Mountain View City Council
November 4, 2025

The existing conditions at the project site are 105,074 square feet of impervious area and 78,127 square feet of pervious area. Through development of the proposed project, the total impervious area would be 103,738 square feet and the pervious area at the project site would 79,463 square feet. When compared to existing conditions, this would be a reduction of 1,336 square feet of impervious area and an increase of 1,336 square feet of pervious area at the project site. Some site design measures that would be utilized include ensuring there is a minimum-impact street parking lot design, cluster structures/ pavement, disconnected downspouts, pervious pavement, self-treating areas, and self-retaining areas. Source control measures include washing area/racks that drain to sanitary sewers, having a covered dumpster area, beneficial landscaping, outdoor material storage protection, covers, drains for loading docks, maintenance bays, fueling areas, preforming maintenance (such as pavement sweeping, catch basin cleaning, good housekeeping), and storm drain labeling. Low impact development (LID) treatments that would be a part of the proposed project include a bioretention area, flow-through planter, tree well filter with bioretention soils, and pervious pavement.58
Due to the proposed project increasing the amount of pervious surface area on the site, the amount of groundwater recharge in the area would increase, which would benefit the groundwater supplies in the area. Furthermore, the project site is not in or near a groundwater recharge area/facility, nor does it represent a source of groundwater recharge.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater supply or recharge.

Valley Water and SFPUC would supply the facilities with water, and no water supply wells would be constructed or used. For these reasons, impacts on groundwater supplies or recharge would be less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces by 1,336 square feet compared to existing conditions. Due to the already developed conditions of the project site, the proposed project does not have the potential to increase stormwater runoff and peak discharges to a degree that would cause substantial erosion and siltation. The proposed project would not involve the alteration of any natural drainage channels or any watercourse.

Most of the potential erosion and siltation impacts would occur during the construction phase (e.g., grading, clearing, excavating, and cut-and-fill activities) of the proposed project. During construction, the project site would demolish hardscaping and remove some vegetation in preparation for grading, 58 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, November 2024 Provision C.3 Data Form.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 49
which would expose loose soil to potential wind and water erosion. If not controlled, the transport of these materials to local waterways would temporarily increase suspended sediment concentrations and release pollutants attached to sediment particles into local waterways. As previously stated, the project would be required to submit PRDs and a SWPPP to the SWRCB for approval prior to the commencement of construction activities.

The operational phase of the project would contain a number of features to reduce the impact of erosion and siltation. The site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs for the operational phase are described in Section 3.10(a). Additionally, the proposed project would be required to follow regulations within the Mountain View Municipal Code, such as in Chapter 35, Division 3, Section

35.33.11 which outlines how all construction projects must implement sediment and erosion control BMPs during construction of a project. Implementation of the project’s proposed construction phase and operational phase BMPs would therefore ensure that erosion and siltation impacts would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces by 1,336 square feet, which in turn would decrease stormwater runoff, result in lower peak discharges, and alleviate the potential for nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities. Additionally, the implementation of site BMPs would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff reaching the City’s storm drain system. The proposed project would also not involve the alteration of any natural drainage or watercourse. Therefore, impacts related to stormwater drainage and flooding are less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section 3.10(c)(ii), the proposed project would decrease impervious surfaces by 1,336 square feet, which in turn would decrease stormwater runoff, result in lower peak discharges, and alleviate the potential for nuisance flooding in areas without adequate drainage facilities.

The proposed project would not create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. During the construction phase, the proposed project would be required to prepare a SWPPP that includes erosion controls, thus limiting the discharge of pollutants from the site. During operation, the proposed project would implement BMP measures that minimize the amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollutants. Additionally, during operation the proposed project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan that incorporates best management practices (BMP) to control sedimentation, erosion, and hazardous materials contamination of runoff during post construction.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

With implementation of these measures, the project would not substantially increase the rate or amount of stormwater runoff in a manner that would cause flooding. Therefore, stormwater runoff would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm drain facilities. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant. While the proposed project would have a larger footprint than the existing buildings that it would replace, the project site is near other buildings and would be unlikely to be a significant new impediment to flood flows. The project site is designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Flood Zone X: Area of Minimal Hazard59. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to flood flows.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. As noted in Section 3.10(c)(iv), above, the project site is in Flood Zone X, an area of minimal flooding hazard. Therefore, there is no risk of pollutant release due to flooding.

A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam or other artificial body of water. According to the California Department of Water Resources’ Dam Breach Inundation Map, the campus is not within any dam’s inundation area.60 Therefore, there is no risk of pollutant release due to inundation from a seiche. No impact would occur.

Tsunamis are a type of earthquake-induced flooding produced by large-scale sudden disturbances of the sea floor. Tsunami waves interact with the shallow sea floor when approaching a landmass, resulting in an increase in wave height and a destructive wave surge into low-lying coastal areas. The proposed project is approximately 3.4 miles inland from the San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the site is outside the tsunami hazard zone and would not be affected by a tsunami.

Based on the preceding, the proposed project would not risk releasing pollutants as the result of floods, tsunami, or seiches. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control plan or a sustainable groundwater management plan, such as the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. The proposed project construction would be subject to the Statewide CGP and 59 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2009, “Flood Map Service” https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. 60 Department of Water Resources, 2023 (accessed), “California Dam Breach Inundation Map Web Publisher,” https://fmds.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=dam_prototype_v2.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 51
implementation of BMPs specified in the SWPPP. This would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation impacts to occur that could impact receiving waters. Also, the installation of BMPs would improve the quality of stormwater by physical filtration of sediment and solids and biological activity to remove pollutants.

The project site is in the Santa Clara Valley–San Mateo Plain groundwater basin. This basin is categorized as low and very low priority by the Department of Water Resources.61 The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires medium- and high-priority basins to develop groundwater sustainability agencies and groundwater sustainability plans and to manage groundwater for long-term sustainability.

Due to the project site being in a low and very low priority groundwater basin, these requirements do not apply.

Additionally, as substantiated in Sections 3.10.(a) and (b), above, the proposed project would not violate any water quality standards and would not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project site is currently developed with the existing MVPD building and associated parking lot and K-9 training area. The proposed project would construct a new Public Safety Building on the same site as the current MVPD building, and proposed improvements would not occur outside of the project site boundary. Additionally, the proposed project would improve the existing pedestrian areas on the site that would make the surrounding community easier to access, thereby improving connectivity to the community. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would occur.
61 State of California Department of Water Resources, “SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard,” accessed July 5, 2023, https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 1.3.1, Existing Land Use, the project site is currently zoned Public Facility (PF) with a corresponding General Plan land use designation of Parks, Schools and City Facilities. The project site currently functions as part of the Mountain View Police Department, and the use of the site is consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations. The proposed project would build a new a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, surface parking and K-9 training area that would be consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations.

The proposed project is a city-owned facility, which is one of the principal permitted uses for this zoning designation, as outlined in Section 36.25.45 of Division 2, Public Facility (Pf) Zoning District Standards. 62 Similarly, the Parks, Schools and City Facilities land use designation in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan allows city facilities with an intensity up to 1.0 FAR.63 Because the proposed project would have a FAR of 0.49 and would be owned by the City of Mountain View, the proposed project would be consistent with both the zoning and land use designations. Additionally, City projects have the ability to deviate in order to support the need to construct a building suitable to serve future community needs for the life of the building and reserve space for future City facility/land use needs. However, the proposed project would therefore not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and a less than significant impact would occur.

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
Would the project:
62 City of Mountain View, Municipal Code SEC. 36.24.45. - Principal permitted uses, https://library.municode.com/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH36ZO_ARTVIIIOTZOOVDI _DIV2PUFAPFZODIST, accessed on March 14, 2024. 63 City of Mountain View, July 2012, Mountain View General Plan 2030, https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6469/638214115708670000, accessed on March 14, 2024.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 53
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. As described in the Mountain View General Plan 2030 EIR, it was found that no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance are located in Mountain View.64 The General Plan EIR also found that no natural gas, oil, or geothermal resources are identified in or adjacent to Mountain View. 65 Therefore, the development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state. No impact would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As discussed under Section 3.12(a), the project site and the surrounding vicinity are not in an area identified as containing mineral resources or oil fields. The project site and the surrounding area are not used for mineral, oil, or gas extraction. Therefore, no impact would occur.

3.13 NOISE
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Would the project result in:
64 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 331 65 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 331

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Noise that exceeds adopted thresholds may be generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. During construction, noise generated at the proposed project has the potential to generate excessive noise levels that exceed the standards adopted by the City.

During operation, noise generated at the project site from additional personnel has the potential to increase noise levels beyond levels currently experienced. The EIR will address potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation, and if necessary, mitigation measures will be identified. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact. Off-site vibration-sensitive land uses are on the east, south, and west of the proposed project. Construction activities have the potential to generate strong levels of vibration. The EIR will evaluate the potential for vibration generated by project-related construction activities to impact the residents to the east, south, and west of the EIR Study Area. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The projectsite is located 3.3 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield.

According to the Redlands Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the project site is outside of the 60 dBA and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.66 Consequently, the proposed project would not expose personnel to excessive noise levels from aircraft overflights, and impacts would be less than significant.

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
66 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission, 2012, “Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County - Moffett Federal Airfield,” https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 55
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve the development of a Public Safety Building, parking garage, surface parking, and a K-9 training area on the existing MVPD site. As described in Section 1.4, Project Description, the proposed project would have an immediate personnel increase of thirteen (13) environmental health staff who would be relocated to the proposed project. Due to this, the personnel on the site would increase from 169 people to 182 people. Within the Mountain View 2030 General Plan, the City has projected that within the project planning area the number of jobs would increase to approximately 990 by 2030.67 Meanwhile, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) predicts that within Santa Clara County jobs will grow by 511,000 in 2050.68 The increase in jobs induced by the proposed project is well within the General Plan and ABAG growth projections.

At maximum capacity the proposed project could contain 242 personnel. This number does not represent the immediate increase in staff but instead indicates the maximum future capacity of the building over a long period of time due to natural growth in staffing.

The proposed project does not include the construction of new homes or businesses and would not extend roads and other infrastructure off-site. In addition, as described previously, the proposed project would not exceed local growth projections for Mountain View or Santa Clara County. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly create unplanned levels of growth and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The project site currently operates as a City facility; it does not contain any housing units.

Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not displace any people or housing units that could necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 67 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, https://archive.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10702, accessed on February 26, 2024. 68 Plan Bay Area, January 2021, Growth Pattern, https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/FinalBlueprintRelease_December2020_GrowthPattern_Jan2021Update.pdf , accessed on February 29, 2024.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Fire and Environmental Protection Division oversees fire prevention programs in the City of Mountain View, and fire protection services are provided to the project site by the Mountain View Fire Department.
69 The closet fire station is Fire Station No. 1, approximately 0.1 miles southwest of the project site.

As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not result in unplanned population growth. Although the development of the proposed project may increase the intensity of use on the site as compared to existing conditions, because the proposed project would not increase capacity nor induce population growth, the proposed project would not require new or physically altered fire protection facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. As such, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection services. 69 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 479.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 57
b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Police protection services are provided to the project site by the MVPD. The MVPD also participates in a variety of mutual assistance agreements with neighboring police departments, Santa Clara County law enforcement, and State law enforcement organizations.70 As discussed under Section 3.15(a) above, the proposed project would not induce population growth.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate a new demand for police protection services. The proposed project would not require new or physically altered police protection facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. The proposed project is a new police facility and this IS and EIR analyze its impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to police protection services.
c) Schools?
No Impact. The proposed project involves involve the development of a Public Safety Building, parking garage, surface parking, and a K-9 training area on the current MVPD building site. Typically, the demand for schools is created by new housing development or activities that generate additional population. As discussed in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not generate residents.

Therefore, the proposed project would not impact schools. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR.
d) Parks?
No Impact. Typically, the demand for parks is created by the development of new housing and/or actions that generate additional population. The proposed project would serve an existing staff, therefore it would not induce population growth or housing in the area, nor would it increase the use of existing parks or recreational facilities, or the need for new parks or recreational facilities. No impacts to parks would result from the proposed project. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. e) Other public facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be served by existing infrastructure, including public roads. Due to the size and general nature of the proposed project, impacts to public facilities are not anticipated to be significant. Development of the proposed project would not require new or altered governmental services for the maintenance of roadways or other public facilities. No new population would be generated by the proposed uses; therefore, no increased demand on other public facilities is anticipated. No significant impacts would occur. This issue will not be reviewed further in the EIR. 70 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, 483.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

3.16 RECREATION
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Less Than Significant Impact. The demand for recreation facilities generally increases when the population of the surrounding area increases. As discussed in Section 1.4, Project Description, though the capacity of the building would increase, it would be due to consolidation and would not be unplanned or substantial enough to influence the recreational facilities in the area. Additionally, the proposed project would include a fitness area for onsite personnel that would lessen the pressure on offsite recreational areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate an increased demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks and other recreational facilities and would not result in substantial physical deterioration of such facilities nor cause deterioration to accelerate. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to recreational resources.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a Public Safety Building, parking garage, surface parking, and a K-9 training area on the current MVPD building site. The proposed project does not include the development of public recreational facilities. All proposed outdoor spaces are a part of the MVPD site and would be developed on the project site as part of the proposed project. As described in Section 3.14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would not induce population growth nor increase capacity of the building to an unplanned level. No demand for facilities off-site would be created by the proposed project. Therefore, no impact would occur.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 59

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the proposed project conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The City’s Mobility Element sets forth goals and policies pertaining to complete streets, transit and public transportation, bicycle routes and pedestrian facilities, and safety, among others. The proposed project would support the City’s Mobility Element.

The proposed project would provide a parking garage and surface parking lots which help promote more efficient parking on the project site. These features would be consistent with Goal MOB-7, to provide efficient and adequate vehicle parking.

Proposed project features would include landscaped pedestrian walkways connecting facilities within the site, as well as connections with the adjacent public sidewalks on Villas Street. The proposed project also includes street trees and streetscaping plants along public frontages in accordance with the City’s standards to increase tree canopy and provide safe and inviting new pedestrian network. These design features would further support MOB 3.1, Pedestrian Network, and MOB 3.2, Pedestrian Connections.

The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan’s goals and policies, and the proposed project is not found to result in conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs, nor is it expected to negatively affect the performance or safety of existing or planned pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities.

It is determined that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the project site.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Potentially Significant Impact. On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, which started a process that fundamentally changed transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in CEQA review. As part of the updated CEQA Guidelines, the new criteria “shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses” (Public Resources Code sec. 21099(b)(1)). On January 20, 2016, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research released revisions to its proposed CEQA guidelines for the implementation of SB 743. Final review and rulemaking for the new guidelines were completed on December 28, 2018, when the California Natural Resource Agency certified and adopted the CEQA Guidelines update package, including guidelines implementing SB 743.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is an indicator of the travel levels on the roadway system by motor vehicles.

It corresponds to the number of vehicles multiplied by the distance traveled in a given period over a geographical area. In other words, VMT is a function of (1) number of daily trips and (2) the average trip length (VMT = daily trips x average trip length). The proposed project’s VMT will be explored in the EIR.

