8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
originate as landscape plantings, although the tree-of-heavens are likely volunteers as the species is highly invasive.
The condition of the trees is variable, with three of the redwoods dead, four in poor health, and the balance in fair to moderate condition. The other species are generally in fair to moderate condition, with two liquidambar exceptions in poor condition. The two clusters of tree-of-heaven located on the property line and adjacent to two residential properties are dense, multi-stem clonal thickets with canopies extending over the property line by 30 feet and likely spreading into the neighboring property.
A unique aspect of the landscape plantings is the planting of 79 coast redwoods as a hedge bordering the Parcel 1 interior parking lot. The trees have been topped at 12 feet and were planted on five-foot centers. With the high water and frequent pruning requirements, the hedge is inefficient and a questionable screening strategy.
The Bradford pears, four liquidambars, and the two crape myrtles are designated street trees.
Two of the Bradford pears, the Peruvian pepper, the two tree-of-heavens, and the coast redwoods, including the hedge and dead trees, qualify as heritage-status trees. The white lead tree on an adjacent residential property could be of heritage status size. Eight street trees have trunk circumferences less than the heritage status threshold.
The report includes images of the trees. Attached are the Tree Evaluation Data Matrix (Appendix A), Tree Protection Requirements Matrix (Appendix B), Tree Protection Specifications (Appendix C), and an Existing Tree Exhibit.
Construction Impact:
Construction impacts include grading cuts near property line trees, the construction of property line masonry walls, new sidewalk locations, bio-retention zones, and new building construction.
The specific impacts for each tree are listed in Appendix A- Tree Inventory and Evaluation Data Matrix. A single white lead tree on an adjacent residential property (tree #33) may be impacted due to the masonry wall construction and grading at the property line.
Tree Removal Mitigation:
The Tree Evaluation Data Matrix (Appendix A) shows the tree mitigation quantities based on the expected construction impacts. The City of Mountain View requires two 24-inch box trees as mitigation for each heritage status tree removed. The number of mitigation trees required for the trees removed for construction is 160 24-inch box trees. If there is insufficient landscape area to install the total number, then in lieu fees are assessed at $750.00 for each 24-inch boxed tree.
The current landscape plan specified 41 24-inch box trees for new planting. The total number of trees required for mitigation is calculated at 119 (160-41). The in-lieu fees are $750.00 per tree, or $89,250.00.
Individual Tree Evaluations
Following is a description of the various data used in the evaluations.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Tree #:
The trees are assigned a number as indicated on the Tree Location and Numbering Plan.
Common and Botanical Name (Species):
The botanical name and common name are provided for each tree.
Trunk Diameter (with Circumference) and # of Trunks:
Trunk diameter refers to measuring the trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade. The # of trunks notes single or multiple-trunk trees. Trunks must occur at or below 54 inches above grade for a tree to be considered to have multiple trunks for measurement purposes. Trunk measurements may differ from those shown on the plans due to the method and date of measurement. Also provided are the trunk circumferences, which are the measurements used in the Mountain View tree ordinance.
Height and Crown Diameters:
These fields are approximate measurements of the tree's height and crown spread. Accuracy is within plus or minus 10% of the indicated estimate.
Health and Structural Ratings and Descriptions:
The following chart describes the health and structural rating system used in the evaluation.
It is a rating of relative conditions such as vigor, the extent of decay, structure, and insect or disease problems. Good and moderate ratings indicate limited structural problems, sufficient vigor, and no significant pest or disease problems. Poor and marginal ratings indicate serious health or structural problems, especially if the tree is near structures or public areas. Trees rated as poor or marginal are often hazardous.
Rating Chart:
3.0 Moderate (or
better) condition
Normal and correctable problems of structure or pests and diseases.
2.5 Fair condition Typically, it indicates moderately low vigor and foliage density with limited branch or twig dieback. Significant but correctable structural defects may be present.
2.0 Marginal
condition
Indicates serious problems with health, structure, decay, or significant insect or disease problems.
1.0 Poor condition Indicates very poor health, vigor, and/or hazardous structural condition.
Trees may be rated between two conditions, such as 2.5 or 3.5, which indicates the tree does not precisely meet the criteria for either of the two categories and allows the rating system to be used as a continuum.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
The comments and observations describe the basis for the health and structural ratings. If possible, the specific pests, diseases, and structural defects observed are described and identified.
This evaluation is of the above-ground structure only, and additional defects may exist at the root collar. Often, larger mature and over-mature trees require a root collar examination to evaluate the primary structural roots and root collar for decay and disease. In addition, an aerial inspection of the limb structure may be required.
Comments/Observations:
This is a summary discussion of the health and structural ratings and identification of any significant pest or disease issues or structural defects.
Suitability for Preservation Ratings:
Rating Factors:
Tree Health: Vigorous and healthy trees are better able to tolerate construction impacts, including root loss or injury,
Structural Condition: Preserved trees should be structurally sound or have defects that can be effectively abated in areas near structures or high-use areas.
Tree Age and Species: Older trees may have a reduced ability to tolerate construction impacts and adapt to changed site conditions. Additionally, individual tree species have varying tolerances to environmental impacts and changes.
Rating Scale:
Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with high potential for longevity.
Moderate: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that can be abated with treatment.
Fair: Trees in marginal health or structural condition that could be mitigated or improved.
Poor: Trees in poor health and/or structural condition that probably cannot be effectively abated.
Heritage Tree Status:
Status of the tree according to the City of Mountain View Tree Ordinance.
Construction Impact Assessment/Impact Code:
An assessment of the potential impact based on the tree location relative to grading limits and construction activity type. The impact code is a designation for sorting and filtering the Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
construction impact data.
Please contact me if additional information is required.
Sincerely,
ISA Certified Arborist WE-0603A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Tree Images:
Bradford pear street trees growing along Independence Avenue.
Closely spaced limbs are characteristic of Bradford pears and are prone to failure.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
The asymmetrical root system of a Bradford pear. This defect does not appear to be affecting the health or stability of these trees.
One of the four liquidambar street trees on Old Middlefield Way. The trees are in variable condition.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
The surface rooting typical of liquidambars often causes pavement displacement.
Peruvian pepper, tree #9., and coast redwoods #10 and #11.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Liquidambars #13 and #14.
Redwoods #15, #16, and #17.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Redwoods, #21, #22, #22A, and #23.
Redwoods along the south perimeter. Trees #23,#24, #25, and #26.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Redwoods and tree-of-heaven are growing on the adjacent property in the south portion of the project site. Trees #28- # 32.
Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Tree-of-heaven cluster on adjacent property. (#32)
A white lead tree is growing on the adjacent property. (Tree #33) Magnussen’s Toyota Auto Dealership Mountain View- Arborist Report and Tree Protection Specifications
8/22/24
MacNair and Associates
Crape myrtle street trees. (Trees #34 and #35)
A hedge of redwoods borders the parking lot.
Appendix A
Individual Tree Data Matrix and
Construction Impact Assessment
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
Appendix A
MacNair and Associates Page 1 of 5 8/22/24
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
3.0 = Moderate or
better condition
Construction
Impact Code:
2.5 = Fair SI= Significant potential impact
2.0 = Marginal
condition
1.5 = Poor to marginal
condition
1.0 = Poor condition
Tree # Species # of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Trunk #1
(Dia.)
Trunk #2
(Dia.)
Crown
Height
Crown
Diameter
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Comments/Observations
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status
Construction Impact
Assessment
Construction
Impact Code
Mitigation
Quantity
1 Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana 'Bradford') 1 16.0 50 16.0 25'± 30'± 2.5 2.0 Street tree. Mature tree with closely spaced,
multiple limb attachments forming at 6'.
Moderately low vigor with limited branch
dieback occurring. Good foliage density.
Asymmetrical root distribution.
Fair to Moderate Yes (Street
Tree)
Located in grading
limits. Removal
required.
RC 2
2 Bradford pear 1 12.0 38 12.0 25'± 25'± 3.0 2.0
Street tree. Mature tree with closely spaced,
multiple limb attachments, and co-dominant
trunks forming at 9'. Moderate vigor and
foliage density. Asymmetrical root
distribution. One branch failure.
Fair to Moderate No (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk.
11' from parking
area. Potential for
impact due to
asymmetrical and
surface roots.
MI 0
3 Bradford pear 1 15.5 49 15.5 25'± 25'± 2.5 2.0
Street tree. Mature tree with closely spaced,
multiple limb attachments, and extended
limbs. Moderately low vigor with limited
branch dieback. Large diameter surface
roots.
Fair to Moderate Yes (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk.
11' from parking
area. Potential for
impact due to
surface roots.
MI 0
4 Bradford pear 1 14.5 46 14.5 25'± 32'± 3.0 2.0
Street tree. Mature tree with closely spaced,
multiple limb attachments, and old trunk
wound. Moderate vigor and foliage density.
Large diameter surface roots.
Fair to Moderate No (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk.
11' from parking
area. Potential for
impact due to
surface roots.
MI 0
5 Bradford pear 1 11.5 36 11.5 20'± 25'-30'± 2.5 2.0
Street tree. Lower vigor tree with closely
spaced limb attachments, and old lower
trunk wound. Gall at base of trunk.
Asymmetrical root system.
Fair to Moderate No (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk.
11' from parking
area. Potential for
impact due to
asymmetrical and
surface roots.
MI 0
Poor: Trees in poor health and/or structural condition that probably cannot be effectively abated.
RC= Removal due to construction
LI= Limited impact
MI= Moderate impact
NI= No impact
Health and Structural
Rating Key: Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with high potential for longevity. Suitability for Preservation Ratings:
Moderate: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that can be abated with treatment.
Fair: Trees in marginal health or structural condition that could possibly be mitigated or improved.
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
Appendix A
MacNair and Associates Page 2 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species # of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Trunk #1
(Dia.)
Trunk #2
(Dia.)
Crown
Height
Crown
Diameter
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Comments/Observations
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status
Construction Impact
Assessment
Construction
Impact Code
Mitigation
Quantity
6 liquidambar
(Liquidambar
styraciflua )
2 8.6 27 5.0 7.0 25'± 20'± 3.0 3.0
Low, two-trunk structure. No significant
structural defects. Moderate vigor and
foliage density. Adjacent electrical box.
Pavement damage.
Moderate No (Street
Tree)
7' from bioretention, 5' from
sidewalk, and 10'
from parking area.
Potential for impact
due to surface roots.
MI 0
7 liquidambar 1 5.0 16 5.0 20'± 15'± 3.0 3.0
Young tree with single trunk with no
significant structural defects. Surface roots.
Minor pavement displacement.
Moderate No (Street
Tree)
9' from bioretention, 5' from
sidewalk, and 10'
from parking area.
Potential for impact
due to surface roots.
MI 0
8 liquidambar 2 3.0 9 1.5 2.5 10'± 10'± 3.0 1.5 Leaning tree with defective root system.
Located adjacent to the pepper tree. Poor No (Street Tree) Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 1
9 Peruvian pepper tree
(Schinus molle ) 1 27.0 85 27.0 35'-40'± 25'-30'± 3.0 3.0 Mature tree with an extended second trunk.
Lower trunk wounds and galls. Wound on
southwest limb in mid-crown. Vigor and
foliage density are moderate.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
10 coast redwood
(Sequoia
sempervirens )
1 16.0 50 16.0 45'-50'± 22'± 3.0 3.0
Semi-mature tree with single trunk structure
and no significant structural defects. Vigor
and foliage density are moderate.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
11 coast redwood 2 10.7 26 6.5 8.5 20'± 8'± 1.5 2.0 Low two-trunk twisted structure. Vigor is low with significant branch dieback occurring. Poor Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
12 coast redwood 1 23.0 72 23.0 40'-45'± 35'± 2.5 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Moderately low
vigor. History of drought stress.
Moderate Yes
Variable distance of
16' to 22' from
future driveway and
parking areas
LI 0
13 liquidambar 1 6.0 19 6.0 10'± 8'± 1.0 1.0 Extensive crown dieback. Trunk sunscald damage. Poor No
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 1
14 liquidambar 1 12.5 39 12.5 35'± 30'± 2.0 2.5
Street tree. Closely spaced. Multiple limb
attachments forming at 8'-10'. Wide crown
form. Variable vigor with areas of branch
dieback. Adjacent to electrical lines. History
of pavement damage.
Fair No
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 1
15 coast redwood 1 20.0 63 20.0 65'± 30'± 3.0 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Moderate vigor
and foliage density. Pavement
displacement occurring.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
Appendix A
MacNair and Associates Page 3 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species # of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Trunk #1
(Dia.)
Trunk #2
(Dia.)
Crown
Height
Crown
Diameter
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Comments/Observations
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status
Construction Impact
Assessment
Construction
Impact Code
Mitigation
Quantity
16 coast redwood 2 25.5 80 17.0 19.0 65'± 30'± 0.0 0.0 Tree is dead. NA Yes Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
17 coast redwood 1 23.0 72 23.0 65'± 30'± 2.5 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Moderately low
vigor and foliage density.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
18 coast redwood 1 12.0 38 12.0 40'-45'± 22'± 0.0 0.0 Tree is dead. NA Yes Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
19 coast redwood 1 16.0 50 16.0 50'± 25'± 1.5 3.0
Semi-mature tree in low vigor with
significant branch dieback. Appears in
decline.
Poor Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
20 coast redwood 1 16.0 50 16.0 45'± 25'± 2.5 3.0
Semi-mature tree with single trunk structure
and no significant structural defects. Vigor
and foliage density are moderately low.
History of drought stress.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
21 coast redwood 1 20.0 63 20.0 55'-60'± 25'-30'± 1.5 3.0 Semi-mature tree in very low vigor with
significant branch dieback. Appears in
decline.
Poor Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
22 coast redwood 1 16.0 50 16.0 45'± 25'± 2.5 3.0
Semi-mature tree with single trunk structure
and no significant structural defects. Vigor
and foliage density are moderately low.
History of drought stress.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
22A coast redwood 2 32.0 100 19.0 26 65'± 30'-35'± 3.0 2.5 Mature tree with low, two-trunk structure.
Vigor and foliage density are moderate. No
significant structural defects observed.
Moderate Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
23 coast redwood 1 15.0 47 15.0 55'-60'± 25'-30'± 0.0 0.0 Tree is mostly dead. NA Yes Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
24 coast redwood 1 25.0 79 25.0 60'± 30'± 2.0 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Vigor and foliage
density are low. History of drought stress.
Poor to Fair Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 2
25 coast redwood 1 20.0 63 20.0 65'± 30'± 3.0 1.5
Semi-mature tree with single trunk structure
and no significant structural defects. Vigor
and foliage density are moderate. Extensive
ivy on trunk. Probable significant damage to
root system from adjacent property
construction.
Poor to Fair Yes
Located 21' to bioretention and 24' to
driveway. Masonry
wall required next to
trunk. Potential for
cumulative root
impacts.
MI 0
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
Appendix A
MacNair and Associates Page 4 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species # of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Trunk #1
(Dia.)
Trunk #2
(Dia.)
Crown
Height
Crown
Diameter
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Comments/Observations
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status
Construction Impact
Assessment
Construction
Impact Code
Mitigation
Quantity
26 coast redwood 1 30.0 94 30.0 65'± 30'-35'± 3.0 1.5
Semi-mature tree with single trunk structure
and no significant structural defects. Vigor
and foliage density are moderate. Extensive
ivy on trunk. Probable significant damage to
root system from adjacent property
construction.
Poor to Fair Yes
Located 21' to bioretention and 24' to
driveway. Masonry
wall required next to
trunk. Potential for
cumulative root
impacts.
MI 0
27 coast redwood 2 33.5 105 15.0 30 55'-60'± 30'± 2.5 1.5 Mature tree with low, two-trunk structure.
Vigor and foliage density are moderately
low. Probable significant damage to root
system from adjacent property construction.
Poor to Fair Yes
Located in grading
limits including bio
retention area.
RC 2
28 coast redwood 1 24.0 75 24.0 50'± 25'-30'± 3.0 1.5
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Vigor and foliage
density are moderate. Probable significant
damage to root system from adjacent
property construction.
Poor to Fair Yes
Located in grading
limits including bio
retention area.
MI 0
29 coast redwood 1 32.0 100 32.0 60'± 30'± 3.0 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Vigor and foliage
density are moderate. Located on adjacent
property at fence line. Possible root loss from
adjacent construction on south side.
Moderate Yes
22' to parking area.
Masonry wall
required next to
trunk.
MI 0
30 tree-of-heaven
(Ailanthus altissima ) 20± 2"-10" 40'-45'± 30'-35'± 3.0 2.0 Dense cluster of 20 or more stems
surrounding original tree. Appears healthy.
Located on adjacent property at fence line.
Overhangs fence 30'.
Poor (Invasive) Yes
Located in grading
limits with
significant grading
cuts required and
the construction of a
masonry wall.
RC 1
30A tree-of-heaven 15± 2"-10" 40'-45'± 30'-35'± 3.0 2.0 Dense cluster of 10 or more stems.
surrounding original tree. Appears healthy.
Located on adjacent property at fence line.
Overhangs fence 30'.
Poor (Invasive) Yes
Located in grading
limits with
significant grading
cuts required and
the construction of a
masonry wall.
RC 1
31 coast redwood 1 30.0 94 30.0 50'± 30'± 3.0 3.0
Mature tree with single trunk structure. No
significant structural issues. Vigor and foliage
density are moderate. Located on adjacent
property at fence line.
Moderate Yes
16' and 24' to
parking area.
Masonry wall
required next to
trunk.
MI 0
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Inventory and Construction Impact Data Matrix
Appendix A
MacNair and Associates Page 5 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species # of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Trunk #1
(Dia.)
Trunk #2
(Dia.)
Crown
Height
Crown
Diameter
Health
Rating
Structural
Rating Comments/Observations
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status
Construction Impact
Assessment
Construction
Impact Code
Mitigation
Quantity
32 tree-of-heaven 10± 3"-8" 40'± 40'± 3.0 2.0
Dense cluster of 10 or more stems.
surrounding original tree. Appears healthy.
Located on adjacent property at fence line.
Overhangs fence 30'.
Poor (Invasive) Yes
Located in grading
limits with
significant grading
cuts required and
the construction of a
masonry wall.
RC 1
33 white lead tree
(Leucaena sp.) multi Not measured. 25'± 25'± 2.5 n/a
Low, multiple trunk structure. Lower portion
of tree not visible. Vigor appears
moderately low. Overhangs fence 10'.
Moderate Yes
Located on adjacent
property adjacent to
new masonry wall.
Moderate impact
likely.
MI 0
34 crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia
indica x fauriei )
1 6.5 20 6.5 18'± 14'± 3.0 3.0
Street tree. Semi-mature tree with single
trunk structure and no significant structural
defects. Vigor and foliage density are
moderate.
Moderate to Good No (Street
Tree)
Currently
designated for
transplanting.
MI 0
35 crape myrtle 1 8.0 25 8.0 18'± 14'± 3.0 3.0
Street tree. Semi-mature tree with single
trunk structure and no significant structural
defects. Vigor and foliage density are
moderate.
Moderate to Good No (Street
Tree)
Currently
designated for
transplanting.
MI 0
36 coast redwood 61 4" + 12' 4' 3.0 2.0
Hedge of coast redwood planted 5' o.c.
Topped at approximately 12'. Generally
moderate health. 79 trees along the west
and south sides of the Parcel 1 parking lot.
Fair Yes
Located in project
grading limits.
Removal required.
RC 122
37 coast redwood 18 4" + 12' 4' 3.0 2.0 18 of the hedged redwood are now retained. Fair Yes Now retained. LI 0 83 33
Total Trees: 116
80 3
Sub-Total Mitigation Trees: 160
Less Replacement Trees: 41
Total Mitigation Trees: 119
Total Trees Removed:
Total Trees Retained:
Total Heritage Trees Removed:
Total Non-Heritage Trees Removed:
Appendix B
Individual Tree Protection Requirements
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
Appendix B
MacNair and Associates Page 1 of 5 8/22/24
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
3.0 = Moderate or
better condition
Construction
Impact Code:
2.5 = Fair SI= Significant potential impact
2.0 = Marginal
condition
1.5 = Poor to marginal
condition
1.0 = Poor condition
Tree # Species
# of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status Construction Impact Assessment Construction Impact Code Tree
Protection
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Critical Root
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Specific Tree Protection Requirements
2 Bradford pear 1 12.0 38 Fair to Moderate No (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk. 11' from parking
area. Potential for impact due to
asymmetrical and surface roots.
MI 12' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
3 Bradford pear 1 15.5 49 Fair to Moderate Yes (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk. 11' from parking
area. Potential for impact due to
surface roots.
MI 15' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
4 Bradford pear 1 14.5 46 Fair to Moderate Yes (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk. 11' from parking
area. Potential for impact due to
surface roots.
MI 15' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
RC= Removal due to construction
LI= Limited impact
MI= Moderate impact
NI= No impact
Health and Structural
Rating Key:
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
Appendix B
MacNair and Associates Page 2 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species
# of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status Construction Impact Assessment Construction Impact Code Tree
Protection
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Critical Root
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Specific Tree Protection Requirements
5 Bradford pear 1 11.5 36 Fair to Moderate No (Street
Tree)
4' from sidewalk. 11' from parking
area. Potential for impact due to
asymmetrical and surface roots.
MI 12' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6 liquidambar
(Liquidambar
styraciflua )
2 8.6 27 Moderate No (Street
Tree)
7' from bio-retention, 5' from sidewalk,
and 10' from parking area. Potential for
impact due to surface roots.
MI 10' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
7 liquidambar 1 5.0 16 Moderate No (Street
Tree)
9' from bio-retention, 5' from sidewalk,
and 10' from parking area. Potential for
impact due to surface roots.
MI 8' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
12 coast redwood 1 23.0 72 Moderate Yes Variable distance of 16' to 22' from future driveway and parking areas LI 24' 6'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of parking and driveway limits.
Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning if needed.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
Appendix B
MacNair and Associates Page 3 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species
# of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status Construction Impact Assessment Construction Impact Code Tree
Protection
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Critical Root
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Specific Tree Protection Requirements
25 coast redwood 1 20.0 63 Poor to Fair Yes
Located 21' to bio-retention and 24' to
driveway. Masonry wall required
approximately 4' from trunk. Potential
for cumulative root impacts.
MI 20' 5'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. The redwoods along the south property line require a root collar excavation procedure to determine extent of root damage from the condominium construction.
7. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
26 coast redwood 1 30.0 94 Poor to Fair Yes
Located 21' to bio-retention and 24' to
driveway. Masonry wall required
approximately 4' from trunk. Potential
for cumulative root impacts.
MI 30' 8'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. The redwoods along the south property line require a root collar excavation procedure to determine extent of root damage from the condominium construction.
7. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
Appendix B
MacNair and Associates Page 4 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species
# of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status Construction Impact Assessment Construction Impact Code Tree
Protection
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Critical Root
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Specific Tree Protection Requirements
28 coast redwood 1 24.0 75 Poor to Fair Yes
Located 21' to bio-retention and 24' to
driveway. Masonry wall required
approximately 4' from trunk. Potential
for cumulative root impacts.
MI 24' 6'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. The redwoods along the south property line require a root collar excavation procedure to determine extent of root damage from the condominium construction.
7. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
29 coast redwood 1 32.0 100 Moderate Yes 22' to parking area. Masonry wall required near trunk. MI 30' 8'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. The redwoods along the south property line require a root collar excavation procedure to determine extent of root damage from the condominium construction.
7. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
Magnussen's Toyota of Mountain View
Tree Protection Requirements Matrix
Appendix B
MacNair and Associates Page 5 of 5 8/22/24
Tree # Species
# of
Trunks
Equivalent
Trunk Diameter
@ 4.5' (inches)
Equivalent Trunk
Circumference@ 4.5'
(inches)
Suitability for
Preservation
(Based Upon
Condition)
Heritage Tree
Status Construction Impact Assessment Construction Impact Code Tree
Protection
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Critical Root
Zone
(Radius in
Feet)
Specific Tree Protection Requirements
31 coast redwood 1 30.0 94 Moderate Yes 16' and 24' to parking area. Masonry wall required near trunk. MI 30' 8'
1. Root pruning trench at edge of grading and excavation limits. Project arborist to assess root pruning impact.
2.Strutural pruning and crown cleaning.
3. Provide supplemental irrigation before and after root pruning.
4. Install tree protection fencing prior to start of work.
5. All tree protection areas shall have a three inch depth of bark mulch approved by the project arborist.
6. The masonry wall will need to be a pier and grade beam construction (and cantilevered) to bridge over the critical root zone.
7. Refer to demolition procedures in the General Tree
Protection Specifications.
33 white lead tree
(Leucaena sp.) multi ? Moderate Yes
Located on adjacent property adjacent
to new masonry wall. Moderate
impact likely.
LI 18' 4' Located on the adjacent property. A root pruning trench is required at the property line.
34 crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia
indica x fauriei )
1 6.5 20 Moderate to Good No (Street
Tree) Currently designated for transplanting. MI NA NA Designated for transplanting. 35 crape myrtle 1 8.0 25 Moderate to Good No (Street
Tree) Currently designated for transplanting. MI NA NA Designated for transplanting.
Appendix C
Complete Tree Protection Specifications
Magnussen’s Toyota Mountain View - Tree Protection Specifications- Appendix C
7/19/24
MacNair and Associates
Development of the project infrastructure, including roads, utilities, drainage facilities, etc., will alter the natural terrain and affect existing trees growing close to the construction areas. Impacts will primarily occur due to the site grading requirements and underground utility installations. The following procedures are recommended to maximize tree survivability.
1. Tree Protection Zone and Critical Root Zone
1.1. All construction activity (grading, filling, paving, landscaping) will respect a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around trees to be protected. The TPZ will typically be a one-foot radial distance from the trunk for each one-inch diameter. Exceptions to this standard may occur depending upon individual trees' age, condition, and species tolerance. The Critical Root Zone is the radial area around the trunk where all root impacts should be avoided or mitigated with specialized procedures. Typically, the critical root zone will be a radial distance equal to three times (3X) the trunk diameter.
2. Construction Observations and Supervision
2.1. All arboricultural and related soil work should be performed under the observation of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist (Supervising Arborist) or Client designated representative.
2.2. All specified arboricultural work should be completed before site grading (root pruning, crown pruning, fencing, etc.)
2.3. The contractor is required to meet with the Supervising Arborist or Client designated representative to review the tree protection requirements, including work procedures, access routes, and storage areas.
3. Tree Protection Fencing
3.1. Chain Link fencing at a minimum of six feet in height and marked to prevent inadvertent encroachment by heavy machinery should be installed either at the edge of the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ), the crown drip line (whichever is further from the trunk), or at the edge of the construction zone if the construction zone protrudes into the TPZ. The Supervising Arborist, or Client designated representative, should approve the location of the fencing. All fencing should be in place before any site grading. Fences may not be relocated or removed without the written permission of the Supervising Arborist or Client-designated representative.
3.2. Bilingual (English/Spanish) signage with a contact phone number shall be attached to the fencing in multiple locations with the following language:
Tree Preservation Area
Entry Prohibited without Authorization by…
3.3. Install trunk protection measures for trees within 10 feet of construction activities, which as a minimum shall include the installation of ½ in. closed cell foam padding around the truck of each tree from soil grade to a height of 6 ft. above grade. 2" x 4" x 6' wood planks shall be Magnussen’s Toyota Mountain View - Tree Protection Specifications- Appendix C
7/19/24
MacNair and Associates
installed ontop of the padding and secured with metal straps in at least two locations. No fasteners or other invasive hardware shall be driven into the protected trees.
3.4. The contractor shall maintain the protection fencing and prohibit construction personnel or equipment from accessing fenced areas until all site work is completed.
3.5. All structures, including construction trailers, equipment storage areas, and other construction traffic, are prohibited in fenced areas. Burning or debris piles are prohibited within fenced areas. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste, or washout water should be deposited or stored within fenced areas. Fences may not be moved without written permission from the supervising arborist or client-designated representative.
3.6. If temporary access within a fenced area is necessary, then a six-inch layer of bark mulch or gravel should be placed in all areas requiring access. This requirement for mulching should apply to all areas within the fenced area and subject to access. If equipment access is required, the mulch should be overlaid with metal plates of sufficient thickness to distribute the bearing load adequately.
4. Demolition/Site Clearing
4.1. The following work must be accomplished before any demolition or siteclearing activity occurs within 50 feet of protected trees.
4.2. The demolition contractor must meet with the site's project arborist or designated client representative before beginning work to review all work procedures, access and haul routes, and tree protection measures.
4.3. The limits of all tree protection zones shall be staked in the field.
4.4. Tree(s)toberemovedwithbranchesextending intothecanopyoftree(s)toremainmustbe removed by a qualified arborist and not by demolition or construction contractors. The arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s).
4.5. Any shrub clearing required within the tree protection zone shall be accomplished with hand-operated equipment.
4.6. Trees to be removed shall be felled to fall away fromtree protection zones andtoavoid pulling and breaking the roots of trees to remain. If roots are entwined, the consultant may require first severing the major woody root mass before extracting the trees. This may be accomplished by cutting through the roots by hand, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root -pruning equipment.
4.7. A qualified arborist shall remove treesfrom within the tree protection zones. The trees shall be cut near ground level, and the stumps shall be ground out.
4.8. All downed brush and trees shall be removed from the tree protection zone either by hand or with equipment set outside the tree protection zone. Extraction shall occur by lifting the material, not skidding it across the ground.
4.9. The brush shall be chipped and placed inthe tree protection zone to a depth of 6 inches.
4.10. Structures and underground features to be removed within the tree protection zone shall use the smallest equipment possible and operate outside the tree protection zone.
Magnussen’s Toyota Mountain View - Tree Protection Specifications- Appendix C
7/19/24
MacNair and Associates
The consultant shall be on-site during all operations within the tree protection zone to monitor demolition activity. Asphalt pavement removal within the tree protection zone shall be performed with hand equipment unless approved by the supervising arborist.
4.11. All trees shall be pruned in compliance with ISA Best Management Practices.
4.12. A 6-foot chainlink fence with posts sunk into the ground shall be erected to enclose the tree protection zone
4.13. Any damage to trees due to demolition activities shall be reported to the consulting arborist within 6 hoursso that remedial action can be taken. Timeliness is critical to tree health.
4.14. Iftemporary haul or accessroads must pass over the root area of trees to be retained, a roadbed of 6 inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to protect the soil. The road bed materialshall be replenished as necessary to maintain a 6-inch depth.
5. Site Grading, Trenching, and Root Pruning
5.1. Keep site grading within designated construction zones. Grading cuts or trenching within the TPZ of a retained tree trunk requires special trenching procedures. Trenches should be dug manually with an air spade or using a root-cutting machine, rock cutter, or other approved root-pruning equipment. This root-pruning trench should be placed one foot inside the edge of the grading cut or trench edge. The depth of the trench should equal the depth of the grading cut to a maximum depth of 40 inches. All work expected to encounter roots must be monitored by the Supervising Arborist or Client designated representative.
5.2. A trench may be mechanically dug toward a tree until the edge of the TPZ is reached. Special trenching procedures shall apply from the edge of the TPZ.
5.3. Underground utilities, drains, and irrigation lines should be routed outside the TPZs. When lines must cross the TPZ, they should be bored or tunneled through the area at a depth approved by the supervising arborist. In these instances, a single shared utility conduit should be used to reduce impacts on trees.
5.4. Any roots one inch in diameter or larger requiring removal should be cut cleanly in sound tissue. The roots and surrounding soil should be moistened and covered with a thick mulch (4") to prevent desiccation. No pruning seals or paints should be used on wounds. Cut and exposed roots should be protected from drying. A water-absorbent material (i.e., burlap) should be secured at the top of the trench and draped over the exposed roots. This material should be kept moistened, and the soil replaced as soon as practicable.
5.5. Porous pavements are recommended for use within the TPZ. The pavement subbase should be constructed without grading cuts.
6. Site Drainage
6.1. All grading shall be designed to provide positive drainage away from the base of the tree trunk and not create ponding within the TPZ.
Magnussen’s Toyota Mountain View - Tree Protection Specifications- Appendix C
7/19/24
MacNair and Associates
7. Pruning and Cabling
7.1. Any tree pruning, cabling, or other similar activity that may be proposed as part of site construction will be included in site plans and reviewed by a qualified arborist or clientdesignated representative.
7.2. Pruning methods shall conform to the ANSI A 300-2001 Pruning Standard Practices and be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker. Cabling or other support systems shall conform to the ANSI A 300 (part 3)-2000 Standard Practices
8. Tree Damage Mitigation
8.1. Trees damaged or significantly impacted during construction shall be evaluated by the Supervising Arborist or Client designated representative. Proper mitigation measures shall be specified and may include:
8.2. Pruning of damaged and dead wood.
8.3. Installation of a drip irrigation system to provide supplemental irrigation for three to five seasons following damage.
8.4. Proper low nitrogen fertilization timed to growth response and phenological development of the tree.
8.5. Periodic risk assessment of tree.
8.6. Replacement of tree per client requirements.
8.7. Alleviation of severe compaction by vertical mulching with augers or hydraulic soil probes.
8.8. Alleviation of surface compaction by light cultivation or raking and mulch application.
Appendix D
Existing Tree Exhibit
ATTACHMENT 4
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
AND PEER REVIEW
(APPENDICES TO THESE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE FROM
THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT UPON REQUEST)
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
2319 Old Middlefield Way
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and
775 Independence Avenue
Mountain View, California 94043
Report Date
August 2, 2024
Site Inspection Date
July 24, 0202
Partner Project No.
24-457135.1
Prepared for:
Integrity Design & Construction Services
PO Box 1171
Solana Beach, California 92075
(800) 419-4923 www.PARTNEResi.com
August 2, 2024
Mr. Danny Welch
Integrity Design & Construction Services
PO Box 1171
Solana Beach, California 92075
Subject: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue Mountain View, California 94043
Partner Project No. 24-457135.1
Dear Mr. Welch:
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) is pleased to provide this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I ESA) report of the abovementioned address (the “subject property”). This assessment was performed in conformance with the scope and limitations as detailed in the ASTM Practice E1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process and Client Agreement.
This assessment included a site reconnaissance as well as research and interviews with representatives of the public, property ownership, site manager, and regulatory agencies. An assessment was made, conclusions stated, and recommendations outlined.
We appreciate your trust in Partner and the opportunity to provide environmental services to you. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can assist you in any other matter, please contact me at (415) 992-3755
Sincerely,
Jay Grenfell
National Client Manager
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in accordance with the scope of work and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21, the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) and set forth by Integrity Design & Construction Services for the property located at 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (the “subject property”). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is designed to provide Integrity Design & Construction Services with an assessment concerning environmental conditions (limited to those issues identified in the report) as they exist at the subject property.
Property Description
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue within a residential and commercial area of Santa Clara County. Please refer to the table below for a further description of the subject property:
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATA
Address(es): 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue, Mountain View, California
Additional Current Address(es): None Identified
Historical Address(es): None Identified
Property Use: Commercial
Land Acreage (Ac): 2.39
Number of Buildings: Two
Number of Floors: One
Gross Building Area (SF): 23,300
Net Rentable Area (SF): 23,300
Date of Construction: Building A: 1966 Building B: 1985 Parcel Number: 147-12-033, 147-12-034, 147-12-060, and 147-12-061 Type of Construction: Concrete tilt-up
Current Tenants: Schiller Construction (2249 Old Middlefield Way), Industrial Lock Service (2255 Old Middlefield Way),
Advanced Health Products (2257 Old Middlefield Way),
Eagle Awards (2259 Old Middlefield Way), Morad
Mahpour (Old Middlefield Way), Mike Counsil Plumbing
(2263 Old Middlefield Way), Ana Powers (2265 Old
Middlefield Way), Western MicroLink (2269 Old
Middlefield Way), Dorsey Porter, Jr. (2271 Old Middlefield Way), Heartstrings Music (2273 Old Middlefield Way),
JQE, LLC (2275-2277 Old Middlefield Way), vacant units
(2249, 2267, and 2319 Old Middlefield Way)
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page ii
Site Assessment Performed By: Clinton Look of Partner
Site Assessment Conducted On: July 24, 0202
Regulatory Radius Report Date: July 17, 2024
Lien Search Date: N/A
Report Date: August 2, 2024
FOIAs Date: July 2024
Groundwater Flow Direction
(Inferred):
north
Estimated Depth to
Groundwater (Feet bgs):
9 to 12 feet
The subject property is currently occupied by Schiller Construction (2249 Old Middlefield Way), Industrial Lock Service (2255 Old Middlefield Way), Advanced Health Products (2257 Old Middlefield Way), Eagle Awards (2259 Old Middlefield Way), Morad Mahpour (Old Middlefield Way), Mike Counsil Plumbing (2263 Old Middlefield Way), Ana Powers (2265 Old Middlefield Way), Western MicroLink (2269 Old Middlefield Way), Dorsey Porter, Jr. (2271 Old Middlefield Way), Heartstrings Music (2273 Old Middlefield Way), JQE, LLC (2275-2277 Old Middlefield Way), vacant units (2249, 2267, and 2319 Old Middlefield Way) for XXXX use. Onsite operations consist of administrative activities, retail sales, and auto repair. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with asphalt-paved parking areas and associated landscaping.
According to available historical sources, the subject property was formerly undeveloped as early as 1897; developed with residential structures between 1931 and 1963; developed with Building A and residential structures from at least 1966 to 1981; and developed with Buildings A and B from 1985 to present.
According to the city directory review, the subject property has been occupied by residential tenants at 775 Independence Avenue from 1962 until 1971 and vacant from 1976 and 2325 Old Middlefield Way from 1962 until 1976 and vacant from 1981. The portion of the subject property addressed as 2319 Old Middlefield Way was occupied by residents from 1962 until 1981, then Miracle Auto Painting (& Body) from 1987 through 2008 and Uniwise in 1987.
The adjoining properties are tabulated below:
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Direction Land Use/Occupant
North: Old Middlefield Way, followed by: SV Express Car Wash (2378 Old Middlefield Way) Office/Light Industrial buildings (2330 - 2362 Old Middlefield Way) Northeast: Old Middlefield Way, followed by: Harrell Design & Build (2284 Old Middlefield Way)
East: Enterprise (2243 & 2247 Old Middlefield Way)
South: Residences (2368 and 2379 Toledo Terrace & 2378 and 2389 Toledo Circle) Southwest: Residences (745 & 753 Independence Avenue)
West: Independence Avenue, followed by: DB Group Construction Inc. (762 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page iii
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Independence Avenue) Independence Car Service (2415 Old Middlefield Way) Northwest: Intersection of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue, followed by:
Car West Collision (2400 - 2410 Old Middlefield Way)
Findings and Opinions
Recognized Environmental Condition
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. • Partner did not identify any RECs during the course of this assessment.
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). • Partner did not identify any CRECs during the course of this assessment.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). • Partner did not identify any HRECs during the course of this assessment.
Business Environmental Risk
A Business Environmental Risk (BER) is a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of commercial real estate, not necessarily related to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• According to the historical resources reviewed, Building B has been occupied by an auto body repair (Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair) and an auto repair shop (Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View) from 1987 until 2019. Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste onsite including waste solvent, lacquer thinner, and paint waste as a part of auto body and paint operations. Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste including motor oil (aboveground storage tank (AST)), waste antifreeze (AST), waste oil (AST), automatic transmission fluid (AST), antifreeze, drained used oil filters, gear oil, refrigerant, used oil filters, brake cleaner (acetone), and oily absorbent as part of car repair operations. There is a small bermed room approximately (10 x 6 ft) that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. A metal grate observed in the middle of the room, presumably sits on Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page iv
top of a catch basin for spills. According to Partner's 2022 Phase I ESA, Ms. Shelly Magpuri, business manager for the subject property stated that a Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted in 2001. The subject property was not listed in the regulatory database for any spills or releases. Based on the good housekeeping observed, no further action is recommended at this time. However, future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns.
• Due to the age of the Building A, there is a potential that asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) are present. Readily visible suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were observed in good condition. Should these materials be replaced, the identified suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
Significant Data Gaps
No significant data gaps affecting the ability of the Environmental Professional to identify a REC were encountered during this assessment.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, Partner recommends no further investigation of the subject property at this time.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Work...............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Limitations .....................................................................................................................................2
1.4 User Reliance................................................................................................................................2
1.5 Limiting Conditions........................................................................................................................3
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION.........................................................................................................................4
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description .............................................................................................4
2.2 Current Property Use ....................................................................................................................4
2.3 Current Use of Adjoining Properties..............................................................................................4
2.4 Physical Setting Sources ..............................................................................................................5
2.4.1 Topography ...............................................................................................................................5
2.4.2 Hydrology ..................................................................................................................................6
2.4.3 Geology/Soils ............................................................................................................................6
2.4.4 Flood Zone Information .............................................................................................................7
3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION..........................................................................................................8
3.1 Aerial Photograph Review.............................................................................................................9
3.2 Fire Insurance Maps ...................................................................................................................12
3.3 City Directories ............................................................................................................................12
3.4 Historical Topographic Maps.......................................................................................................27
4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW.............................................................................................29
4.1 Regulatory Agencies ...................................................................................................................29
4.2 Mapped Database Records Search............................................................................................33
4.2.1 Regulatory Database Summary ..............................................................................................33
4.2.2 Subject Property Listings ........................................................................................................35
4.2.3 Adjoining Property Listings......................................................................................................37
4.2.4 Surrounding Area Listings of Sites of Concern .......................................................................43
4.2.5 Unplottable Listings.................................................................................................................43
5.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS ...............................................................44
5.1 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................44
5.1.1 Interview with Owner...............................................................................................................44
5.1.2 Interview with Report User ......................................................................................................45
5.1.3 Interview with Key Site Manager.............................................................................................45
5.1.4 Interviews with Past Owners, Operators and Occupants .......................................................45
5.2 User Provided Information ..........................................................................................................45
5.2.1 Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs ......................................................................45
5.2.2 Specialized Knowledge ...........................................................................................................45
5.2.3 Actual Knowledge of the User.................................................................................................45
5.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues .......................................................................45
5.2.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information.................................................45
5.2.6 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation ...........................................................45
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.............................................................................................................47
6.1 General Site Characteristics .......................................................................................................47
6.1.1 Solid Waste Disposal ..............................................................................................................47
6.1.2 Sewage Discharge and Disposal ............................................................................................47
6.1.3 Stormwater and Surface Water Drainage ...............................................................................47
6.1.4 Source of Heating and Cooling ...............................................................................................47 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page vi
6.1.5 Wells and Cisterns ..................................................................................................................47
6.1.6 Wastewater .............................................................................................................................48
6.1.7 Septic Systems........................................................................................................................48
6.1.8 Additional Site Observations ...................................................................................................48
6.2 Potential Environmental Hazards................................................................................................48
6.3 Non-ASTM Services....................................................................................................................49
6.3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) ..................................................................................49
6.3.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP) .........................................................................................................50
6.3.3 Radon......................................................................................................................................50
6.3.4 Lead in Drinking Water............................................................................................................51
6.3.5 Mold.........................................................................................................................................51
6.3.6 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................51
6.4 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance ...........................................................................................51
7.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS....................................................................................53
8.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................54
9.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS ..........................................................56
10.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................57
FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Figure 2: Site Plan
Figure 3: Topographic Map
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Site Photographs
Appendix B: Historical/Regulatory Documentation
Appendix C: Regulatory Database Report
Appendix D: Qualifications
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page vii
ACRONYM LIST
Ac Acre
AAI All Appropriate Inquiries
AMSD Approximate Minimum Search Distance
AOC Area of Concern
ACM Asbestos Containing Material
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
AUL Activity and Use Limitation
AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System
AFS Air Facility System
ALT FUELS Alternate Fueling Stations
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BGS Below Ground Surface
BER Business Environmental Risk
BRS EPA Biennial Reporting System
COC Chemical of Concern
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
CDL Clandestine Drug Lab
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESQG Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CORRACTS RCRA Corrective Action Sites
ERIS Environmental Risk Information Services
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
FRP Fiberglass Reinforced Plastic
FIM Fire Insurance Map
FOIA Freedom of Information Action
FINDS Facility Index Database System
FRS Facility Registry Service
FRP Facility Response Plan
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FUDS Formally Used Defense Site
FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System
FTTS INSP Inspection Case Listing
FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
IODI Open Dumps on Indian Lands
IHW Industrial Hazardous Waste
IC/EC or
INST/ENG
Institutional Control/Engineering Control
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System U.S. Department of the Navy LQG Large Quantity Generator
LPST Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank
LST Leaking Storage Tank
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page viii
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
LBP Lead-Based Paint
MSL Mean Sea Level
MMMP Mold, Moisture, and Mitigation Plan
MGP Manufactured Gas Plant
MINES Mines Master Index File
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
MRDS Mineral Resource Data System
NPL National Priorities List
NCDL National Clandestine Drug Labs
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NFRAP No Further Remedial Action Planned
NonGen Non Generator
NonGen/NLR Non Generator/No Longer Regulated
ND None Detected
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NFA No Further Action
N/A Not Applicable
NOV Notice of Violation
NTC Notice To Comply
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ODI Inventory of Open Dumps
OWS Oil-Water Separator
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PTO Permit to Operate
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
pCi/L picoCuries per Liter
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PACM Presumed Asbestos Containing Material
PFAS Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
REFN Petroleum Refineries
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
PST Petroleum Storage Tank
ROD Record of Decision
RGA Recovered Government Archive
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation Recovery Information System REC Recognized Environmental Condition
SF Square Foot/Feet
SSA Superfund Alternative Agreement
SSTS Section Seven Tracking System
SQG Small Quantity Generator
SMCRA Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement SWF/LF Solid Waste Facility/Landfill
SWRCY Solid Waste Recycling Facility
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Page ix
SCRD State Coalition for the Remediation of Drycleaners SHWS State Hazardous Waste Sites
SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management Site
TANKS Aboveground and Unregulated Tanks
TRIS Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory System
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
TSDF Transfer, Storage and Disposal Facility
USDOE United States Department of Energy
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UIC Underground Injection Control
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VSQG Very Small Quantity Generator
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 and the Environmental Protection Agency Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) (40 CFR Part 312) for the property located at 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this scope of work are described in the report.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this ESA is to identify existing or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-21) affecting the subject property that: 1) constitute or result in a material violation or a potential material violation of any applicable environmental law; 2) impose any material constraints on the operation of the subject property or require a material change in the use thereof; 3) require clean-up, remedial action or other response with respect to Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products on or affecting the subject property under any applicable environmental law; 4) may affect the value of the subject property; and 5) may require specific actions to be performed with regard to such conditions and circumstances. The information contained in the ESA Report will be used by Client to: 1) evaluate its legal and financial liabilities for transactions related to foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing; 2) evaluate the subject property’s overall development potential, the associated market value and the impact of applicable laws that restrict financial and other types of assistance for the future development of the subject property; and/or 3) determine whether specific actions are required to be performed prior to the foreclosure, purchase, sale, loan origination, loan workout or seller financing of the subject property.
