 10.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 Pounds Per Day 51.76 11.98 27.38 7.16 Pounds Per Day 20.86 5.49 11.48 3.01 Pounds Per Day 24.32 8.33 11.53 3.06 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Threshold ‐ lbs/day 54.0 54.0 82.0 54.0 Net Annual Operational Emissions Net Annual Operational Emissions Net Annual Operational Emissions Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Average Daily Emissions Tons Tons Tons
Existing Use Emissions Existing Use Emissions Existing Use Emissions Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Mitigated Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Max Construction + Operational Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Mitigated Average Daily Emissions Workdays Average Daily Emissions Workdays Average Daily Emissions Workdays Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Construction Equipment Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Emissions Total Construction Criteria Air Pollutants Phase 1 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Unmitigated Phase 2 Construction Criteria Air Pollutants ‐ Mitigated Tons Tons Tons
Land Use Size Daily Trips New Trips Weekday Trip Gen Weekday Sat Sun General Office Building ksf 277.6 1457 1457 5.25 9.74 2.21 2.21 Rev 1.19 1.19
Apartment Mid‐Rise DU 858 3419 2992 3.49 5.44 4.91 4.09 Housing/Office Internal Capture 3% ‐102 Rev 3.1 2.62
Housing/Retail Internal Capture 15% ‐18
Transit Reduction 9% ‐307
Strip Mall ksf 2.344 76 46 19.62 44.32 42.04 20.43
Housing/Retail internal Capture 15% ‐11 Rev 18.62 9.05
Pass‐By Reduction 30%daily30%AM30%P ‐19
Traffic Consultant Trip Gen CalEEMod Default
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 1 / 83
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 2 / 83

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated

3.3. Demolition (2026) - Unmitigated

3.4. Demolition (2026) - Mitigated

3.5. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated

3.6. Site Preparation (2026) - Mitigated

3.7. Grading (2026) - Unmitigated

3.8. Grading (2026) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2026) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2026) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.18. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 3 / 83

3.19. Trenching (2026) - Unmitigated

3.20. Trenching (2026) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 4 / 83

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 5 / 83

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 6 / 83

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 7 / 83

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 8 / 83

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 9 / 83

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 10 / 83

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Construction Start Date 10/1/2025
Operational Year 2029
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 28.2
Location 675 E Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1712
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 11 / 83
Strip Mall 2.34 1000sqft 0.00 2,344 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
453 Space 0.00 181,477 0.00 — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 494 Dwelling Unit 5.14 528,771 0.00 — 1,477 —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-1-A Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers
Construction C-10-A Water Exposed Surfaces
Construction C-11 Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.0 31.8 1.06 9.45 10.5 0.99 4.06 5.04 12,986
Mit. 28.9 27.2 0.27 5.10 5.37 0.26 1.96 2.23 12,986
% Reduced < 0.5% 14% 75% 46% 49% 73% 52% 56% > -0.5%
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 29.0 29.2 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 8,331
Mit. 28.9 15.7 0.25 7.81 7.91 0.22 3.97 4.07 7,357
% Reduced < 0.5% 46% 80% 61% 62% 80% 61% 64% 12%
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 12 / 83
Unmit. 15.5 16.1 0.55 5.98 6.53 0.51 2.56 3.07 6,190
Mit. 15.5 12.0 0.12 3.33 3.45 0.11 1.24 1.36 6,015
% Reduced < 0.5% 25% 79% 44% 47% 78% 51% 56% 3%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.83 2.94 0.10 1.09 1.19 0.09 0.47 0.56 1,025
Mit. 2.82 2.19 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.23 0.25 996
% Reduced < 0.5% 25% 79% 44% 47% 78% 51% 56% 3%

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 2.67 31.8 1.06 9.45 10.5 0.99 4.06 5.04 12,986
2027 2.30 13.1 0.37 4.21 4.58 0.34 1.01 1.36 8,493
2028 29.0 0.97 0.02 0.72 0.73 0.01 0.17 0.18 840
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2025 2.50 26.0 0.97 3.61 4.58 0.88 0.65 1.53 6,519
2026 3.19 29.2 1.24 19.8 21.0 1.14 10.1 11.3 8,331
2027 29.0 13.4 0.37 4.21 4.58 0.34 1.01 1.36 8,216
2028 29.0 1.02 0.02 0.72 0.73 0.01 0.17 0.18 793
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.45 4.66 0.17 0.65 0.82 0.16 0.12 0.27 1,174
2026 1.63 16.1 0.55 5.98 6.53 0.51 2.56 3.07 6,190
2027 6.41 7.33 0.20 2.34 2.54 0.19 0.56 0.75 4,558
2028 15.5 0.53 0.01 0.38 0.38 0.01 0.09 0.10 429
Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 13 / 83
2025 0.08 0.85 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.02 0.05 194
2026 0.30 2.94 0.10 1.09 1.19 0.09 0.47 0.56 1,025
2027 1.17 1.34 0.04 0.43 0.46 0.03 0.10 0.14 755
2028 2.83 0.10 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 71.1

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2026 0.89 27.2 0.27 5.10 5.37 0.26 1.96 2.23 12,986
2027 1.49 10.4 0.10 4.21 4.32 0.10 1.01 1.11 7,519
2028 28.9 1.23 0.03 0.72 0.75 0.03 0.17 0.20 840
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2025 0.52 15.7 0.25 3.61 3.86 0.22 0.65 0.87 6,519
2026 1.49 15.5 0.24 7.81 7.91 0.22 3.97 4.07 7,357
2027 28.9 10.7 0.10 4.21 4.32 0.10 1.01 1.11 7,243
2028 28.9 1.28 0.03 0.72 0.75 0.03 0.17 0.20 793
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.09 2.81 0.05 0.65 0.69 0.04 0.12 0.16 1,174
2026 0.61 12.0 0.12 3.33 3.45 0.11 1.24 1.36 6,015
2027 5.96 5.89 0.06 2.34 2.40 0.06 0.56 0.62 4,038
2028 15.5 0.67 0.02 0.38 0.39 0.02 0.09 0.10 429
Annual — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.02 0.51 0.01 0.12 0.13 0.01 0.02 0.03 194
2026 0.11 2.19 0.02 0.61 0.63 0.02 0.23 0.25 996
2027 1.09 1.08 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.01 0.10 0.11 669
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 14 / 83
2028 2.82 0.12 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 71.1

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.75 3.94 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 12,658
Area 17.2 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 108
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 23.5
Water — — — — — — — — 68.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 693
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 3.80
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 15 / 83
Total 22.9 4.27 0.10 12.2 12.3 0.08 3.08 3.17 13,556
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Mobile 5.51 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 11,898
Area 13.4 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 23.5
Water———————— 68.2
Waste———————— 693
Refrig.———————— 3.80
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 18.9 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 12,687
Average Daily—————————
Mobile 5.17 4.12 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.06 2.88 2.94 11,399
Area 15.3 0.16 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 53.4
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 23.5
Water———————— 68.2
Waste———————— 693
Refrig.———————— 3.80
Stationary 0.43 1.21 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 222
Total 20.9 5.49 0.14 11.3 11.5 0.13 2.88 3.01 12,463
Annual—————————
Mobile 0.94 0.75 0.01 2.07 2.08 0.01 0.52 0.54 1,887
Area 2.78 0.03 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 8.83
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 3.89
Water———————— 11.3
Waste———————— 115
Refrig.———————— 0.63
Stationary 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 16 / 83
Total 3.81 1.00 0.03 2.07 2.10 0.02 0.52 0.55 2,063