Mitigation measures will be incorporated as appropriate. c) ASubstantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the project site is planned to be accommodated by a total of four vehicle access points: two separate ingress and egress access points via Oak Street into the secure parking, one ingress/egress access point via Oak Street into the proposed parking garage, and one ingress/egress access point along Franklin Street into the visitor parking lot.

The all new vehicle access points at the proposed project site would be designed and constructed to ensure adequate vehicle and emergency access and provide a continuous path of travel. The proposed project does not include any major changes to roadways, driveways, or circulation. The proposed project’s driveways and vehicular access points would not introduce hazardous design features. Additionally, the proposed project is an urban area and does not include incompatible uses such as farm equipment. As such, the proposed project does not represent an incompatible use. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant to geometric design features or incompatible uses. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would allow emergency access to the site and does not alter any exiting public roadways. All parking lot and circulation patterns are subject to Fire Department access and review. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to emergency access.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 61

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

X
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or Potentially Significant Impact. As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.1, 21080.3.1, and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult with California Native American tribes recognized by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purpose of mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources.

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.1(d), a lead agency is required to provide formal notification of intended development projects to Native American tribes that have requested to be on the lead agency’s list for receiving such notification. The formal notification is required to include a brief description of the proposed project and its location, lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation for tribal cultural resources. The proposed project would comply with tribal consultation requirements pursuant to AB 52. The City has reached out to the Native American Heritage Commission, and as of

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

the publication of this Initial Study, is awaiting a response. Tribal consultation will be conducted as part of the EIR and further evaluated in the EIR.

The proposed project would involve the construction of a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area. The project site is currently developed and operates with similar uses. The existing building was determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).71,72 The results of the AB 52 tribal consultation and historical resources will be further discussed in the EIR.
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed under section 5.18(a), the proposed project would involve construction of a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area. The project site is currently developed and operates with similar uses. The existing building was determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).73,74 The results of the AB 52 tribal consultation will be further discussed in the EIR.

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
71 National Park Services, “National Register of Historic Places,” accessed October 23, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466. 72 California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation, “Santa Clara,” accessed October 23, 2023 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21522. 73 National Park Services, “National Register of Historic Places,” accessed October 23, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466. 74 California State Parks, Office of Historic Preservation, “Santa Clara,” accessed October 23, 2023 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21522.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 63
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The following is a discussion of the proposed project’s potential impacts on water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, and telecommunications facilities.

Water Supply Facilities
The proposed project’s water services would be provided by locally pumped groundwater and purchased water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the Santa Clara Valley Water District.75 SFPUC collects water from the Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada and from protected local watersheds in the East Bay and Peninsula.76 Valley Water maintains diverse water supply sources to meet countywide demands, including localsurface water and groundwater, imported water, and recycled water. 77 According
to the Valley Water UWMP, Valley Water will be able to meet countywide demands through 2045 under normal, a single dry, and five consecutive dry year conditions.78 The SFPUC UWMP states that if the BayDelta Plan Amendment is implemented, the SFPUC will be able to meet the projected water use demands in normal years but would experience significant supply shortages in single dry years and multiple dry years.79
Water demand estimates for the existing uses on-site and proposed uses under the proposed project are included in Table 3.19-1, Water Demands, Existing and Proposed. As shown in the table, existing uses have 75 City of Mountain View, 2012, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, 120. 76 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2020, Urban Water Management Plan. 77 Santa Clara Valley Water District, 2020, Urban Water Management Plan. 78 Valley Water, 2020, Urban Water Management Plan, 1. 79 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2021, Urban Water Management Plan, 1-1.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

a total indoor water demand of 8,922,615 gallons per year (gpy) and an outdoor water demand of 5,468,683 gpy. The proposed project would have an indoor water demand of 14,899,500 gpy and an outdoor water demand of 9,131,925 gpy. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increase in water demand of 5,976,884 gpy for indoor water use and 3,663,241 gpy for outdoor water use. Combined, this totals 9,640,126 gpy or about 30 acre-feet per year (afy).

Table 3.19-1 Water Demands, Existing and Proposed
Scenario Building Area (SF)
Indoor Water Use Rate
(gal/1000 Square
Feet/year) Indoor Water Use (gpy)
Outdoor Water Use
Rate (gal/1000
Square Feet /year)
Outdoor Water Use
Rate (gpy)
Existing Uses
Government
Office Building 45,000 198,660 8,922,615 121,759 5,468,683 Proposed Uses
Government
Office Building 75,000 198,660 14,899,500 121,759 9,131,925 Net Increase - - 5,976,884 3,663,241
Source: California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), California Emissions Estimator Model Appendix D Default Data Tables, 2016, http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4.

Notes: SF = square feet;
1 CAPCOA rate for “Government Office Building” is used.

The average of water demand for the City of Mountain from 2016 to 2020 is 9,303 afy, and in 2045 it is projected to be 14,163 afy.80 The 30 afy that the proposed project creates would fit into the projected water demand and is currently being used by personnel at the existing police station. Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The City of Mountain View operates its own sewer system, which consists of 159 miles of gravity sewers (approximately 3,850 line segments), approximately one mile of 42-inch force main, and two pump stations.81 The pump stations are at Shoreline Sewage Wastewater and Pastel Lane. 82 The Shoreline Sewage Wastewater station pumps an average of 9 million gallons per day of untreated sewage to the Palo Alto Regional Water Pollution Control Plant and is designed to be a gravity flow system in the event of a mechanical failure. 83 The Pastel Lane pump station is much smaller and serves approximately 10 single-family homes.

The proposed project would increase employee capacity, which would lead to an increase in wastewater generation when compared to existing facilities. However, this increase would be marginal, and project 80 City of Mountain View, 2021, City of Mountain View Urban Water Management Plan, 19. 81 City of Mountain View, 2018, Sewer System Management Plan, 1. 82 City of Mountain View, 2018, Sewer System Management Plan, 34. 83 City of Mountain View, 2018, Sewer System Management Plan, 34.

I I
I I

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 65
development would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities.

Impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant.

Stormwater Drainage Facilities
See response to Section 3.10(c)(iii), Hydrology and Water Quality, above. As substantiated in this section, impacts would be less than significant, and will not be further analyzed in the EIR.

Electrical Service
Electrical services to the proposed project would be provided by Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which partners with Pacific Gas and Electric to connect to existing off-site electrical lines and new on-site infrastructure.84 Total mid-demand electricity deliveries to end users by SVCE are forecast to increase by

0.71 percent between 2020 and 2030.
85 Project development would not require SVCE to obtain new or expanded electricity supplies, such as electrical power stations or new facilities/infrastructure that would generate additional electric power. SVCE provides clean energy to Silicon Valley communities from geothermal, battery storage, solar and storage, solar power, long duration storage, and wind generation.86 The proposed project would be required to comply with energy efficiency standards set forth by Title 24 of the CCR and the Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The project would be required to comply with CALGreen requirements related to energy and water conservation. The proposed project would also include the required EV parking spaces based on the CALGreen standards, however the overall energy uses would be within the SVCE energy supplies. Overall, applicable CALGreen requirements would decrease electricity consumption.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in electrical service demands.

Pacific Gas and Electric would not need to expand its supply and transmission facilities to handle the demand generated by the proposed project, and impacts would be less than significant.

Telecommunication Facilities
The proposed project would include on-site connections to telecommunication services. AT&T provides telephone services in Mountain View and hosts a variety of other telecommunication services, including digital subscriber line (DSL), internet service provider (ISP), web hosting, virtual private networking, Uverse, multiprotocol label switching (MPLS), and wireless/cellular paging services.87 84 City of Mountain View, “Renewable Energy,” accessed October 23, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/ourcity/departments/city-managers-office/sustainability/energy/renewable-energy?locale=en. 85 California Energy Commission, 2021, “CEDU 2020 Baseline Forecast - LSE and BA Tables Mid Demand Case - Corrected March 2021,” https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=20-IEPR-03. 86 Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Renewable Projects, accessed October 27, 2023, https://svcleanenergy.org/power-sources/. 87 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, Part III, 541.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Due to the availability of telecommunications facilities in the area, the proposed project would not result in the need to construct new telecommunications facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less Than Significant Impact. While the proposed project would increase the employee capacity of the site by 13 employees, which would increase the water demand on the site, however the demand would not cause an increase that would affect Valley Water’s or SFPUC’s ability to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years.

Valley Water will be able to meet countywide demands through 2045 under normal, a single dry, and five consecutive dry year conditions.88 Meanwhile, SFPUC states that if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, SFPUC will be able to meet the projected water use demands in normal years but would experience significant supply shortages in single dry years and multiple dry years.89 Furthermore, development of the proposed project would be required to comply with CALGreen standards for indoor water use reduction and site irrigation conservation. Specifically, project development would adhere to mandatory nonresidential measures outlined in Division 5.3, Water Efficiency and Conservation, of CALGreen, including those of Sections 5.303, Indoor Water Use, and 5.304, Outdoor Water Use.

Based on the preceding, there are adequate water supplies to meet the water demands of the proposed project, and project development would not require the Valley Water or SFPUC to obtain new or expanded water supplies. Therefore, impacts on water supplies due to project development would be less than significant.
c) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact. The stormwater and wastewater flows from the project site are expected to marginally increase but would not be enough to require construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. Though the proposed project will increase employee capacity at the project site, which would increase wastewater generation, the increase would not overburden the wastewater treatment provider that serves the site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 88 Valley Water, June 2021, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 1. 89 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2021, Urban Water Management Plan, 1-1.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 67
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less Than Significant Impact. Recology Mountain View provides solid waste and recycling services to Mountain View. All nonrecyclable waste is transferred to the Kirby Canyon Landfill at 910 Coyote Creek Golf Drive in San Jose.
90 Capacity and disposal data for the landfill is shown in Table 3.19-2, Landfill Capacity. As shown in the table, the Kirby Canyon Landfill has a residual capacity of 1,871 tons per day.

Table 3.19-2 Landfill Capacity
Landfill
Current Remaining
Capacity (tons) 1
Maximum
Daily Disposal
Capacity (tons)
Average Daily
Disposal, 2022
(tons) 2
Residual Daily
Disposal Capacity
(tons)
Estimated
Close Date
Kirby Canyon Landfill 16,191,600 2,600 7293 1,8714 2059 Sources:

CalRecycle, 2022 “Landfill Tonnage Reports,” https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/.

CalRecycle, “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details,” https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2767?siteID=2103 1 A Volume-to-Weight conversion rate of 2,000 lbs/cubic yard (1 tons/cubic yard) for “Compacted - MSW Large Landfill with Best Management Practices” is used as per CalRecyle’s 2016 Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201604/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf. 2 Average daily disposal is calculated based on 300 operating days per year. The facility is open six days per week, Monday through Saturday, except certain holidays. 3 218,795 tons in 2022 / 300 days of operation = 729.32 tons/day = 729 tons/day 4 2,600 – 729 = 1,871 tons/day Based on the building square footage, the proposed project is estimated to generate a net increase of about 180 pounds of solid waste per day, as shown in Table 3.19-3, Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation.

Table 3.19-3 Net Increase in Solid Waste Generation
Scenario Square Feet
Solid Waste Generation, pounds per day1
Per square foot Total
Existing Conditions
Office Building 45,000 0.006 270
Proposed Conditions
Office Building 75,000 0.006 450
Net increase 180
Source: CalRecycle, Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates. 1 CalRecycle rate for “Office” used.

As demonstrated in Table 3.19-3, there is adequate landfill capacity for the proposed project’s forecast solid waste, and project development would not require additional landfill capacity at the landfill serving the city. The total amount of solid waste expected to be generated under the proposed project would be minimal compared to the total permitted daily maximum solid waste tonnage per day of the landfill serving the city.
90 City of Mountain View, 2012, Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhous Gas Reduction Program Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2011012069, Part III, 535.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

Additionally, CALGreen Section 5.408.1.1 requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The City would comply with these established building code standards.

Based on the preceding, impacts on landfill capacity would be less than significant and will not be further analyzed in the EIR.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste would be generated during construction and operation of the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with all regulations pertaining to solid waste, such as the California Integrated Waste Management Act and local recycling and waste programs. The City and its construction contractor would comply with all applicable laws and regulations and make every effort to reuse and/or recycle the construction debris that would otherwise be taken to a landfill. Section 5.408 of CALGreen requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. Hazardous waste, such as paint used during construction, would be disposed of only at facilities permitted to receive them in accordance with local, State, and federal regulations. The proposed project would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste disposal. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

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

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 69
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones (FHSZ), would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The project site is not in or near a state responsibility area for wildfire nor land classified as a very high FHSZ.
91 The closest state responsibility area that has a high fire hazard classification is near Rancho San Antonio Open Space, approximately 7.2 miles south of the project site. 92 The project site is in
an urbanized area and is not in or near a very high fire hazard zone. The City of Mountain View has prepared an emergency operations plan that describes the City’s incident management organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other relevant guidelines, whole community engagement, and critical components of the incident management structure.93 The proposed project would not conflict with the emergency operations plan, and the surrounding roadways would continue to provide emergency access to the project site and surrounding properties during construction and operational activities. To address emergency and fire access needs, the site improvements would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable building codes and the City of Mountain View Fire Department design standards for emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact. The existing Mountain View Police Department building is in an urban area, and there is no wildland susceptible to wildfire on or near the site. Furthermore, CAL FIRE does not classify any adjacent areas as a very high FHSZ.94 Project development would not place people or structures at risk from wildfire.

Therefore, no impact would occur.
91 CAL Fire, 2022, “Fire Hazard Severity Zones,” https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz. 92 CAL Fire, 2016, “State Responsibility Area (SRA) Viewer,” https://calfireforestry.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce1. 93 City of Mountain View, 2022, “Emergency Operations Plan,” https://www.mountainview.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5422/638144797362630000. 94 CAL Fire, 2022, “Fire Hazard Severity Zones,”https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/#explorefhsz.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? No Impact. The existing Mountain View Police Department building is in an urban area surrounded by development. The building improvements would not require the installation of new infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. The existing Mountain View Police Department building is surrounded by development with flat topography. There are no vegetated slopes susceptible to wildfire in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. No impact would occur.

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
X
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
X
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis
December 2024 Page 71
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed above in Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.4, Biological Resources; Section 3.5, Cultural Resources; Section 3.7, Geology and Soils; Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 3.13, Noise; Section 3.17, Transportation; and Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources; these topics will be analyzed in a focused EIR.

Therefore, the topics analyzed in this initial study do have potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat or wildlife population numbers, or eliminate California history, and the impacts would be potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR.. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Potentially Significant Impact. The potential for cumulative impacts occurs when the independent impacts of a given project are combined with the impacts of related projects in proximity to the project site that would create impacts that are greater than those of the project alone. Related projects include past, current, and/or probable future projects whose development could contribute to potentially significant cumulative impacts in conjunction with a given project. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the proposed project may have potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the impacts would be potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in the above analyses, the proposed project may result in significant direct or indirect adverse impacts or result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.

Therefore, the impacts would be potentially significant and will be further evaluated in the EIR.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

3. Environmental Analysis

This page intentionally left blank.