This ESA was performed to permit the User to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner, contiguous property owner, or bona fide prospective purchaser limitations on scope of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. §9601) liability (hereinafter, the “landowner liability protections,” or “LLPs”). ASTM Standard E1527-21 constitutes “all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice” as defined at 42 U.S.C. §9601(35)(B).
1.2 Scope of Work
The scope of work for this ESA is in accordance with and to the extent necessary to achieve the goal of the requirements set forth in the ASTM Standard E1527-21. This assessment included: 1) a property and adjoining site reconnaissance; 2) interviews with key personnel; 3) a review of historical sources; 4) a review of regulatory agency records; and 5) a review of a regulatory database report provided by a third-party vendor. Partner contacted local agencies, such as environmental health departments, fire departments and building departments to obtain readily ascertainable information to determine any current and/or former hazardous substances usage, storage and/or releases of hazardous substances on the subject property.
Additionally, Partner researched readily available information on the presence of activity and use limitations (AULs) at these agencies. As defined by ASTM E1527-21, AULs include both legal (that is, institutional) and physical (that is, engineering) controls that may include legal or physical restrictions or limitations on the use of, or access to, a site or facility: 1) to reduce or eliminate potential exposure to hazardous substances or petroleum products in the soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or surface water on the subject property; or 2) to prevent activities that could interfere with the effectiveness of a response action, in order to ensure maintenance of a condition of no significant risk to public health or the environment. These legal or physical restrictions, which may include institutional and/or engineering controls (IC/ECs), are intended Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
to prevent adverse impacts to individuals or populations that may be exposed to hazardous substances and petroleum products in the soil, soil vapor, groundwater, and/or surface water on a property.
If requested by Client, this report may also include the identification, discussion of, and/or limited sampling of asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), mold, and/or radon.
1.3 Limitations
Partner warrants that the findings and conclusions contained herein were accomplished in accordance with the methodologies set forth in the Scope of Work. These methodologies are described as representing good commercial and customary practice for conducting an ESA of a property for the purpose of identifying recognized environmental conditions. There is a possibility that even with the proper application of these methodologies there may exist on the subject property conditions that could not be identified within the scope of the assessment or which were not reasonably identifiable from the available information. Partner believes that the information obtained from the record review and the interviews concerning the subject property is reliable. However, Partner cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that the information provided by these other sources is accurate or complete. The conclusions and findings set forth in this report are strictly limited in time and scope to the date of the evaluations. The conclusions presented in the report are based solely on the services described therein, and not on scientific tasks or procedures beyond the scope of agreed-upon services or the time and budgeting restraints imposed by the Client. No other warranties are implied or expressed.
Some of the information provided in this report is based upon personal interviews, and research of available documents, records, and maps held by the appropriate government and private agencies. This report is subject to the limitations of historical documentation, availability, and accuracy of pertinent records, and the personal recollections of those persons contacted.
This practice does not address requirements of any state or local laws or of any federal laws other than the all appropriate inquiry provisions of the LLPs. Further, this report does not intend to address all of the compliance and safety concerns, if any, associated with the subject property.
Environmental concerns, which are beyond the scope of a Phase I ESA as defined by ASTM include the following: ACMs, LBP, radon, and lead in drinking water. These issues may affect environmental risk at the subject property and may warrant discussion and/or assessment; however, are considered non-scope issues. If specifically requested by the Client, these non-scope issues are discussed in Section 6.3.
1.4 User Reliance
Integrity Design & Construction Services (herein referred to as Client) engaged Partner to perform this assessment in accordance with an agreement governing the nature, scope and purpose of the work as well as other matters critical to the engagement. All reports, both verbal and written, are for the sole use and benefit of Client. Either verbally or in writing, third parties may come into possession of this report or all or part of the information generated as a result of this work. In the absence of a written agreement with Partner granting such rights, no third parties shall have rights of recourse or recovery whatsoever under any course of action against Partner, its officers, employees, vendors, successors or assigns. Any such unauthorized user shall be responsible to protect, indemnify and hold Partner, Client and their respective officers, employees, vendors, successors and assigns harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) and costs attributable to such Use. Unauthorized use of this report shall constitute acceptance of and commitment to these responsibilities, which shall be irrevocable and shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. Additional legal penalties may apply.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
This report has been completed under specific Terms and Conditions relating to scope, relying parties, limitations of liability, indemnification, dispute resolution, and other factors relevant to any reliance on this report. Any parties relying on this report do so having accepted the Terms and Conditions for which this report was completed. A copy of Partner’s standard Terms and Conditions can be found at http://www.partneresi.com/terms-and-conditions.php.
1.5 Limiting Conditions
The findings and conclusions contain all the limitations inherent in these methodologies that are referred to in ASTM Practice E1527-21.
Specific limitations and exceptions to this ESA are more specifically set forth below:
• Interviews with past or current owners, operators and occupants were not reasonably ascertainable and thus constitute a data gap. Based on information obtained from other historical sources, this data gap is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment. • Partner requested information relative to deed restrictions and environmental liens, a title search, and completion of the AAI User Questionnaire from the Report User. This information was not provided at the time of the assessment. This data gap is not expected to alter the findings of this assessment.
• Partner observed approximately 80% of all interior units and all common areas. Based on the size and nature of use of the unobserved units (Identify tenants), this limited method of observation is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment. • Partner submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), Mountain View Building Department (MVBD)and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for information pertaining to hazardous substances, underground storage tanks, releases, inspection records, etc. for the subject property and/or adjoining properties. As of this writing, this agency has/these agencies have not responded to Partner’s request. Based on information obtained from other historical resources, this limitation is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
Due to time constraints associated with this report, the Client has requested the report despite the abovelisted limitations.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
2.1 Site Location and Legal Description
The subject property at 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, California is located on the southeast corner of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue. According to the Santa Clara County Assessor, the subject property is legally described as Assessor Parcel Numbers 14712033 (2319 Old Middlefield Way), 14712061 (Old Middlefield Way), 14712060 (775 Independence Ave) (per assessor office). According to ParcelQuest, ownership is currently vested in Magnussens Middlefield LLC. since 2006.
Please refer to Figure 1: Site Location Map, Figure 2: Site Plan, Figure 3: Topographic Map, and Appendix A: Site Photographs for the location and site characteristics of the subject property.
2.2 Current Property Use
The subject property is currently occupied by Schiller Construction (2249 Old Middlefield Way), Industrial Lock Service (2255 Old Middlefield Way), Advanced Health Products (2257 Old Middlefield Way), Eagle Awards (2259 Old Middlefield Way), Morad Mahpour (Old Middlefield Way), Mike Counsil Plumbing (2263 Old Middlefield Way), Ana Powers (2265 Old Middlefield Way), Western MicroLink (2269 Old Middlefield Way), Dorsey Porter, Jr. (2271 Old Middlefield Way), Heartstrings Music (2273 Old Middlefield Way), JQE, LLC (2275-2277 Old Middlefield Way), vacant units (2249, 2267, and 2319 Old Middlefield Way) for XXXX use. Onsite operations consist of administrative activities, retail sales, and auto repair. The subject property consists of two one-story buildings located on the central and eastern portion of the subject property. In addition to the current structures, the subject property is also improved with asphalt-paved parking areas and associated landscaping.
The subject property is designated for commercial development by the Mountain View Planning Department.
The subject property address 2319 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS (3), CUPA SANTACLARA (2), HIST MANIFEST (2), DELISTED CTNK, EMISSIONS, RCRA NON GEN, and HAZ GEN (2) site; the subject property address 2257 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS, HIST MANIFEST, and HAZ GEN site; the subject property address 2259 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a HAZ GEN site; and the subject property address 2271 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a HAZNET, CERS HAZ, RCRA NON GEN, and FINDS/FRS site in the regulatory database report of Section 4.2.
2.3 Current Use of Adjoining Properties
The subject property is located within a residential and commercial area of Santa Clara County. During the vicinity reconnaissance, Partner observed the land uses on adjoining properties as defined in ASTM Practice E1527-21 as any real property or properties the border of which is contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property, or that would be contiguous or partially contiguous with that of the property but for a street, road, or other public thoroughfare separating them. The adjoining properties are tabulated below:
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Direction Land Use/Occupant
North: Old Middlefield Way, followed by: SV Express Car Wash (2378 Old Middlefield Way) Office/Light Industrial buildings (2330 - 2362 Old Middlefield Way) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
ADJOINING PROPERTIES
Northeast: Old Middlefield Way, followed by: Harrell Design & Build (2284 Old Middlefield Way)
East: Enterprise (2243 & 2247 Old Middlefield Way)
South: Residences (2368 and 2379 Toledo Terrace & 2378 and 2389 Toledo Circle) Southwest: Residences (745 & 753 Independence Avenue)
West: Independence Avenue, followed by: DB Group Construction Inc. (762 Independence Avenue) Independence Car Service (2415 Old Middlefield Way) Northwest: Intersection of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue, followed by:
Car West Collision (2400 - 2410 Old Middlefield Way)
The north adjoining property at 2378 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a DELISTED HAZ and CERS HAZ site; the north adjoining property at 2330 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a PFAS IND, CUPA SANTACLARA (4), DELISTED HAZ (2), CERS HAZ, EMISSIONS (3), and RCRA NON GEN (3) site; the north adjoining property at 2362 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA TSD, CUPA SANTACLARA (7), HAZNET (7), FINDS/FRS (8), CERS HAZ (2), DELISTED HAZ, RCRA NON GEN (7), and HAZ GEN (2) site; the east adjoining property at 2243 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a CUPA SANTACLARA and RCRA NON GEN (2) site; the east adjoining property at 2247 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a CUPA SANTACLARA (2), RCRA NON GEN, and CERS HAZ site; the west adjoining property at 750 Independence Avenue was identified as a FINDS/FRS, CUPA SANTACLARA, EMISSIONS (3), RCRA NON GEN, and HAZ GEN site; the west adjoining property at 2415 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS (4), HAZNET (5), HIST MANIFEST, CUPA SANTACLARA (3), CERS HAZ (2), RCRA NON GEN (2), and HAZ GEN (3) site; the west adjoining property at 794-796 Independence Avenue was identified as a HAZNET and HIST MANIFEST site; the northwest adjoining property was identified as a RCRA SQG, CUPA SANTACLARA (2), EMISSIONS (5), RCRA NON GEN (2), and CERS HAZ site; and the adjoining intersection was identified as a HMIRS (2) site in the regulatory database report of Section
4.2. 2.4 Physical Setting Sources
2.4.1 Topography
TOPOGRAPHIC DATA SUMMARY
Quadrangle Year: 2021
Quadrangle Name: United States Geological Survey (USGS) Mountain View, California Quadrangle 7.5-minute series
Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Elevation (Feet): According to the contour lines on the topographic map, the subject property is located at approximately 20 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Slope Direction: North
Slope Degree: The contour lines in the area of the subject property indicate the area is relatively flat
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
A copy of the most recent topographic map is included as Figure 3 of this report.
2.4.2 Hydrology
While under natural and undisturbed conditions shallow groundwater flow most frequently follows the topography of the land surface, natural or man-made features can affect flow direction, and the presumed flow may not match the actual flow directions at the subject property and vicinity.
HYDROLOGY DATA SUMMARY
Groundwater Flow Direction: North
Groundwater Flow Source: A previous subsurface investigation conducted on a nearby property
Estimated Depth to Groundwater
(Feet bgs):
9 to 12 feet
Estimated Depth Source: A previous subsurface investigation conducted on a nearby property
Closest Body of Surface Water
Name:
Permanente Creek
Closest Body of Surface Water
Distance (Miles):
0.54 mile
Closest Body of Surface Water
Direction:
Northeast
Water System Operator: City of Mountain View
Source of Drinking Water: City of Mountain View
2.4.3 Geology/Soils
GEOLOGY AND SOIL DATA SUMMARY
Physiographic Province: The subject property is situated within the Coast Range physiographic province of the State of California. The
Coast Ranges, extend approximately 600 miles from
the Oregon Border to the Santa Ynez River near Santa
Barbara, are characterized by elongated ranges and
narrow valleys that are approximately parallel to the
coast. Structural features, including faults and synclinal folds, largely control topography in the province and
reflect both previous and existing regional tectonic
regimes.
Geologic Unit Description: The Urban Land Hangerone Complex series consists of poorly drained clay, clay loam and gravelly loam soil that formed in alluvium derived from metamorphic and
sedimentary rocks and/or alluvium derived from
metavolcanics. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
GEOLOGY AND SOIL DATA SUMMARY
Geologic Data Source: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil
Survey
Soil Series Name: Urban Land
Soil Series Description: Urban Land complex are those soils in which the soil’s original structure and content have been so altered by
human activities it has lost its original characteristics and is thus unidentifiable.
Additional Information: Urban soils consist of nearly level to moderately steep areas where the soils have been altered or obscured
by urban works and structures. Buildings and
pavement cover more than 85 percent of the surface.
Included in this unit in mapping are many small areas
where the original soil material has been disturbed by
construction and areas where fill has been added.
2.4.4 Flood Zone Information
FLOOD ZONE DATA SUMMARY
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Community Panel No. According to Community Panel Number 06085C0036H
FIRM Date: May 18, 2009
Zone Designation: Zone X (shaded); defined as moderate risk areas within the 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplain, areas of 1-
percent-annual-chance flooding where average depths
are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent-annual-chance
flooding where the contributing drainage area is less
than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-
percent-annual-chance flood by a levee.
A copy of the reviewed flood map is included in Appendix B of this report.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
3.0 HISTORICAL INFORMATION
Partner obtained historical use information about the subject property from a variety of sources. A chronological listing of the historical data found is summarized in the table below:
HISTORICAL USE INFORMATION
Years Resource Description/Use
1897 -
1899
Topographic Maps Unimproved Land
1931 -
1963
Aerial Photographs, Client-Provided
Information, Topographic Maps, City
Directories
Developed with residential
structures
1966 -
1981
Aerial Photographs, Client-Provided
Information, City Directories, Topographic
Maps
Developed with Building A and
residential structures
1985 -
Present
Aerial Photographs, Client-Provided
Information, City Directories, Topographic
Maps
Developed with Buildings A
and B; tenants include various
commercial, office, and auto
repair tenants
According to the city directory review, the subject property has been occupied by residential tenants at 775 Independence Avenue from 1962 until 1971 and vacant from 1976 and 2325 Old Middlefield Way from 1962 until 1976 and vacant from 1981. The portion of the subject property addressed as 2319 Old Middlefield Way was occupied by residents from 1962 until 1981, then Miracle Auto Painting (& Body) from 1987 through 2008 and Uniwise in 1987.
According to the historical resources reviewed, Building B has been occupied by an auto body repair (Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair) and an auto repair shop (Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View) from 1987 until 2019. Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste onsite including waste solvent, lacquer thinner, and paint waste as a part of auto body and paint operations. Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste including motor oil (aboveground storage tank (AST)), waste antifreeze (AST), waste oil (AST), automatic transmission fluid (AST), antifreeze, drained used oil filters, gear oil, refrigerant, used oil filters, brake cleaner (acetone), and oily absorbent as part of car repair operations. There is a small bermed room approximately (10 x 6 ft) that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. A metal grate observed in the middle of the room, presumably sits on top of a catch basin for spills. According to Partner's 2022 Phase I ESA, Ms. Shelly Magpuri, business manager for the subject property stated that a Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted in 2001.
The subject property was not listed in the regulatory database for any spills or releases. Based on the good housekeeping observed, no further action is recommended at this time. However, future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
3.1 Aerial Photograph Review
Partner obtained available aerial photographs of the subject property and surrounding area from Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS) on July 18, 2024. The inferred uses of the subject property and adjoining properties as interpreted from the aerial photographs in Appendix B are tabulated below:
Date: 1931 Scale: 1"=500'
Subject
Property:
Appears to be developed with residential buildings
North: Appears to be undeveloped land beyond Old Middlefield Way Northeast: Appears to be undeveloped land beyond Old Middlefield Way East: Appears to be undeveloped land
South: Appears to be developed with residential buildings Southwest: Appears to be developed with residential buildings West: Appears to be undeveloped land beyond Independence Avenue Northwest: Appears to be undeveloped land beyond the intersection of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue
Date: 1939 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
Appears to be developed with residential buildings
North: Appears to be developed with residential buildings across Old Middlefield Way
Northeast: Appears to be developed with residential buildings across Old Middlefield Way
East: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 1948, 1956 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
No significant changes visible
North: No significant changes visible
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: Appears to be developed with residential buildings across Independence Avenue
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 1968 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
Appears to be developed with Building A and residential buildings North: Appears to be developed with residential and commercial buildings across Old Middlefield Way
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: Appears to be developed with commercial buildings South: Appears developed with apartment buildings
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Northwest: Appears to be developed with a commercial building across the intersection of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue
Date: 1974 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
No significant changes visible
North: Appears to be developed with commercial buildings across Old Middlefield Way
Northeast: Appears to be developed with a commercial building across Old Middlefield Way
East: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: Appears to be developed with commercial and residential buildings across Independence Avenue
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 1982 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
Appears developed with Building A
North: No significant changes visible
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 1991, 1994, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018
Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
Appears developed with the current buildings
North: No significant changes visible
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
Southeast: No significant changes visible
South: No significant changes visible
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: Appears to be developed with commercial buildings across Independence Avenue
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 2020 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
No significant changes visible
North: No significant changes visible
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
South: Vacant land
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Date: 2022 Scale: 1”=500’
Subject
Property:
No significant changes visible
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
North: No significant changes visible
Northeast: No significant changes visible
East: No significant changes visible
South: Appears developed with residential buildings
Southwest: No significant changes visible
West: No significant changes visible
Northwest: No significant changes visible
Copies of select aerial photographs are included in Appendix B of this report.
3.2 Fire Insurance Maps
Partner reviewed the collection of Fire insurance maps (FIMS) from ERIS on July 17, 0202. FIM coverage was not available for the subject property.
A copy of the no coverage letter is included in Appendix B of this report.