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.75 3.94 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 12,658
Area 17.2 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 108
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 23.5
Water — — — — — — — — 68.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 693
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 3.80
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 22.9 4.27 0.10 12.2 12.3 0.08 3.08 3.17 13,556
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.51 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 11,898
Area 13.4 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 23.5
Water — — — — — — — — 68.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 693
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 3.80
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 18.9 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 12,687
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.17 4.12 0.07 11.3 11.4 0.06 2.88 2.94 11,399
Area 15.3 0.16 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 53.4
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 17 / 83
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 23.5
Water — — — — — — — — 68.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 693
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 3.80
Stationary 0.43 1.21 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 222
Total 20.9 5.49 0.14 11.3 11.5 0.13 2.88 3.01 12,463
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.94 0.75 0.01 2.07 2.08 0.01 0.52 0.54 1,887
Area 2.78 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.83 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 3.89
Water — — — — — — — — 11.3
Waste — — — — — — — — 115
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 0.63
Stationary 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7 Total 3.81 1.00 0.03 2.07 2.10 0.02 0.52 0.55 2,063

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.40 22.2 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 3,437
Demolition — — — 2.76 2.76 — 0.42 0.42 —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 18 / 83
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.43 4.00 0.17 — 0.17 0.15 — 0.15 619
Demolition — — — 0.50 0.50 — 0.08 0.08 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.73 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 102
Demolition — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 121
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.06 3.71 0.05 0.73 0.78 0.03 0.20 0.23 2,961
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.0
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.66 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 533
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 88.3

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 19 / 83
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 11.9 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 3,437
Demolition — — — 2.76 2.76 — 0.42 0.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 2.14 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 619
Demolition — — — 0.50 0.50 — 0.08 0.08 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.39 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 102
Demolition — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.01 0.01 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 121
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.06 3.71 0.05 0.73 0.78 0.03 0.20 0.23 2,961
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.0
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 20 / 83
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.66 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 533
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.64 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.12 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 88.3

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

2.29 20.7 0.84 — 0.84 0.78 — 0.78 3,438
Demolition — — — 2.76 2.76 — 0.42 0.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.25 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 209
Demolition — — — 0.17 0.17 — 0.03 0.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.23 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 34.5
Demolition — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 21 / 83
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.06 3.58 0.03 0.73 0.77 0.03 0.20 0.23 2,904
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 176 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.2

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

0.41 11.9 0.20 — 0.20 0.19 — 0.19 3,438
Demolition — — — 2.76 2.76 — 0.42 0.42 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.72 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 209
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 22 / 83
Demolition — — — 0.17 0.17 — 0.03 0.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 34.5
Demolition — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 118
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.06 3.58 0.03 0.73 0.77 0.03 0.20 0.23 2,904
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.27 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.21 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 176 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 29.2

3.5. Site Preparation (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 23 / 83
Daily, Summer—————————
(Max)
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

3.14 29.2 1.24— 1.24 1.14— 1.14 5,316
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 19.7 19.7— 10.1 10.1—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 3.28 0.14— 0.14 0.13— 0.13 597
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 2.21 2.21— 1.13 1.13—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.60 0.03— 0.03 0.02— 0.02 98.9
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 0.40 0.40— 0.21 0.21—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 138
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 24 / 83
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.64 14.7 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 5,316
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 1.66 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 597
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.86 0.86 — 0.44 0.44 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.30 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 98.9
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.08 0.08 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 25 / 83
Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 138
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 15.7 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.60 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

1.65 15.0 0.65 — 0.65 0.59 — 0.59 2,970
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 7.13 7.13 — 3.43 3.43 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 26 / 83
Off-Road
Equipment

0.49 4.47 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 887
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 2.13 2.13 — 1.03 1.03 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.82 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 147
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 128
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.16 9.35 0.10 2.01 2.10 0.10 0.55 0.65 8,003
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.05 2.89 0.03 0.59 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,388
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 395

3.8. Grading (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 27 / 83
Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.39 10.3 0.08— 0.08 0.08— 0.08 2,970
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 2.78 2.78— 1.34 1.34—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 3.07 0.03— 0.03 0.02— 0.02 887
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 0.83 0.83— 0.40 0.40—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.56 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 147
Dust From Material
Movement
——— 0.15 0.15— 0.07 0.07—
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 128
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.16 9.35 0.10 2.01 2.10 0.10 0.55 0.65 8,003
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Average Daily—————————
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 28 / 83
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.8
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.05 2.89 0.03 0.59 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,388
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.92 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 395

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

1.07 9.85 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 1.77 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 433
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.32 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 71.7
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 29 / 83
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.21 1.20 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,417
Vendor 0.06 2.89 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,299
Hauling < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 209 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 622
Vendor 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 414
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.6 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 103
Vendor < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 68.6 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.22

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

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.19 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 258
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 30 / 83
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.22 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 42.7
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.21 1.20 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,417
Vendor 0.06 2.89 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,299
Hauling < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 209 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.15 0.15 622
Vendor 0.01 0.51 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.01 0.03 0.03 414
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 37.6 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 103
Vendor < 0.005 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 68.6 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 6.22

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

1.03 9.39 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 31 / 83
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.55 5.02 0.18— 0.18 0.17— 0.17 1,285
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.92 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 213
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 1.20 0.91 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,626
Vendor 0.07 2.61 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,257
Hauling < 0.005 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 204 Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 1.16 1.07 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,353
Vendor 0.06 2.74 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,254
Hauling < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 204 Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.61 0.56 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 1,813
Vendor 0.03 1.43 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.02 0.09 0.10 1,205
Hauling < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109 Annual—————————
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 300
Vendor 0.01 0.26 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 200 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 32 / 83

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

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 3.54 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 765
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.65 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 127
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.20 0.91 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,626
Vendor 0.07 2.61 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,257
Hauling < 0.005 0.24 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 204 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.16 1.07 0.00 3.58 3.58 0.00 0.84 0.84 3,353
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 33 / 83
Vendor 0.06 2.74 0.03 0.58 0.62 0.03 0.16 0.19 2,254
Hauling < 0.005 0.25 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 204 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.61 0.56 0.00 1.88 1.88 0.00 0.44 0.44 1,813
Vendor 0.03 1.43 0.02 0.31 0.32 0.02 0.09 0.10 1,205
Hauling < 0.005 0.13 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 109 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 300
Vendor 0.01 0.26 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 200 Hauling < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 18.0

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

0.76 7.12 0.32 — 0.32 0.29 — 0.29 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 1.29 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 274
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 34 / 83
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.23 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 45.4
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 128
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 241 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.6 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.59 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.22

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

0.23 7.21 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 35 / 83
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.30 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 274
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.24 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 45.4
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 128
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.28 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 241 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 43.6 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.59 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 7.22 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 36 / 83

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

0.11 0.83 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 134
Architectural
Coatings

28.6 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.15 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 24.1
Architectural
Coatings

5.15 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.99
Architectural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 671
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 37 / 83
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 122
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 20.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.02 1.07 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

28.6 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.19 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 24.1
Architectural
Coatings

5.15 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 38 / 83
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.99
Architectural
Coatings