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4. List of Preparers
December 2024 Page 73

4. List of Preparers

LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
David O. Printy, Principal Project Manager, Public Works Department Naveen Govind, Senior Project Manager, Public Works Department

PLACEWORKS
Alexis Mena, Principal-in-Charge
Emma Haines, Project Manager
Madeline Miller, Project Planner

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING INITIAL STUDY

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

4. List of Preparers

This page intentionally left blank.

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luisefio

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Bennae Calac
Pauma-Yuima Band of
Luisefio Indians

ACTING EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY
Steven Quinn

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov
$TATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavia Newsom Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
December 13, 2024
Naveen Govind
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View CA 94041
Re: 2024120444 Mountain View Public Safety Building Project, Santa Clara County Dear Mr. Govind,
The Native Americon Heritage Commission (NAHC) has received the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or Early Consultation for the project referenced above. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code §21084.1, states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code§ 21084.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit .14, § 15064.5 (b) (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 (b)). If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before a lead agency, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be prepared. (Pub. Resources Code §21080 (d); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 5064 subd.(a)(l) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064 (a)(l )).

In order to determine whether a project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, a lead agency will need to determine whether there are historical resources within the area of potential effect (APE).

CEQA was amended significantly in 2014. Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) (AB 52) amended CEQA to create a separate category of cultural resources, "tribal cultural resources" (Pub. Resources Code §21074) and provides that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.2). Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21084.3 (a)). AB 52 applies to any project for which a notice of preparation, a notice of negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is filed on or after July 1, 2015. If your project involves the adoption of or amendment to a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation or proposed designation of open space, on or after March 1, 2005, it may also be subject to Senate Bill 18 (Burton, Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004) (SB 18).

Both SB 18 and AB 52 have tribal consultation requirements. If your project is also subject to the federal National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), the tribal consultation requirements of Section 106 of the National_ Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ( 154 U.S.C. 300101, 36 C.F.R. §800 et seq.) may also apply.

The NAHC recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of your proposed project as early as possible in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of Native American human remains and best protect tribal cultural resources. Below is a brief summary of portions of AB 52 and SB 18 as well as the NAHC's recommendations for conducting cultural resources assessments.

Consult your legal counsel about compliance with AB 52 and SB 18 as well as compliance with any other applicable laws.

Pagel of 5
AB 52 has added to CEQA the additional requirements listed below, along with many other requirements:

1. Fourteen Day Period to Provide Notice of Completion of o n Application/Decision to Undertake a Proiec t :

Within fourteen ( 14) days of determining that an application for a project is complete or of a decision by a public agency to undertake a project, a lead agency shall provide formal notification to a designated contact of, or tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have requested notice, to be accomplished by at least one written notice that includes:
a. A brief description of the project.
b. The lead agency contact information.
c. Notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. (Pub.

Resources Code §21080.3.1 (d)).
d. A "California Native American tribe" is defined as a Native American tribe located in California that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC for the purposes of Chapter 905 of Statutes of 2004 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21073).

2. Begin Consultation Within 30 Days of Receiving a Tribe's Request for Consultation and Before Releasing a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report: A lead agency shall begin the consultation process within 30 days of receiving a request for consultation from a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1, subds. (d) and (e)) and prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)). a. For purposes of AB 52, "consultation shall have the same meaning as provided in Gov. Code §65352.4 (SB 18). (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.1 (b)).

3. Mandatory Topics of Consultation If Requested by a Tribe: The following topics of consultation, if a tribe requests to discuss them, are mandatory topics of consultation:
a. Alternatives to the project.
b. Recommended mitigation measures.
c. Significant effects. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)) .

4. Dlscretionary Topics of Consultation: The following topics are discretionary topics of consultation:
a. Type of environmental review necessary.
b. Significance of the tribal cultural resources.
c. Significance of the project's impacts on tribal cultural resources. d. If necessary, project alternatives or appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the tribe may recommend to the lead agency. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (a)).

5. Confidentiality of Information Submitted by a Tribe During the Environmental Review Process: With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code § 6254 (r) and § 6254.10. Any information submitted by a California Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some or all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c) ( 1)).

6. Discussion of Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources in the Environmental Document: If a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency's environmental document shall discuss both of the following:
a. Whether the proposed project has a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. b. Whether feasible alternatives or mitigation measures, including those measures that may be agreed to pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (a), avoid or substantially lessen the impact on the identified tribal cultural resource. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (b)).

7. Conclusion of Consultation: Consultation with a tribe shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
a. The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource; or
b. A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. (Pub. Resources Code §21080.3.2 (b)).

8. Recommending Mitigation Measures Agreed Upon in Consultation in the Environmental Document: Any mitigation measures agreed upon in the consultation conducted pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2 shall be recommended for inclusion in the environmental document and in an adopted mitigation monitoring and reporting program, if determined to avoid or lessen the impact pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.3, subdivision (b), paragraph 2, and shall be fully enforceable. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (a)).

9. Required Consideration of Feasible Mitigation: If mitigation measures recommended by the staff of the lead agency as a result of the consultation process are not included in the environmental document or if there are no agreed upon mitigation measures at the conclusion of consultation, or if consultation does not occur, and if substantial evidence demonstrates that a project will cause a significant effect to a tribal cultural resource, the lead agency shall consider feasible mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21084.3 (b). (Pub. Resources ·code §21082.3 (e)) .

10. Examples of Mitigation Measures That. If Feasible, May Be Considered to Avoid or Minimize Significant Adverse Impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources:
a. Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to:
i. Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context.
ii. Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria.
b. Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following:
i. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. ii. Protecting the traditional use of the resource.
iii. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource.
c. Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. d. Protecting the resource. (Pub. Resource Code §21084.3 (b)) . e. Please note that a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the NAHC to protect a California prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial place may acquire and hold conservation easements if the conservation easement is voluntarily conveyed. (Civ. Code §815.3 (c)) . f. Please note that it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated. (Pub. Resources Code §5097.991) .

11. Prerequisites for Certifying an Environmental Impact Report or Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Negative Declaration with a Significant Impact on an Identified Tribal Cultural Resource: An Environmental Impact Report may not be certified, nor may a mitigated negative declaration or a negative declaration be adopted unless one of the following occurs:
a. The consultation process between the tribes and the lead agency has occurred as provided in Public Resources Code §21080.3. l and §21080.3.2 and concluded pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3.2.
b. The tribe that requested consultation failed to provide comments to the lead agency or otherwise failed to engage in the consultation process.
c. The lead agency provided notice of the project to the tribe in compliance with Public Resources Code §21080.3. l (d) and the tribe failed to request consultation within 30 days. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (d)).

The NAHC's PowerPoint presentation titled, "Tribal Consultation Under AB 52: Requirements and Best Practices" may be found on line at: http://nahc.ca.gov/wp-content /uploads/2015/10/AB52Triba!Consultation ColEPAPDF.pdf

SB 18
SB 18 applies to local governments and requires local governments to contact, provide notice to, refer plans to, and consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or a specific plan, or the designation of open space. (Gov. Code §65352.3). Local governments should consult the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," which can be found online at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/09 14 05 Updated Guidelines 922.pdf.

Some of SB 18's provisions include:

1. Tribal Consultation: If a local government considers -a proposal to adopt or amend a general plan or a specific plan, or to designate open space it is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the NAHC by requesting a "Tribal Consultation List." If a tribe, once contacted, requests consultation the local government must consult with the tribe on the plan proposal. A tribe has 90 days from the date of receipt of notification to request consultation unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (a)(2)).

2. No Statutory nme Limit on SB 18 Tribal Consultation. There is no statutory time limit on SB 18 tribal consultation.

3. Confidentiality: Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Gov. Code §65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of the information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of places, features and objects described in Public Resources Code §5097.9 and §5097.993 that are within the city's or county's jurisdiction. (Gov. Code §65352.3 (b)).

4. Conclusion of SB 18 Tribal Consultation: Consultation should be concluded at the point in which:
a. The parties to the consultation come to a mutual agreement concerning the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation; or
b. Either the local government or the tribe, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached concerning the appropriate measures of preservation or mitigation. (Tribal Consultation Guidelines, Governor's Office of Planning and Research (2005) at p. 18).

Agencies should be aware that neither AB 52 nor SB 18 precludes agencies from initiating tribal consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with their jurisdictions before the timeframes provided in AB 52 and SB 18. For that reason, we urge you to continue to request Native American Tribal Contact Lists and "Sacred Lands File" searches from the NAHC. The request forms can be found online at: http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/forms/.

NAHC Recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments To adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources, the NAHC recommends the following actions:

1. Contact the appropriate regional California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) Center (https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30331) for an archaeological records search. The records search will determine:
a. If part or all of the APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. b. If any known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the APE. c. If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. d. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present.

2. If an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. a. The final report containing site forms, site significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted immediately to the planning department. All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum and not be made available for public disclosure.
b. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional CHRIS center.

3. Contact the NAHC for:
a. A Sacred Lands File search. Remember that tribes do not always record their sacred sites in the Sacred Lands File, nor are they required to do so. A Sacred Lands File search is not a substitute for consultation with tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project's APE.
b. A Native American Tribal Consultation List of appropriate tribes for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in planning for avoidance, preservation in place, or, failing both, mitigation measures.

4. Remember that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources (including tribal cultural resources) does not preclude their subsurface existence.
a. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of inadvertently discovered archaeological resources per Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5(f) (CEQA Guidelines§ l 5064.5(f)). In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American with knowledge of cultural resources should monitor all ground-disturbing activities.
b. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the disposition of recovered cultural items that are not burial associated in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans.
c. Lead agencies should include in their mitigation and monitoring reporting program plans provisions for the treatment and disposition of inadvertently discovered Native American human remains. Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5, subdivisions (d) and (e) (CEQA Guidelines§ 15064.5, subds. (d) and (e)) address the processes to be followed in the event of an inadvertent discovery of any Native American human remains and associated grave goods in a location other than a dedicated cemetery.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:

[email protected].

Sincerely,
Mathew Lin
Cultural Resources Analyst
cc: State Clearinghouse

APPENDIX B:

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Data
This page is intentionally left blank.

CalEEMod Inputs ‐ Mountain View Police Department Project Construction Asumptions Name: Mountain View Police Department Project
Project Number: SVA‐1.0Project Location: 1000 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041County/Air Basin: Santa ClaraClimate Zone: 1Land Use Setting: UrbanGas Utility Company: PG&E Electric Utility Company: PG&E
Air Basin: San Francisco Bay AreaAir District: Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD) Project Site Acreage 4.12
Disturbed Site Acreage 3.52
Project Components
Asphalt Demolition Building SQFT Tons of Debris
Building Demolition1 44,914 2,066
Asphalt Demolition2 108,553 1,608
Construction Number of Units SQFT Building Footprint Acres Police Department Building (3‐story)3 ‐ 87,215 25,000 0.57 Parking Garage (3‐story) 214 102,785 38,333 0.88Parking Surface Lot4 75 70,967 70,967 1.63 Hardscaping  ‐  14,375 14,375 0.33
Landscaping  ‐  4,792 4,792 0.11
Undisturbed Area  ‐  26,000 26,000 0.60
TOTAL 192,919 179,467 4.12
Notes
1 Based on assumption that all asphalt under disturbed site acreage will be hauled.2 Asphalt square footage assumed to be the balance of site after accounting for the existing building footprint and undisturbed land.3 Includes 12,215 square feet for the shooting range to account for area and energy source emissions.4 Parking Lot square footage based on the site balance after accounting for all other proposed uses.

CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Building Square Feet Landscape Area
Square Feet
Special Landscape Area Square
Feet
Commercial Government Office Building 87.22 1000 sqft 0.68 87,215 4,792 0 Parking Enclosed Parking With Elevator 214 Spaces 0.88 102,785 0 0 Parking Surface Parking Lot 75 Spaces 1.63 70,967 0 0
Hardscaping Other Asphalt Surfaces 14.37 1000 sqft 0.33 14,375 0 0

3.52 Demolition Haul
Construction Activities Amount to be Demolished (Tons) Haul Truck Capacity (Tons) Haul Distance (miles) Total Trip Ends Total Days Trip Ends/Day Asphalt Demolition1,2,3 1,608 16 20 202 51 4
Building Demolition4,5 2,066 16 20 260 51 5
3,674 9
Notes:
1 Based on assumption that all asphalt under disturbed site acreage will be hauled.234 Tons of building demo debris would be hauled offsite as provided by Applicant.5 CalEEMod default haul truck capacity used.

BAAQMD Construction BMPs
Water Exposed Surfaces Frequency per day: 2
PM10: 61 % Reduction
PM2.5: 61 % Reduction
Limit Vehicle Speeds on Unpaved Roads Miles per hour speed limit: 25 PM10: 44 % Reduction
PM25: 44 % Reduction
Sweep Paved Roads PM10: 9 % Reduction
PM25: 9 % Reduction
Gibbons, Jim. 1999. Pavements and Surface Materials. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, Technical Paper Number 8. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System. https://www.uni‐groupusa.org/PDF/NEMO_tech_8.pdf CalRecycle. 2019. Solid Waste Cleanup Program Weights and Volumes for Project Estimates. https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/5668/CalRecycle‐Conversion‐Table I
I
Pavement Volume to Weight Conversion
Component
Total SF of
Area1
Assumed
Thickness
(foot)2
Debris Volume
(cu. ft)
Weight of
Crushed
Asphalt
(lbs/cf)3
AC Mass
(lbs) AC Mass (tons)
Asphalt Demolition 108,553 0.333 36,184 89 3,216,391 1608.20 Total 108,553 1,608
1 Based on assumption that all asphalt under disturbed site acreage will be hauled2 Gibbons, Jim. 1999. Pavements and Surface Materials. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials, Technical Paper Number 8. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System. https://www.uni‐groupusa.org/PDF/NEMO_tech_8.pdf 3 CalRecycle. 2019. Solid Waste Cleanup Program Weights and Volumes for Project Estimates. https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/5668/CalRecycle‐Conversion‐ Table
Building Demolition Haul Trip Calculation
Source: CalEEMod User's Guide Version 2022.1, Appendix C Conversion factors

0.046 ton/SF Building Debris
2 CY/ton Building Debris

1.2641662 tons/CY Soil
18 tons Truck Capacity in tons18 CY Truck Capacity in CY 1 CY/ton Soil
Building BSF Demo1 Tons/SF Tons1
Haul Truck
(Ton)2
Round
Trips Total Trip Ends
Recreational Building Demo 44,914 0.046 2,066 18 230 460 Notes:
1 tons of building demo debris would be hauled offsite as pro 2 CalEEMod default haul truck capacity used.