3.3 City Directories
Partner reviewed historical city directories obtained from ERIS on July 22, 2024 for past names and businesses that were listed for the subject property and adjoining properties. The findings are tabulated below:
Year(s) Occupant Listed
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 775 INDEPENDENCE AVE (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1956 Harness W L
1962 Vacant
1968 Czap Joan Mrs
1971 Landa Angel
1976 Xxxx
1981 Xxxx
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
2001
2002
Demeter Michael
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2249 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Delian Music Stores
1971 Gulf Electronics
1981 Micro Diameters
1987 Micro Diameters
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 Xxxx
2001
2002
Cook A, Robots Inc The
2008 Schiller Construction, Schiller Construction Inc
2012 Schiller Construction
2016 Schiller Construction
2020 Schiller Construction
2022 Schiller Construction
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2253 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Hampton Interiors Decs
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 Xxxx
2001
2002
Xxxx, Light Bulbs Plus
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2255 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1971 Sierra Systems Inc
1976 Jennys Ceramics
1981 Alarm Store The, Indstrl Lock Service
1987 Indstrl Lock Sv
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1990
91 Indstal Lock Sv
1995 Indstrl Lock Sv
2001
2002
Distrct Lock Sv
2003 Industrial Lock Svc
2008 Industrial Lock Svc
2012 Industrial Lock Svc
2016 Industrial Lock Svc
2020 Industrial Lock Svc
2022 Industrial Lock Svc
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2257 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Metra Instruments
1971 Ic Metals Corp
1976 Shop Tools Inc
1981 Sterenote, Phoenix Systems
1987 Commsoft
1990
91 Commsoft, Commsoft Tech Spprt
1995 Pixelmedia
2001
2002
Picogram Inc
2003 Picogram Inc, Cooper Communication Svc
2008 Advanced Health Products
2012 A Advanced Health Products, Massage Equipment Warehouse 2016 Norgren Systems, Massage Equipment Warehouse, A Advanced Health Products 2020 Norgren Systems, Massage Equipment Warehouse, A Advanced Health Products 2022 Norgren Systems, Massage Equipment Warehouse, A Advanced Health Products CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2259 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Buyfield Electronics Inc
1971 Bravura Films
1976 Micro Diameter
1981 Air Hardware, Airhardware Inc
1987 Airhardware Inc
1990
91 Airhardware Inc
2003 John Ho Photography
2008 John Ho Photography
2012 Eagle Awards, John Ho Photography
2016 Eagle Awards, John Ho Photography
2020 Eagle Awards
2022 Eagle Awards
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2261 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Vacant
1981 Magne Tron Instrmts
1987 Magne Tron Instrmts
1990
91 Magne Tron Instrmts
1995 Xxxx
2001
2002
Burke Printing Management Co
2003 Burke Printing Management Co
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2263 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Micro Glass Techniques Inc (Whse)
1971 Ascto Fire Extingshr
1976 Ladies Luncheon Lge
1981 Luncheon Is Served
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 99 Beads, Bead Shop The
2001
2002
Xxxx
2008 Massage Equipment Warehouse
2012 Hannelore Cole, Custom Hand Weavers
2016 Custom Hand Weavers
2020 Custom Hand Weavers
2022 Custom Hand Weavers
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2265 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Burton's of California Press
1971 Holz Precision Co
1976 Applitec
1981 Pac Office Sys Inc
1987 Fabbr&assoc
1990
91 Desi, Quality Imprint
1995 Quality Imprint
2001
2002
Presto Stamp, Quality Imprint
2003 Quality Imprint
2008 Fast Copier, Quality Imprint
2012 Undiscovered Country Tours
2016 Plumbing Studio
2020 Plumbing Studio, Undiscovered Country Tours
2022 Plumbing Studio, Undiscovered Country Tours
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2267 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Plastics Associates (Whse)
1971 Armor Elevator Co
1976 Sports Mkt Pblctns
1981 Xxxx
1987 Riese Enterprises
1990
91 Riese Enterprises
1995 Riese Entps Inc
2008 Custom Handweavers
2012 Presto Stamp
2016 Tivax
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2269 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 I F M North Mfrs Rep
1976 Raymond Lepper Wrks
1981 Leppet Raymond Wrks, Raymond Lepper Work
1987 Best Carpet
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 Xxxx
2003 Advanced Health Products, Massage Equipment Warehouse 2008 Bbk Usa, Advanced Health Products, Western Microlink 2012 Western Microlink
2016 Western Microlink
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2271 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Arneson Products Inc Swimming Pool Sups
1976 Ivory Images
1981 Xxxx
1987 Xxxx
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1990
91 Mac & Lou Constr
1995 Massage Equip Wrhs, Advanced Health Pro
2001
2002
Xxxx
2016 Green Lantern Electrical
2020 Green Lantern Electrical
2022 J M Motorsports, Green Lantern Electrical
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2273 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Educational Products Co
1981 Xxxx
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 A M E Air Condgtng
2001
2002
Norgen Systems
2003 Norgren Systems
2008 Heartstrings Music
2012 Heartstrings Music Llc
2016 Heartstrings Music Llc
2020 Heartstrings Music Llc
2022 Heartstrings Music Llc
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2275 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1976 M T I Industries, Holz Precision Co
1981 Xxxx
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1995 Xxxx
2001
2002
Xxxx
2012 Fast Copier & Printer Svc
2016 Fast Copier Printer Svc, Fast Copier & Printer Svc 2020 Fast Copier Printer Svc
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2277 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1968 Griffin's Carburetor Electric
1990
91 Explosive Detection
1995 Able Design Inc
2001
2002
Able Design Inc
2003 Able Design Inc
2008 Able Design Inc
2012 Able Design Inc
2016 Able Design Inc
2020 Able Design Inc
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2311 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1962 Vacant
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2319 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (SUBJECT PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Subject Property)
1956 Bowman J D
1962 Whitestitt John A
1968 Peryman Wm R
1981 Hamilton D L
1987 Miracle Auto Pntng
1990 Miracle Auto Pntng
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
91 2001
2002
Demeter Michael
2003 Miracle Auto Painting & Body
2008 Miracle Auto Painting & Body
Environmental concerns associated with onsite tenants are further discussed in Section 4.2.
Year(s) Occupant Listed
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 745 INDEPENDENCE AVE (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1962 Gonzales John
1968 Morri David, Morri the Tree Man Tree Spraying
1971 Morri the Tree Man
1976 Morri the Tree Man
1981 Morri the Tree Man
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 Liddicoat George
2001
2002
Lidicoat George
2003 Liddicoat Tree Svc
2008 Liddicoat Tree Svc
2012 Maria Sanchez, Liddicoat Tree Svc
2016 George Liddicoat, Liddicoat Tree Svc
2020 Mean Joe Green, George Liddicoat
2022 Alta Limousine, George Liddicoat, Mean Joe Green
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 753 INDEPENDENCE AVE (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1968 Feldman Gary M
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1971 Costello Susan
1976 Farrell Bruce
1981 Farrell Bruce
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
1995 Barrenechea Pedro L
2001
2002
Galeno Alejandro
2003 Pedro L Barrenechea
2022 Christopher Hicken
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 762 INDEPENDENCE AVE (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1956 Barron A
1968 Parades Pearl Mrs
1971 Sanchez Fernando
1976 Xxxx
1981 Xxxx
1987 Xxxx
1990
91 Xxxx
2001
2002
Bertolotti Aldo
2003 Ed's Tow
2008 Eds Tow, Eds Tow & Cradle
2016 Ed's Tow
2020 Ed's Tow
2022 Ed's Tow, D B Group Construction Co
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2243 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1962 Valley Electric Co
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1968 Valley Electric Co Elec Contr
1971 Wyser Sears
1976 Datacraft, Valley Lighting
1981 Valley Lighting, Moonlight Productns
1987 New Era Lighting
1990
91 New Era Lighting, New Era Lghtng Sply, Moonlight Proctns 1995 A Bright Idea, New Era Lighting, Light Bulbs Plus
2001
2002
C a Diverson, New Era Lighting, Hoffman Glenn
2003 Cad Version, Light Bulbs Plus
2008 New Era Electric
2012 Illuminations Bulbs & Fixtures
2016 Illuminations Bulbs & Fixtures
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2247 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1962 Olander Co the Hdw Dlr
1971 Republic Inf Systems
1976 Turner Designs
1981 Turner Designs
1987 Turner Designs
1990
91 Robots Inc The, Markgraf Publishing
1995 Robots Inc The, Markgraf Publishing, A Foreign Car Rpr, Lous Automotive 2001
2002
Lous Automotive, Markgraf Publishng, A Foreign Car Rpr
2003 Robots Inc, Markgraf Publishing Group, A Foreign Car Repair Shop, Lou's Automotive
2008 Wtrs, Markgraph Publishing Group, Markgraf Publishing Group, A Foreign Car Repair Shop, Lous Automotive, Robots Inc
2012 Wtrs, Lou's Automotive, Robots Inc
2016 Wtrs, Lou's Automotive, Robots Inc
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
2020 Robots Inc, Lou's Automotive
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2284 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1956 Przybyla J
1962 Pool Garvin
1968 Vacant
1971 Semipak Inc, Moon Lith Press Inc, Mercury Christensen, Ladies Luncheon Lge, Picture Frame Mart, Alta Calif Systems, Advertisg Graphics, Etec Corporation, Bennett J S Co, Int Equipment
1976 Myco, Bishke M H Sales & Sv, Micromodule Compnts, Lubrication Sciencs, Hencel Products Co, Artframes Unlimitd, Mcneillefavia Co, Brisk Associates, Devine Wind Inc, Atomel Prd Corp, Ccm Framing, Sears Tex, Building, Gasonics, Refocus 1981 Refocus, Art&frames Unlimited, Scientific Clnr&lab, Balazs Analytcl Lab, Waverley Cameron, Mcneill&favia Co, Madison David, C&w Framing, Multitrax 1987 Multitrax, Balazs Anlytcl Lab, Artaframes Unltd, Mcneilafavia Co, C&w Framing 1990
91 Building, Lasiatic Hse Artsts, Corporate Houseware, Ca Process Controls, Art & Frames Unltd, Rays Barber Shop, Colfax Internatl, M M & Favia Co, C & W Framing, Ski Eze Ltd, Multitrax
1995 Building, Corporate Houseware, Ca Process Controls, Lasatic Hs Artists, Rays Barber Shop, Power Source Inc, Art&frames Unltd, Colfax Internal, M M Flavia Co, Caw Framing, Multitrax
2001
2002
Krieg, Sizto Tech Corporation, Mountn Vw Upholstery, Macalou Construction, Ca Process Controls, A D C & Associates, Ribbons by Diana, Power Source Inc, Art&frames Unltd, Bampton Corp, Caw Framing, Building
2003 Adc Assoc, California Process Controls, K J's Cafe a La Carte Inc, Dcs Systems Specialty Gas, Burg Data Communications, Ribbons by Diana Krieg, Mac & Lou Construction, Art & Frames Unlimited, Mt View Upholstery, Uniforms Express, Power Source Inc, Sizto Tech Corp, C & W Framing, Bampton Corp 2008 C & W Framing, California Process Controls, 153 Cornerstone Constr Inc, Mac & Lou Construction, Dcs Syst Specialty Gas, Art & Frames Unlimited, Ozone Water Systems, Menacho Refinishing, Proceviat Designs, Power Source Inc, Sizto Tech Corp
2012 Fleurty, Art & Frames Unlimited, Menacho Refinishing, Proceviat Designs, Power Source Inc, Sizto Tech Corp
2016 Fogelberg, Norma, Art & Frames Unlimited, James Crist Builders, Menacho Refinishing, Proceviat Designs
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
2020 Bampton Corp, Art & Frames Unlimited, James Crist Builders, Menacho Refinishing, Proceviat Designs
2022 Bampton Corp, Art & Frames Unlimited, James Crist Builders, Menacho Refinishing, Proceviat Designs
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2330 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1956 Johnson M, Pooleski Edna
1962 Apartments, Multi Tenant Residential
1968 Vacant, Multi Tenant Residential, Apartments
1976 Quantex Corp, Sunburst Typesetting, Moon Lith Press Inc, Claypool Controls, Brawnayn Designs, Status Systems, Mcfadden Dee W, Gibson Studio 1981 Allex Corp, Moon Lith Press Inc, Solar Energy Rsrcs, U C Components, Status Systems, Europa Imports, Gibson Studio, Sundow Corp
1990
91 Europa Imports, Moon Lith Press Inc, Moonlith Press Inc, Bay Area Electric, Tri Con Electric, Conrad Electric, U C Components
1995 Com One, Service Physics Inc, Moon Lith Press Inc, Moonlith Press Inc, Galenas Paper Lnks, Creative Art Servs, Bay Area Electric, Acom Technologies, Tri Com Electric, Acom Electronics, Conrad Electric, Palo Alto Tv 2001
2002
Xxxx, Galena's Paper Linens, Cressman Ralph
2003 J C Builders, Douglas L Peck Photography, R J Finato Construction, Stanford Painting Inc, Galena's Paper Linens, Chia Wen Photography, Nunley Construction, Multi Tek Express, Honeywell Design, Moon Lith Press, Lee Electronics 2008 Infinix, Southern Exposure Construction, Stanford Painting Inc, Multi Tek Express Inc, Chia Wen Photography, Watten Painting Inc, Nunley Construction, Finato Construction, Honeywell Design, Moon Lith Press, J C Builders 2012 Helms, Kenna, Peak Laboratories Llc, Watten Painting Inc, Moffett Supply Inc, N Symbio Inc
2016 N Symbio Inc, Palo Alto Girls' Softball, Stanford Painting Inc, Peak Laboratories Llc, First Lock & Security, Watten Painting Inc, Moffett Supply Inc 2020 N Symbio Inc, Palo Alto Girls' Softball, Stanford Painting Inc, Peak Laboratories Llc, Watten Painting Inc, Moffett Supply Inc
2022 N Symbio Inc, Palo Alto Girls' Softball, Stanford Painting Inc, Peak Laboratories Llc, Watten Painting Inc, Moffett Supply Inc
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2362 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1956 Perguidi W
1962 Caldata Corp Bkpg Serv
1971 Mid Field Auto Serv
1976 Mid Field Auto Body, Mid Field Auto Serv
1981 Alvarez Jose, Mid Field Auto Serv, Mid Field Auto Body, Hatfield Trueman L 1987 Morfin Rosendo, Mid Field Auto Body
1990
91 Ortis Chris, Middlefield Auto Sv, Mid Field Auto Body 1995 Eds Towcarcade, Middlefield Auto Sv
2001
2002
Heyer Anthony
2003 Middlefield Auto Svc
2008 Expert Auto Care, Auto Repair Specialist, Middlefield Auto Svc, Heyer Performance 2012 Sleek Motoring, Takahashi Automotive, Middlefield Auto Svc, Heyer Performance 2016 Sleek Motoring, Takahashi Automotive, Middlefield Auto Svc, Heyer Performance 2020 Filld, Takahashi Automotive, Heyer Performance, Mb Repair 2022 Filld, Heyer Performance, Smart Start, Mb Repair
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2378 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1956 Gitchel I H
1962 Kelly D Jay
2001
2002
Steele Grover, Moorefield Auto Sv
2016 Sv Express Car Wash, Silicon Wave Properties
2020 Sv Express Car Wash
2022 Sv Express Car Wash
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2400 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1962 Perquid Wm O
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
1971 Richmond Electric
1976 Car West Towing, Car West Body Wrks
1981 Car West Towing, Car West Body Works
1987 Car West Body Works
1990
91 Car West Body Works
1995 Magnussen Car Shop, Toyota of Palo Alto, Magnussen Car Twng 2001
2002
Xxxx, Toyota of Palo Alto, West Auto Body, Toyota of Palo, Alto Body Shop, Magnussen Car
2003 Toyota of Palo Alto, Magnussen Car West Body Shop
2008 Toyota of Palo Alto, Magnussen Car West Body Shop
2012 Magnussen Car West Auto Body
2016 Magnussen Car West Auto Body
2020 Magnussen Car West Auto Body
2022 Magnussen Car West Auto Body
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2410 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
2001
2002
Marchese Adelene
CITY DIRECTORY SEARCH FOR 2415 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY (ADJOINING PROPERTY) City Directory Search for (Adjoining Properties)
1995 Beautiful Sportscr, Indepnc Acura Serv, Ellsworth Brothers 2001
2002
Ellsworth Stephen, Honda Acura Service Indpndce, Acura Honda Service Indep, Ellsworth Brothers
2003 Acura Honda Svc Independence, Ellsworth Brothers Automotive 2008 Ellsworth Automotive Ctr, Acura Honda Svc Independence 2012 Stephen Ellsworth, Honda Acura Svc Independence, Ellsworth Automotive Ctr 2016 Ellsworth Automotive Ctr, Honda Acura Svc Independence 2020 Euro Auto Ctr, Honda Acura Svc Independence
2022 Euro Auto Ctr, Honda Acura Svc Independence
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
According to the city directory review, the adjoining properties have been occupied by numerous commercial and residential tenants. Sites of environmental concern are further discussed in Section 4.2.3.
Copies of reviewed city directories are included in Appendix B of this report.
3.4 Historical Topographic Maps
Partner reviewed historical topographic maps obtained from ERIS on July 17, 2024. The following inferred uses of the subject property and adjoining properties interpreted from topographic maps in Appendix B and are tabulated below:
Date: 1897, 1899
Subject
Property:
Depicted as undeveloped land
North: Depicted as undeveloped land
Northeast: Depicted as undeveloped land
East: Depicted as undeveloped land
South: Depicted as undeveloped land
Southwest: Depicted as undeveloped land
West: Depicted as undeveloped land
Northwest: Depicted as undeveloped land
Date: 1941, 1943
Subject
Property:
Depicted as developed with a structure
North: Depicted as developed with structures across Old Middlefield Way Northeast: Depicted as developed with a structure across Old Middlefield Way East: No significant changes depicted
South: Depicted as developed with a structure
Southwest: Depicted as developed with a structure
West: Depicted as undeveloped land across Independence Avenue Northwest: Depicted as undeveloped land across the intersection of Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue
Date: 1948, 1953
Subject
Property:
Depicted as developed with two structures
North: No significant changes depicted
Northeast: No significant changes depicted
East: No significant changes depicted
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
South: No significant changes depicted
Southwest: No significant changes depicted
West: Depicted as developed with structures across Independence Avenue Northwest: Depicted as developed with a structure across the intersection of Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue
Date: 1961, 1968, 1973, 1981, 1995, 1997, 2015, 2018, 2021 Subject
Property:
Shaded to depict urban development
North: Shaded to depict urban development
Northeast: Shaded to depict urban development
East: Shaded to depict urban development
South: Shaded to depict urban development
Southwest: Shaded to depict urban development
West: Shaded to depict urban development
Northwest: Shaded to depict urban development
Copies of reviewed topographic maps are included in Appendix B of this report.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
4.0 REGULATORY RECORDS REVIEW
4.1 Regulatory Agencies
State Department
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Point of Contact: https://calepa.ca.gov/environmental-mapping-tools-and-data/ Agency Address: 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Agency Phone Number: (916) 323-2514
Date of Contact: July 29, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Research
Summary of Communication:
The following listings were on file for the subject property:
J&M Motorsports, LLC (2271 Old Middlefield Way)- Hazardous Waste Generator - Chemical Storage Facilities
Miracle Auto Painting (2319 Old Middlefield Way) - US EPA Air Emission Inventory System Health Department
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)
Point of Contact: https://cepascc-ca.nextrequest.com/
Agency Address: 1555 Berger Drive #300, San Jose, CA 95112 Agency Phone Number: (408) 918-3400
Date of Contact: July 17, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Request Form
Summary of Communication:
As of the date of this report, Partner has not received a response from the SCCDEH for inclusion in this report.
Fire Department
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD)
Point of Contact: https://cityofmountainviewca.nextrequest.com Agency Address: 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 Agency Phone Number: (650) 903-6300
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Date of Contact: July 17, 2024
Method of
Communication:
Online Request Form
Summary of Communication:
The following records were on file for the subject property:
Explosive Detection Corporation (2277 Old Middlefield Way)- Permits to store radioactive materials on site (1990-1992)
Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View (2319 Old Middlefield Way) - Permits to store hazardous materials on site (2012-2019) - Hazardous material inventories note that hazardous substances stored by Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View included antifreeze, automatic transmission fluid, motor oil, waste antifreeze, and waste oil.
Miracle Auto Painting (2319 Old Middlefield Way) - A facility closure report for Miracle Auto dated December 11, 2005 was on file with the MVFD. The document notes that all hazardous materials and wastes were removed from the subject property. - According a plan check on file with the MVFD dated April 11, 1984, the subject property was approved for the construction of an automobile painting facility.
PixelMedia (2257 Old Middlefield Way) - A facility closure report for PixelMedia dated February 20, 1998 was on file with the MVFD. The document notes that all hazardous materials and wastes were removed from the subject property. - Permits to store hazardous materials on site (1997-2000) Building Department
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Mountain View Building Department (MVBD) Point of Contact: https://cityofmountainviewca.nextrequest.com Agency Address: 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 Agency Phone Number: (650) 903-6313
Date of Contact: July 17, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Request Form
Summary of Communication:
As of the date of this report, Partner has not received a response from the MVBD for inclusion in this report.
Planning Department
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Mountain View Planning Department (MVPD) Point of Contact: https://cityofmountainviewca.nextrequest.com Agency Address: 500 Castro Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 Agency Phone Number: (650) 903-6306
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Date of Contact: July 17, 0020
Method of Communication: Online Request Form
Summary of Communication:
According to reviewed online documents, the subject property is zoned for commercial development by the City of Mountain View.
Oil & Gas Exploration
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Point of Contact: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/ Agency Address: 715 P Street, MS 1900, Sacramento, CA 95814 Agency Phone Number: (916) 445-9686
Date of Contact: July 29, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Research
Summary of Communication:
According to CalGEM, no oil or gas wells are located on or adjoining to the subject property.
Assessor’s Office
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Santa Clara County Assessor (SCCA)
Point of Contact: https://www.sccassessor.org/
Agency Address: 130 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 Agency Phone Number: (408) 299-5500
Date of Contact: July 29, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Research
Summary of Communication:
According to records reviewed, the subject property is identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 147-12-033, 147-12-034, 147-12-060, and 147-12-061. Building A was constructed in 1966 and totals approximately 14,850 square feet and Building B was constructed in 1985 and totals approximately 8,450 square feet. The subject property totals approximately 2.39 acres.
Air Pollution Control Agency
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Point of Contact: https://baaqportal.publicrecordstracker.com/ Agency Address: 375 Beale Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94105 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Agency Phone Number: (415) 516-1916
Date of Contact: July 17, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Request Form
Summary of Communication:
As of the date of this report, Partner has not received a response from the BAAQMD for inclusion in this report.
Regional Water Quality Agency
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Point of Contact: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Agency Address: 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Agency Phone Number: 866-480-1028
Date of Contact: July 29, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Research
Summary of Communication:
No records regarding hazardous substance use, storage or releases, or the presence of USTs and AULs on the subject property were on file with the RWQCB.
Department of Toxic Substances Control
REGULATORY AGENCY DATA
Name of Agency: Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)-Hazardous Waste Tracking System
Point of Contact: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ and https://hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/
Agency Address: 1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Agency Phone Number: 916-551-1313
Date of Contact: July 29, 2024
Method of Communication: Online Research
Summary of Communication:
The EnviroStor database is the DTSC’s data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or sites where there may be reason to investigate further. No records were identified for the subject property address on the EnviroStor database.
The DTSC Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HWTS) was researched for hazardous waste manifest data submitted to the California DTSC. The following listings were identified for the subject property:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
PixelMedia (2257 Old Middlefield Way)- Photochemicals/photoprocessing waste (between 0.14595 and 1.25105 tons from 1993 to 1996)
Curtis Fukuda Photograph (2259 Old Middlefield Way) - Photochemicals/photoprocessing waste (between 0.02085 and 0.06255 ton from 1998 to 2000)
Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair (2319 Old Middlefield Way) - Aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5) with organic residues greater than or equal to 10% (0.0834 ton in 2005) - Hydrocarbon solvents (0.68807 ton in 1993) - Unspecified solvent mixtures (0.198 to 0.864 ton from 2001 to 2005) - Unspecified organic liquid mixtures (0.374 ton in 2002) Annex Toyota of Palo Alto (2319 Old Middlefield Way) - Other organic solids (0.15 and 0.065 ton in 2017 and 2018, respectively)
Copies of pertinent documents are included in Appendix B of this report.