0.94 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 671
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 122
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 20.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.17. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 134
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 39 / 83
Architectural
Coatings

28.6————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 0.02— 0.02 0.01— 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

28.6————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.43 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 71.8
Architectural
Coatings

15.3————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.08 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 11.9
Architectural
Coatings

2.80————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 706
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 659
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 40 / 83
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 358
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 59.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.18. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

28.6 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

28.6 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 41 / 83
Off-Road 0.01 0.57 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 71.8
Equipment
Architectural
Coatings

15.3————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 11.9
Architectural
Coatings

2.80————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 706
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 0.22 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 659
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.09 0.09 358
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual—————————
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 59.2
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 42 / 83

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

0.20 1.86 0.06 — 0.06 0.05 — 0.05 433
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.11 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.1
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 42.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 43 / 83
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.07 2.28 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 433
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.1
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 42.7
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 44 / 83
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.41 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.40 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.22 0.16 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 549 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

5.53 3.77 0.07 11.6 11.7 0.06 2.95 3.01 12,109
Total 5.75 3.94 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 12,658
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.21 0.19 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 516 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 45 / 83
Apartments Mid
Rise

5.30 4.42 0.07 11.6 11.7 0.06 2.95 3.01 11,382
Total 5.51 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 11,898
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 78.9 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.91 0.72 0.01 1.98 1.99 0.01 0.50 0.51 1,808
Total 0.94 0.75 0.01 2.07 2.08 0.01 0.52 0.54 1,887

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.22 0.16 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 549 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

5.30 4.42 0.07 11.6 11.7 0.06 2.95 3.01 11,382
Total 5.51 4.61 0.07 12.2 12.2 0.06 3.08 3.15 11,898
Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 46 / 83
Strip Mall 0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 78.9 Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.91 0.72 0.01 1.98 1.99 0.01 0.50 0.51 1,808
Total 0.94 0.75 0.01 2.07 2.08 0.01 0.52 0.54 1,887

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 4.29
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — 23.5
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 4.29
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — 23.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.03
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 47 / 83
Enclosed Parking — — — — — — — — 0.71
with Elevator
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.15
Total — — — — — — — — 3.89

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 4.29
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — 23.5
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 4.29
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.1
Total — — — — — — — — 23.5
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.03
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.71
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.15
Total — — — — — — — — 3.89
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 48 / 83

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 49 / 83
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 50 / 83
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

11.4 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

2.05 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

3.74 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 108
Total 17.2 0.33 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 108
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

11.4 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

2.05 — — — — — — — —
Total 13.4 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

2.07 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.37 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.34 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.83
Total 2.78 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.83

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 51 / 83
Consumer
Products

11.4 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

2.05 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

11.4 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

2.05 — — — — — — — —
Total 13.4 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

2.07 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.37 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.34 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.83
Total 2.78 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 8.83

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 52 / 83
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 67.5
Total — — — — — — — — 68.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 67.5
Total — — — — — — — — 68.2
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.12
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 11.2
Total — — — — — — — — 11.3

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 67.5
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 53 / 83
Total — — — — — — — — 68.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 67.5
Total — — — — — — — — 68.2
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.12
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 11.2
Total — — — — — — — — 11.3

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 689
Total — — — — — — — — 693
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 54 / 83
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 689
Total — — — — — — — — 693
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.77
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 114
Total — — — — — — — — 115

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 689
Total — — — — — — — — 693
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 689
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 55 / 83
Total — — — — — — — — 693
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.77
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 114
Total — — — — — — — — 115

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — 3.80
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — 3.80
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — < 0.005
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — 0.63
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 56 / 83

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — 3.80
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 3.79
Total — — — — — — — — 3.80
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — < 0.005
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 0.63
Total — — — — — — — — 0.63

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 57 / 83
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

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

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 58 / 83
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7
Total 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7
Total 0.08 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 36.7

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 59 / 83
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 60 / 83
Total — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 61 / 83
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 62 / 83
Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 63 / 83
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 10/1/2025 1/31/2026 5.00 88.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 2/1/2026 3/30/2026 5.00 41.0 — Grading Grading 4/1/2026 8/31/2026 5.00 109 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/1/2026 9/30/2027 5.00 261 — Paving Paving 6/1/2026 8/31/2026 5.00 66.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/1/2027 9/30/2028 5.00 261 — Trenching Trenching 9/1/2026 9/30/2026 5.00 22.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 64 / 83
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Saws
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 65 / 83
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73 Saws
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Electric Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Electric Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 66 / 83
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 39.4 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 108 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 433 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 82.9 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 2.83 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 3.27 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 67 / 83
Architectural Coating Worker 86.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 39.4 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 108 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 68 / 83
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 433 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 82.9 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 2.83 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 3.27 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 86.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 69 / 83
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated Parking Area Coated (sq ft) (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 1,070,761 356,920 3,516 1,172 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Building Square Footage)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 242,650 —
Site Preparation — — 61.5 0.00 —
Grading 5,000 89,500 109 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
2026 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 70 / 83
2027 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
2028 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 76.4 72.5 35.2 25,547 751 713 346 251,028
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 1,969 1,778 1,482 683,246 16,497 14,903 12,419 5,725,558

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Strip Mall 76.4 72.5 35.2 25,547 751 713 346 251,028
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 1,969 1,778 1,482 683,246 16,497 14,903 12,419 5,725,558

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 71 / 83
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

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

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
1070761.275 356,920 3,516 1,172 —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 72 / 83
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 25,997 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 669,910 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 2,971,868 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Strip Mall 25,997 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 669,910 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 2,971,868 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 73 / 83

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 188,515 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 17,988,134 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Strip Mall 188,515 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid Rise 17,988,134 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Strip Mall 2.46 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Apartments Mid Rise 365 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Strip Mall 2.46 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Apartments Mid Rise 365 —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 74 / 83

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0
Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 75 / 83

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Emergency Generator Diesel 2.00 0.00 150 320 0.73

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 76 / 83

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 9.65 annual days of extreme heat 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 77 / 83
Extreme Precipitation 3.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.2 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

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

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 78 / 83
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 14.9
AQ-PM 15.4
AQ-DPM 84.2
Drinking Water 49.5
Lead Risk Housing 16.0
Pesticides 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 79 / 83
Toxic Releases 31.6
Traffic 71.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 96.2
Groundwater 76.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 71.6
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 6.79
Cardio-vascular 14.0
Low Birth Weights 25.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 4.67
Housing 4.51
Linguistic 36.0
Poverty 5.35
Unemployment 17.1

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 93.22468882
Employed 97.60041062
Median HI 96.68933658
Education —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 80 / 83
Bachelor's or higher 97.52341845
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 45.37405364
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 72.62928269
Social —
2-parent households 95.534454
Voting 93.85345823
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 32.78583344
Park access 4.568202233
Retail density 84.75554985
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 87.97638907
Housing —
Homeownership 47.18336969
Housing habitability 91.40254074
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 94.73886822 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 96.5610163
Uncrowded housing 52.3675093
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 94.43089953
Arthritis 97.9
Asthma ER Admissions 90.9
High Blood Pressure 97.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 81 / 83
Asthma 96.9
Coronary Heart Disease 98.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 99.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 98.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 94.2
Cognitively Disabled 98.0
Physically Disabled 98.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 69.4
Mental Health Not Good 96.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 98.0
Obesity 95.5
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 99.2
Stroke 98.8
Health Risk Behaviors—
Binge Drinking 29.5
Current Smoker 96.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 97.5
Climate Change Exposures—
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 2.7
Elderly 95.9
English Speaking 58.3
Foreign-born 77.4
Outdoor Workers 73.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity—
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 82 / 83
Impervious Surface Cover 39.8
Traffic Density 54.8
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 95.8

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 8.00 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 97.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 1 - Market Rate North & BMR T4i 2029 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 83 / 83
Characteristics: Utility Information Mountain View default clean energy provider.