CalEEMod Construction Off‐Road Equipment Inputs
Water Truck Vendor Trip Calculation
Amount of Water
(gal/acre/day)1
Water Truck Capacity
(gallons)2
10,000 4,000
Notes:
1 Based on data provided in Guidance for Application for Dust Control Permit 2 Based on standard water truck capacity:
3 Equipment Given CalEEMod Equipment # of Equipment hr/day hp load factor total trips per day On‐Site Water Truck
Travel Distance
(miles/day)
Demolition
Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 367 0.4
Concrete/Industrial Saws Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8 33 0.73 Excavators Excavators 3 8 36 0.38
Worker Trips 10
Vendor Trips (water trucks ‐ offsite activity) 7
Hauling Trips 9
Onsite Trucks (water trucks ‐ onsite activity) Acres Disturbed: 2.50 1 1.03 Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8 367 0.4
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 84 0.37 Worker Trips 18
Vendor Trips (water trucks ‐ offsite activity) 9
Hauling Trips 0
Onsite Trucks (water trucks ‐ onsite activity) Acres Disturbed: 3.50 1 1.44 Grading
Graders Graders 1 8 148 0.41
Excavator Excavator 1 8 36 0.38
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8 87 0.43 Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 367 0.4
Worker Trips 15
Vendor Trips (water trucks ‐ offsite activity) 8
Hauling Trips 0
Onsite Trucks (water trucks ‐ onsite activity) Acres Disturbed: 3.00 1 1.24 Building Construction
Cranes Cranes 1 7 367 0.29
Forklifts Forklifts 3 8 82 0.2
Generator Sets Generator Sets 1 8 14 0.74
Welders Welders 1 8 46 0.45
Tractors/ Loaders / BackhoeTractors / Loaders / Backhoes 3 7 84 0.37 Worker Trips 71
Vendor Trips 31
Hauling Trips 0
Paving
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8 84 0.37 Cement and Mortar Mixers Cement and Mortar Mixers 2 6 10 0.56 Pavers Pavers 1 8 81 0.42
Paving Equipment Paving Equipment 2 6 89 0.36
Rollers Rollers 2 6 36 0.38
Worker Trips 20
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Architectural Coating
Air Compressors Air Compressors 1 6 37 0.48
Worker Trips 14
Vendor Trips 0
Hauling Trips 0
Maricopa County Air Quality Department. 2005, June. Guidance for Application of Dust Control Permit. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019‐04/documents/mr_guidanceforapplicationfordustcontrolpermit.pdf) McLellan Industries. 2022, January (access). Water Trucks. https://www.mclellanindustries.com/trucks/water‐trucks/ Assumes that dozers, tractors/loaders/backhoes, and graders can disturb 0.50 acres per day and scrapers can disturb 1 acre per day.

Construction Equipment Details1
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
Construction Activities and Schedule Assumptions
Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
CalEEMod
Duration
(Workday)
Asphalt & Building Demolition Demolition 4/15/2025 4/29/2025 20 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/30/2025 5/7/2025 5
Grading Grading 5/8/2025 5/19/2025 8
Building Construction Building Construction 5/20/2025 4/7/2026 230 Paving Paving 3/13/2026 4/7/2026 18
Architecural Coating Architectural Coating 3/13/2026 4/7/2026 18 357 days of construction 4/15/2025 10/15/2027

0.98 years of construction 913 days
12 months of construction 30 months
Normalization Factor: 2.56
Construction Activities Phase Type Start Date End Date
CalEEMod
Duration
(Workday)
Asphalt & Building Demolition Demolition 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 51 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/25/2025 7/11/2025 13 Grading Grading 7/12/2025 8/8/2025 20
Building Construction Building Construction 8/9/2025 10/15/2027 570 Paving Paving 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 46
Architecural Coating Architectural Coating 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 46 Construction Activities Start Date End Date
CalEEMod Duration
(Workday)
Asphalt & Building Demolition 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 51
Site Preparation 6/25/2025 7/11/2025 13
Grading 7/12/2025 8/8/2025 20
Building Construction 8/9/2025 8/12/2027 524
Building Construction, Paving, & Architectural Coating 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 46 Overlapping Construction Schedule
Normalization Calculations
CalEEMod Defaults Construction Duration
Default Construction Schedule
New CalEEMod Construction Schedule
Assumed Construction Duration
I
CalEEMod Inputs ‐ Mountain View Police Department Project Operation Asumptions Name: Mountain View Police Department Project
Project Number: SVA‐1.0Project Location: 1000 Villa Street, Mountain View, CA 94041 County/Air Basin: Santa ClaraClimate Zone: 1Land Use Setting: Urban Gas Utility Company: PG&EElectric Utility Company: PG&EAir Basin: San Francisco Bay AreaAir District: Bay Area AQMD (BAAQMD) Project Site Acreage 4.12
Disturbed Site Acreage 3.52
CalEEMod Land Use Inputs
Land Use Type Land Use Subtype Unit Amount Size Metric Lot Acreage Building Square Feet Landscape Area Square
Feet
Special Landscape Area
Square Feet
Commercial Government Office Building 87.22 1000 sqft 0.68 87,215 4,792 0 Parking Enclosed Parking With Elevator 214 Spaces 0.88 102,785 0 0 Parking Surface Parking Lot 75 Spaces 1.63 70,967 0 0
Hardscaping Other Asphalt Surfaces 14.37 1000 sqft 0.33 14,375 0 0

3.52 Net Trips 1
Land Use Type Average Daily Trips CalEEMod Trip Rate Saturday Trips CalEEMod Trip Rate Sunday Trips CalEEMod Trip Rate Government Office Building1 602 6.90 519 5.95 653 7.49
Notes
1 ITE Code 571 for Adult Detention Facility is used to represent potential project vehicle trips.

Water Use 1
Indoor (gpy) Outdoor (gpy) Total
Government Office Building 17,326,105 51,229 17,377,333Enclosed Parking With Elevator 0 00Surface Parking Lot 0 00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0 00
Notes
1 CalEEMod defaults used.

Solid Waste1
Land Use Total Solid Waste (tons/yr)
Total Solid Waste
(tons/unit/yr)
Government Office Building 81.11 0.93
Enclosed Parking With Elevator 0.00 0.00Surface Parking Lot 0.00 0.00Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 Notes
1 CalEEMod defaults used.

Electricity (Buildings)
Default CalEEMod Energy Use
Land Use Subtype
Total Annual Electricity
Consumption (kWh/year)
Total Annual Natural Gas
Consumption (kBTU/year)
Title‐24 Electricity Energy
(kWhr/year)
Title‐24 Natural Gas Energy
(KBTU/year)*
Nontitle‐24 Electricity
Energy (kWhr/year)
Nontitle‐24 Natural Gas
Energy (KBTU/year)
Government Office Building 1,846,222.35 2,071,381.54 1,199,215.72 1,630,245.35 647,006.63 441,136.20 Enclosed Parking With Elevator 379,423.79 0.00 359,894.64 0.00 19,529.15 0.00 Surface Parking Lot 26,329.41 0.00 26,329.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Converting Natural Gas Consumption to Electricity Consumption for All‐Electric Buildings Land Use Subtype
Title‐24 Natural Gas Energy
(KBTU/year)
Converted Title‐24 Energy
(kWh/year)*
Nontitle‐24 Natural Gas
Energy (KBTU/year)
Converted Nontitle‐24
Energy (kWh/year)*
Government Office Building 1,630,245.35 477.80 441,136.20 129.29 Enclosed Parking With Elevator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Surface Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 *Assumes 3,412 BTU per kWh.Source: EIA. 2023. Units and calculators explained British thermal units (Btu). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units‐and‐calculators/british‐thermal‐units.php.

Adjusted CalEEMod Energy Use
Land Use Subtype
Total Annual Electricity
Consumption (kWh/year)
Total Annual Natural Gas
Consumption (kBTU/year)
Title‐24 Electricity Energy
(kWhr/year)
Title‐24 Natural Gas Energy
(KBTU/year)
Nontitle‐24 Electricity
Energy (kWhr/year)
Nontitle‐24 Natural Gas
Energy (KBTU/year)
Government Office Building 1,846,829.44 0.00 1,199,693.52 0.00 647,135.92 0.00 Enclosed Parking With Elevator 379,423.79 0.00 359,894.64 0.00 19,529.15 0.00 Surface Parking Lot 26,329.41 0.00 26,329.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total AM Peak PM Peak Total Peak Hour Total Peak Hour
Average Daily Rate 169 3.04 0.46 0.51 2.62 0.36 3.3 0.51 Total Average Rate ‐ 514 77.74 86.19 442.78 60.84 557.7 86.19 Entering/Exiting ‐ 267/247 49/29 22/64 221/222 ‐‐‐
Total AM Peak PM Peak Total Peak Hour Total Peak Hour
Average Daily Rate 198 3.04 0.46 0.51 2.62 0.36 3.3 0.51 Total Average Rate ‐ 602 91 101 519 71 653 101
Entering/Exiting ‐ 313/289 57/34 25/76 259/260 ‐‐‐
Proposed Project
Adult Detention Facility (Land Use Code: 571) Employees Weekday Saturday Sunday Existing Conditions
Adult Detention Facility (Land Use Code: 571) Employees Weekday Saturday Sunday SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 1 / 91
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 2 / 91

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated

3.13. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated

3.14. Paving (2027) - Mitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 3 / 91

4.1.2. Mitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.3.2. Mitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.4.2. Mitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.5.2. Mitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 4 / 91

4.6.2. Mitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.7.2. Mitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.8.2. Mitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.9.2. Mitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated

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

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 5 / 91

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.2.2. Mitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.3.2. Mitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 6 / 91

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.9.2. Mitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.10.4. Landscape Equipment - Mitigated

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.11.2. Mitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.12.2. Mitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 7 / 91

5.13.2. Mitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.14.2. Mitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.15.2. Mitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 8 / 91

5.18.1.2. Mitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2.2. Mitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores

7.4. Health & Equity Measures

7.5. Evaluation Scorecard

7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures

8. User Changes to Default Data
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 9 / 91

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department
Construction Start Date 4/15/2025
Operational Year 2027
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 37.39552833743578, -122.08126249468367
County Santa Clara
City Mountain View
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1732
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.23

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 10 / 91
Government Office
Building

87.2 1000sqft 1.72 87,215 4,792 0.00 — —
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator
214 Space 0.69 102,785 0.00 0.00 — —
Parking Lot 75.0 Space 0.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

14.4 1000sqft 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector Sector # Measure Title
Construction C-5 Use Advanced Engine Tiers

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.03 22.6 32.0 31.1 0.05 1.37 9.07 10.4 1.26 4.21 5.47 — 5,675 5,675 0.23 0.17 4.70 5,705 Mit. 1.00 21.3 6.70 29.7 0.05 0.13 9.07 9.17 0.13 4.21 4.31 — 5,675 5,675 0.23 0.17 4.70 5,705 %
Reduced
75% 6% 79% 5% — 90% — 12% 90% — 21% — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.54 22.6 17.5 26.8 0.04 0.61 4.62 5.23 0.56 1.15 1.71 — 5,445 5,445 0.22 0.17 0.12 5,501 Mit. 0.99 21.3 6.78 29.0 0.04 0.13 4.62 4.76 0.13 1.15 1.28 — 5,445 5,445 0.22 0.17 0.12 5,501 -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 11 / 91
%
Reduced
61% 6% 61% -8% — 78% — 9% 77% — 25% — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.15 3.39 8.61 11.4 0.02 0.34 2.33 2.61 0.32 0.58 0.85 — 2,645 2,645 0.11 0.10 1.26 2,680 Mit. 0.46 2.93 2.81 12.7 0.02 0.06 2.33 2.39 0.06 0.58 0.64 — 2,645 2,645 0.11 0.10 1.26 2,680 %
Reduced
60% 14% 67% -12% — 82% — 8% 81% — 25% — — — — — — —
Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.21 0.62 1.57 2.07 < 0.005 0.06 0.43 0.48 0.06 0.11 0.16 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.21 444 Mit. 0.08 0.53 0.51 2.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.21 444 %
Reduced
60% 14% 67% -12% — 82% — 8% 81% — 25% — — — — — — —

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.03 3.38 32.0 31.1 0.05 1.37 9.07 10.4 1.26 4.21 5.47 — 5,675 5,675 0.23 0.16 4.50 5,705 2026 1.58 1.32 10.9 16.4 0.03 0.39 3.34 3.72 0.36 0.83 1.19 — 3,745 3,745 0.15 0.15 4.08 3,796 2027 2.55 22.6 17.4 27.4 0.04 0.61 4.62 5.23 0.56 1.15 1.71 — 5,515 5,515 0.21 0.17 4.70 5,575 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.65 1.39 11.7 16.2 0.03 0.44 3.34 3.78 0.41 0.83 1.24 — 3,721 3,721 0.15 0.15 0.12 3,769 2026 1.57 1.29 11.0 15.9 0.03 0.39 3.34 3.72 0.36 0.83 1.19 — 3,697 3,697 0.15 0.15 0.11 3,745 2027 2.54 22.6 17.5 26.8 0.04 0.61 4.62 5.23 0.56 1.15 1.71 — 5,445 5,445 0.22 0.17 0.12 5,501 -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 12 / 91
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.15 0.96 8.61 9.64 0.02 0.34 1.82 2.17 0.32 0.53 0.85 — 2,049 2,049 0.09 0.07 0.74 2,073 2026 1.12 0.92 7.84 11.4 0.02 0.28 2.33 2.61 0.26 0.58 0.83 — 2,645 2,645 0.11 0.10 1.26 2,680 2027 0.98 3.39 6.78 10.2 0.02 0.23 2.00 2.23 0.21 0.50 0.71 — 2,297 2,297 0.09 0.08 0.94 2,325 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.21 0.17 1.57 1.76 < 0.005 0.06 0.33 0.40 0.06 0.10 0.16 — 339 339 0.01 0.01 0.12 343 2026 0.20 0.17 1.43 2.07 < 0.005 0.05 0.43 0.48 0.05 0.11 0.15 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.21 444 2027 0.18 0.62 1.24 1.87 < 0.005 0.04 0.36 0.41 0.04 0.09 0.13 — 380 380 0.02 0.01 0.16 385

2.3. Construction Emissions by Year, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.69 0.60 5.58 29.3 0.05 0.10 9.07 9.17 0.10 4.21 4.31 — 5,675 5,675 0.23 0.16 4.50 5,705 2026 0.65 0.58 3.88 18.2 0.03 0.08 3.34 3.42 0.08 0.83 0.91 — 3,745 3,745 0.15 0.15 4.08 3,796 2027 1.00 21.3 6.70 29.7 0.04 0.13 4.62 4.76 0.13 1.15 1.28 — 5,515 5,515 0.21 0.17 4.70 5,575 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.66 0.59 4.05 18.0 0.03 0.08 3.34 3.42 0.08 0.83 0.91 — 3,721 3,721 0.15 0.15 0.12 3,769 2026 0.64 0.55 3.98 17.8 0.03 0.08 3.34 3.42 0.08 0.83 0.91 — 3,697 3,697 0.15 0.15 0.11 3,745 2027 0.99 21.3 6.78 29.0 0.04 0.13 4.62 4.76 0.13 1.15 1.28 — 5,445 5,445 0.22 0.17 0.12 5,501 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.30 0.27 2.16 9.83 0.02 0.04 1.82 1.86 0.04 0.53 0.58 — 2,049 2,049 0.09 0.07 0.74 2,073 2026 0.46 0.39 2.81 12.7 0.02 0.06 2.33 2.39 0.06 0.58 0.64 — 2,645 2,645 0.11 0.10 1.26 2,680 -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 13 / 91
2027 0.40 2.93 2.55 11.3 0.02 0.05 2.00 2.05 0.05 0.50 0.55 — 2,297 2,297 0.09 0.08 0.94 2,325 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.05 0.05 0.39 1.79 < 0.005 0.01 0.33 0.34 0.01 0.10 0.10 — 339 339 0.01 0.01 0.12 343 2026 0.08 0.07 0.51 2.31 < 0.005 0.01 0.43 0.44 0.01 0.11 0.12 — 438 438 0.02 0.02 0.21 444 2027 0.07 0.53 0.47 2.07 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.01 0.16 385