4.2 Mapped Database Records Search
The regulatory database report provided by ERIS documents the listing of sites identified on federal, state, county, city, and tribal (when applicable) standard source environmental databases within the approximate minimum search distance (AMSD) specified by ASTM Practice E1527-21. The data from these sources are updated as these data are released and integrated into one database. The information contained in this report was compiled from publicly available sources.
The environmental database information is used to identify environmental concerns in connection with the subject property. The listings also serve to identify the known indications of the storage, use, generation, disposal, or release of hazardous substance at the subject property and the potential for contaminants to migrate onto the subject property from off-site sources in groundwater or soil in the form of liquids or vapor.
Using the ASTM definition of migration, Partner considers the migration of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form onto the subject property during the evaluation of each site listed on the radius report, which includes solid, liquid, and vapor.
4.2.1 Regulatory Database Summary
The following table lists the sites as categorized by the regulatory database within the prescribed AMSD.
The locations of the sites are plotted utilizing a geographic information system, which geocodes the site addresses. The accuracy of the geocoded locations is approximately +/-300 feet.
DATABASE REPORT DATA
Database AMSD Radius (mile)
Listings Identified
Subject
Property
Adjoining
Properties
Surrounding
Area Sites of
Concern
Federal NPL 1.00 N N N
Delisted NPL Site 0.50 N N N
Federal SEMS Site 0.50 N N N
Federal SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.50 N N N
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Federal RCRA CORRACTS
Facility
1.00 N N N
Federal RCRA TSDF Facility 0.50 N N N
Federal RCRA Generators Site
(LQG, SQG, VSQG, CESQG)
Subject and Adjoining Y N N
Federal IC/EC Registries Subject Property N N N
Federal ERNS Site Subject Property N N N
State/Tribal Equivalent NPL 1.00 N N N
State/Tribal Equivalent CERCLIS 1.00 N N N
State/Tribal Landfill/Solid Waste
Disposal Site
0.50 N N N
State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tank
Site (LUST/LPST)
0.50 N N N
State/Tribal Registered Storage
Tank Sites (UST/AST)
Subject and Adjoining N N N
State/Tribal IC/EC Registries Subject and Adjoining N N N State/Tribal Voluntary Cleanup
Sites (VCP)
0.50 N N N
State/Tribal Spills 0.25 N N N
Federal Brownfield Sites 0.50 N N N
State Brownfield Sites 0.50 N N N
FINDS/FRS Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
CUPA SANTACLARA Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
HIST MANIFEST Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
DELISTED CTNK Subject and Adjoining Y N N
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
EMISSIONS Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
RCRA NON GEN Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
HAZ GEN Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
HAZNET Subject and Adjoining Y Y N
DELISTED HAZ Subject and Adjoining N Y N
PFAS IND Subject and Adjoining N Y N
CERS HAZ Subject and Adjoining N Y N
4.2.2 Subject Property Listings
The subject property address 2319 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS (3), CUPA SANTACLARA (2), HIST MANIFEST (2), DELISTED CTNK, EMISSIONS, RCRA NON GEN, and HAZ GEN (2) site; the subject property address 2257 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS, HIST MANIFEST, and HAZ GEN site; the subject property address 2259 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a HAZ GEN site; and the subject property address 2271 Old Middlefield Way was identified as a HAZNET, CERS HAZ, RCRA NON GEN, and FINDS/FRS site in the regulatory database report, as discussed below:
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Database: RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS, HIST MANIFEST, and HAZ GEN Site Name: PixelMedia
Address: 2257 Old MIddlefield Way
Substance Involved: Photochemicals/photoprocessing waste Years of Operation: 1992-1996
Status: Closed
Discussion:
PixelMedia, a former tenant of Building A, was listed in the database as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes. According to the HIST MANIFEST and HAZ GEN listings, the facility generated hazardous wastes consisting of photochemicals/photoprocessing wastes from 1992 to 1996. Based on the small quantity and nature of the waste generated, these listings are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Database: HAZ GEN
Site Name: Curtis Fukuda Photography
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Address: 2259 Old MIddlefield Way
Substance Involved: Photochemicals/photoprocessing waste Years of Operation: 1998-2000
Status: Closed
Discussion:
Curtis Fukuda Photograph, a former tenant of Building A, was listed in the database for generating photochemicals/photoprocessing wastes from 1998 to 2000. Based on the small quantity and nature of the waste generated, this listing is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Database: HAZNET, CERS HAZ, RCRA NON GEN, and FINDS/FRS Site Name: Green Lantern Electric / J&M Motorsports
Address: 2271 Old MIddlefield Way
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: N/A
Status: Closed
Discussion:
J&M Motorsports, LLC a former tenant of Building A, was listed in the database as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facility does not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA or CERS listings. Based on the lack of violations, these listings are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
SUBJECT PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Database:
RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS (3), CUPA SANTACLARA (2), HIST
MANIFEST (2), DELISTED CTNK, EMISSIONS, RCRA NON
GEN, and HAZ GEN (2)
Site Name: Miracle Auto Painting / Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View / Annex Toyota of Palo Alto / Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair Address: 2319 Old MIddlefield Way
Substance Involved:
Aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5) with organic
residues greater than or equal to 10%, hydrocarbon solvents, unspecified solvent mixtures, unspecified organic liquid mixtures, other organic solids, and oxygenated solvents Years of Operation: 1985 to 2018
Status: Closed
Discussion: Miracle Auto Painting, a former tenant of Building B, was listed in the database as a small quantity generator of hazardous wastes. No violations were noted in Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
the RCRA listing. According to the database, hazardous wastes generated by former tenants of Building B have consisted of aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5) with organic residues greater than or equal to 10%, hydrocarbon solvents, unspecified solvent mixtures, unspecified organic liquid mixtures, other organic solids, and oxygenated solvents from 1985 to 2018. According to the EMISSIONS listing, Miracle Auto Body emitted organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases from 1987 to 2010. Miracle Auto Body and Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View were listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for previously operating in the hazardous waste generator and aboveground petroleum storage programs. Based on the small quantities of hazardous wastes generated and lack of violations, these listings are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern. .
4.2.3 Adjoining Property Listings
The north adjoining properties were identified in the regulatory database report, as discussed below:
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: SV Express Car Wash / Express Wash of Mountain View Address: 2378 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: North
Hydrological Gradient: Down-Gradient
Database Listing: DELISTED HAZ, CERS HAZ
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: 2021-Present
Status: N/A
Discussion:
According to the database, the north adjoining property at 2378 Old Middlefield Way was previously listed in the CERS database as a hazardous materials storage facility. No violations were noted in the CERS listing. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment..
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: nSymbio, Inc. / Watten Painting Inc. / Stanford Painting Inc. / Moon Lith Press / Peacock, Inc. / Peak laboratories
Address: 2330 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: North
Hydrological Gradient: Down-Gradient
Database Listing: PFAS IND, CUPA SANTACLARA (4), DELISTED HAZ (2), Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
CERS HAZ, EMISSIONS (3), and RCRA NON GEN (3)
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: 1996-2019
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The north adjoining property at 2330 Old Middlefield Way was listed in the database as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facilities do not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA listings. According to the CERS listing, the facility received a notice of violations during a compliance inspection in June 2016. The facility returned to compliance for all violations. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste generator program. According to the EMISSIONS listings, the facility emitted organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases from 1996 to 2019. The PFAS IND listing indicates that Moon Lith Press previously operated on the north adjoining property. The listing indicates that the facility was classified as a commercial printing and commercial screen printing facility, an industry that has the potential to have historically utilized PFAS on site. No violations or releases were identified from the facility. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name:
Takashi Automotive, Inc. / Garage One Subaru Workshop / Heyer Performance / Expert Auto Care / Hareacing / Middlefield Auto Service / MB Repair LLC / Auto Repair Specialist / Hare Racing / FILLD Inc. / Davis Porter Enterprises
Address: 2362 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: North
Hydrological Gradient: Down-Gradient
Database Listing:
RCRA TSD, CUPA SANTACLARA (7), HAZNET (7),
FINDS/FRS (8), CERS HAZ (2), DELISTED HAZ, RCRA NON
GEN (7), and HAZ GEN (2)
Substance Involved:
Other inorganic solid wastes, other organic solids, aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5) with organic residues less than 10%, waste oil and mixed oil, and unspecified organic liquid mixtures
Years of Operation: 2001-2022
Status: N/A
Discussion: The north adjoining property at 2362 Old Middlefield Way is listed in the database as a hazardous waste treatment, storage, and/or disposal facility. The TSD listing Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
notes that the facility was verified as a non-generator in 2019. The site is listed seven times as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facilities do not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA listings. According to the HAZNET and HAZ GEN listings, the facilities have generated hazardous wastes consisting of other inorganic solid wastes, other organic solids, aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5) with organic residues less than 10%, waste oil and mixed oil, and unspecified organic liquid mixtures from 2001 to 2022. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste generator program. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment..
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: J&M Motorsports LLC / Wilber Properties
Address: 2243 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: East
Hydrological Gradient: Cross-Gradient
Database Listing: CUPA SANTACLARA and RCRA NON GEN (2)
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: N/A
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The east adjoining property at 2243 Old Middlefield Way was listed in the database as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facilities do not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA listings. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste generator program. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment..
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: Lou's Automotive / The Robots, Inc. /Enterprise Rent-A-Car 2358 (Daily Rental Branch)
Address: 2247 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: East
Hydrological Gradient: Cross-Gradient
Database Listing: CUPA SANTACLARA (2), RCRA NON GEN, and CERS HAZ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: N/A
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The east adjoining property at 2247 Old Middlefield Way was listed in the database as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facility does not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA or CERS listings. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste generator program. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment..
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: Independence Auto Body / Car West Collision Address: 750 Independence Avenue
Direction: West
Hydrological Gradient: Cross-Gradient
Database Listing: FINDS/FRS, CUPA SANTACLARA, EMISSIONS (3), RCRA NON GEN, and HAZ GEN
Substance Involved:
Unspecified aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5),
oxygenated solvents, unspecified solvent mixtures, latex wastes, organic liquids with metals, unspecified organic liquid mixtures, and other organic solids
Years of Operation: 1993-2022
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The west adjoining property at 750 Independence Avenue was listed in the database as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facility does not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA listing. According to the HAZ GEN listing, the facility generated hazardous wastes consisting of unspecified aqueous solutions (pH between 2 and 12.5), oxygenated solvents, unspecified solvent mixtures, latex wastes, organic liquids with metals, unspecified organic liquid mixtures, and other organic solids from 1993 to 2022. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste generator program. According to the EMISSIONS listings, the site emitted organic hydrocarbon gases and reactive organic gases from 1996 to 2021. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: Independence Acura Service / Independence Car Service / Euro Auto Center / B&D Metal Factory LLC dba Ellsworth Machine Address: 2415 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: West
Hydrological Gradient: Cross-Gradient
Database Listing:
RCRA SQG, FINDS/FRS (4), HAZNET (5), HIST MANIFEST,
CUPA SANTACLARA (3), CERS HAZ (2), RCRA NON GEN (2),
and HAZ GEN (3)
Substance Involved:
Unspecified organic liquid mixtures, other organic solids, unspecified oil-containing wastes, and
photochemicals/photoprocessing wastes
Years of Operation: 1992-2019
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The west adjoining property at 2415 Old Middlefield Way was listed in the database as a former small quantity generator of hazardous wastes. The facility is currently listed as a non-generator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facilities do not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No violations were noted in the RCRA listings. According to the HAZNET, HIST MANIFEST, and HAZ GEN listings, tenants of the west adjoining property have generated hazardous wastes consisting of unspecified organic liquid mixtures, other organic solids, unspecified oil-containing wastes, and photochemicals/photoprocessing wastes from 1992 to 2019. The sites were listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste program. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment..
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: 1X Ellsworth, Steve
Address: 794-796 Independence Avenue
Direction: West
Hydrological Gradient: Cross-Gradient
Database Listing: HAZNET and HIST MANIFEST
Substance Involved: Asbestos-containing wastes
Years of Operation: 1990
Status: N/A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Discussion:
The west adjoining property at 794-796 Independence Avenue was listed in the database for generating hazardous wastes consisting of asbestos-containing wastes in 1990. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: Car West Body Works, Inc. / Service King Paint & Body, LLC / Magnussen Car West Auto Body / Car West Collision
Address: 2400 Old Middlefield Way
Direction: Northwest
Hydrological Gradient: Down-Gradient
Database Listing: RCRA SQG, CUPA SANTACLARA (2), EMISSIONS (5), RCRA NON GEN (2), and CERS HAZ
Substance Involved: N/A
Years of Operation: 1987-2021
Status: N/A
Discussion:
The northwest adjoining property is listed in the database as a former small quantity generator of hazardous wastes. The site is currently listed as a nongenerator of hazardous wastes, indicating that the facilities do not generate reportable quantities of hazardous wastes on site. No open violations were noted in the RCRA or CERS listings. The site is listed in the CUPA SANTACLARA database for operating in the hazardous waste program. According to the EMISSIONS listing, the facility emitted organic hydrocarbon gases, reactive organic gases, carbon monoxide emissions, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter from 1987 to 2021. Based on the lack of a documented release, this site is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
ADJOINING PROPERTY DATABASE LISTING
Property Name: N/A
Address: Independence & Old Middlefield
Direction: Northwest
Hydrological Gradient: Down-Gradient
Database Listing: HMIRS (2)
Substance Involved: Gasoline
Years of Operation: 1991
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
Status: Closed
Discussion:
According to the database, on April 17, 1991, approximately 5 gallons of gasoline was released in the adjoining intersection when a car struck a tanker truck. The Mountain View Fire Department responded and cleaned up the spill. No further action was required. Based on the cleanup and small quantity released, these listings are not expected to represent a significant environmental concern and a file review is not expected to alter the overall findings of this assessment.
Based on the findings, vapor migration is not considered an environmental concern at this time.
4.2.4 Surrounding Area Listings of Sites of Concern
No sites of concern are identified in the regulatory database report.
Based on the findings, vapor migration is not considered an environmental concern at this time.
4.2.5 Unplottable Listings
No unplottable listings of concern are identified in the regulatory database report.
A copy of the regulatory database report is included in Appendix C of this report.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
5.0 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION AND INTERVIEWS
In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs) offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the Brownfields Amendments), the User must conduct the following inquiries required by 40 CFR 312.25, 312.28, 312.29, 312.30, and 312.31. The User should provide the following information to the environmental professional. Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that all appropriate inquiries is not complete. The User is asked to provide information or knowledge of the following:
• Review Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens and AULs • Specialized Knowledge or Experience of the User
• Actual Knowledge of the User
• Reason for Significantly Lower Purchase Price
• Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable information • Degree of Obviousness
• Reason for Preparation of this Phase I ESA
Fulfillment of these user responsibilities is key to qualification for the identified defenses to CERCLA liability.
Partner requested our Client to provide information to satisfy User Responsibilities as identified in Section 6 of the ASTM guidance.
Pursuant to ASTM Practice E1527-21, Partner requested the following site information from Integrity Design & Construction Services (User of this report).
USER RESPONSIBILITIES
Item Provided By User
AAI User Questionnaire No
Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs No
Specialized Knowledge No
Actual Knowledge No
Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues No
Identification of Key Site Manager No
Reason for Performing Phase 1 ESA No
Prior Environmental Reports No
Other No
5.1 Interviews
5.1.1 Interview with Owner
Mr. John Hausler, subject property owner representative, was not aware of any pending, threatened, or past litigation relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the subject property; any pending, threatened, or past administrative proceedings relevant to hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or from the subject property; or any notices from a governmental entity regarding Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
any possible violation of environmental laws or possible liability relating to hazardous substances or petroleum products.
The subject property owner representative was not aware of the subject property history.
5.1.2 Interview with Report User
Please refer to Section 5.2 below for information requested from the Report User. The information requested was not received prior to the issuance of this report. Because the Report User (Client) is a lender, it is understood that the Report User would not have knowledge of the property that would significantly impact our ability to satisfy the objectives of this assessment. The lack of this information is not considered to represent a significant data gap.
5.1.3 Interview with Key Site Manager
The subject property owner acted as the key site manager, as discussed above.
5.1.4 Interviews with Past Owners, Operators and Occupants Interviews with past owners, operators, and occupants were not conducted since information regarding the potential for contamination at the subject property was obtained from other sources.
5.2 User Provided Information
5.2.1 Title Records, Environmental Liens, and AULs
Partner was not provided with title records or environmental lien and AUL information for review as part of this assessment.
5.2.2 Specialized Knowledge
No specialized knowledge of environmental conditions associated with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
5.2.3 Actual Knowledge of the User
No actual knowledge of any environmental lien or AULs encumbering the subject property or in connection with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
5.2.4 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
No knowledge of valuation reductions associated with the subject property was provided by the User at the time of the assessment.
5.2.5 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information The User did not provide information that is commonly known or reasonably ascertainable within the local community about the subject property at the time of the assessment.
5.2.6 Previous Reports and Other Provided Documentation The following information was provided to Partner for review during the course of this assessment:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. ( January 7, 2020 ) Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Partner prepared this report on behalf of Magnussen's Toyota of Palo Alto. The assessment was reportedly performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-13. The assessment consisted of a site reconnaissance, interviews with knowledgeable personnel, review of historical information, and a review of federal, state, and local regulatory databases. The assessment was Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
performed on the eastern portion of the subject property. Pertinent information contained in this report is summarized below:
• At the time of the 2020 assessment, the subject property was occupied by office, storage, retail sales, and auto repair tenants.
• According to the Partner report, the subject property formerly occupied by various commercial and office tenants.
• No current or former ASTs or USTs were identified on the subject property.
Partner identified the following non-ASTM scope issue: Based on the age of the subject property building, there is a potential that asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) are present.
Overall, observed suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were in good condition and are not expected to pose a health and safety concern to the occupants of the subject property at this time. Should these materials be replaced or repaired, the identified suspect ACMs and/or LBP would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos or lead prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. ( December 7, 2022 ) Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. Partner prepared this report on behalf of Magnussen's Toyota of Palo Alto. The assessment was reportedly performed in accordance with ASTM Standard E1527-21. The assessment consisted of a site reconnaissance, interviews with knowledgeable personnel, review of historical information, and a review of federal, state, and local regulatory databases. The assessment was performed on the western portion of the subject property. Pertinent information contained in this report is summarized below:
• At the time of the 2020 assessment, the subject property was unoccupied. • According to the Partner report, the subject property formerly occupied by Miracle Auto Painting, Uniwise, and Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View.
• No current or former ASTs or USTs were identified on the subject property.
Partner identified the following non-ASTM scope issue: According to the historical resources reviewed, the subject property has been occupied by an auto body repair (Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair) and an auto repair shop (Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View) from 1987 until 2019. Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste onsite including waste solvent, lacquer thinner, and paint waste as a part of auto body and paint operations. Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste including motor oil (aboveground storage tank (AST)), waste antifreeze (AST), waste oil (AST), automatic transmission fluid (AST), antifreeze, drained used oil filters, gear oil, refrigerant, used oil filters, brake cleaner (acetone), and oily absorbent as part of car repair operations. There is a small bermed room approximately (10 x 6 ft) that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. A metal grate observed in the middle of the room, presumably sits on top of a catch basin for spills. Minor paint and oil stains were observed. According to Ms. Shelly Magpuri, business manager for the subject property, a Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted in 2001. The subject property was not listed in the regulatory database for any spills or releases. Based on the good housekeeping observed, no further action is recommended at this time. However, future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns.
Copies of pertinent pages reviewed are included in Appendix B of this report.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
6.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
The weather at the time of the site visit was sunny and clear. Refer to Section 1.5 for limitations encountered during the field reconnaissance and Sections 2.1 and 2.2 for subject property operations. The table below provides the site assessment details:
SITE ASSESSMENT DATA
Site Assessment Performed By: Clinton Look
Site Assessment Conducted On: July 24, 0202
The table below provides the subject property personnel interviewed during the field reconnaissance:
SITE VISIT PERSONNEL FOR 2249-2277 AND 2319 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY AND 775
INDEPENDENCE AVENUE (SUBJECT PROPERTY)
Name Title/Role Contact
Number
Site Walk*
Mr. John Hausler Service Manager N/A Yes
* Accompanied Partner during the field reconnaissance activities and provided information pertaining to the current operations and maintenance of the subject property
No potential environmental concerns were identified during the onsite reconnaissance.
6.1 General Site Characteristics
6.1.1 Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste generated at the subject property is disposed of in commercial dumpsters located on the south side of the subject property. An independent solid waste disposal contractor, Recology, removes solid waste from the subject property. No evidence of illegal dumping of solid waste was observed during the Partner site reconnaissance.
6.1.2 Sewage Discharge and Disposal
Sanitary discharges on the subject property are directed into the municipal sanitary sewer system. The City of Mountain View services the subject property vicinity. No wastewater treatment facilities were observed or reported on the subject property. No septic systems were observed or reported on the subject property.
6.1.3 Stormwater and Surface Water Drainage
Stormwater is removed from the subject property primarily by sheet flow action across the paved surfaces towards stormwater drains located on the property and in the public right of way. On-site stormwater drains discharge to municipal owned and maintained storm sewer system. No drywells were identified on the subject property.
6.1.4 Source of Heating and Cooling
Heating and cooling systems as well as domestic hot water equipment are fueled by electricity and natural gas provided by Pacific Gas & Electric. The mechanical system is comprised of independent wall-mounted air conditioning units in Building A and ceiling mounted heaters in Building B. Hot water is provided by individual electric water heaters in Building A and an individual natural gas water heater in Building B.
6.1.5 Wells and Cisterns
No aboveground evidence of wells or cisterns was observed during the site reconnaissance.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
6.1.6 Wastewater
Domestic wastewater generated at the subject property is disposed by means of the sanitary sewer system.
No industrial processes are currently performed at the subject property.
6.1.7 Septic Systems
No septic systems were observed or reported on the subject property.
6.1.8 Additional Site Observations
No additional general site characteristics were observed during the site reconnaissance.
6.2 Potential Environmental Hazards
6.2.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site Partner identified hazardous substances or petroleum products used, stored, and/or generated on the subject property as noted in the following table:
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND/OR PETROLEUM PRODUCTS NOTED ONSITE Substance Container
Type
Quantity/
Size
Location Nature of
Use
Secondary
Containment
Environmental
Concern
Waste Oil Plastic
Container
s
3 x <5
gallons
Dorsey
Porter, Jr.