Land Use Total lot acreage, square footages, and number of units/parking spaces provided by applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Provided by project applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Defaults
Construction: Trips and VMT Demolition = 303,750-sf asphalt and concrete demo (7.67 trips/day), Building Const = Est. 369 concrete truck round trips (2.83 trips/day), Paving = 900-cy asphalt (3.27 trips/day).

Operations: Vehicle Data Rates calculated from data provided by applicant.

Operations: Hearths No fireplaces/hearths.

Operations: Energy Use No natural gas usage per reach code.

Operations: Water and Waste Water 100% aerobic.

2. Emissions Summary - HRA

2.2 Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2026 2.5636908 24.076139 0.9710048 7.2577962 8.2288010 0.893718243.4656901 4.3594083 5108.111925975148 2027 2.1877698 10.780568 0.3404609 0.3847970 0.7252579 0.3135349 0.0932965 0.4068315 3167.3747431037714 2028 27.933585 0.864354340.0153564 0.0621217 0.077478140.0141278 0.0145612 0.0286891 210.0563865063261 Daily - Winter (Max)2025 2.4632779 22.948426 0.9200869 2.8035683 3.7236553 0.8458199 0.4298873 1.275707343664.8242393809005 2026 3.1886224 29.178970 1.2425129 19.669373 20.911886 1.1431118 10.105344 11.248456 5331.206778356962027 27.941562 10.89018240.3404609 0.3847970 0.7252579 0.3135349 0.0932965 0.4068315 3147.7889682693567 2028 27.925832 0.8779231 0.0153564 0.0621217 0.077478140.0141278 0.0145612 0.0286891 206.48968902182972 Average Daily2025 0.4436800 4.1280935 0.1656516 0.504626740.6702784 0.1522807 0.0773652 0.2296459 659.6724786543595 2026 1.5813830 13.086375 0.5154960 4.6129977 5.1284937 0.4744370 2.2121659 2.6866030 2760.099173993474 2027 6.1665797 5.9547415 0.1853195 0.2129505 0.3982701 0.1706601 0.0515124 0.222172541720.10017113327942028 14.972890 0.467627340.0082341 0.0327066 0.0409408 0.0075754 0.0076569 0.0152324 110.96694496451325Annual2025 0.0809716 0.7533770 0.0302314 0.0920943 0.1223258 0.0277912 0.0141191 0.0419103 109.216306986619542026 0.2886024 2.3882634 0.0940780 0.8418720 0.9359501 0.0865847 0.4037202 0.49030504456.9659163518511 2027 1.1254007 1.0867403 0.0338208 0.0388634 0.0726843 0.0311454 0.0094010 0.0405464 284.7822130179564 2028 2.7325524 0.0853419 0.0015027 0.0059689 0.0074716 0.0013825 0.0013973 0.0027799 18.371844087437896

2. Emissions Summary - HRA

2.3 Construction Emissions by Year, MitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2026 0.7810728 19.467639 0.1753594 2.9066026 3.0819621 0.1681212 1.3719343 1.5400556 5108.11635925733752027 1.3752823 8.0100777 0.074414240.3847970 0.4592112 0.0707633 0.0932965 0.1640599 2193.8837803286306 2028 27.847418 1.1251204 0.0305401 0.0621217 0.0926619 0.028190940.0145612 0.0427521 210.0563865063261 Daily - Winter (Max)2025 0.4793969412.659699 0.2037179 2.8035683 3.0072863 0.1913625 0.4298873 0.6212499 3664.8242393809005 2026 1.3810253414.749436 0.2028495 7.6785978 7.7781973 0.1913625 3.942852144.0424516 5331.21121163915 2027 27.849357 8.1196914 0.074414240.3847970 0.4592112 0.0707633 0.0932965 0.1640599 2174.2980054942162028 27.839665 1.1386892 0.0305401 0.0621217 0.0926619 0.028190940.0145612 0.0427521 206.48968902182972 Average Daily2025 0.0865038 2.2757198 0.0366772 0.504626740.541303940.0344527 0.0773652 0.1118179 659.67247865435952026 0.555363648.9916975 0.0813274 1.9666911 2.0480186 0.0782348 0.8946822 0.9729171 2584.8332629400907 2027 5.7159105 4.517419640.0452539 0.2129505 0.2582045 0.0428805 0.0515124 0.0943929 1200.0169557398685 2028 14.926687 0.6074510 0.0163757 0.0327066 0.0490824 0.0151160 0.0076569 0.0227730 110.96694496451325Annual2025 0.015786940.4153188 0.0066935 0.0920943 0.0987879 0.0062876 0.0141191 0.0204067 109.216306986619542026 0.1013538 1.6409848 0.0148422 0.358921140.3737634 0.0142778 0.1632795 0.1775573 427.94864465219996 2027 1.0431536 0.8244290 0.0082588 0.0388634 0.0471223 0.0078257 0.0094010 0.0172267 198.676501549043372028 2.7241203 0.1108598 0.0029885 0.0059689 0.008957540.0027586 0.0013973 0.0041560 18.371844087437896

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.1 Unmitigated
Phase NamTrip Type One-Way TMiles per TVehicle Mix
Demolition
DemolitionWorker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
DemolitionVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
DemolitionHauling 39.39 1 HHDT
DemolitionOnsite truc HHDT
Site Preparation
Site PreparWorker 17.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site PreparVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Site PreparHauling 0 1 HHDT
Site PreparOnsite truc HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 108.37614 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truc HHDT
Building Construction
Building CoWorker 439.62104 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building CoVendor 85.316764 1 HHDT,MHDT
Building CoHauling 2.83 1 HHDT
Building CoOnsite truc HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 3.27 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truc HHDT
Architectural Coating
ArchitecturWorker 87.924208 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
ArchitecturVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
ArchitecturHauling 0 1 HHDT
ArchitecturOnsite truc HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truc HHDT

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.2 Mitigated
Phase NamTrip Type One-Way TMiles per TVehicle Mix
Demolition
DemolitionWorker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
DemolitionVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
DemolitionHauling 39.39 1 HHDT
DemolitionOnsite truc HHDT
Site Preparation
Site PreparWorker 17.5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site PreparVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Site PreparHauling 0 1 HHDT
Site PreparOnsite truc HHDT
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 108.37614 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truc HHDT
Building Construction
Building CoWorker 439.62104 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building CoVendor 85.316764 1 HHDT,MHDT
Building CoHauling 2.83 1 HHDT
Building CoOnsite truc HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 3.27 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truc HHDT
Architectural Coating
ArchitecturWorker 87.924208 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
ArchitecturVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
ArchitecturHauling 0 1 HHDT
ArchitecturOnsite truc HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truc HHDT
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 1 / 45
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Grading (2027) - Unmitigated