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 3.70 5.55 1.63 26.4 0.05 0.04 4.42 4.46 0.04 1.12 1.16 76.9 6,035 6,112 8.16 0.28 15.4 6,416 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.15 4.10 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 76.9 5,721 5,798 8.18 0.30 0.61 6,091 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.64 4.55 1.58 18.8 0.04 0.03 3.89 3.93 0.03 0.99 1.02 76.9 5,332 5,409 8.15 0.27 6.10 5,700 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.48 0.83 0.29 3.43 0.01 0.01 0.71 0.72 0.01 0.18 0.19 12.7 883 895 1.35 0.05 1.01 944

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 14 / 91
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Mobile 2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Area 1.47 3.49 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 3.70 5.55 1.63 26.4 0.05 0.04 4.42 4.46 0.04 1.12 1.16 76.9 6,035 6,112 8.16 0.28 15.4 6,416 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Area — 2.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 2.15 4.10 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 76.9 5,721 5,798 8.18 0.30 0.61 6,091 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.91 1.75 1.54 14.7 0.04 0.02 3.89 3.92 0.02 0.99 1.01 — 3,993 3,993 0.17 0.17 5.89 4,053 Area 0.73 2.80 0.03 4.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 2.64 4.55 1.58 18.8 0.04 0.03 3.89 3.93 0.03 0.99 1.02 76.9 5,332 5,409 8.15 0.27 6.10 5,700 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 15 / 91
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671 Area 0.13 0.51 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 208 208 0.03 < 0.005 — 210 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 0.48 0.83 0.29 3.43 0.01 0.01 0.71 0.72 0.01 0.18 0.19 12.7 883 895 1.35 0.05 1.01 944

2.6. Operations Emissions by Sector, Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Area 1.47 3.49 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 3.70 5.55 1.63 26.4 0.05 0.04 4.42 4.46 0.04 1.12 1.16 76.9 6,035 6,112 8.16 0.28 15.4 6,416 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Area — 2.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 16 / 91
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 2.15 4.10 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 76.9 5,721 5,798 8.18 0.30 0.61 6,091 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 1.91 1.75 1.54 14.7 0.04 0.02 3.89 3.92 0.02 0.99 1.01 — 3,993 3,993 0.17 0.17 5.89 4,053 Area 0.73 2.80 0.03 4.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.8 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total 2.64 4.55 1.58 18.8 0.04 0.03 3.89 3.93 0.03 0.99 1.02 76.9 5,332 5,409 8.15 0.27 6.10 5,700 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671 Area 0.13 0.51 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 208 208 0.03 < 0.005 — 210 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total 0.48 0.83 0.29 3.43 0.01 0.01 0.71 0.72 0.01 0.18 0.19 12.7 883 895 1.35 0.05 1.01 944

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 17 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.86 2.40 22.2 19.9 0.03 0.92 — 0.92 0.84 — 0.84 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 5.26 5.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.54 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.40 0.34 3.10 2.78 < 0.005 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 479 479 0.02 < 0.005 — 480 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.51 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 79.2 79.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.5 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 144 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 157 157 0.01 0.02 0.41 165 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 18 / 91
Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 645 645 0.05 0.10 1.40 678 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.0 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 90.1 90.1 0.01 0.01 0.08 94.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.12 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.64 3.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.81 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.7

3.2. Demolition (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 0.36 4.51 18.2 0.03 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 3,425 3,425 0.14 0.03 — 3,437 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 1.00 1.00 — 0.15 0.15 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 5.26 5.26 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.54 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 19 / 91
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.05 0.63 2.54 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 479 479 0.02 < 0.005 — 480 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.14 0.14 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.74 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.78 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.11 0.46 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 79.2 79.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.5 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.13 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 144 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.15 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 157 157 0.01 0.02 0.41 165 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 — 645 645 0.05 0.10 1.40 678 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 18.6 18.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 18.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 22.0 22.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 23.0 Hauling 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 90.1 90.1 0.01 0.01 0.08 94.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.08 3.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.12 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 20 / 91
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.64 3.64 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.81 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 14.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 15.7

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 6.69 6.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.05 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.12 1.13 1.07 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 189 189 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 21 / 91
Off-Road 0.03 0.02 0.21 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.3 Equipment
Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 170 170 < 0.005 0.01 0.67 173 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 202 202 0.01 0.03 0.53 212 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 5.68 5.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.76 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.21 7.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.53 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 22 / 91
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.50 0.50 2.59 28.3 0.05 0.10 — 0.10 0.10 — 0.10 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 7.67 7.67 — 3.94 3.94 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.53 0.53 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 6.69 6.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.05 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.09 1.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 189 189 0.01 < 0.005 — 189 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.27 0.27 — 0.14 0.14 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.24 0.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.25 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 31.2 31.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 31.3 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — 0.03 0.03 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.04 0.04 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 23 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 — 170 170 < 0.005 0.01 0.67 173 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.19 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 202 202 0.01 0.03 0.53 212 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 5.68 5.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.76 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.21 7.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.53 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.94 0.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.95 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.25 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

2.07 1.74 16.3 17.9 0.03 0.72 — 0.72 0.66 — 0.66 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 24 / 91
Dust — — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.31 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.10 0.89 0.98 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 144 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — 180 180 0.01 0.03 0.47 188 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 25 / 91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.39 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.85 9.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.71 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.6. Grading (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.29 0.29 2.04 17.8 0.03 0.06 — 0.06 0.06 — 0.06 — 2,959 2,959 0.12 0.02 — 2,970 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 2.76 2.76 — 1.34 1.34 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.46 0.46 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 5.99 5.99 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.31 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 26 / 91
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.11 0.97 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 162 162 0.01 < 0.005 — 163 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.15 0.15 — 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.33 0.33 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.35 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.18 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.9 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.03 0.03 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 142 142 < 0.005 0.01 0.56 144 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.17 0.17 < 0.005 0.04 0.05 — 180 180 0.01 0.03 0.47 188 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 7.29 7.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.39 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.85 9.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.3 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 27 / 91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.22 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.63 1.63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.71 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.38 0.32 2.96 3.70 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 680 680 0.03 0.01 — 683 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 28 / 91
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.54 0.68 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 113 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.19 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 673 673 0.01 0.02 2.66 683 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.94 0.47 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 700 700 0.04 0.10 1.84 733 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.23 0.24 2.68 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 623 623 0.01 0.03 0.07 632 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 700 700 0.04 0.10 0.05 731 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 179 179 < 0.005 0.01 0.33 181 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 0.01 0.03 0.23 208 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 34.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.8. Building Construction (2025) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 29 / 91
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

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

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.09 0.80 4.21 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 680 680 0.03 0.01 — 683 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.15 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 113 113 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 113 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.19 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 673 673 0.01 0.02 2.66 683 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.94 0.47 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 700 700 0.04 0.10 1.84 733 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 30 / 91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.24 0.23 0.24 2.68 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 623 623 0.01 0.03 0.07 632 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 700 700 0.04 0.10 0.05 731 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.18 — 179 179 < 0.005 0.01 0.33 181 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.28 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.18 0.19 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 — 199 199 0.01 0.03 0.23 208 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 29.6 29.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 30.0 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 32.9 32.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 34.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 31 / 91
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 0.77 7.04 9.26 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.16 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 660 660 0.01 0.02 2.41 670 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.90 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 688 688 0.04 0.10 1.66 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 611 611 0.01 0.03 0.06 620 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 688 688 0.04 0.10 0.04 719 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.14 0.13 1.76 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.46 0.46 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.74 448 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.66 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 0.47 0.01 0.12 0.13 — 491 491 0.03 0.07 0.51 514 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 32 / 91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 74.2 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.3 81.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 85.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.10. Building Construction (2026) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.25 0.23 2.01 10.6 0.02 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,712 1,712 0.07 0.01 — 1,718 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 33 / 91
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.37 1.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.16 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 660 660 0.01 0.02 2.41 670 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.90 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 688 688 0.04 0.10 1.66 720 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 611 611 0.01 0.03 0.06 620 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 688 688 0.04 0.10 0.04 719 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.16 0.14 0.13 1.76 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.87 0.00 0.46 0.46 — 442 442 0.01 0.02 0.74 448 Vendor 0.05 0.02 0.66 0.33 < 0.005 0.01 0.46 0.47 0.01 0.12 0.13 — 491 491 0.03 0.07 0.51 514 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.08 0.08 — 73.1 73.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 74.2 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.12 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.09 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 81.3 81.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 85.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Building Construction (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 34 / 91
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

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

1.23 1.03 9.39 12.9 0.02 0.34 — 0.34 0.31 — 0.31 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.69 0.58 5.29 7.29 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01 — 1,356 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.13 0.11 0.97 1.33 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 224 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.16 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 648 648 0.01 0.02 2.18 658 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.86 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 674 674 0.04 0.10 1.47 706 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 35 / 91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.19 2.32 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 600 600 0.01 0.02 0.06 608 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 674 674 0.04 0.10 0.04 705 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.10 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 342 342 0.01 0.01 0.53 347 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.50 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.06 0.36 398 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 56.6 56.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 57.4 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 62.9 62.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 65.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.12. Building Construction (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 36 / 91
Off-Road
Equipment

0.35 0.33 2.82 14.8 0.02 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.20 0.19 1.59 8.35 0.01 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 1,351 1,351 0.05 0.01 — 1,356 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.29 1.52 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 224 224 0.01 < 0.005 — 224 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.16 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 648 648 0.01 0.02 2.18 658 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.86 0.44 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 674 674 0.04 0.10 1.47 706 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.19 2.32 0.00 0.00 2.68 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 — 600 600 0.01 0.02 0.06 608 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 < 0.005 0.01 0.66 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 — 674 674 0.04 0.10 0.04 705 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.12 0.11 0.10 1.30 0.00 0.00 1.48 1.48 0.00 0.36 0.36 — 342 342 0.01 0.01 0.53 347 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.50 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 0.37 0.01 0.09 0.10 — 380 380 0.02 0.06 0.36 398 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 37 / 91
Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.07 0.07 — 56.6 56.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.09 57.4 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.09 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 62.9 62.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.06 65.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.13. Paving (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 — 0.24 0.22 — 0.22 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.77 1.11 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 170 170 0.01 < 0.005 — 171 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 38 / 91
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.14 0.20 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 182 182 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 185 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 171 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.56 3.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 39 / 91

3.14. Paving (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.21 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.23 0.21 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 1,350 1,350 0.05 0.01 — 1,355 Paving — 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.27 1.18 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 170 170 0.01 < 0.005 — 171 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 28.2 28.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.3 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 40 / 91
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 182 182 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 185 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 — 169 169 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 171 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 21.5 21.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 21.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.56 3.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.61 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 41 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 20.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 20.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.10 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.79 2.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 42 / 91
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 122 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e -------------------
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 43 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 20.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

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

0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 20.4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.08 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.8 16.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.9 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 2.57 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.79 2.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.80 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.47 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 44 / 91
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 130 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.44 132 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 122 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 15.3 15.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 15.5 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.53 2.53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.57 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 45 / 91
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 46 / 91
Total 2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671

4.1.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 47 / 91
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.23 2.06 1.56 18.2 0.05 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,680 4,680 0.17 0.17 15.2 4,751 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.15 1.97 1.82 16.7 0.04 0.03 4.42 4.45 0.03 1.12 1.15 — 4,399 4,399 0.19 0.19 0.39 4,461 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.35 0.32 0.28 2.68 0.01 < 0.005 0.71 0.72 < 0.005 0.18 0.18 — 661 661 0.03 0.03 0.98 671 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 48 / 91

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,032 1,032 0.17 0.02 — 1,042
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212 0.03 < 0.005 — 214
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,032 1,032 0.17 0.02 — 1,042
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212 0.03 < 0.005 — 214
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 49 / 91
Parking — — — — — — — — — — — — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Lot
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 171 171 0.03 < 0.005 — 173
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 35.1 35.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 35.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.44 2.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.46 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 208 208 0.03 < 0.005 — 210

4.2.2. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,032 1,032 0.17 0.02 — 1,042
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 50 / 91
Enclosed — — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212 0.03 < 0.005 — 214 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,032 1,032 0.17 0.02 — 1,042
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 212 212 0.03 < 0.005 — 214
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 14.7 14.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.9 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 1,259 1,259 0.20 0.02 — 1,271 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — 171 171 0.03 < 0.005 — 173
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 35.1 35.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 35.5
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 51 / 91
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2.44 2.44 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.46 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 208 208 0.03 < 0.005 — 210

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 52 / 91
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

4.2.4. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 53 / 91
Governm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 ent
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 54 / 91
Enclosed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
with
Elevator
Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

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

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

1.47 1.36 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Total 1.47 3.49 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 55 / 91
Consum — 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
er
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 2.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.13 0.12 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 Total 0.13 0.51 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78

4.3.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 56 / 91
Landsca 1.47 1.36 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 pe
Equipme
nt
Total 1.47 3.49 0.07 8.26 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 34.0 34.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.87 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 2.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.05 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.13 0.12 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78 Total 0.13 0.51 0.01 0.74 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.77 2.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.78

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 57 / 91
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 58 / 91
Governm — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1 ent
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1

4.4.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 59 / 91
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 33.2 62.8 96.0 3.41 0.08 — 206 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 5.50 10.4 15.9 0.57 0.01 — 34.1

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 60 / 91

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 61 / 91
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3

4.5.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 62 / 91
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Other
Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 43.7 0.00 43.7 4.37 0.00 — 153 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3
Enclosed
Parking
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 63 / 91
Other — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Non-Asphalt
Surfaces
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 7.24 0.00 7.24 0.72 0.00 — 25.3

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 64 / 91

4.6.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.21 0.21
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Governm
ent
Office
Building
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 65 / 91
Equipme TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e nt
Type
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.7.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 66 / 91

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 67 / 91

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9.2. Mitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 68 / 91
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 69 / 91
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 70 / 91
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.4. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetatio
n
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.5. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 71 / 91
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.6. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Mitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
-------------------
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 72 / 91
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 5.00 51.0 —
Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/25/2025 7/11/2025 5.00 13.0 — Grading Grading 7/12/2025 8/8/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/9/2025 10/15/2027 5.00 570 — SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 73 / 91
Paving Paving 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5.00 46.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5.00 46.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 74 / 91
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.2.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.38 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Welders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 75 / 91
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 7.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 9.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 1.00 1.03 HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 18.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 9.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 1.44 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 8.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 1.24 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 71.1 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 31.1 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 76 / 91
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 14.2 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT

5.3.2. Mitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 15.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor 7.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 9.00 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck 1.00 1.03 HHDT
Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 18.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor 9.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck 1.00 1.44 HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 15.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor 8.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 77 / 91
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck 1.00 1.24 HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 71.1 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 31.1 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 20.0 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor 0.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 14.2 12.9 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor 0.00 6.94 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water unpaved roads twice daily 55% 55%
Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 25 mph 44% 44%

5.5. Architectural Coatings
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 78 / 91
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated Parking Area Coated (sq ft) (sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 132,175 43,758 4,469

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,674 —
Site Preparation 0.00 0.00 19.5 0.00 —
Grading 0.00 0.00 20.0 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Government Office Building 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.69 100%
Parking Lot 0.69 100%
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.33 0%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 79 / 91
kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Government Office
Building
602 453 653 214,558 5,774 4,343 6,268 2,058,725
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.9.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Government Office
Building
602 453 653 214,558 5,774 4,343 6,268 2,058,725
Enclosed Parking
with Elevator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt
Surfaces

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 80 / 91

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.1.2. Mitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 132,175 43,758 4,469

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

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Government Office Building 1,846,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 379,424 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 81 / 91
Parking Lot 26,329 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.11.2. Mitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Government Office Building 1,846,829 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Enclosed Parking with Elevator 379,424 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00 Parking Lot 26,329 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Government Office Building 17,326,105 51,229
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00

5.12.2. Mitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Government Office Building 17,326,105 51,229
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 82 / 91

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Government Office Building 81.1 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.13.2. Mitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Government Office Building 81.1 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —
Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Government Office
Building
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.14.2. Mitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 83 / 91
Government Office
Building
Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
Government Office
Building
Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 84 / 91

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1.2. Mitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

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

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

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 85 / 91

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

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

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

Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events.

Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat N/A N/A N/A N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 86 / 91
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

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

The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 14.9
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 87 / 91
AQ-PM 15.6
AQ-DPM 85.1
Drinking Water 49.5
Lead Risk Housing 21.3
Pesticides 0.00
Toxic Releases 32.4
Traffic 71.5
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 89.4
Groundwater 62.4
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 69.6
Impaired Water Bodies 51.2
Solid Waste 0.00
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 7.74
Cardio-vascular 12.6
Low Birth Weights 52.4
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
Education 20.9
Housing 26.2
Linguistic 22.2
Poverty 38.6
Unemployment 8.69

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 88 / 91
Economic —
Above Poverty 93.55832157
Employed 99.70486334
Median HI 94.84152445
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 96.5610163
High school enrollment 24.3295265
Preschool enrollment 95.7141024
Transportation —
Auto Access 51.48209932
Active commuting 89.0157834
Social —
2-parent households 97.17695368
Voting 89.86269729
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 16.55331708
Park access 61.65789811
Retail density 98.69113307
Supermarket access 31.00218144
Tree canopy 88.88746311
Housing —
Homeownership 19.78698832
Housing habitability 70.4478378
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 48.33825228 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 91.18439625
Uncrowded housing 82.07365584
Health Outcomes —
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 89 / 91
Insured adults 91.18439625
Arthritis 96.2
Asthma ER Admissions 90.7
High Blood Pressure 94.9
Cancer (excluding skin) 60.5
Asthma 94.4
Coronary Heart Disease 97.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 98.5
Diagnosed Diabetes 97.7
Life Expectancy at Birth 88.6
Cognitively Disabled 80.8
Physically Disabled 81.6
Heart Attack ER Admissions 85.7
Mental Health Not Good 96.1
Chronic Kidney Disease 95.6
Obesity 92.5
Pedestrian Injuries 89.2
Physical Health Not Good 98.9
Stroke 97.8
Health Risk Behaviors —
Binge Drinking 13.6
Current Smoker 95.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 98.3
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 75.0
SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 90 / 91
Elderly 62.6
English Speaking 85.1
Foreign-born 56.2
Outdoor Workers 78.8
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 43.8
Traffic Density 34.5
Traffic Access 87.4
Other Indices —
Hardship 0.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 93.7

7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 20.0 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 99.0 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.

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

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

SVA 1.0 - Mountain View Police Department Detailed Report, 5/21/2024 91 / 91

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Project Description
Construction: Construction Phases Adjusted to applicant schedule Construction: On-Road Fugitive Dust BAAQMD Guidance
Operations: Vehicle Data ITE Code 571
Operations: Energy Use All-electric design
Construction: Trips and VMT See Appendix A for calculations UNMITIGATED Regional Construction Emissions Worksheet:

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 2.86 2.40 22.20 19.92 0.03 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.84 Demolition 1.00 0.15 0.15
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.04 Total 2.86 2.40 22.21 19.94 0.03 0.92 2.30 0.84 0.19 1.03 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 Total 0.14 0.07 1.06 1.17 0.01 0.01 1.29 0.01 0.32 0.33 TOTAL 3.00 2.47 23.27 21.10 0.04 0.93 3.59 0.85 0.51 1.37 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Demolition ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 2.86 2.40 22.20 19.92 0.03 0.92 0.92 0.84 0.00 0.84 Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.04 Total 2.86 2.40 22.21 19.94 0.03 0.92 2.30 0.84 0.19 1.03 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 Total 0.14 0.07 1.06 1.17 0.01 0.01 1.29 0.01 0.32 0.33 TOTAL 3.00 2.47 23.27 21.10 0.04 0.93 3.59 0.85 0.51 1.37

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 3.94 3.31 31.64 30.18 0.05 1.37 1.37 1.26 1.26 Dust From Material Movement 7.67 3.94 3.94
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 3.94 3.31 31.66 30.19 0.05 1.37 9.57 1.26 3.99 5.25 Offsite
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.09 0.07 0.32 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.22 0.22 TOTAL 4.03 3.38 31.98 31.12 0.05 1.37 10.44 1.26 4.21 5.47 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Dust From Material Movement ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 3.94 3.31 31.64 30.18 0.05 1.37 1.37 1.26 0.00 1.26 Dust From Material Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 0.00 3.94 3.94 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 3.94 3.31 31.66 30.19 0.05 1.37 9.57 1.26 3.99 5.25 Offsite
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.09 0.07 0.32 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.22 0.22 TOTAL 4.03 3.38 31.98 31.12 0.05 1.37 10.44 1.26 4.21 5.47

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 2.07 1.74 16.27 17.91 0.03 0.72 0.72 0.66 0.66 Dust From Material Movement 2.76 1.34 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 2.08 1.74 16.29 17.93 0.03 0.72 3.94 0.66 1.38 2.05 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.07 0.06 0.28 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.19 TOTAL 2.15 1.80 16.57 18.71 0.03 0.72 4.68 0.67 1.56 2.23 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Dust From Material Movement ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 2.07 1.74 16.27 17.91 0.03 0.72 0.72 0.66 0.00 0.66 Dust From Material Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 1.34 1.34 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 2.08 1.74 16.29 17.93 0.03 0.72 3.94 0.66 1.38 2.05 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.07 0.06 0.28 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.19 TOTAL 2.15 1.80 16.57 18.71 0.03 0.72 4.68 0.67 1.56 2.23

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.00 0.40 Offsite
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.19 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.94 0.47 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.34 0.27 1.13 3.63 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.68 1.40 11.57 16.67 0.03 0.44 3.78 0.41 0.83 1.24 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.40 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.00 0.40 Offsite
Worker 0.24 0.23 0.24 2.68 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.26 1.23 3.16 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.65 1.39 11.67 16.20 0.03 0.44 3.78 0.41 0.83 1.24 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.00 0.40 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.35 1.13 10.44 13.04 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.40 0.00 0.40 Offsite
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.24 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.34 0.27 1.23 3.63 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.68 1.40 11.67 16.67 0.03 0.44 3.78 0.41 0.83 1.24

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.35 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.35 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.16 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.30 0.25 1.06 3.40 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.58 1.32 10.91 16.37 0.03 0.39 3.72 0.36 0.83 1.19 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.35 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.35 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.16 2.95 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.57 1.29 11.02 15.91 0.03 0.39 3.72 0.36 0.83 1.19 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.35 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.28 1.07 9.85 12.97 0.02 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.00 0.35 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.21 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.30 0.25 1.16 3.40 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.58 1.32 11.02 16.37 0.03 0.39 3.72 0.36 0.83 1.19

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.16 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.86 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.02 3.20 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.52 1.25 10.41 16.13 0.03 0.35 3.68 0.32 0.83 1.15 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.31 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.19 2.32 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.28 0.21 1.09 2.77 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.51 1.24 10.48 15.71 0.03 0.35 3.68 0.32 0.83 1.15 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1.23 1.03 9.39 12.94 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.31 0.00 0.31 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.19 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.09 3.20 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 1.52 1.25 10.48 16.13 0.03 0.35 3.68 0.32 0.83 1.15

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 Paving 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.79 0.74 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.00 0.22 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.85 0.80 6.13 9.60 0.01 0.24 1.00 0.22 0.19 0.41 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.22 Paving 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.79 0.74 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.00 0.22 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.85 0.80 6.14 9.48 0.01 0.24 1.00 0.22 0.19 0.41 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.79 0.66 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.00 0.22 Paving 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.79 0.74 6.09 8.83 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.00 0.22 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.85 0.80 6.14 9.60 0.01 0.24 1.00 0.22 0.19 0.41

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Architectural Coatings 20.39
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.14 20.50 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.18 20.54 0.86 1.68 0.00 0.02 0.55 0.02 0.13 0.15 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Architectural Coatings 20.39
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.14 20.50 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.18 20.54 0.87 1.59 0.00 0.02 0.55 0.02 0.13 0.15 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Architectural Coatings 0.00 20.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.14 20.50 0.83 1.13 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.18 20.54 0.87 1.68 0.00 0.02 0.55 0.02 0.13 0.15 Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds; Onsite + Offsite) ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 2 23 21 014111

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 3 32 31 0 1 10 1 4 5

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 2 17 19 015122

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 1 12 17 004011

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 1 11 16 004011

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 1 10 16 004011

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 1 6 10 001000

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 21 12001000 Construction Activity Total Workdays Activity Name Activity Type Start Date End Date Workdays per Week Total Workdays

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 51 Asphalt and Building Demolition Demolition 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 5 51

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 13 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/25/2025 7/11/2025 5 13

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 20 Grading Grading 7/12/2025 8/8/2025 5 20

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 103 Building Construction Building Construction 8/9/2025 12/31/2025 5 103

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 261 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 5 261

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 206 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 5 206

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 46 Paving Paving 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5 46

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 46 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5 46 TOTAL CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 654
Total Emissions (Pounds; Onsite + Offsite) ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 126 1,187 1,076 2 48 183 44 26 70

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 44 416 405 1 18 136 16 55 71

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 36 331 374 1 14 94 13 31 45

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 144 1,202 1,717 3 45 389 42 85 127

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 345 2,875 4,272 7 101 972 93 216 310

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 258 2,160 3,324 6 71 758 66 171 236

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 37 282 442 1 11 46 10 9 19

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 945 40 77 0 1 26 1 6 7 TOTAL (lbs) 1,934 8,493 11,687 20 310 2,603 285 599 884 AVERAGE DAILY (lbs) 3 13 18 0 04011
Regional Thresholds 54 54 N/A N/A 82 N/A 54 N/A N/A
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No No No No
Unmitigated Construction Summary
Unmitigated PM10 Exhaust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite PM10 Exhaust
Daily Offsite
PM10 Exhaust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM10 Exhaust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM10 Exhaust
Total Offsite
PM10 Exhaust2

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.918 0.014 0.001 51 46.795 0.057 2025 Workdays

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 1.366 0.003 0.000 13 17.753 0.003 187

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.722 0.002 0.000 20 14.441 0.004 2026 Workdays

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.432 0.010 0.001 103 44.480 0.079 261 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.66026 0.00076 2027 Workdays

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 0.379 0.010 0.001 261 98.829 0.199 206 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.37865 0.00076

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.337 0.010 0.001 206 69.334 0.157

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.242 0.000 0.000 46 11.121 0.000

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.019 0.000 0.000 46 0.876 0.000 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.39481 0.00076
TOTALS 4.413 0.048 0.004 654 303.629 0.499
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.46426 0.00076
Notes:

1. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

3. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

Unmitigated PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite PM2.5 Exhaust
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM2.5 Exhaust
Total Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust2

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.844 0.010 0.001 51 43.051 0.041

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 1.256 0.003 0.000 13 16.333 0.003

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.664 0.002 0.000 20 13.285 0.004

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.397 0.010 0.001 103 40.921 0.079 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.60743 0.00068

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 0.348 0.010 0.001 261 90.922 0.199 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.34836 0.00076

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.310 0.010 0.001 206 63.788 0.157

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.222 0.000 0.000 46 10.231 0.000

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.018 0.000 0.000 46 0.806 0.000 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.36323 0.00076
TOTALS 4.060 0.044 0.004 654 279.337 0.482
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.42712 0.00074
Notes:

1. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

3. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

Unmitigated PM2.5 Dust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite PM2.5 Dust
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Dust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Dust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM2.5 Dust
Total Offsite
PM2.5 Dust2

3.1. Demolition (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.190 0.322 0.026 51 9.687 1.314

3.3. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 3.993 0.216 0.017 13 51.914 0.225

3.5. Grading (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 1.382 0.183 0.015 20 27.633 0.292

3.7. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Unmitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 103 0.000 6.827 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.47718 0.04630

3.9. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Unmitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 261 0.000 17.300 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.00000 0.06628

3.11. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 206 0.000 13.654

3.13. Paving (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.000 0.186 0.015 46 0.000 0.683

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Unmitigated 0.000 0.132 0.011 46 0.000 0.485 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.00000 0.07195
TOTALS 5.565 3.524 0.282 654 89.233 40.780
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.13644 0.06235
Notes:

2. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

4. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

MITIGATED Regional Construction Emissions Worksheet:

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.36 0.36 4.51 18.17 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Demolition 1.00 0.15 0.15
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.04 Total 0.36 0.36 4.52 18.19 0.03 0.06 1.45 0.06 0.19 0.25 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 Total 0.14 0.07 1.06 1.17 0.01 0.01 1.29 0.01 0.32 0.33 TOTAL 0.50 0.43 5.58 19.35 0.04 0.08 2.74 0.07 0.51 0.59 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Demolition ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.36 0.36 4.51 18.17 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.15 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.04 0.04 Total 0.36 0.36 4.52 18.19 0.03 0.06 1.45 0.06 0.19 0.25 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.04 Hauling 0.07 0.01 0.81 0.39 0.00 0.01 0.58 0.01 0.14 0.15 Total 0.14 0.07 1.06 1.17 0.01 0.01 1.29 0.01 0.32 0.33 TOTAL 0.50 0.43 5.58 19.35 0.04 0.08 2.74 0.07 0.51 0.59