(2271 Old
Middlefield
Way)
Auto Repair
Activities
Yes No
The materials were found to be properly labeled and stored at the time of the assessment with no signs of leaks, stains, or spills. Secondary containment is provided. Small quantities of general maintenance supplies were found to be properly labeled and stored at the time of the assessment with no signs of leaks, stains, or spills. The storage and use of maintenance supplies does not appear to pose a significant threat to the environmental integrity of the subject property at this time.
6.2.2 Aboveground & Underground Hazardous Substance or Petroleum Product Storage Tanks (ASTs/USTs)
No evidence of current or former ASTs or USTs was observed during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.3 Evidence of Releases
No spills, stains, or other indications that a surficial release has occurred at the subject property were observed.
6.2.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Older transformers and other electrical equipment could contain PCBs at a level that subjects them to regulation by the U.S. EPA. PCBs in electrical equipment are controlled by United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations 40 CFR, Part 761. Under the regulations, there are three categories into which electrical equipment can be classified: 1) Less than 50 parts per million (ppm) of PCBs – “Non-PCB;” 2) 50 ppm-500 ppm – “PCB-Contaminated;” and, 3) Greater than 500 ppm – “PCB-Containing.” The manufacture, process, or distribution in commerce or use of any PCB in any manner other than in a totally enclosed manner was prohibited after July 2, 1979.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
The on-site reconnaissance addressed indoor and outdoor transformers that may contain PCBs. 1 padmounted transformer was observed on the subject property. The transformer is not labeled indicating PCB content. No staining or leakage was observed in the vicinity of the transformer. Pacific Gas & Electric maintains ownership and operational responsibility for the transformer. Based on the good condition of the equipment, the transformers are not considered an environmental concern.
Partner also identified three aboveground hydraulic lifts on the subject property- one in 2271 Old Middlefield Way and two in Building B. Based on the above grade nature of this equipment, the presence of this equipment is not expected to represent a significant environmental concern.
6.2.5 Strong, Pungent or Noxious Odors
No strong, pungent or noxious odors were evident during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.6 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquid were observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.7 Drains, Sumps and Clarifiers
No drains, sumps, or clarifiers, other than those associated with storm water removal, were observed on the subject property during the site reconnaissance.
6.2.8 Pits, Ponds and Lagoons
No pits, ponds, or lagoons were observed on the subject property.
6.2.9 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on the subject property.
6.2.10 Additional Potential Environmental Hazards and Emerging Contaminants Partner evaluated the current subject property use during the site reconnaissance for potential environmental hazards, including Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) impacts to the subject property. Based on the site observations and/or interview information with the [key site contact / property owner] likely PFAS impacts to the subject property based on current use were not identified. Based on this information, PFAS are not considered an environmental concern at this time.
No additional environmental hazards, including landfill activities or radiological hazards, were observed.
6.3 Non-ASTM Services
6.3.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs)
Asbestos is the name given to a number of naturally occurring, fibrous silicate minerals mined for their useful properties such as thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile strength. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1926.1101 requires certain construction materials to be presumed to contain asbestos, for purposes of this regulation. All thermal system insulation (TSI), surfacing material, and asphalt/vinyl flooring that are present in a building that have not been appropriately tested are “presumed asbestos-containing material” (PACM).
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
SUSPECT ACMs
Suspect ACM Location
Friabl
e
Yes/N
o
Physical
Condition
Drywall Systems Throughout Building
A Interior
No Good
Ceiling Tiles Throughout Building
A Interior
Yes Good
ND = Non-Detect
6.3.2 Lead-Based Paint (LBP)
Lead is a highly toxic metal that affects virtually every system of the body. LBP is defined as any paint, varnish, stain, or other applied coating that has 1 mg/cm2 (or 5,000 µg/g or 0.5% by weight) or more of lead. Congress passed the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, also known as “Title X,” to protect families from exposure to lead from paint, dust, and soil. Under Section 1017 of Title X, intact LBP on most walls and ceilings is not considered a “hazard,” although the condition of the paint should be monitored and maintained to ensure that it does not become deteriorated. Further, Section 1018 of this law directed the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the US EPA to require the disclosure of known information on LBP and LBP hazards before the sale or lease of most housing built before 1978.
Due to the commercial nature of use of the subject property, LBP was not considered within the scope of this assessment.
6.3.3 Radon
Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive, inert, gaseous element formed by radioactive decay of radium (Ra) atoms. The US EPA has prepared a map to assist National, State, and local organizations to target their resources and to implement radon-resistant building codes. The map divides the country into three Radon Zones, according to the table below:
EPA RADON ZONES
EPA Zones Average Predicted Radon Levels Potential
Zone 1 Exceed 4.0 pCi/L Highest
Zone 2 Between 2.0 and 4.0 pCi/L Moderate
Zone 3 Less than 2.0 pCi/L Low
It is important to note that the EPA has found homes with elevated levels of radon in all three zones, and the US EPA recommends site-specific testing in order to determine radon levels at a specific location.
However, the map does give a valuable indication of the propensity of radon gas accumulation in structures.
Review of the US EPA Map of Radon Zones places the subject property in Zone 2. Based upon the radon zone classification, radon is not considered an environmental concern.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
6.3.4 Lead in Drinking Water
According to available information, a public water system operated by the City of Mountain View serves the subject property vicinity. The sources of public water for the City of Mountain View are surface water from the Tuolumne River According to the 2023 Annual Water Quality Report, water supplied to the subject property is in compliance with all State and Federal regulations pertaining to drinking water standards, including lead and copper. Water sampling was not conducted to verify water quality.
6.3.5 Mold
Molds are microscopic organisms found virtually everywhere, indoors and outdoors. Mold will grow and multiply under the right conditions, needing only sufficient moisture (e.g.in the form of very high humidity, condensation, or water from a leaking pipe, etc.) and organic material (e.g., ceiling tile, drywall, paper, or natural fiber carpet padding).
Partner observed accessible, interior areas of the subject property buildings for significant evidence of mold growth with the exceptions detailed in Section 1.5 of this report; however, this assessment should not be used as a mold survey or inspection. Additionally, this limited assessment was not designed to assess all areas of potential mold growth that may be affected by mold growth on the subject property. Rather, it is intended to give the client an indication as to whether or not conspicuous (based on observed areas) mold growth is present at the subject property. This evaluation did not include a review of pipe chases, mechanical systems, or areas behind enclosed walls and ceilings.
No obvious indications of water damage or mold growth were observed during Partner’s visual assessment.
6.3.6 Wetlands
The subject property does not appear to be a designated wetland area based on information obtained from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; however, a comprehensive wetlands survey would be required in order to formally determine actual wetlands on the subject property. No settling ponds, lagoons, surface impoundments, wetlands or natural catch basins were observed at the subject property during this assessment.
6.4 Adjoining Property Reconnaissance
The adjoining property reconnaissance consisted of observing the adjoining properties from the subject property premises.
6.4.1 Hazardous Substances and Petroleum Products Used or Stored at the Site No hazardous substances or petroleum products were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.2 ASTs/USTs for Hazardous Substances or Petroleum Products No ASTs or USTs for hazardous substances/petroleum products were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.3 Evidence of Releases
No evidence of a release was observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
6.4.4 PCBs
No PCB containing materials were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.5 Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors
No strong, pungent, or noxious odors were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.6 Pools of Liquid
No pools of liquid were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.7 Drains, Sumps, and Clarifiers
No drains, sumps, or clarifiers were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.8 Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons
No pits, ponds, or lagoons were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.9 Stressed Vegetation
No stressed vegetation was observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
6.4.10 Additional Potential Environmental Hazards and Emerging Contaminants Partner evaluated the current adjoining property use/uses during the site reconnaissance for potential environmental hazards, including PFAS impacts to the subject property. Based on observations made from the subject property borders and/or information provided by [key site contact / property owner / other provided information] likely emerging contaminants AND/OR PFAS impacts to the subject property from current adjoining property use/uses were not identified. Based on this information, PFAS are not considered an environmental concern.
No additional environmental hazards were observed on adjoining properties during the limited adjoining property reconnaissance.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
7.0 VAPOR ENCROACHMENT CONDITIONS
Partner conducted a limited non-intrusive vapor screening on the subject property to identify, to the extent feasible, the potential for vapor encroachment conditions (VECs) in connection with the subject property.
This included consideration of chemicals of concern (COC) that may migrate as vapors into the subsurface of the subject property as a result of contaminated soil and groundwater on or near the property.
This screening utilized readily available data sources previously discussed in this Phase I ESA that includes:
• the physical setting of the subject property (Section 2.4), • standard historical sources for the subject property, adjoining, and surrounding area (Section 3.0), • known or potentially contaminated sites as identified from information from regulatory agencies and sites on Federal, State, tribal and local databases (Section 4.0), and • information from the site reconnaissance (Section 6.0) of the subject property and observations of the surrounding properties.
The results of our data collection, reconnaissance, and analysis are tabulated below:
POTENTIAL FOR VAPOR ENCROACHMENT TO IMPACT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Area of Concern Likely or Known VEC to Subject Property Subject Property Existing Operations or
Conditions (Sections 2.0 and 6.0)
None identified that impact the subject property.
Historical Uses of the Subject Property
(Section 3.0)
None identified that impact the subject property.
Adjoining Property Operations or
Existing Conditions (Sections 2.3 and
6.4)
None identified that impact the subject property.
Historical Uses of Adjoining Properties
or Nearby Properties (Section 3.0)
None identified that impact the subject property.
Regulatory Review of sites identified on
Federal, State, tribal and Local
Environmental Databases which were
located in the AMSD (Section 4.0)
None identified that impact the subject property.
Based on the findings of the limited non-intrusive vapor screening, vapor intrusion is unlikely to be an issue of concern in connection with the existing structures on the subject property. As such, no further assessment is recommended.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
8.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Findings and Opinions
Recognized Environmental Condition
A recognized environmental condition (REC) refers to the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. • Partner did not identify any RECs during the course of this assessment.
Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition
A controlled recognized environmental condition (CREC) refers to a REC affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). • Partner did not identify any CRECs during the course of this assessment.
Historical Recognized Environmental Condition
A historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) refers to a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or authorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations). • Partner did not identify any HRECs during the course of this assessment.
Business Environmental Risk
A Business Environmental Risk (BER) is a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of commercial real estate, not necessarily related to those environmental issues required to be investigated in this practice. The following was identified during the course of this assessment:
• According to the historical resources reviewed, Building B has been occupied by an auto body repair (Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair) and an auto repair shop (Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View) from 1987 until 2019. Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste onsite including waste solvent, lacquer thinner, and paint waste as a part of auto body and paint operations. Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste including motor oil (aboveground storage tank (AST)), waste antifreeze (AST), waste oil (AST), automatic transmission fluid (AST), antifreeze, drained used oil filters, gear oil, refrigerant, used oil filters, brake cleaner (acetone), and oily absorbent as part of car repair operations. There is a small bermed room approximately (10 x 6 ft) that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. A metal grate observed in the middle of the room, presumably sits on top of a catch basin for spills. According to Partner's 2022 Phase I ESA, Ms. Shelly Magpuri, business manager for the subject property stated that a Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted in 2001. The subject property was not listed in the regulatory database for any spills or releases. Based on the good housekeeping observed, no further action is recommended at this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
time. However, future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns.
• Due to the age of the Building A, there is a potential that asbestos-containing material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) are present. Readily visible suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were observed in good condition. Should these materials be replaced, the identified suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
Significant Data Gaps
No significant data gaps affecting the ability of the Environmental Professional to identify a REC were encountered during this assessment.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-21 of 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (the “subject property”). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1.5 of this report.
This assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property. Based on the conclusions of this assessment, Partner recommends no further investigation of the subject property at this time.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
9.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Partner has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the property located at 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California in conformance with the scope and limitations of the protocol and the limitations stated earlier in this report.
Exceptions to or deletions from this protocol are discussed earlier in this report.
By signing below, Partner declares that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR §312. Partner has the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. Partner has developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Reviewed By:
Sue Tang
Senior Author
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Project No. 24-457135.1
August 2, 2024
10.0 REFERENCES
Reference Documents
American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation: E1527-21 Environmental Risk Information Services (ERIS), Database Report, July 2024 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Map, accessed via the internet, July 2024 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, accessed via the internet, July 2024
United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Map of Radon Zones (Document EPA-402-R-93- 071), accessed via the internet, July 2024
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, accessed via the internet, July 2024 United States Geological Survey, accessed via the internet, July 2024 United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, 7.5-minute series, accessed via the internet, July 2024 Phase I ESA, Partner (2022)
Phase I ESA, Partner (2020)
FIGURES
1: Site Location Map
2: Site Plan
3: Topographic Map
FIGURE 1:
SITE LOCATION MAP
Project No. 24-457135.1
Drawing Not To Scale
KEY:
Subject Property
FIGURE 2: SITE PLAN
Project No. 24-457135.1
KEY:
Subject Property
GROUNDWATER
FLOW
SV Express Car Wash, Office/Light
Industrial Buildings
(2330 – 2378 Old Middlefield Way)
Harrell Design & Build
(2284 Old Middlefield
Way)
Enterprise
(2243 & 2247 Old
Middlefield Way)
Residences
(2368 and 2379 Toledo
Terrace & 2378 and 2389
Toledo Circle)
Residences
(745 & 753
Independence
Avenue)
DB Construction Inc. and
Independence Car Service
(762 Independence Avenue
and 2415 Old Middlefield
Way)
Car West Collision
(2400 – 2410 Old
Middlefield Way)
FIGURE 3: TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
Project No. 24-457135.1
USGS 7.5-Minute Mountain View, California Quadrangle
Created: 2021
KEY:
Subject Property
Date: September 16, 2024
Project No.: 1495-2-1
Prepared For: Mr. John Schwarz
JHS CONSULTING
236 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite #241
Los Gatos, California 95030
Re: Environmental Review
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and
775 Independence Avenue
Mountain View, California
Dear Mr. Schwarz:
Per your request, Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc. (Cornerstone) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our review of the provided environmental reports for 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue in Mountain View, California (Site). This letter was prepared for JHS Consulting in accordance with our August 26, 2024 agreement.
Project Background
We understand that JHS Consulting is providing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) support for the proposed redevelopment of the Site. The Site currently is developed with two commercial buildings. We understand that construction of a new automobile dealership is planned on the approximately 2.4 acre Site.
Documents Reviewed
This letter briefly summarizes selected information obtained from the following provided report:
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc. (Partner). August 2, 2024. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and 775 Independence Avenue, Mountain View, California.
For complete details, please refer directly to the original report.
Reported Site Conditions and History
Based on the information reviewed, the Site currently is developed with two commercial buildings occupied by Schiller Construction (2249 Old Middlefield Way), Industrial Lock Service (2255 Old Middlefield Way), Advanced Health Products (2257 Old Middlefield Way), Eagle Awards (2259 Old Middlefield Way), Morad Mahpour (Old Middlefield Way), Mike Counsil Plumbing (2263 Old Middlefield Way), Ana Powers (2265 Old Middlefield Way), Western MicroLink (2269 Old Middlefield Way), Dorsey Porter, Jr. (2271 Old Middlefield Way), Heartstrings Music (2273 Old Middlefield Way), and JQE, LLC (2275-2277 Old Middlefield 1495-2-1
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and
775 Independence Avenue
Mountain View, California
Way); vacant units include 2249, 2267, and 2319 Old Middlefield Way). On-Site operations consist of administrative activities, retail sales, and auto repair. In addition to the existing structures, the Site is improved with asphalt-paved parking areas and associated landscaping.
The Site historically was developed with several residential structures and associated outbuildings. The commercial building at 2249-2277 Old Middlefield Way reportedly was constructed in approximately 1966 and the commercial building at 2319 Old Middlefield Way was constructed in approximately 1985.
Partner (2024) stated that their study did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs)1 associated with the Site. Partner categorized the following as Business Environmental Risks (BERs)2
.
The on-Site building at 2319 Old Middlefield Way was historically occupied by an auto body repair business (Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair) and an auto repair shop (Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View) from 1987 until 2019. Miracle Auto Painting & Body Repair stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste on-Site including waste solvent, lacquer thinner, and paint waste as a part of auto body and paint operations. Magnussen Toyota of Mountain View stored hazardous materials and generated hazardous waste including motor oil (aboveground storage tank [AST]), waste antifreeze (AST), waste oil (AST), automatic transmission fluid (AST), antifreeze, drained used oil filters, gear oil, refrigerant, used oil filters, brake cleaner (acetone), and oily absorbent as part of car repair operations.
There is a small bermed room (approximately 10 x 6 feet) that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the Site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. Partner (2024) stated that a metal grate observed in the middle of the room presumably sits on top of a catch basin for spills.
Partner indicated that Ms. Shelly Magpuri, business manager for the subject property, stated that a Phase II subsurface investigation was conducted in 2001.
The subject property was not identified by Partner as being listed in regulatory databases indicative of spills or releases. Partner stated that based on the good housekeeping observed, no further action is recommended at this time. However, future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns.
Due to the age of the 2249-2277 Old Middlefield Way, there is a potential that asbestoscontaining material (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) are present. Readily visible 1 As defined by ASTM E1527-21, the term Recognized Environmental Condition means 1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; 2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or 3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. 2 As defined by ASTM E1527-21, the term Business Environmental Risk is a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on the business associated with the current or planned use of commercial real estate, not necessarily related to those environmental issues required to be investigated in ASTM E1527-21.
1495-2-1
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and
775 Independence Avenue
Mountain View, California
suspect ACMs and painted surfaces were observed in good condition. Should these materials be replaced, the identified suspect ACMs would need to be sampled to confirm the presence or absence of asbestos prior to any renovation or demolition activities to prevent potential exposure to workers and/or building occupants.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the information reviewed during this study, Cornerstone concludes and recommends the following:
Although the Site was not identified by Partner (2024) as being listed in regulatory databases indicative of spills or releases, Partner reported that there is a small bermed room that appears to have stored hazardous materials when the Site was operating as an auto repair/auto body repair shop. A metal grate reportedly was observed in the middle of the room that reportedly presumably sits on top of a catch basin for spills. A Phase II subsurface investigation reportedly was conducted in 2001; however, the results of the Phase II investigation were not reported. We recommend that a copy of the prior Phase II study be provided for our review, or sampling and laboratory testing be performed prior to redevelopment to evaluate potential impacts from past activities that involved the use and storage of hazardous materials.
Soil adjacent to structures that are painted with lead-containing paint can become impacted with lead as a result of the weathering and/or peeling of painted surfaces. Soil near wood framed structures also can be impacted by pesticides historically used to control termites. No information was reported that documents the use of lead-based paint or termite control pesticides on-Site; however, if used, residual pesticide and lead concentrations may remain in on-Site soil. Lead and/or pesticides often are identified in soil near old residences and associated outbuildings, such as those historically located on-Site. Prior to redevelopment of the Site, we recommend that shallow soil at the former structure locations be evaluated for the possible presence of lead and pesticides. If the planned development will require importing soil for Site grading, we recommend documenting the source and quality of imported soil. The DTSC’s October 2001 Clean Fill Advisory provides useful guidance on evaluating imported fill.
If the planned development will require exporting soil, consideration should be given to profiling the soil per the accepting facility’s requirements prior to grading activities to help expedite off-Site transport and disposal during construction. This soil profiling could be performed concurrently with the sampling and analytical testing recommended above. Partner stated that future planned development can adhere to a soils management plan to mitigate potential environmental concerns. Upon receiving the Phase II data described above, we also recommend preparing a Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) for the proposed demolition and development activities. The purpose of these documents will be to establish appropriate management practices for handling impacted soil, soil vapor and groundwater that may be encountered during construction activities. Based on the history of the Site, areas of impacted soil, soil vapor and groundwater may be encountered during construction activities, which may require special monitoring, handling and/or disposal. The recommend sampling will assist in the development of appropriate SMP and HSP protocols.
1495-2-1
2249-2277 and 2319 Old Middlefield Way and
775 Independence Avenue
Mountain View, California
Limitations
Cornerstone performed this investigation to support JHS Consulting & Associates in the evaluation of the referenced Site. Conclusions presented in this letter are based on limited, readily available information. This letter, an instrument of professional service, was prepared for the sole use of JHS Consulting & Associates and may not be reproduced or distributed without written authorization from Cornerstone. It is valid for 180 days. Cornerstone makes no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services have been performed in accordance with the environmental principles generally accepted at this time and location.
We thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this important project. Should you have any questions, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc.
Ron L. Helm, C.E.G.
Senior Principal Geologist
ATTACHMENT 5
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
MAGNUSSEN’S TOYOTA DEALERSHIP
2319 OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY
NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT
Mountain View, California
November 6, 2024
Prepared for:
John Schwarz
JHS Consulting
Prepared by:
Carrie J. Janello
Michael S. Thill
429 East Cotati Avenue
Cotati, CA 94931
(707) 794-0400
I&R Job No.: 24-126
1 INTRODUCTION
The project proposes the construction of a new ground-up Toyota (automobile) dealership at 2319 Old Middlefield Way in Mountain View, California. The proposed dealership would include sales, parts, service, and rooftop parking of approximately 41,000 square feet on a 2.4-acre project site.
Currently, there are two older industrial buildings on the project site, which would be demolished as part of the proposed project.
This report evaluates the project’s potential to result in significant impacts with respect to applicable California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. The report is divided into two sections: 1) the Setting Section provides a brief description of the fundamentals of environmental noise and groundborne vibration, summarizes applicable regulatory criteria, and discusses ambient noise conditions in the project vicinity; and 2) the Impacts and Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate project impacts, provides a discussion of each project impact, and presents the project conditions of approval, where necessary, to be incorporated into the project to ensure all impacts are less-than-significant level.
SETTING
Fundamentals of Environmental Noise
Noise may be defined as unwanted sound. Noise is usually objectionable because it is disturbing or annoying. The objectionable nature of sound could be caused by its pitch or its loudness. Pitch is the height or depth of a tone or sound, depending on the relative rapidity (frequency) of the vibrations by which it is produced. Higher pitched signals sound louder to humans than sounds with a lower pitch. Loudness is intensity of sound waves combined with the reception characteristics of the ear. Intensity may be compared with the height of an ocean wave in that it is a measure of the amplitude of the sound wave.