3.2. Grading (2027) - Mitigated

3.3. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.4. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 2 / 45

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated

3.6. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated

3.7. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated

3.8. Paving (2029) - Mitigated

3.9. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated

3.10. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated

3.12. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated

3.13. Trenching (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Trenching (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 3 / 45

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 4 / 45

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 5 / 45

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 6 / 45

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const
Construction Start Date 4/1/2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 28.2
Location 675 E Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1712
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 7 / 45
General Office 278 1000sqft 5.44 277,600 0.00 — — —
Building
Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
638 Space 0.00 214,020 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
358 Space 0.00 123,437 0.00 — — —
Apartments Mid Rise 364 Dwelling Unit 0.00 445,183 0.00 — 1,088 —

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 36.3 19.0 0.65 8.28 8.93 0.60 3.74 4.34 10,474
Mit. 3.67 15.0 0.13 5.15 5.27 0.13 1.65 1.78 9,500
% Reduced 90% 21% 79% 38% 41% 78% 56% 59% 9%
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 35.6 15.6 0.39 5.15 5.54 0.37 1.25 1.62 10,374
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 8 / 45
Mit. 3.41 12.9 0.13 5.15 5.27 0.12 1.25 1.37 9,400
% Reduced 90% 18% 68% — 5% 66% — 15% 9%
Average Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 19.1 8.62 0.27 3.38 3.65 0.25 1.34 1.59 5,656
Mit. 1.85 6.96 0.07 2.86 2.93 0.06 0.71 0.78 5,134
% Reduced 90% 19% 73% 16% 20% 74% 47% 51% 9%
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.49 1.57 0.05 0.62 0.67 0.05 0.24 0.29 936
Mit. 0.34 1.27 0.01 0.52 0.53 0.01 0.13 0.14 850
% Reduced 90% 19% 73% 16% 20% 74% 47% 51% 9%

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2027 1.71 19.0 0.65 8.28 8.93 0.60 3.74 4.34 7,168
2028 2.42 14.4 0.36 5.15 5.50 0.31 1.25 1.56 10,474
2029 36.3 7.46 0.25 0.94 1.19 0.23 0.22 0.45 2,560
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2027 2.47 15.6 0.39 5.15 5.54 0.37 1.25 1.62 10,374
2028 35.6 14.9 0.36 5.15 5.50 0.31 1.25 1.56 10,203
2029 35.6 1.01 0.01 0.81 0.83 0.01 0.19 0.20 872
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.96 8.62 0.27 3.38 3.65 0.25 1.34 1.59 4,042
2028 7.68 8.07 0.19 2.86 3.05 0.17 0.69 0.86 5,656
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 9 / 45
2029 19.1 1.29 0.04 0.44 0.48 0.03 0.10 0.14 663
Annual — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.18 1.57 0.05 0.62 0.67 0.05 0.24 0.29 669
2028 1.40 1.47 0.04 0.52 0.56 0.03 0.13 0.16 936
2029 3.49 0.23 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.02 110

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily - Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2027 0.52 15.0 0.13 3.94 4.08 0.13 1.65 1.78 7,168
2028 1.65 12.1 0.13 5.15 5.27 0.10 1.25 1.35 9,500
2029 3.67 8.48 0.12 0.94 1.06 0.11 0.22 0.33 2,560
Daily - Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
2027 1.65 12.9 0.13 5.15 5.27 0.12 1.25 1.37 9,400
2028 3.41 12.6 0.13 5.15 5.27 0.10 1.25 1.35 9,229
2029 3.40 1.28 0.03 0.81 0.85 0.03 0.19 0.22 872
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.45 6.96 0.07 2.09 2.15 0.06 0.71 0.78 3,867
2028 1.47 6.88 0.07 2.86 2.93 0.06 0.69 0.75 5,134
2029 1.85 1.52 0.03 0.44 0.47 0.02 0.10 0.13 663
Annual — — — — — — — — —
2027 0.08 1.27 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01 0.13 0.14 640
2028 0.27 1.26 0.01 0.52 0.53 0.01 0.13 0.14 850
2029 0.34 0.28 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 110
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 10 / 45

3. Construction Emissions Details

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

1.59 14.2 0.60 — 0.60 0.55 — 0.55 2,970
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 7.11 7.11 — 3.43 3.43 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.47 4.25 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 887
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 2.12 2.12 — 1.02 1.02 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.09 0.78 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 147
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.39 0.39 — 0.19 0.19 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 126
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 11 / 45
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 4.69 0.05 1.05 1.10 0.05 0.29 0.34 4,072
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 1.45 0.01 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,215
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 201

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

0.39 10.3 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 2,970
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 2.77 2.77 — 1.34 1.34 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 3.07 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 887
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.83 0.83 — 0.40 0.40 —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 12 / 45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.56 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 147
Dust From Material
Movement
— — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 126
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.09 4.69 0.05 1.05 1.10 0.05 0.29 0.34 4,072
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.03 1.45 0.01 0.31 0.32 0.01 0.08 0.10 1,215
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 5.82 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling < 0.005 0.26 < 0.005 0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 201

3.3. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 13 / 45
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

1.03 9.39 0.34— 0.34 0.31— 0.31 2,405
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 1.69 0.06— 0.06 0.06— 0.06 433
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.31 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 71.7
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 1.32 1.22 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,818
Vendor 0.11 4.61 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.05 0.27 0.32 3,798
Hauling 0.01 0.43 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 353 Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 696
Vendor 0.02 0.81 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 684
Hauling < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 63.5 Annual—————————
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 115
Vendor < 0.005 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 113 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.5 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 14 / 45

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

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 1.19 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 258
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.22 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 42.7
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.32 1.22 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,818
Vendor 0.11 4.61 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.05 0.27 0.32 3,798
Hauling 0.01 0.43 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 353 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.17 0.17 696
Vendor 0.02 0.81 0.01 0.17 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.06 684
Hauling < 0.005 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 63.5 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 15 / 45
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.03 115
Vendor < 0.005 0.15 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 113 Hauling < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 10.5

3.5. Building Construction (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.99 8.92 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.99 8.92 0.30 — 0.30 0.28 — 0.28 2,406
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.53 4.79 0.16 — 0.16 0.15 — 0.15 1,290
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.87 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 214
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 16 / 45
Worker 1.31 0.90 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 4,019
Vendor 0.11 4.16 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.03 0.27 0.30 3,704
Hauling 0.01 0.39 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 344 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 1.27 1.20 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,752
Vendor 0.11 4.40 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.03 0.27 0.30 3,701
Hauling 0.01 0.41 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 344 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.67 0.57 0.00 2.14 2.14 0.00 0.50 0.50 2,036
Vendor 0.06 2.32 0.03 0.52 0.55 0.01 0.14 0.16 1,985
Hauling < 0.005 0.22 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 185 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 337
Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 329
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.6