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.50 0.50 2.59 28.31 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Dust From Material Movement 7.67 3.94 3.94
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 0.50 0.50 2.61 28.32 0.05 0.10 8.30 0.10 3.99 4.09 Offsite
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.09 0.07 0.32 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.22 0.22 TOTAL 0.59 0.57 2.93 29.26 0.05 0.10 9.17 0.10 4.21 4.31 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Dust From Material Movement ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.50 0.50 2.59 28.31 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.10 Dust From Material Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 0.00 3.94 3.94 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 0.50 0.50 2.61 28.32 0.05 0.10 8.30 0.10 3.99 4.09 Offsite
Worker 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.17 0.17 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.09 0.07 0.32 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.22 0.22 TOTAL 0.59 0.57 2.93 29.26 0.05 0.10 9.17 0.10 4.21 4.31

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.29 0.29 2.04 17.77 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Dust From Material Movement 2.76 1.34 1.34
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 0.29 0.29 2.06 17.78 0.03 0.06 3.28 0.06 1.38 1.44 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.07 0.06 0.28 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.19 TOTAL 0.36 0.35 2.34 18.57 0.03 0.06 4.01 0.06 1.56 1.62 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Dust From Material Movement ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Onsite truck ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Vendor ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Hauling ‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.29 0.29 2.04 17.77 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.06 Dust From Material Movement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 1.34 1.34 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.05 0.05 Total 0.29 0.29 2.06 17.78 0.03 0.06 3.28 0.06 1.38 1.44 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.14 0.14 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.24 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.05 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.07 0.06 0.28 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.18 0.19 TOTAL 0.36 0.35 2.34 18.57 0.03 0.06 4.01 0.06 1.56 1.62

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.19 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.94 0.47 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.34 0.27 1.13 3.63 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.57 0.50 3.16 17.93 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.24 0.23 0.24 2.68 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.26 1.23 3.16 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.54 0.49 3.26 17.46 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.27 0.24 0.24 3.16 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.99 0.48 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.34 0.27 1.23 3.63 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.57 0.50 3.26 17.93 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.16 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.30 0.25 1.06 3.40 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.53 0.48 3.09 17.70 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.20 0.21 2.49 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.16 2.95 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.52 0.45 3.19 17.25 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.23 0.23 0.21 2.95 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.07 0.02 0.95 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.30 0.25 1.16 3.40 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.53 0.48 3.19 17.70 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.16 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.86 0.44 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.02 3.20 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.52 0.45 3.05 17.50 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.19 0.19 2.32 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.28 0.21 1.09 2.77 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.51 0.44 3.12 17.07 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.23 2.03 14.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 Offsite
Worker 0.22 0.20 0.19 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.68 0.00 0.66 0.66 Vendor 0.06 0.02 0.90 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.67 0.01 0.17 0.18 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.29 0.22 1.09 3.20 0.00 0.01 3.35 0.01 0.83 0.84 TOTAL 0.52 0.45 3.12 17.50 0.03 0.05 3.39 0.05 0.83 0.88

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.21 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Paving 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.29 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.29 0.35 2.18 10.13 0.01 0.05 0.80 0.05 0.19 0.23 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.21 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Paving 0.08
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.29 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.29 0.35 2.19 10.00 0.01 0.05 0.80 0.05 0.19 0.23 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.23 0.21 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 Paving 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.29 2.14 9.35 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 Offsite
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.19 0.19 TOTAL 0.29 0.35 2.19 10.13 0.01 0.05 0.80 0.05 0.19 0.23

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated
TOG ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total Onsite Summer
Off‐Road Equipment 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 20.39
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 20.41 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.06 20.45 0.68 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Onsite Winter
Off‐Road Equipment 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 20.39
Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 20.41 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.06 20.45 0.68 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Onsite MAX
Off‐Road Equipment 0.02 0.02 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 0.00 20.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Onsite truck 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.02 20.41 0.65 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 TOTAL 0.06 20.45 0.68 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.13 0.13 Maximum Daily Emissions (Pounds; Onsite + Offsite) ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0 6 19 003011

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 1 3 29 00 9 044

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0 2 19 004022

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0 3 18 003011

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 0 3 18 003011

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0 3 17 003011

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0 2 10 001000

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 20 11001000 Construction Activity Total Workdays Activity Name Activity Type Start Date End Date Workdays per Week Total Workdays

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 51 Asphalt and Building Demolition Demolition 4/15/2025 6/24/2025 5 51

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 13 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/25/2025 7/11/2025 5 13

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 20 Grading Grading 7/12/2025 8/8/2025 5 20

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 103 Building Construction Building Construction 8/9/2025 12/31/2025 5 103

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 261 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 5 261

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 206 Building Construction Building Construction 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 5 206

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 46 Paving Paving 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5 46

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 46 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/13/2027 10/15/2027 5 46 TOTAL CONSECUTIVE WORKDAYS 654
Total Emissions (Pounds; Onsite + Offsite) ROG NOx CO SO₂ PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust PM2.5Total

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 22 285 987 2 4 140 4 26 30

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 7 38 380 1 1 119 1 55 56

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 7 47 371 1 1 80 1 31 32

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 51 336 1,847 3 5 349 5 85 91

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 126 833 4,621 7 14 884 14 216 230

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 93 643 3,605 6 11 698 11 171 182

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 16 101 466 1 2 37 2 9 11

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 941 31 66 0 0 25 0 6 6 TOTAL (lbs) 1,263 2,314 12,343 19 39 2,332 38 599 637
AVERAGE DAILY (lbs) 2 4 19 0 04011
Regional Thresholds 54 54 N/A N/A 82 N/A 54 N/A N/A
Exceeds Thresholds? No No No No No No No No No
Mitigated Construction Summary
Mitigated PM10 Exhaust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite PM10 Exhaust
Daily Offsite
PM10 Exhaust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM10 Exhaust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM10 Exhaust
Total Offsite
PM10 Exhaust2

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.063 0.014 0.001 51 3.230 0.057 2025 Workdays

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.100 0.003 0.000 13 1.296 0.003 187

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.056 0.002 0.000 20 1.111 0.004 2026 Workdays

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 103 4.444 0.079 261 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.05391 0.00076 2027 Workdays

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 261 11.260 0.199 206 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.04314 0.00076

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 206 8.887 0.157

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.048 0.000 0.000 46 2.196 0.000

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.002 0.000 0.000 46 0.108 0.000 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.05433 0.00076
TOTALS 0.398 0.048 0.004 654 32.532 0.499
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.04974 0.00076
Notes:

1. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

3. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

Mitigated PM2.5 Exhaust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite PM2.5 Exhaust
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM2.5 Exhaust
Total Offsite
PM2.5 Exhaust2

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.063 0.010 0.001 51 3.229 0.041

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.100 0.003 0.000 13 1.296 0.003

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.056 0.002 0.000 20 1.110 0.004

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 103 4.444 0.079 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.05390 0.00068

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 261 11.260 0.199 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.04314 0.00076

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.043 0.010 0.001 206 8.887 0.157

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.046 0.000 0.000 46 2.107 0.000

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.002 0.000 0.000 46 0.108 0.000 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.05390 0.00076
TOTALS 0.396 0.044 0.004 654 32.441 0.482
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.04960 0.00074
Notes:

1. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

3. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

Mitigated PM2.5 Dust Emissions (Pounds) 1 Daily Onsite
PM2.5 Dust
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Dust
(Adjusted)
Daily Offsite
PM2.5 Dust2
Total Workdays3 Total Onsite
PM2.5 Dust
Total Offsite
PM2.5 Dust2

3.2. Demolition (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.190 0.322 0.026 51 9.687 1.314

3.4. Site Preparation (2025) ‐ Mitigated 3.993 0.216 0.017 13 51.914 0.225

3.6. Grading (2025) ‐ Mitigated 1.382 0.183 0.015 20 27.633 0.292

3.8. Building Construction (2025) ‐ Mitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 103 0.000 6.827 2025 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.47718 0.04630

3.10. Building Construction (2026) ‐ Mitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 261 0.000 17.300 2026 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.00000 0.06628

3.12. Building Construction (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.000 0.829 0.066 206 0.000 13.654

3.14. Paving (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.000 0.186 0.015 46 0.000 0.683

3.16. Architectural Coating (2027) ‐ Mitigated 0.000 0.132 0.011 46 0.000 0.485 2027 AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.00000 0.07195
TOTALS 5.565 3.524 0.282 654 89.233 40.780
AVERAGE DAILY LBS 0.13644 0.06235
Notes:

2. The max seasonal daily emission rates (Winter vs Summer) were used for each daily emission estimate.

4. Total emissions are divided by total workdays. Workdays total may not add up due to the omission of days which overlap.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

2. Off‐site Emissions shown herein account for a reduction in emissions to capture the emissions generated within 1,000 feet of the project site along identified hauling roadways (1.6 miles / 20 miles default hauling distance = 0.08 Adjustment Factor). The estimates provided in this table are used solely for the construction HRA.

Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data

1. Health Risk Assessment

1.1 CONSTRUCTION HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
The City of Mountain View is the lead agency for the proposed project to build a new Public Safety Building.

The proposed project would remove the existing Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) building and associated parking lot and K-9 training area, and construct a new Public Safety Building, parking garage, shooting range, surface parking, and K-9 training area at the same location. In the eastern corner of the project site, 0.6-acre would remain undeveloped for future potential uses by the City.

The current MVPD building is 44,914 square feet, and the proposed Public Safety Building would be approximately 75,000 gross square feet. The proposed Public Safety Building would have a variety of offices and associated service rooms for police and fire activities. Some of the designated areas include an auditorium, offices, sleep quarters, lockers, and a fitness room. All new facilities would meet current state building standards and would be LEED certified. Currently, the administrative fire personnel operate out of the Mountain View Fire Department Station No. 1, and they would be relocated to the proposed Public Safety Building.

The project is preliminarily scheduled to start in April 2025 and be completed in October 2027. The Public Safety Building would be constructed in the first development phase, and after completion, the second development phase would remove the MVPD building and install the parking garage.

Construction activities would include building and asphalt demolition and excavation, site preparation and rough grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction would take place from 7:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, as allowed by the Mountain View Municipal Code, Section 8.70, Construction Noise. The active construction and staging areas would be on the project site.

The latest version of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommends projects to evaluate the impacts of construction activities on nearby receptors (BAAQMD 2022). Project construction is anticipated to take place starting at the beginning of April 2025 and be completed in October 2027 (approximately 654 workdays). The nearest receptors to the project site include residents that are on-site and adjacent to the southern project boundary, students at Mountain View Academy approximately 785 feet southeast of the project site, and students at Khan Lab School adjacent to the western project boundary.

Because receptors, including sensitive receptors such as residents, are present in land uses near the project site, a site-specific construction HRA has been prepared for the proposed project. This HRA considers the health impact to nearby receptors (e.g., residents, workers, students) from construction emissions at the project site, including diesel equipment exhaust (diesel particulate matter or DPM) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

It should be noted that these health impacts are based on conservative (i.e., health protective) assumptions.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2005) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA 2015) note that conservative assumptions used in a risk assessment are intended to ensure that the estimated risks do not underestimate the actual risks. Therefore, the estimated risks may not necessarily represent actual risks experienced by populations at or near a site. The use of conservative assumptions tends to produce upper-bound estimates of exposure and thus risk.

For residential receptors, the following conservative assumptions were used:
 It was assumed that maximum-exposed off-site residential receptors stood outdoors and are subject to DPM at their residence for 8 hours per day, and approximately 260 construction days per year. In reality, California residents typically will spend on average 2 hours per day outdoors at their residences (USEPA 2011). This would result in lower exposures to construction related DPM emissions and lower estimated risk values.
 The calculated risk for infants from third trimester to age 2 is multiplied by a factor of 10 to account for early life exposure and uncertainty in child versus adult exposure impacts (OEHHA 2015).

For K-12 students, the following conservative assumptions were used:
 It was assumed that maximum exposed receptors stood outside and are subject to DPM for 8 hours per weekday and approximately 180 construction days per year.

For workers, the following conservative assumptions were used:
 It was assumed that maximum exposed receptors stood outside and are subject to DPM for 8 hours per weekday and approximately 250 construction days per year.

1.2 METHODOLOGY AND SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
For this HRA, the BAAQMD significance thresholds were deemed to be appropriate and the thresholds that were used for this project are shown below:
 Excess cancer risk of more than 10 in a million
 Non-cancer hazard index (chronic or acute) greater than 1.0  Incremental increase in average annual PM2.5 concentration of greater than 0.3 μg/m3 The methodology used in this HRA is consistent with the following BAAQMD and the OEHHA guidance documents:
 BAAQMD. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. April 2023.  BAAQMD. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. May 2016.
 OEHHA. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

February 2015.

Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
Potential exposures to DPM and PM2.5 from proposed project construction were evaluated for nearby receptors to the site. Pollutant concentrations were estimated using an air dispersion model, and excess lifetime cancer risks and chronic non-cancer hazard indexes were calculated. These risks were then compared to the significance thresholds used for this HRA.

1.3 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Construction emissions were calculated as average daily emissions in pounds per day, using the proposed construction schedule and the latest version of California Emissions Estimation Model, known as CalEEMod Version 2022.1. DPM emissions were based on the CalEEMod construction results, using maximum daily exhaust PM10 emissions. The PM2.5 emissions were taken from the CalEEMod output for maximum daily PM2.5 exhaust and fugitive dust.

Construction of the proposed project was assumed to take place over approximately 22 months (654 workdays) from April 2025 to October 2027. The average daily emission rates from construction equipment used during the proposed project were determined by multiplying the maximum daily emissions for each construction activity by the duration of that activity, summing the total emissions from all construction activities, and dividing the summed total by the total construction workdays (654 days). The CalEEMod construction emissions output and emission rate calculations are provided in Attachment A.

1.4 DISPERSION MODELING
Air quality modeling was performed using the AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model to assess the impact of emitted compounds on sensitive receptors near the project. The model is a steady state Gaussian plume model and is an approved model by BAAQMD for estimating ground level impacts from point and fugitive sources in simple and complex terrain. The on-site construction emissions for the project were modeled as area sources. The off-site mobile sources were modeled as line sources. The model requires additional input parameters, including chemical emission data and local meteorology. Inputs for the construction emission rates are those described in Section 1.3. Meteorological data obtained from the BAAQMD for the nearest representative meteorological station (Moffet Field Airport) with the five latest available years (2013 to 2017) of record were used to represent local weather conditions and prevailing winds.

The modeling analysis also considered the spatial distribution and elevation of each emitting source in relation to the sensitive receptors. To accommodate the model’s Cartesian grid format, direction-dependent calculations were obtained by identifying the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for each source location. In addition, digital elevation model (DEM) data for the area were obtained and included in the model runs to account for complex terrain. An emission release height of 4.15 m was used as representative of the stack exhaust height for off-road construction equipment and diesel truck traffic, and an initial vertical dispersion parameter of 1.93 m was used, per California Air Resources Board (CARB) guidance (2000). For fugitive dust sources, an emission release height of 0 m was used to represent dust generated by ground disturbing activities and roadway dust re-entrainment.

To determine contaminant impacts during construction hours, the model’s Season-Hour-Day (HRDOW) scalar option was invoked to predict flagpole-level concentrations (1.5 m) for construction emissions generated between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM with a 1-hour lunch break.