In addition to the concepts of pitch and loudness, there are several noise measurement scales which are used to describe noise in a particular location. A decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement which indicates the relative amplitude of a sound. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Sound levels in decibels are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An increase of 10 decibels represents a ten-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 decibels is 100 times more intense, 30 decibels is 1,000 times more intense, etc. There is a relationship between the subjective noisiness or loudness of a sound and its intensity. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness over a fairly wide range of intensities. Technical terms are defined in Table 1.
There are several methods of characterizing sound. The most common in California is the Aweighted sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear is most sensitive. Representative outdoor and indoor noise levels in units of dBA are shown in Table 2. Because sound levels can vary markedly over a short period of time, a method for describing either the average character of the sound or the statistical behavior of the variations must be utilized. Most commonly, environmental sounds are described in terms of an average level that has the same acoustical energy as the summation of all the time-varying events. 2 TABLE 1 Definition of Acoustical Terms Used in this Report Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20 micro Pascals.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound pressure (e. g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level,
Leq
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Lmax, Lmin
The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
L01, L10, L50, L90
The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level,
CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
Source: Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Harris, 1998. 3 TABLE 2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities 110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet 80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
Source: Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS), California Department of Transportation, September 2013. 4 This energy-equivalent sound/noise descriptor is called Leq. The most common averaging period is hourly, but Leq can describe any series of noise events of arbitrary duration.
The scientific instrument used to measure noise is the sound level meter. Sound level meters can accurately measure environmental noise levels to within plus or minus 1 dBA. Various computer models are used to predict environmental noise levels from sources, such as roadways and airports.
The accuracy of the predicted models depends upon the distance the receptor is from the noise source. Close to the noise source, the models are accurate to within about plus or minus 1 to 2 dBA.
Since the sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night -- because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep -- 24-hour descriptors have been developed that incorporate artificial noise penalties added to quiet-time noise events. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of the cumulative noise exposure in a community, with a 5 dB penalty added to evening (7:00 pm - 10:00 pm) and a 10 dB addition to nocturnal (10:00 pm - 7:00 am) noise levels. The Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL or Ldn) is essentially the same as CNEL, with the exception that the evening time period is dropped and all occurrences during this three-hour period are grouped into the daytime period.
Effects of Noise
Sleep and Speech Interference
The thresholds for speech interference indoors are about 45 dBA if the noise is steady and above 55 dBA if the noise is fluctuating. Outdoors the thresholds are about 15 dBA higher. Steady noises of sufficient intensity (above 35 dBA) and fluctuating noise levels above about 45 dBA have been shown to affect sleep. Interior residential standards for multi-family dwellings are set by the State of California at 45 dBA Ldn. Typically, the highest steady traffic noise level during the daytime is about equal to the Ldn and nighttime levels are 10 dBA lower. The standard is designed for sleep and speech protection and most jurisdictions apply the same criterion for all residential uses.
Typical structural attenuation is 12 to 17 dBA with open windows. With closed windows in good condition, the noise attenuation factor is around 20 dBA for an older structure and 25 dBA for a newer dwelling.
1 Sleep and speech interference is therefore possible when exterior noise levels are about 57 to 62 dBA Ldn with open windows and 65 to 70 dBA Ldn if the windows are closed.
Levels of 55 to 60 dBA are common along collector streets and secondary arterials, while 65 to 70 dBA is a typical value for a primary/major arterial. Levels of 75 to 80 dBA are normal noise levels at the first row of development outside a freeway right-of-way. In order to achieve an acceptable interior noise environment, bedrooms facing secondary roadways need to be able to have their windows closed, those facing major roadways and freeways typically need special glass windows.
Annoyance
Attitude surveys are used for measuring the annoyance felt in a community for noises intruding into homes or affecting outdoor activity areas. In these surveys, it was determined that the causes 1 Based on the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration document “Highway Traffic Noise:
Analysis and Abatement Guidance” (2010) and data from Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. noise monitoring projects. 5 for annoyance include interference with speech, radio and television, house vibrations, and interference with sleep and rest. The Ldn as a measure of noise has been found to provide a valid correlation of noise level and the percentage of people annoyed. People have been asked to judge the annoyance caused by aircraft noise and ground transportation noise. There continues to be disagreement about the relative annoyance of these different sources. When measuring the percentage of the population highly annoyed, the threshold for ground vehicle noise is about 50 dBA Ldn. At a Ldn of about 60 dBA, approximately 12 percent of the population is highly annoyed.
When the Ldn increases to 70 dBA, the percentage of the population highly annoyed increases to about 25 to 30 percent of the population. There is, therefore, an increase of about 2 percent per dBA between a Ldn of 60 to 70 dBA. Between a Ldn of 70 to 80 dBA, each decibel increase increases by about 3 percent the percentage of the population highly annoyed. People appear to respond more adversely to aircraft noise. When the Ldn is 60 dBA, approximately 30 to 35 percent of the population is believed to be highly annoyed. Each decibel increase to 70 dBA adds about 3 percentage points to the number of people highly annoyed. Above 70 dBA, each decibel increase results in about a 4 percent increase in the percentage of the population highly annoyed. 2 Fundamentals of Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One method is the Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. In this report, a PPV descriptor with units of mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.
Table 3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous or frequent intermittent vibration levels produce. The guidelines in Table 3 represent syntheses of vibration criteria for human response and potential damage to buildings resulting from construction vibration.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors.
The use of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction related groundborne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the PPV descriptor has been routinely used to measure and assess groundborne vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to cause damage and the degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life, are evaluated against different vibration limits. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels, such as people in an urban environment, may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as paint flaking or minimal extension of cracks in building surfaces; minor, including limited surface cracking; or major, that may threaten the structural integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher. The damage criteria presented in Table 2 Kryter, Karl D. The Effects of Noise on Man. Menlo Park, Academic Press, Inc., 1985. 6 TABLE 3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings from Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to
strongly perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.1 Strongly perceptible Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to fragile buildings with no risk of damage to most buildings
0.25 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to historic and some old buildings.
0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to older residential structures
0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to new
residential and modern commercial/industrial structures Source: Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, California Department of Transportation, April 2020.
3 include several categories for ancient, fragile, and historic structures, the types of structures most at risk to damage. Most buildings are included within the categories ranging from “Historic and some old buildings” to “Modern industrial/commercial buildings”. Construction-induced vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately adjacent to the structure.
The annoyance levels shown in Table 3 should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at lower levels than those shown, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.
Regulatory Background – Noise
This section describes the relevant guidelines, policies, and standards established by State Agencies, Santa Clara County, and the City of Mountain View. The State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, are used to assess the potential significance of impacts pursuant to local General Plan policies or the applicable standards of other agencies. A summary of the applicable regulatory criteria is provided below.
7 Federal Government
Federal Transit Administration. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has identified construction noise thresholds in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 3 which limit daytime construction noise to 80 dBA Leq at residential land uses, to 85 dBA Leq at commercial and office uses, and to 90 dBA Leq at industrial land uses.
State of California
State CEQA Guidelines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of effects of environmental noise attributable to a proposed project.
Under CEQA, noise impacts would be considered significant if the project would 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; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (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, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) adopted by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) contains standards for projects within the vicinity of San José Mineta International Airport which are relevant to this project;
4.3.2.1 Noise Compatibility Policies
N-1 The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) method of representing noise levels shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP.
N-2 In addition to the other policies herein, the Noise Compatibility Policies presented in Table 4-1 shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with this CLUP.
N-3 Noise impacts shall be evaluated according to the Aircraft Noise Contours presented on Figure 5 (not shown in this report).
3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123, September 2018.
8 Source: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County, Norman Y Mineta San José International Airport, May 25, 2011, Amended May 23, 2019.
9 N-6 Noise level compatibility standards for other types of land uses shall be applied in the same manner as the above residential noise level criteria. Table 4-1 presents acceptable noise levels for other land uses in the vicinity of the Airport.
City of Mountain View
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan. Chapter 7 of the City of Mountain View’s General Plan includes the Noise Element with the intent to protect the community from excessive or harmful noise and the goal of sustaining a high quality of life. The following general plan policies are applicable to the project:
Goal NOI-1: Noise levels that support a high quality of life in Mountain View.
NOI 1.1: Land use compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions (Table 7.1).
NOI 1.3: Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.
NOI 1.5: Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.
NOI 1.6: Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals, and child-care facilities.
NOI 1.7: Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.
NOI 1.8: Moffett Federal Airfield. Support efforts to minimize noise impacts from Moffett Federal Airfield in coordination with Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
City of Mountain View Municipal Code. Mountain View’s Noise Ordinance is contained in the Mountain View Municipal Code. The ordinance places limits on allowable hours for construction activity and limits stationary equipment noise levels. The following ordinances are applicable to the project:
Section 8.70.1. Construction noise.
a. Hours of construction. No construction activity shall commence prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official. The term “construction activity” shall include any physical activity on the construction site or in the staging area, including the delivery of materials. In approving 10 modified hours, the building official may specifically designate and/or limit the activities permitted during the modified hours.
b. Modification. At any time before commencement of or during construction activity, the building official may modify the permitted hours of construction upon twenty-four (24) hours written notice to the contractor, applicant, developer or owner. The building official can reduce the hours of construction activity below the 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. time frame or increase the allowable hours.
c. Sign required. If the hours of construction activity are modified, then the general contractor, applicant, developer or owner shall erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractors and material suppliers of the working hours. The contractor, owner or applicant shall immediately produce upon request any written order or permit from the building official pursuant to this section upon the request of any member of the public, the police or city staff.
d. Violation. Violation of the allowed hours of construction activity, the building official’s order, required signage or this section shall be a violation of this code.
Section 21.26. Stationary equipment noise.
a. No person shall own or operate on any property any stationary equipment, such as, but not limited to, air compressors, equipment for swimming pools, spas, or air conditioners, which produces a sound level exceeding 55 dBA (50 dBA during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) when measured at any location on any receiving residentially used property, said measurement to utilize a sound level meter equal to or better than an ANSI Standard S 1.4- 1971 Type 2 noise level meter.
b. Any plans submitted for building, plumbing, electrical or mechanical/heating permit for any stationary equipment shall be accompanied by documentation of the equipment noise level when available and by noise mitigating devices or buffers appropriate to achieve the above noise limit. Initial granting of a permit for such equipment shall not affect the obligation of each person owning or operating such equipment for continued compliance with these noise level requirements.
c. Operation of any equipment, as specified in this section, above 55 dBA limit (50 dBA nighttime), may occur only if the owner or operator has obtained a conditional use permit.
A permit to operate equipment which exceeds the limit may be granted by the zoning administrator only if it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise. The manner of obtaining said permit and the rules governing its issuance and revocation shall be as specified in Mountain View City Code Section 36.43 and following, all relating to the issuance of conditional use permits. 11 Regulatory Background – Vibration
California Department of Transportation. Caltrans identifies a vibration threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings structurally sound and designed to modern engineering standards, 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major concern, and a conservative limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings (see Table 3).
Existing Noise Environment
The project site is located at 2319 Old Middlefield Way in the City of Mountain View, California.
The project site is bound by Old Middlefield Way to the north and Independence Avenue to the west. To the east is an existing car rental facility, and to the south are existing single- and multifamily land uses. Opposite Old Middlefield Way to the north is an auto shop, car wash facility, and other auto repair businesses. West of Independence Avenue are auto repair shops, as well as commercial retail uses and single-family residences.
The existing noise environment at the site results primarily from traffic along Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue. Operations at adjacent automotive-related businesses and aircraft also contribute to the noise environment.
A noise monitoring survey consisting of two long-term (LT-1 and LT-2) and three short-term (ST1 through ST-3) noise measurements was made between Wednesday, September 18, 2024, and Friday, September 20, 2024. All measurement locations are shown in Figure 1.
Long-term noise measurement LT-1 was positioned in a tree approximately 70 feet from the centerline of Old Middlefield Way. Noise levels at LT-1 were dominated by traffic along this roadway. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 64 to 70 dBA Leq during daytime hours (7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and from 54 to 65 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The day-night average noise level on Thursday, September 19, 2024, was 69 dBA Ldn. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-1 is shown in Figures A1 through A3 of Appendix A.
LT-2 was positioned in a tree approximately 20 feet from the centerline of Independence Avenue.
Noise levels at LT-2 were dominated by traffic along this roadway. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 53 to 64 dBA Leq during daytime hours and from 39 to 57 dBA Leq during nighttime hours. The day-night average noise level on Thursday, September 19, 2024, was 61 dBA Ldn. The daily trend in noise levels at LT-2 is shown in Figures A4 through A6 of Appendix A.
Short-term noise measurements were made in 10-minute intervals on Wednesday, September 18, 2024, between 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. The results of the short-term noise measurements are summarized in Table 4.
ST-1 was made in the southwest corner of the project site approximately 30 feet from the centerline of Independence Avenue. Local traffic was the primary noise source at this location. The 28 autos along Independence Avenue generated noise levels ranging from 50 to 71 dBA. Background noise levels from Old Middlefield Way traffic typically ranged from 50 to 60 dBA. 12 FIGURE 1 Aerial Image of the Project Site and Surrounding Area with Long- and Short-Term Measurement Locations Identified
Source: Google Earth, 2024.
13 TABLE 4 Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) Noise Measurement
Location Date, Time Measured Noise Level, dBA
Lmax L(1) L(10) L(50) L(90) Leq
ST-1: ~30 feet from the
centerline of
Independence Avenue
9/18/2024,
11:00-11:10 71 68 62 56 50 59
ST-2: ~140 feet from
the centerline
Independence Avenue
9/18/2024,
11:00-11:10 68 63 60 55 50 57
9/18/2024,
11:10-11:20 72 70 62 56 49 59
9/18/2024,
11:20-11:30 71 67 59 53 49 57
ST-3: ~210 feet from
the centerline of
Independence Avenue
9/18/2024,
11:20-11:30 64 63 58 47 44 53
Additional noise sources measured at ST-1 included the car wash blower (55 to 56 dBA), which ran for one to two minutes. The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-1 was 59 dBA.
Three 10-minute measurements were made at ST-2, which was approximately 140 feet from the centerline of Independence Avenue. The first and third 10-minute measurements were dominated by traffic along Independence Avenue and Old Middlefield Way, while the second measurement also included noise from the car wash blower located north of Old Middlefield Way. Without the carwash blower, the 10-minute Leq measured at ST-2 was 57 dBA. With the inclusion of the carwash blower, the 10-minute Leq measured at ST-2 was 59 dBA.
ST-3 was approximately 210 feet from the centerline of Independence Avenue. Traffic along Old Middlefield Way was the primary noise source, generating noise levels ranging from 45 to 64 dBA. Additional noise sources included jets (52 to 57 dBA) and general aviation (64 dBA). The 10-minute Leq measured at ST-3 was 53 dBA.
NOISE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Significance Criteria
The following criteria were used to evaluate the significance of environmental noise resulting from the project:
(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; (b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; (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 14 or public use airport, if the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Impact 1a: Temporary Construction Noise. The incorporation of the City’s Standard Permit Conditions as a project condition of approval would ensure that temporary noise increases due to construction activities would result in a less-than-significant impact.
The construction schedule assumed that the earliest possible start date would be early January 2025, and the development would be built over a period of 13 months, ending in mid-January 2026. Construction hours are expected to be limited to weekdays between the hours 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Construction phases would include site preparation, excavation, grading, trenching, building construction, architectural coating, and paving. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend upon the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive areas. Construction noise impacts primarily result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (e.g., early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses, or when construction lasts over extended periods of time.
The Municipal Code Section 8.70.1 limits construction activity to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Construction work is prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the building official.
While the City of Mountain View does not establish noise level thresholds for construction activities, this analysis uses the noise limits established by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to identify the potential for impacts due to substantial temporary construction noise. The FTA identifies construction noise limits in the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. During daytime hours, an exterior threshold of 80 dBA Leq shall be applied at residential land uses, 85 dBA Leq shall be applied at commercial and office uses, and 90 dBA Leq shall be applied at industrial land uses.
Construction activities for individual projects are typically carried out in phases. During each phase of construction, there would be a different mix of equipment operating, and noise levels would vary by phase and vary within phases, based on the amount of equipment in operation and the location at which the equipment is operating. The typical range of maximum instantaneous noise levels for the proposed project would be 70 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet (see Table 5) from the equipment.
15 TABLE 5 Construction Equipment 50-Foot Noise Emission Limits Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73 85
80 80
80 85
70 80
85 82
90 80
85 85
85 80
82 70
85 85
85 80
90 105
84 85
90 85
85 77
85 85
82 80
80 84
84 85
80 95
85 Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes: 1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant. 2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while engaged in its intended operation.
3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi. 16 Table 6 shows the hourly average noise level ranges, by construction phase, typical for various types of projects. Hourly average noise levels generated by construction typically are about 75 to 89 dBA Leq for commercial buildings, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of a busy construction site. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often results in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.
TABLE 6 Typical Ranges of Construction Noise Levels at 50 Feet, Leq (dBA) Domestic Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial
Parking Garage,
Religious
Amusement &
Recreations,
Store, Service
Station
Public Works
Roads &
Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground
Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) was used to calculate the typical hourly average noise levels for each phase of construction, assuming the two loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously, as recommended by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for construction noise evaluations. This construction noise model includes representative sound levels for the most common types of construction equipment and the approximate usage factors of such equipment that were developed based on an extensive database of information gathered during the construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts (CA/T Project or "Big Dig"). The usage factors represent the percentage of time that the equipment would be operating at full power.
Equipment expected to be used in each construction phase are summarized in Table 7, along with the quantity of each type of equipment and the reference noise level at 50 feet, assuming the operation of the two loudest pieces of construction equipment for each construction phase, per recommendation by the FTA.
Temporary construction noise was also assessed at the receiving property lines of all existing receptors in the area that would have direct exposure to the project site. Table 8 summarizes the hourly average noise levels calculated for all construction equipment operating simultaneously in each phase for the proposed building construction when the source levels are positioned at the 17 center of the project site and propagated to the receiving property lines. Noise levels in Table 8 do not assume reductions due to intervening buildings or existing barriers.
TABLE 7 Estimated Construction Noise Levels for the Proposed Project Building at a Distance of 50 feet
Phase of Construction Total
Workdays
Construction Equipment
(Quantity)
Estimated
Construction Noise
Level at 50 feet,
dBA Leq
Demolition 20
Concrete/Industrial Saw (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (3)a
85 Site Preparation 3
Grader (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
Scraper (1)
84 Grading/Excavation 6
Grader (1)a
Rubber-Tired Dozer (1)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (2)
a
84 Trenching/Foundation 6 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
Excavator (1)a 82
Building – Exterior 220
Crane (1)
Forklift (2)
Generator Set (1)a
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
Welder (3)
82 Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating 10 Air Compressor (1)
a 74
Paving 10
Cement and Mortar Mixer (1)
Paver (1)
Paving Equipment (1)
a
Roller (2)
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe (1)
a
84 a Denotes two loudest pieces of construction equipment per phase. 18 TABLE 8 Estimated Construction Noise Levels at Nearby Land Uses Phase of Construction
Calculated Hourly Average Noise Levels, dBA Leq
South SingleFamily Res.
(135ft)
South MultiFamily Res.
(190ft)
West Comm.
(290ft)
North Comm. &
Light Ind. (210ft)
East Comm.
(145ft)
Demolition 79 76 72 75 78
Site Preparation 76 73 70 73 76
Grading/Excavation 77 74 71 73 77
Trenching/Foundation 73 70 66 69 72
Building –Exterior 75 72 68 71 74
Building – Interior/
Architectural Coating 65 62 58 61 65
Paving 77 74 71 73 77
19 As shown in Tables 7 and 8, construction noise levels would intermittently range from 74 to 85 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from the operational equipment, from 58 to 79 dBA Leq at the surrounding residential land uses, and from 58 to 78 dBA Leq at the surrounding commercial and light industrial uses when activities are focused near the center of the proposed project site.
According to PL-152 of the City of Mountain View’s Standard City Conditions, 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:
• Comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines. • Turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable. • Locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties. • Use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible. o An eight-foot solid plywood fence shall along the eastern and southern boundaries would provide a minimum 5 dBA attenuation for adjacent sensitive land uses when construction activities occur at the ground level when the loudest equipment would be used (i.e., during demolition and grading phases). This would reduce Leq noise levels for equipment to below 80 dBA at the receiving land uses. o Locate stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power generators, as far as possible from sensitive receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used to reduce noise levels at the adjacent sensitive receptors. Any enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive receptors.
• Shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment.
Additionally, the contractor shall include the following measures into the proposed project as project conditions of approval:
• Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point where they are not audible at existing commercial uses bordering the project site.
• The contractor shall prepare a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities. The construction plan shall identify a procedure 20 for coordination with adjacent land uses so that construction activities can be scheduled to minimize noise disturbance.
• Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include in it the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
Implementation of the above measures as a project condition of approval would reduce construction noise levels emanating from the site to below the FTA thresholds and minimize disruption and annoyance. With the incorporation of these standard conditions and recognizing that noise generated by construction activities would occur over a temporary period, overall noise exposure would be minimized at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. This would be a lessthan-significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 1a: None required.
Impact 1b: Permanent Noise Level Increase/Exceed Applicable Standards. The proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent noise level increase at residential uses. The proposed project would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime noise thresholds at the surrounding residential uses. This is a less-than-significant impact.
A significant impact would result if the proposed project would result in a substantial permanent increase in noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if:
a) the noise level increase is 5 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of less than 60 dBA Ldn; or b) the noise level increase is 3 dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater. Noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site are exposed to existing noise levels greater than 60 dBA Ldn; therefore, a significant noise increase would occur if projectgenerated operations would permanently increase noise levels by 3 dBA Ldn.
Section 21.26 of the City’s Municipal Code limits stationary equipment noise to 55 dBA during daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and to 50 dBA during nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on receiving residential property lines.
Project Traffic Increase
A traffic study was not required for the proposed project. For other car dealerships in the Bay Area of similar size, peak hour trips would be about 24 during the peak AM hour and 43 during the peak PM hour. Compared to the traffic volumes along Old Middlefield Way, these peak hour trips would be insignificant, resulting in a permanent noise level increase of 1 dBA Ldn or less. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a permanent noise increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more at noisesensitive receptors in the project vicinity. 21 Automotive Dealership Operations
Equipment associated with car washing and detailing activities would not be located on site. The surrounding noise-sensitive receptors would not be exposed to on-site detailing activities. Further, no loudspeaker or amplified sound systems are proposed for this project.