3.6. Building Construction (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.22 6.62 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 1,432
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 17 / 45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.12 3.55 0.04— 0.04 0.04— 0.04 768
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.65 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 127
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 1.31 0.90 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 4,019
Vendor 0.11 4.16 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.03 0.27 0.30 3,704
Hauling 0.01 0.39 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 344 Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 1.27 1.20 0.00 4.07 4.07 0.00 0.95 0.95 3,752
Vendor 0.11 4.40 0.05 0.98 1.04 0.03 0.27 0.30 3,701
Hauling 0.01 0.41 < 0.005 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 344 Average Daily—————————
Worker 0.67 0.57 0.00 2.14 2.14 0.00 0.50 0.50 2,036
Vendor 0.06 2.32 0.03 0.52 0.55 0.01 0.14 0.16 1,985
Hauling < 0.005 0.22 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 185 Annual—————————
Worker 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.00 0.09 0.09 337
Vendor 0.01 0.42 0.01 0.09 0.10 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 329
Hauling < 0.005 0.04 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 30.6 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 18 / 45

3.7. Paving (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 6.46 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.08 0.76 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 179
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.14 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 29.6
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 120
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 19 / 45
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Paving (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 7.21 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 1,516
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.85 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 179
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.15 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 29.6
Paving 0.00 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 20 / 45
Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 120
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 13.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.22 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Architectural Coating (2028) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.81 0.02 — 0.02 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

35.3 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 21 / 45
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.15 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 24.1
Architectural
Coatings

6.35 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 3.99
Architectural
Coatings

1.16 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 750
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 137
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Architectural Coating (2028) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 22 / 45
Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

3.13————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.19 0.01— 0.01 0.01— 0.01 24.1
Architectural
Coatings

0.56————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.04 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 3.99
Architectural
Coatings

0.10————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Worker 0.25 0.24 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 750
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily—————————
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 23 / 45
Worker 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 137
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 22.6
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2029) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.79 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

35.3 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.79 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 134
Architectural
Coatings

35.3 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.42 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 71.6
Architectural
Coatings

18.8 — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 24 / 45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.08 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 11.8
Architectural
Coatings

3.44 — — — — — — — —
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.25 0.18 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 790
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.21 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 738
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.10 399
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 66.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Architectural Coating (2029) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 25 / 45
Location ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Onsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

3.13————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 1.07 0.03— 0.03 0.03— 0.03 134
Architectural
Coatings

3.13————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average Daily—————————
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.57 0.02— 0.02 0.02— 0.02 71.6
Architectural
Coatings

1.67————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual—————————
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.10 < 0.005— < 0.005 < 0.005— < 0.005 11.8
Architectural
Coatings

0.31————————
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite—————————
Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
Worker 0.25 0.18 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 790
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 26 / 45
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.21 0.00 0.81 0.81 0.00 0.19 0.19 738
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.10 0.10 399
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 66.1
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.19 1.80 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 434
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.11 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.1
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 27 / 45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 41.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

0.07 2.28 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 434
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 28 / 45
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.14 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 26.1
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 4.33
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 41.9
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.39 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 29 / 45

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 30 / 45
Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 31 / 45
Vegetation ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 32 / 45
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Grading Grading 4/1/2027 8/31/2027 5.00 109 —
Building Construction Building Construction 10/1/2027 9/30/2028 5.00 261 — 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 33 / 45
Paving Paving 8/1/2029 9/30/2029 5.00 43.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/1/2028 9/30/2029 5.00 260 — Trenching Trenching 9/1/2027 9/30/2027 5.00 22.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38

5.2.2. Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 34 / 45
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 148 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Electric Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Electric Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Interim 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48 Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Trenching Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Interim 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 56.5 20.0 HHDT
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 35 / 45
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 493 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 140 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.90 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 98.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 36 / 45
Grading Hauling 56.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 493 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 140 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 4.90 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 98.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT
Trenching — — — —
Trenching Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user. 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 37 / 45

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 901,496 300,499 416,400 138,800 —

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Grading — 49,245 109 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

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

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

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2027 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
2028 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 38 / 45
2029 0.00 2.34 0.00 0.00

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

5.18.2.2. Mitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 39 / 45

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 9.65 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 3.10 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 10.2 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 40 / 45
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

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

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 41 / 45
AQ-Ozone 14.9
AQ-PM 15.4
AQ-DPM 84.2
Drinking Water 49.5
Lead Risk Housing 16.0
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 31.6
Traffic 71.8
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 96.2
Groundwater 76.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 71.6
Impaired Water Bodies 43.8
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 6.79
Cardio-vascular 14.0
Low Birth Weights 25.7
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 4.67
Housing 4.51
Linguistic 36.0
Poverty 5.35
Unemployment 17.1

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state. 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 42 / 45
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 93.22468882
Employed 97.60041062
Median HI 96.68933658
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 97.52341845
High school enrollment 100
Preschool enrollment 45.37405364
Transportation —
Auto Access 81.29090209
Active commuting 72.62928269
Social —
2-parent households 95.534454
Voting 93.85345823
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 32.78583344
Park access 4.568202233
Retail density 84.75554985
Supermarket access 2.399589375
Tree canopy 87.97638907
Housing —
Homeownership 47.18336969
Housing habitability 91.40254074
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 94.73886822 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 96.5610163
Uncrowded housing 52.3675093
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 43 / 45
Health Outcomes —
Insured adults 94.43089953
Arthritis 97.9
Asthma ER Admissions 90.9
High Blood Pressure 97.3
Cancer (excluding skin) 82.6
Asthma 96.9
Coronary Heart Disease 98.5
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 99.2
Diagnosed Diabetes 98.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 94.2
Cognitively Disabled 98.0
Physically Disabled 98.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 69.4
Mental Health Not Good 96.9
Chronic Kidney Disease 98.0
Obesity 95.5
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 99.2
Stroke 98.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 29.5
Current Smoker 96.2
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 97.5
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 44 / 45
Children 2.7
Elderly 95.9
English Speaking 58.3
Foreign-born 77.4
Outdoor Workers 73.3
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 39.8
Traffic Density 54.8
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.9
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 95.8

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

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield Rd Phase 2 - Office, Office Parking, & Market Rate South T4i 2030 Const Detailed Report, 4/30/2024 45 / 45
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.

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

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

Land Use Lot acreages and square footages provided by applicant.

Construction: Construction Phases Provided by construction worksheet filled out by applicant.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Defaults
Construction: Trips and VMT Building Const = Estimated 640 concrete truck round trips (4.9 trips/day). One mile trips for HRA.

2. Emissions Summary - HRA

2.2 Construction Emissions by Year, UnmitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2027 1.6630271 15.221012 0.600161547.1718640 7.7720256 0.552347843.4455408 3.9978886 3278.5008361063624 2028 2.2418831 10.938944 0.3064857 0.463290540.7697762 0.2794509 0.1135792 0.3930302 3411.6176147798637 2029 33.528712 7.321698240.2518837 0.0793996 0.3312834 0.2317330 0.0186111 0.2503441 1745.3823653279017 Daily - Winter (Max)2027 2.2847066 11.623507 0.3428217 0.463290540.8061122 0.3158957 0.1135792 0.4294750 3414.7022936437543 2028 32.830951411.099935 0.3064857 0.463290540.7697762 0.2794509 0.1135792 0.3930302 3394.5965743952732029 32.813116 0.8671489 0.0128409 0.0688016 0.0816425 0.0118136 0.0161269 0.0279406 212.8879949106888Average Daily2027 0.9157951 6.7426177 0.2440364 2.2236331 2.4676695 0.2246629 1.0490097 1.2736726 1620.4575900480992028 7.0820640 6.070572040.1671034 0.2562681 0.4233715 0.1523861 0.0626708 0.2150570 1859.1071684053145 2029 17.613430 1.2206779 0.035021440.0373173 0.072338740.0322197 0.0087363 0.0409561 294.04870096828495 Annual2027 0.1671326 1.2305277 0.044536640.405813040.4503496 0.0410009 0.1914442 0.2324452 268.28524660374853 2028 1.2924766 1.1078793 0.0304963 0.0467689 0.0772653 0.0278104 0.0114374 0.0392479 307.79640775641144 2029 3.2144510 0.2227737 0.0063914 0.0068104 0.0132018 0.0058801 0.0015943 0.0074744 48.6831181126108