The ground level site plan includes the service shop, which would be fully enclosed by the building. The building façade would adequately shield the surrounding receptors from automobile mechanic activities and other operations within the service shop. Therefore, the City’s Municipal Code threshold would not be exceeded at the surrounding receptors, and the proposed noisegenerating equipment located within the proposed building would not measurably contribute to ambient noise level increase in the area (0 dBA Ldn increase).
Mechanical Equipment
Outdoor mechanical equipment, such as exhaust fans, heat pumps, and VRF heat recovery units, are shown on the rooftop of the proposed building in three groupings. The groupings are each located in the northwest corner, the northeast corner, and the southeast corner of the rooftop. The applicant provided mechanical equipment specification sheets for each of the rooftop equipment, which included sound level information. These sound levels were used as source levels in this analysis. The equipment and source levels are as follows:
• Exhaust fans:
o Greenheck Universal Single Width Fan, Model USF-6, with a volume of 470 CFM (EF-1) – 57 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet)
o Greenheck Universal Single Width Fan, Model USF-6, with a volume of 280 CFM (EF-2) – 50 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet)
o Greenheck Universal Single Width Fan, Model USF-6, with a volume of 420 CFM (EF-3) – 56 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet)
o Greenheck Universal Single Width Fan, Model USF-33, with a volume of 21,000 CFM (GEF-1) – 86 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet)
• Outdoor VRF Heat Recovery Systems:
o Mitsubishi Electric CityMulti 8-ton 460V Outdoor VRF Heat Recovery System (HP1) – 68 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) o Mitsubishi Electric CityMulti 12-ton 460V Outdoor VRF Heat Recovery System (HP2) – 75 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) o Mitsubishi Electric CityMulti 12-ton 460V Outdoor VRF Heat Recovery System (HP3) – 75 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet) • Heat Pumps:
o Trane Precedent Packaged Rooftop 20-ton Heat Pump/Electric Heat (RTU-1 through RTU-4) – 93 dBA at 1 meter (3.28 feet)
Source levels for all equipment in each of the groups were summed together for a worst-case noise level at 1 meter (3.28 feet). The northwest group, which included RTU-1 through RTU-3, HP-1, and EF-1, would generate noise levels up to 98 dBA at about 3 feet. The northeast group, which included RTU-4, HP-2, and EF-2, would generate noise levels up to 93 dBA at about 3 feet. The 22 southeast group, which included GEF-1, HP-3, and EF-3, would generate noise levels up to 86 dBA at about 3 feet. Assuming worst-case conditions, all equipment would be operating continuously throughout each hour in a 24-hour period.
The site plan also shows a 10-foot mechanical screen surrounding each of the mechanical groups.
The mechanical screen combined with the elevated rooftop equipment and the setbacks of the equipment from the edge of the rooftop would provide a minimum attenuation of 20 dBA for ground-level receptors. However, the multi-family receptors located to the south of the project site have three floors of residential units. Therefore, the top floor would have direct line-of-sight to the rooftop equipment. The mechanical screen would provide a minimum attenuation of 15 dBA for these elevated receptors.
Table 9 summarizes the noise levels generated by each of the rooftop groups at the property lines of the surrounding land uses, as well as the total noise levels the receptors would be exposed to by summing the noise from each group, the day-night average noise level from all noise over a 24- hour period, and the estimated permanent noise level increase generated by mechanical equipment at the project site. The appropriate attenuation is applied to noise levels in Table 9.
Hourly average noise levels would not exceed the daytime threshold of 55 dBA or the nighttime threshold of 50 dBA at the property lines of the surrounding residential land uses. The estimated noise level increase at the residences to the south would be 1 dBA Ldn.
Solar panel canopies are also located on the rooftop, with parking spaces below the solar panels.
Solar panels do not generate noise levels audible at the property lines and would not impact surrounding land uses. Therefore, mechanical equipment proposed at the project site would not exceed the City’s thresholds at the nearest residential land uses and would not result in a permanent noise level increase of 3 dBA Ldn or more.
23 TABLE 9 Estimated Mechanical Equipment Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Noise Sources South SingleFamily Res.
South MultiFamily Res.
West
Comm.
Uses
North
Comm. &
Light Ind.
Uses
East
Comm.
Uses
Northwest Group of
Equipment
Distance, feet 155 210 295 190 140
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 44a 47b 39a 43a 45a
Northeast Group of
Equipment
Distance, feet 230 210 385 185 55
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 36a 42b 32a 38a 49a
Southeast Group of
Equipment
Distance, feet 215 85 390 310 50
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 30a 43b 25a 27a 43a
Total Leq, dBA 45 49 40 44 51
Total Ldn, dBA 52 56 46 50 57
Permanent Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn 1 1 0 0 0 a Conservative 20 dBA attenuation estimated at ground-level receptors due to mechanical screening, elevation of the rooftop equipment, and the setback of the equipment. bConservative 15 dBA attenuation estimated at elevated receptors due to mechanical screening. 24 Parking Lot Noise
The rooftop of the proposed building would be used for car inventory. While some vehicles would be moved to and from the rooftop parking area on a daily basis, this would not act as a typical working parking lot with vehicles constantly coming and going, and all parking lot activity would occur during business hours, which would be during the daytime only.
To the west of the building would be inventory parking and customer parking, which would be used more frequently. This area has 25 parking spaces. Along the western and northern boundary of the site would be additional inventory parking. Parking spots along the southern boundary would likely be used for storing vehicles being repaired at the service shop. However, there are only 17 spaces located along the shared property line.
Noise sources associated with the use of the parking lots would include vehicular circulation, loud engines, door slams, and human voices. For a single passenger car, this would generate noise levels up to 52 dBA at 50 feet.
The roof parking lot would likely have up to five vehicles circulating at any given time for up to 20 minutes in a given hour. This would result in hourly average noise levels up to 54 dBA Leq at 50 feet. For the active parking are with 25 parking spaces, which would be used more regularly, it is assumed that up to 10 vehicles would be circulating the project site for up to 20 minutes in a given hour. This would generate hourly average noise levels of 57 dBA Leq. At any given time, up to two vehicles would circulate at the 17 parking spots at the rear of the building, which would result in hourly average noise levels of 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet.
The site plan shows a six-foot barrier at the end of the project site boundary to the south, which would provide about 10 dBA attenuation for the ground-level parking activities. Additionally, a parapet wall around the edge of the rooftop combined with the setback of the parking spaces would provide a minimum 15 dBA attenuation for ground-level receptors and 10 dBA attenuation for the elevated residences to the south.
Table 10 summarizes the estimated parking lot noise at the surrounding receptors when the noise source is centered at the on-site parking areas. Applicable attenuation, which is described above, is applied to the noise levels in Table 10. Note, the proposed building and existing buildings surrounding the site would shield receptors from parking activities. These are as follows: the proposed building would shield the east commercial uses from the 25-space area; and the residential uses adjoining the site and south boundary barrier would shield the west residences and commercial uses from the 17-space area. Table 10 does not include these as receptors for the specified parking areas.
Hourly average noise levels would not exceed the daytime threshold of 55 dBA at the property lines of the surrounding residential land uses. The proposed parking lot/parking activities would not measurably contribute to ambient noise levels in the area (0 dBA Ldn increase). 25 TABLE 10 Estimated Parking Lot Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Noise Sources South SingleFamily Res.
South MultiFamily Res.
West
Comm.
Uses
North
Comm. &
Light Ind.
Uses
East
Comm.
Uses
Rooftop Parking Distance, feet 150 130 315 265 115
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 30a 36b 23a 25a 32a
Customer & Inventory
Parking West of the
Building
Distance, feet 85 205 135 195
N/A Hourly Average Leq, dBA 43b 35b 49 45
Southern Boundary
Parking
Distance, feet 15 15 N/A 290 15
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 51b 51b 35 61
Total Leq, dBA 51 51 49 46 61
Total Ldn, dBA 48 48 46 43 58
Permanent Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn 0 0 0 0 0 a Conservative 15 dBA attenuation estimated at ground-level receptors due to elevation of the parking spaces, parapet wall around the rooftop edge, and the setback of the parking spaces. bConservative 10 dBA attenuation estimated at elevated receptors due parapet wall around the rooftop edge and at ground-level receptors due to six-foot barrier along southern boundary.
26 Truck Deliveries
Delivery vehicles for auto parts, servicing, and administrative supplies would access the site from Independence Avenue, drive along the southern boundary, and unload the trucks along the eastern façade of the proposed building. Typically, these deliveries are made by medium-sized trucks.
Additionally, automobile inventory would be delivered by vehicle truck trailers, which would access the site from the driveway in the northeast corner of the site, unload vehicles along the northern façade of the proposed building and exit the site via the center driveway along the northern boundary of the site. Vehicle haulers are typically heavy-duty trucks.
Truck delivery noise would include both maneuvering activities occurring at the loading zones and truck pass-by noise when the vehicles drive along the southern boundary shared with existing residences. Trucks maneuvering would generate a combination of engine, exhaust, and tire noise, as well as the intermittent sounds of back-up alarms and releases of compressed air associated with truck/trailer air brakes.
Medium-sized trucks typically generate maximum noise levels ranging from 60 to 65 dBA at 50 feet. Assuming one parts delivery per day, the hourly average noise level would be 59 dBA Leq, and the day-night average noise level would be 45 dBA Ldn at 50 feet, assuming up to 15 minutes per delivery.
Heavy truck haulers used for inventory deliveries would typically generate noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise level of backup alarms can vary depending on the type and directivity of the sound, but maximum noise levels are typically in the range of 65 to 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The applicant has confirmed that once the truck haulers pull into the delivery zone, the trucks would be turned off during the unloading activities and restart once all the vehicles have been off-loaded. Therefore, total time of heavy truck noise would be up to five minutes per delivery. However, to offload vehicles, each vehicle would be turned on and slowly driven off the truck hauler. The average time for offloading a truck hauler would be about 30 minutes. Assuming up to one automobile inventory delivery in a day, hourly average noise levels would be up to 64 dBA Leq at 50 feet, and the day-night average noise level would be 51 dBA Ldn.
Table 11 summarizes the noise levels generated during the delivery of parts and administrative supplies, as well as automobile inventory, propagated to the property lines of the surrounding receptors. The residences and commercial uses to the west, as well as the single-family residences to the south, of the project site would be shielded by the project building from the medium truck deliveries and would not be considered receptors. The multi-family residences to the south of the project site would be shielded by the project building from the heavy truck hauler deliveries and would not be considered receptors. All other surrounding land uses would be exposed to delivery activities at this loading zone. Additionally, the six-foot barrier along the southern boundary of the project site would provide about 5 dBA attenuation for the ground-level single-family receptors to the south. Note that this estimated attenuation is lower than the attenuation for parking lot noise due to the source levels of trucks being a couple of feet higher from the surface than passenger vehicles.
27 TABLE 11 Estimated Truck Loading and Unloading Noise Levels at Receiving Land Uses Noise Sources South SingleFamily Res.
South MultiFamily Res.
West
Comm.
Uses
North
Comm. &
Light Ind.
Uses
East
Comm.
Uses
Auto Parts &
Administration
Distance, feet N/A 165 N/A 225 10
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 44a 46 73
Car Hauler Distance, feet 210 N/A 310 120 125
Hourly Average Leq, dBA 47a 49 57 56
Total Leq, dBA 47 44 49 57 73
Total Ldn, dBA 33 30 35 43 59
Permanent Noise Level Increase, dBA Ldn 0 0 0 0 0 a Conservative 5 dBA attenuation estimated at ground-level receptors due to six-foot barrier along southern boundary. 28 Noise levels resulting from truck maneuvering activities at the parts loading zone and the car hauler loading zone would not exceed the City’s 55 dBA daytime threshold at the surrounding residential property lines. The proposed truck maneuvering activities would not measurably contribute to ambient noise level increase in the area (0 dBA Ldn increase).
Total Combined Project-Generated Noise
Noise levels generated by operations of the proposed project would not exceed the City’s daytime or nighttime thresholds of 55 and 50 dBA, respectively, at the surrounding residences. The operational noise levels produced by the proposed project combined (i.e., traffic, dealership operations, mechanical equipment, parking lot, and truck loading/unloading activities) would potentially result in a permanent noise increase of 1 dBA Ldn at the existing noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, which would result in a less-than-significant permanent noise level increase.
Mitigation Measure 1b: None required.
Impact 2: Exposure to Excessive Groundborne Vibration. The incorporation of the controls as project conditions of approval would ensure that construction vibration would be a less-than-significant impact.
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation work, foundation work, and new building framing and finishing. Pile driving equipment, which can cause excessive vibration, is not expected to occur during construction of the proposed project.
The City of Mountain View does not specify a construction vibration limit. For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of 0.5 in/sec PPV for new residential and modern commercial/industrial structures, 0.3 in/sec PPV for older residential structures, and a limit of 0.25 in/sec PPV for historic and some old buildings (see Table 3).
The City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resource was updated in 2022 with a list of historically significant properties. 4 From this list, the nearest historical building, located at 771 North Rengstorff Avenue, is more than 1,200 feet east of the project’s nearest boundary. Therefore, buildings in the immediate vicinity of the project site would not be subject to the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold. The 0.5 in/sec PPV vibration limit apply to the multi-family residential buildings south of the site, which were constructed in 2022. Conservatively, the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV vibration limit would apply at all other buildings surrounding the site.
Table 12 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rock drills and other high-power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, 4 City of Mountain View, Register of Historic Resources, https://www.mountainview.gov/ourcity/departments/community-development/planning/development-projects/historic-preservation-and-register-update, Accessed September 2024.
29 compactors, etc.), may generate substantial vibration in the immediate vicinity. Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV, and drilling typically generates vibration levels of 0.09 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet.
TABLE 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 ft.
(in/sec)
Minimum Distance to Meet Thresholds
0.3 in/sec PPV
(feet) 0.5 in/sec PPV
Clam shovel drop 0.202 18 11
Hydromill
(slurry wall)
in soil 0.008 1 <1
in rock 0.017 2 2
Vibratory Roller 0.210 19 12
Hoe Ram 0.089 9 6
Large bulldozer 0.089 9 6
Caisson drilling 0.089 9 6
Loaded trucks 0.076 8 5
Jackhammer 0.035 4 4
Small bulldozer 0.003 <1 <1
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., October 2024.
Vibration levels would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. Table 12 also summarizes the distances to the 0.5 and 0.3 in/sec PPV thresholds for all nonhistorical buildings.
Vibration levels are highest close to the source and then attenuate with increasing distance at the rate !
𝐷!"#
𝐷
# $
$.$
, where D is the distance from the source in feet and Dref is the reference distance of 25 feet. While construction noise levels increase based on the cumulative equipment in use simultaneously, construction vibration levels would be dependent on the location of individual pieces of equipment. That is, equipment scattered throughout the site would not generate a collective vibration level, but a vibratory roller, for instance, operating near the project site boundary would generate the worst-case vibration levels for the receptor sharing that property line.
Further, construction vibration impacts are assessed based on the potential for damage to buildings on receiving land uses, not at receptors at the nearest property lines.
All buildings located opposite Old Middlefield Way and Independence Avenue would be 100 feet or more from the nearest project site boundary. At this distance, vibration levels would be below
0.05 in/sec PPV, which would be below the 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold.
The residential and commercial buildings, however, would range from 5 to 15 feet from the nearest project boundary. Table 13 summarizes the vibration levels expected at these distances. 30 TABLE 13 Vibration Levels Estimated at the Adjoining Residential and Commercial Buildings
Phase Equipment
PPV at
25 ft.,
in/sec
Adjoining Buildings
South SingleFamily Res.
(15ft)
South MultiFamily Res.
(15ft)
East Comm.
(5ft)
Demolition
Concrete/Industrial Saw 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Rubber-Tired Dozer 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Site
Preparation
Grader 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Scraper 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Grading/
Excavation
Grader 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Rubber-Tired Dozer 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Trenching/
Foundation
Excavator 0.089 0.156 0.156 0.523
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Building –
Exterior
Crane 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Forklift 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Generator Set 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Welder 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Building –
Interior/
Archit.
Coating
Air Compressor 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Paving
Cement & Mortar Mixer 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Paver 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Paving Equipment 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Roller 0.21 0.368 0.368 1.233
Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.018
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2018, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., October 2024.
A study completed by the US Bureau of Mines analyzed the effects of blast-induced vibration on buildings in USBM RI 8507.5 The findings of this study have been applied to buildings affected by construction-generated vibrations. 6 As reported in USBM RI 85075 and reproduced by Dowding,6 Figure 2 presents the damage probability, in terms of “threshold damage” (described above as cosmetic damage), “minor damage,” and “major damage,” at varying vibration levels, which are described above. As shown in Figure 2, maximum vibration levels of 0.5 in/sec PPV would result in about 5% chance of cosmetic damage, while maximum vibration levels of 1.2 in/sec PPV would result in about 20% chance of cosmetic damage. No minor or major damage would be expected at the buildings immediately adjoining the project site. 5 Siskind, D.E., M.S. Stagg, J.W. Kopp, and C.H. Dowding, Structure Response and Damage Produced by Ground Vibration form Surface Mine Blasting, RI 8507, Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations, U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1980. 6 Dowding, C.H., Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996. 31 FIGURE 2 Probability of Cracking and Fatigue from Repetitive Loading Source: Dowding, C.H., Construction Vibrations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1996, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., October 2024.
~ 20% Probability of
“Threshold Damage” at
1.2 in/sec PPV
No Observations of
“Minor Damage” or
“Major Damage” at 0.5
or 1.2 in/sec PPV
0.5 in/sec PPV
1.2 in/sec PPV
~ 5% Probability of
“Threshold Damage” at
0.5 in/sec PPV
32 Neither cosmetic, minor, or major damage would occur at conventional buildings located 20 feet or more from the site during use of typical construction activities. At these locations, and in other surrounding areas where vibration would not be expected to cause cosmetic damage, vibration levels may still be perceptible. However, as with any type of construction, this would be anticipated and would not be considered significant, given the intermittent and short duration of the phases that have the highest potential of producing vibration (use of jackhammers and other high-power tools). By use of administrative controls, such as notifying neighbors of scheduled construction activities and scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration during hours with the least potential to affect nearby businesses, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum.
The applicant has agreed to incorporate the following measures as project conditions of approval to reduce vibration levels due to construction activities to at or below 0.3 in/sec PPV:
• A list of all heavy construction equipment to be used for this project known to produce high vibration levels (e.g., dozer, grader, scraper, excavator, and vibratory roller, etc.) shall be submitted to the City by the contractor as well as a list of smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) to be used near the southern and eastern property lines. • Smaller equipment (less than 18,000 pounds) shall be used near the property lines adjacent to the south residential and east commercial buildings to minimize vibration levels. For example, a smaller vibratory roller similar to a Caterpillar model CP433E vibratory compactor could be used when compacting materials within 25 feet of the adjacent conventional buildings to the south and to the east. The smaller equipment intended to implement this requirement shall be individually identified among the list of equipment required under the above condition as the subset of equipment allowed for use at the property lines.
• Avoid dropping heavy equipment and using vibratory rollers within 25 feet of sensitive structures to the south and to the east. Use alternative methods for breaking up existing pavement, such as a pavement grinder, instead of dropping heavy objects, within 25 feet of the adjacent southern and eastern buildings.
• Select demolition methods that do not involve large impact tools, such as hoe-rams, within 25 feet of the shared property line with conventional buildings to the south and to the east.
Portable jackhammers, saws, or grinders shall be used to minimize impacts to the ground.
The implementation of the above project conditions of approval would reduce construction vibration to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 2: None required.
33 Impact 3: Excessive Aircraft Noise. The noise environment attributable to aircraft is considered normally acceptable under the Santa Clara County ALUC noise compatibility policies. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The Moffett Federal Airfield is a joint civil-military airport located about 2.25 miles west of the project site, and the Palo Alto Airport is a public general aviation airport located about 3 miles northwest of the project site. As shown in Figures 3 and 4, the project site lies well outside the 65 dBA CNEL/Ldn contour lines for both airports.
7,8 Additionally, the San José Mineta International
Airport is located more than 9 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project would be located well outside each airport’s area of influence and aircraft noise levels would be compatible with the proposed use.
Mitigation Measure 3: None required.
7 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, “Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County: Moffett Federal Airfield,” November 2, 2012 and amended December 19, 2018. 8 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, “Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County: Palo Alto Airport,” November 19, 2018 and amended November 18, 2020. 34 FIGURE 3 2022 Noise Contours for Moffett Federal Airfield 35 FIGURE 4 2022 Noise Contours for Palo Alto Airport
36 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative noise impacts would include either cumulative traffic noise increases under future conditions or temporary construction noise from cumulative construction projects.
A significant cumulative traffic noise increase would occur if two criteria are met: 1) if the cumulative traffic noise level increase was 3 dBA Ldn or greater for future levels exceeding 60 dBA Ldn or was 5 dBA Ldn or greater for future levels at or below 60 dBA Ldn; and 2) if the project would make a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to the overall traffic noise increase. A “cumulatively considerable” contribution would be defined as an increase of 1 dBA Ldn or more attributable solely to the proposed project.
A traffic study was not required for the proposed project. Considering the peak AM trips would be 24 and the peak PM trips would 43 for the proposed project, these trips are insignificant compared to existing volumes. It is assumed that these peak hour trips would be insignificant under future cumulative conditions, as well. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in a significant cumulative traffic noise increase.
From the City’s website,9 the nearest planned or approved development project would be located at 901 to 987 North Rengstorff Avenue, which is more than 1,400 feet from the proposed project site. This project would not share noise-sensitive receptors with the 2319 Old Middlefield Way project site. This would not result in a significant cumulative construction impact. There are no planned or approved development projects located within 1,000 feet of the proposed project site.
There would not be a cumulative construction impact associated with the proposed project. 9 https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/development-projects/969- hope-street
37 APPENDIX A
FIGURE A1 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Wednesday, September 18, 2024 38 FIGURE A2 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Thursday, September 19, 2024 39 FIGURE A3 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-1, Friday, September 20, 2024 40 FIGURE A4 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Wednesday, September 18, 2024 41 FIGURE A5 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Thursday, September 19, 2024 42 FIGURE A6 Daily Trend in Noise Levels for LT-2, Friday, September 20, 2024