2. Emissions Summary - HRA

2.3 Construction Emissions by Year, MitigatedYear ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO₂e Daily - Summer (Max)2027 0.4708639 11.263222 0.086893742.8354278 2.9223216 0.0844810 1.3540197 1.4385008 3278.5081798367 2028 1.4678404 8.6344352 0.0767750 0.463290540.5400655 0.0701085 0.1135792 0.1836877 2437.6348664690472029 33.004727 8.3437959 0.1165733 0.0793996 0.1959730 0.1093986 0.0186111 0.1280098 1745.3823653279017Daily - Winter (Max)2027 1.4722192 8.8530160 0.0767750 0.463290540.5400655 0.0731241 0.1135792 0.1867034 2441.2131336035132028 32.744784 8.7954264 0.0767750 0.463290540.5400655 0.0701085 0.1135792 0.1836877 2420.6138260844564 2029 32.731903 1.1418991 0.0305401 0.0688016 0.0993418 0.028190940.0161269 0.04431794212.8879949106888 Average Daily2027 0.4060997 5.0904289 0.0419925 0.9286425 0.9706351 0.0404692 0.4244184 0.4648877 1445.1940755988662028 6.6515061 4.8818340 0.0466654 0.2562681 0.3029335 0.0426679 0.0626708 0.1053387 1336.85518277243362029 17.517880 1.4555060 0.0264514 0.0373173 0.0637687 0.0246278 0.0087363 0.0333642 294.04870096828495Annual2027 0.0741132 0.9290032 0.0076636 0.1694772 0.1771409 0.007385640.0774563 0.0848420 239.2683716892644 2028 1.2138998 0.8909347 0.008516440.0467689 0.0552853 0.0077868 0.0114374 0.0192243 221.33163162446965 2029 3.1970132 0.265629840.0048273 0.0068104 0.0116377 0.0044945 0.0015943 0.0060889 48.6831181126108

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.1 Unmitigated
Phase NamTrip Type One-Way TMiles per TVehicle Mix
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 56.477064 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truc HHDT
Building Construction
Building CoWorker 486.89308 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building CoVendor 136.78841 1 HHDT,MHDT
Building CoHauling 4.9 1 HHDT
Building CoOnsite truc HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truc HHDT
Architectural Coating
ArchitecturWorker 97.378616 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
ArchitecturVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
ArchitecturHauling 0 1 HHDT
ArchitecturOnsite truc HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truc HHDT

5.3. Construction Vehicles - HRA

5.3.2 Mitigated
Phase NamTrip Type One-Way TMiles per TVehicle Mix
Grading
Grading Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 56.477064 1 HHDT
Grading Onsite truc HHDT
Building Construction
Building CoWorker 486.89308 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building CoVendor 136.78841 1 HHDT,MHDT
Building CoHauling 4.9 1 HHDT
Building CoOnsite truc HHDT
Paving
Paving Worker 15 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Paving Onsite truc HHDT
Architectural Coating
ArchitecturWorker 97.378616 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
ArchitecturVendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
ArchitecturHauling 0 1 HHDT
ArchitecturOnsite truc HHDT
Trenching
Trenching Worker 5 1 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Trenching Vendor 1 HHDT,MHDT
Trenching Hauling 0 1 HHDT
Trenching Onsite truc HHDT
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 1 / 50
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 2 / 50

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 3 / 50

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 4 / 50

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.13.2. Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 5 / 50

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 6 / 50

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 7 / 50

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Operational Year 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 28.2
Location 675 E Middlefield Rd, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1712
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.22

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
General Office
Building
278 1000sqft 5.44 277,600 0.00 — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 8 / 50
Apartments Mid Rise 858 Dwelling Unit 0.00 1,249,154 0.00 — 2,565 — Strip Mall 2.34 1000sqft 5.14 2,344 0.00 — — —
Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator
638 Space 0.00 214,020 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
358 Space 0.00 123,437 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
453 Space 0.00 181,477 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Area Sources AS-2 Use Low-VOC Paints

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 61.7 10.1 0.25 30.8 31.1 0.22 7.82 8.03 33,868
Mit. 57.9 10.1 0.25 30.8 31.1 0.22 7.82 8.03 33,868
% Reduced 6% — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 51.3 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,705
Mit. 47.5 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,705
% Reduced 7% — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 9 / 50
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Unmit. 55.6 12.0 0.32 27.1 27.4 0.30 6.86 7.16 29,389
Mit. 51.8 12.0 0.32 27.1 27.4 0.30 6.86 7.16 29,389
% Reduced 7% — — — — — — — —
Annual (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.1 2.19 0.06 4.94 5.00 0.05 1.25 1.31 4,866
Mit. 9.45 2.19 0.06 4.94 5.00 0.05 1.25 1.31 4,866
% Reduced 7% — — — — — — — —

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Mobile 13.5 9.33 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,515
Area 48.3 0.75 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 274
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 91.2
Water — — — — — — — — 291
Waste — — — — — — — — 1,688
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 9.64
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 61.7 10.1 0.25 30.8 31.1 0.22 7.82 8.03 33,868
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 12.9 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 29,625
Area 38.3 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 91.2
Water — — — — — — — — 291
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 10 / 50
Waste — — — — — — — — 1,688
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 9.64
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 51.3 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,705
Average Daily — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 11.5 9.20 0.15 27.1 27.2 0.14 6.86 7.00 26,731
Area 43.2 0.37 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 135
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 91.2
Water — — — — — — — — 291
Waste — — — — — — — — 1,688
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 9.64
Stationary 0.86 2.41 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.13 443
Total 55.6 12.0 0.32 27.1 27.4 0.30 6.86 7.16 29,389
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.10 1.68 0.03 4.94 4.97 0.03 1.25 1.28 4,426
Area 7.89 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 15.1
Water — — — — — — — — 48.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 279
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 1.60
Stationary 0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4 Total 10.1 2.19 0.06 4.94 5.00 0.05 1.25 1.31 4,866

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 11 / 50
Daily, Summer—————————
(Max)
Mobile 13.5 9.33 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,515
Area 44.4 0.75 0.08— 0.08 0.06— 0.06 274
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 91.2
Water———————— 291
Waste———————— 1,688
Refrig.———————— 9.64
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 57.9 10.1 0.25 30.8 31.1 0.22 7.82 8.03 33,868
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
Mobile 12.9 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 29,625
Area 34.5 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 91.2
Water———————— 291
Waste———————— 1,688
Refrig.———————— 9.64
Stationary 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 47.5 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,705
Average Daily—————————
Mobile 11.5 9.20 0.15 27.1 27.2 0.14 6.86 7.00 26,731
Area 39.4 0.37 0.04— 0.04 0.03— 0.03 135
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00— 0.00 0.00— 0.00 91.2
Water———————— 291
Waste———————— 1,688
Refrig.———————— 9.64
Stationary 0.86 2.41 0.13 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.13 443
Total 51.8 12.0 0.32 27.1 27.4 0.30 6.86 7.16 29,389
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 12 / 50
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.10 1.68 0.03 4.94 4.97 0.03 1.25 1.28 4,426
Area 7.19 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 15.1
Water — — — — — — — — 48.2
Waste — — — — — — — — 279
Refrig. — — — — — — — — 1.60
Stationary 0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4 Total 9.45 2.19 0.06 4.94 5.00 0.05 1.25 1.31 4,866

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.06 2.96 0.05 10.1 10.2 0.05 2.56 2.61 10,293
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.22 6.21 0.11 20.2 20.3 0.10 5.12 5.22 20,682
Strip Mall 0.21 0.16 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 540 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 13.5 9.33 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,515
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 13 / 50
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

3.90 3.46 0.05 10.1 10.2 0.05 2.56 2.61 9,673
Apartments Mid
Rise

8.85 7.27 0.11 20.2 20.3 0.10 5.12 5.22 19,445
Strip Mall 0.20 0.18 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 507 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 12.9 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 29,625
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.55 0.46 0.01 1.41 1.42 0.01 0.36 0.36 1,259
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.52 1.19 0.02 3.44 3.46 0.02 0.87 0.89 3,089
Strip Mall 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 77.6 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.10 1.68 0.03 4.94 4.97 0.03 1.25 1.28 4,426

4.06 2.96 0.05 10.1 10.2 0.05 2.56 2.61 10,293
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 14 / 50
Apartments Mid
Rise

9.22 6.21 0.11 20.2 20.3 0.10 5.12 5.22 20,682
Strip Mall 0.21 0.16 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 540 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 13.5 9.33 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 31,515
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
General Office
Building

3.90 3.46 0.05 10.1 10.2 0.05 2.56 2.61 9,673
Apartments Mid
Rise

8.85 7.27 0.11 20.2 20.3 0.10 5.12 5.22 19,445
Strip Mall 0.20 0.18 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.13 0.14 507 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 12.9 10.9 0.16 30.8 31.0 0.15 7.82 7.97 29,625
Annual—————————
General Office
Building

0.55 0.46 0.01 1.41 1.42 0.01 0.36 0.36 1,259
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.52 1.19 0.02 3.44 3.46 0.02 0.87 0.89 3,089
Strip Mall 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.09 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 77.6 Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 2.10 1.68 0.03 4.94 4.97 0.03 1.25 1.28 4,426
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 15 / 50

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 46.9
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 33.0
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 3.87
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 7.22
Total — — — — — — — — 91.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 46.9
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 33.0
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 3.87
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 7.22
Total — — — — — — — — 91.2
Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 16 / 50
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 7.76
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 5.47
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.03
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 1.19
Total — — — — — — — — 15.1

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 46.9
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 33.0
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 3.87
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 7.22
Total — — — — — — — — 91.2
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 46.9
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 17 / 50
Apartments Mid — — — — — — — — 33.0
Rise
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.17
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 3.87
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 7.22
Total — — — — — — — — 91.2
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 7.76
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 5.47
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.03
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.64
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 1.19
Total — — — — — — — — 15.1

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 18 / 50
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 19 / 50
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Apartments Mid
Rise

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 20 / 50
Strip Mall 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

32.7 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

9.92 0.75 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 274
Total 48.3 0.75 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 274
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

32.7 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

5.62 — — — — — — — —
Total 38.3 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 21 / 50
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

5.97 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

1.03 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.89 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4
Total 7.89 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4

32.7 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

1.78 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

9.92 0.75 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 274
Total 44.4 0.75 0.08 — 0.08 0.06 — 0.06 274
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Consumer
Products

32.7 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

1.78 — — — — — — — —
Total 34.5 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 22 / 50
Consumer
Products

5.97 — — — — — — — —
Architectural
Coatings

0.33 — — — — — — — —
Landscape
Equipment

0.89 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4
Total 7.19 0.07 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 22.4

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 173
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 117
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 291
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 173
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 117
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 23 / 50
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 291
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 28.7
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.4
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.12
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 48.2

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 173
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 117
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 24 / 50
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 291
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 173
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 117
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.71
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 291
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 28.7
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 19.4
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.12
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 48.2

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 25 / 50
Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
—————————
General Office
Building
———————— 487
Apartments Mid
Rise
———————— 1,196
Strip Mall———————— 4.64
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
———————— 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
———————— 0.00
Total———————— 1,688
Daily, Winter (Max)—————————
General Office
Building
———————— 487
Apartments Mid
Rise
———————— 1,196
Strip Mall———————— 4.64
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
———————— 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
———————— 0.00
Total———————— 1,688
Annual—————————
General Office
Building
———————— 80.6
Apartments Mid
Rise
———————— 198
Strip Mall———————— 0.77
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 26 / 50
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 279

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 487
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1,196
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 1,688
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 487
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1,196
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 4.64
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 27 / 50
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 1,688
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 80.6
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 198
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.77
Unenclosed
Parking with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
— — — — — — — — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — 279

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 0.68
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 8.95
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — 9.64
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 28 / 50
General Office — — — — — — — — 0.68
Building
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 8.95
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — 9.64
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 0.11
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.48
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — 1.60

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 0.68
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 8.95
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — 9.64
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 0.68
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 8.95
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — 0.01
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 29 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — 9.64
Annual — — — — — — — — —
General Office
Building
— — — — — — — — 0.11
Apartments Mid
Rise
— — — — — — — — 1.48
Strip Mall — — — — — — — — < 0.005
Total — — — — — — — — 1.60

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 30 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4
Total 0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 31 / 50
Emergency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Generator
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Emergency
Generator

0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4
Total 0.16 0.44 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 73.4

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipment Type ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e 23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 32 / 50
Daily, Summer — — — — — — — — —
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 33 / 50
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 34 / 50
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land Use ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 35 / 50

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species ROG NOx PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T CO2e Daily, Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Daily, Winter (Max) — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Sequestered — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
Removed — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — —
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 36 / 50
— — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Office
Building
1,457 330 330 414,415 14,321 3,246 3,246 4,072,084
Apartments Mid Rise 3,419 3,089 2,574 1,186,691 28,652 25,884 21,570 9,944,390 Strip Mall 76.4 72.5 35.2 25,547 751 713 346 251,028
Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year General Office
Building
1,457 330 330 414,415 14,321 3,246 3,246 4,072,084
Apartments Mid Rise 3,419 3,089 2,574 1,186,691 28,652 25,884 21,570 9,944,390 Strip Mall 76.4 72.5 35.2 25,547 751 713 346 251,028
Unenclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 37 / 50
Enclosed Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 with Elevator

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

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

5.10.1.2. Mitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 0
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 0
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 38 / 50
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0

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

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 7,313,581 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 5,152,836 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
23-018 675-685 E Middlefield 2030 Operation Detailed Report, 5/2/2024 39 / 50
Strip Mall 25,997 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
603,108 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 455,659 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 669,910 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) General Office Building 7,313,581 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Apartments Mid Rise 5,152,836 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Strip Mall 25,997 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Unenclosed Parking with
Elevator
603,108 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 455,659 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 669,910 2.34 0.0000 0.0000 0.00

Mountain View City CouncilDecember 17, 2024

Mountain View City Council
December 17, 2024