A unit emission rate of 1 gram per second was used for all modeling runs. The unit emission rates were proportioned over the poly-area sources for on-site construction emissions and divided between the line volume sources for off-site hauling emissions. The maximum modeled concentrations from the output files were then multiplied by the emission rates calculated in Attachment A to obtain the maximum flagpole-level concentrations at the maximum exposed receptor (MER) for each receptor type. The air dispersion modeling predicted the MER for each receptor type near the project site include a residence approximately 40 feet south of the project site, worker receptors approximately 50 feet east of the project site, and K-12 student receptors approximately 460 feet west of the project site at Khan Lab School.

The MER locations are the receptor locations associated with the maximum predicted AERMOD concentrations resulting from the on-site construction emissions. The calculated on-site emission rates are approximately 3 to 4 orders of magnitude higher than the calculated off-site emission rates (see Attachment A). Therefore, the maximum concentrations associated with the on-site emission sources produce the highest overall MER concentrations and, consequently, highest calculated health risks.

The air dispersion model output for the emission sources is presented in Attachment A. The model output DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from the construction emission sources are provided in Attachment A.

1.5 RISK CHARACTERIZATION

1.5.1 Carcinogenic Chemical Risk
A threshold of ten in one million (10x10-6) has been established by OEHHA and recommended by BAAQMD and other air districts as a level posing no significant risk for exposures to carcinogens. Health risks associated with exposure to carcinogenic compounds can be defined in terms of the probability of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a chemical at a given concentration. The cancer risk probability is determined by multiplying the chemical’s annual concentration by its cancer potency factor (CPF), a measure of the carcinogenic potential of a chemical when a dose is received through the inhalation pathway. It is an upper-limit estimate of the probability of contracting cancer as a result of continuous exposure to an ambient concentration of one microgram per cubic meter (µg/m3) over a lifetime of 70 years.

Guidance from OEHHA recommends a refinement to the standard point estimate approach with the use of age-specific breathing rates and age sensitivity factors (ASFs) to assess risk for susceptible subpopulations such as children. For the inhalation pathway, the procedure requires the incorporation of several discrete variates to effectively quantify dose for each age group. Once determined, contaminant dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor in units of inverse dose expressed in milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)-1 to derive the cancer risk estimate. Therefore, to accommodate the unique exposures associated with the sensitive receptors, the following dose algorithm was used.

Dose୅୍ୖ,୮ୣ୰ ୟ୥ୣ ୥୰୭୳୮ ൌ ሺCୟ୧୰ ൈ EF ൈ ሾ
BR
BWሿ ൈ A ൈ CFሻ
Where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group Cair = concentration of contaminant in air (µg/m3)
EF = exposure frequency (number of days/365 days)
--
Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
BR/BW = daily breathing rate normalized to body weight (L/kg-day) A = inhalation absorption factor (default = 1)
CF = conversion factor (1x10-6, µg to mg, L to m3)
The inhalation absorption factor (A) is a unitless factor that is only used if the cancer potency factor included a correction for absorption across the lung. The default value of 1 was used for this assessment. An exposure frequency (EF) of 0.96 is used for residential receptors to represent 350 days per year to allow for a two-week period away from home each year, an EF of 0.49 was used for K-12 student receptors to represent 180 school days a year where students would be at their respective campus, and an EF of 0.68 was used for worker receptors to represent 250 workdays per year (OEHHA 2015). A fraction of time at home (FAH) factor applied to residential and on-site UCC student-resident receptors. The 95th percentile daily breathing rates (BR/BW), exposure duration (ED), age sensitivity factors (ASFs), and FAH for the various age groups are provided herein:

Age Groups BR/BW (L/kg-day) ED ASF FAH
Third trimester 361 0.25 10 0.85
0-2 age group 1,090 0.95 10 0.85
3-9 age group 861 1.20 3 0.85
16-30 age group 335 1.20 1 0.85
To represent the unique characteristics of children and senior residents, the assessment employed the USEPA’s guidance to develop viable dose estimates based on reasonable maximum exposure, defined as the “highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur” for a given receptor population. To calculate the overall cancer risk, the risk for each appropriate age group is calculated per the following equation:

Cancer Risk୅୍ୖ ൌ Dose୅୍ୖ ൈ CPF ൈ ASF ൈ FAH ൈ
ED
𝐴𝑇
Where:

DoseAIR = dose by inhalation (mg/kg-day), per age group CPF = cancer potency factor, chemical-specific (mg/kg-day)-1 ASF = age sensitivity factor, per age group
FAH = fraction of time at home, per age group (for residential receptors only) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time period over which exposure duration is averaged (30 years) The CPFs used in the assessment were obtained from OEHHA guidance. The excess lifetime cancer risks during the construction period to the maximally exposed resident were calculated based on the factors provided above. The cancer risks for each age group are summed to estimate the total cancer risk for each toxic chemical species. The final step converts the cancer risk in scientific notation to a whole number that expresses the cancer risk in “chances per million” by multiplying the cancer risk by a factor of 1x106 (i.e., 1 million). The calculated results are provided in Attachment A.

1.5.2 Non-Carcinogenic Hazards
An evaluation was also conducted of the potential non-cancer effects of chronic chemical exposures. Adverse health effects are evaluated by comparing the annual receptor level (flagpole) concentration of each chemical compound with the appropriate reference exposure limit (REL). Available RELs promulgated by OEHHA were considered in the assessment.

The hazard index approach was used to quantify non-carcinogenic impacts. The hazard index assumes that chronic sub-threshold exposures adversely affect a specific organ or organ system (toxicological endpoint).

Target organs presented in regulatory guidance were used for each discrete chemical exposure. To calculate the hazard index, each chemical concentration or dose is divided by the appropriate toxicity value. This ratio is summed for compounds affecting the same toxicological endpoint. A health hazard is presumed to exist where the total equals or exceeds one.

The chronic hazard analysis for DPM is provided in Attachment A. The calculations contain the relevant exposure concentrations and corresponding reference dose values used in the evaluation of non-carcinogenic exposures.

Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data

1.6 CONSTRUCTION HRA RESULTS
The calculated results are provided in Attachment A and the results are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY ‐ UNMITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)

MER – Resident 70.03 0.06 0.06
MER – Worker 0.87 0.04 0.04
MER – K-12 Student 7.63 0.06 0.06
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? Yes No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA Guidance Manual.

Cancer risk for the residential MER from project-related construction emissions was calculated to be approximately 70 in one million, which would exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold. Cancer risk for the worker and K-12 student receptors were calculated to be approximately 1 and 8 in one million, respectively, which would not exceed the 10 in one million significance threshold. In accordance with the latest 2015 OEHHA guidance, the calculated total cancer risk conservatively assumes that the residential MER consists of a pregnant woman in the third trimester that subsequently gives birth to an infant during the duration of construction; therefore, all calculated residential risk values were multiplied by a factor of 10.

In addition, it was conservatively assumed that the residents were outdoors 8 hours a day, 261 construction days per year and exposed to all of the daily construction emissions.

For non-carcinogenic effects, the chronic hazard index identified for each toxicological endpoint equaled less than one for each identified receptor. Therefore, chronic non-carcinogenic hazards are within acceptable limits. For all receptors, the maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would not exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold.

Because cancer risk for the residential MER would exceed the BAAQMD significance threshold during project construction, the following measure is proposed:

Mitigation Measure AQ-1. The City of Mountain View shall specify in the construction bid that the project construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) comply with the following requirements for all off-road equipment used over the entire duration of the construction activities at the site:
 Use engines that meet either US EPA or California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 Final emission standards for engines that are greater than 25 horsepower. Ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the selected emission reduction strategy for construction equipment over 25 horsepower.  If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of off-road construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Final equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 4 Interim equipment instead. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available for use for the project for a specific piece of off-road construction equipment, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that such equipment is not available for the project. If Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available, the construction contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) affected shall use Tier 3 equipment outfitted with a level 3 diesel particulate filter instead.
 Prohibit the use of generators except for electric alternatives. The City shall ensure that all construction plans submitted to the City of Mountain View Building Division clearly show the requirement to use power storage equipment or electric generators in lieu of fossil fuel powered generators.
 Maintain a list of all operating equipment in use on the project site for verification by the City or their designee. The construction equipment list shall state the makes, models, fuel type, and number of construction equipment on-site. All equipment shall be properly serviced and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
 Communicate with all sub-contractors in contracts and construction documents that all non-essential idling of construction equipment is restricted to 5 minutes or less in compliance with California Air Resources Board Rule 2449 and is responsible for ensuring that this requirement is met.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce the proposed project’s localized construction emissions at the residential MER, as shown in the following Table 2. The results indicate that, with mitigation, cancer risk would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds at the residential MER, and all other receptors would be less than the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds during unmitigated project construction.

Therefore, the proposed project would not expose nearby receptors to substantial concentrations of air pollutant emissions during construction, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

TABLE 2. CONSTRUCTION RISK SUMMARY ‐ MITIGATED
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)

MER – Resident 7.58 0.01 <0.01
BAAQMD Threshold 10 1.0 0.30
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Note: Cancer risk calculated using 2015 OEHHA HRA Guidance Manual.

Risks incorporate Mitigation Measure AQ‐1, which requires the use of construction equipment which meets USEPA Tier 4 Final engine requirements for equipment over 25 horsepower and prohibits fossil fuel powered generators.

1.7 CUMULATIVE COMMUNITY HEALTH RISK
In addition to a project-level HRA, BAAQMD recommends assessing the potential cumulative impacts from sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of a project. For the cumulative analysis, BAAQMD maintains several tools and databases for identifying risks at a particular location. The existing TACs that BAAQMD recommends including in a cumulative analysis include permitted stationary sources, marine sources, roadway sources, rail sources, and highway sources. Risks from permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site can be identified using BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Map (BAAQMD 2024). Risks from roadway sources are released periodically from the BAAQMD in the form of risk assessment screening tools (RAST), which were utilized in determining associated risks at the daycare MER during project construction.

The daycare MER was utilized in the cumulative community risk assessment as it represents the greatest Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data
impact to nearby receptors during project construction. No marine or rail risks are shown in the cumulative HRA as no marine or rail activities occur within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Table 3 summarizes the existing TAC source risks at the daycare MER from mitigated project construction emissions in combination with existing TAC sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. As shown therein, the proposed project’s mitigated construction emissions combined with existing TAC emissions within 1,000 feet do not exceed the BAAQMD’s cumulative community health risk significance thresholds at the daycare MER location, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

TABLE 3.  CUMULATIVE COMMUNITY RISK SUMMARY
Source Source Type
Distance to
MER1
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Chronic
Hazards
PM2.5
(µg/m3)

Project Impacts
Mitigated Project Construction2
Diesel
Construction
Equipment
40 7.58 0.01 <0.01
Permitted Stationary Source Impacts
City of Mountain View Fleet Services
(Facility ID 14209) Generator 525 0.06 <0.01 <0.01
City of Mountain View Fleet Services
(Facility ID 14228) (Current Project Site) Generator 60 - - - 250 Bryant (Facility ID 23027) Generator 345 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Rail Impacts
BAAQMD-provided Rail values3 Locomotives - 22.85 0.01 0.03 Roadway Impacts
BAAQMD-provided Roadway values3 Vehicles - 9.93 0.03 0.24 Cumulative Health Impacts
Cumulative Project Health Impacts 40.42 0.05 0.27
BAAQMD Threshold 100 10.0 0.80
Exceeds Threshold? No No No
Notes: N/D = No Data; N/A = Not Applicable 1 Values expressed in feet. Residential MER is a residence approximately 40 feet south of the project site. 2 Includes Mitigation Measure AQ‐1. 3 BAAQMD‐provided values correspond with risks experienced at the residential MER.

2. References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. ———. 2016. Planning Healthy Places. Dated May 2016.
———. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Version 3.0. Dated May 2012.
———. 2010. Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction. Version 1.0. Dated May 2010.
———. 2014-2018. Meteorological Data Set for Oakland International Airport. ———. 2022. 2022 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix E, “Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards”. https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmentalquality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines, accessed September 6, 2023. ———. 2024. Stationary Source Screening Map.
https://baaqmd.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html, accessed February 21, 2024.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). Version 2022.1. Developed by: ICF in collaboration with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Dated February 2015.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final). EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011.
______. 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised). EPA-450/2-78-027R.

Health Risk Assessment Background and Modeling Data

ATTACHMENT A

HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EMISSION CALCULATIONS, RISK

CALCULATIONS, AND DISPERSION MODELING RESULTS
Receptor Risk: Single Family Residence Unmitigated Results Name Type Start Age Daily Breathing Rate
Fraction of Time at
Home Averaging Time
Inhalation
Absorption Factor Pollutant
Single Family Residence Residential 3rd Trimester 24‐Hour Yes 70 Years 1 Diesel Particulate Matter
DPM Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 581309.64 E, 4139047.73 N (Receptor ID R_028).

Year Start Date End Date Workday Duration Seconds/Day Calendar Days Workdays Annual Duration 2025 4/15/2025 12/31/2025 8 Hours/Day 28,800 260 187 0.72 2026 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 8 Hours/Day 28,800 364 261 1.00 2027 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 8 Hours/Day 28,800 287 206 0.79 8 Hours/Day 28,800 00 0.00
Assumptions: Exposure Duration (ED) is derived by dividing project workdays by total annual workdays (261), assuming 5 workdays a week.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.60E‐01 7.63E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 2.91E‐01 7.79E‐05 2.91E‐01 2026 3.79E‐01 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 1.67E‐01 7.79E‐05 1.67E‐01 2027 3.95E‐01 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 1.74E‐01 7.79E‐05 1.74E‐01 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 2.91E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles Hazard Index: 0.058
Assumptions: DPM Emissions utilize PM10 Exhaust.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.07E‐01 6.76E‐04 4.77E‐01 4.63E‐02 3.15E‐01 3.66E‐06 3.15E‐01 2026 3.48E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 6.63E‐02 5.81E‐02 5.22E‐06 5.81E‐02 2027 3.63E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 7.20E‐02 6.32E‐02 5.67E‐06 6.32E‐02 0 Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 3.15E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles 0.063
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total Duration
2025 0.25 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72
2026 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
2027 0.00 0.53 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total
2025 361 1090 0000 1451
2026 0 1090 0000 1090
2027 0 1090 861 000 1951
0 000000 0.00
Calculated Risk
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Risk/Million
2025 3.36E‐06 2.23E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 25.65 2026 0.00E+00 2.74E‐05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 27.41 2027 0.00E+00 1.52E‐05 1.73E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 16.98 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 TOTAL RISK: 70.03
Year
Calculated Pollutant Concentration
Age‐Dependent Exposure Duration
Year
Year
Emission Rates AERMOD Pollutant
Exposure Durations
Daily Breathing Rates
Year
DBR
Risk Per Individual By Age
Schedule and Duration
Activity Schedule Information
HRA Receptor
Receptor Information
Receptor Risk Results
DPM Emission Rates and Concentrations
Receptor Risk Information
PM2.5 Concentrations
Year
PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust Calculated Pollutant Concentration Receptor Risk: Single Family Residence Mitigated Results Name Type Start Age Daily Breathing Rate
Fraction of Time at
Home Averaging Time
Inhalation
Absorption Factor Pollutant
Single Family Residence Residential 3rd Trimester 24‐Hour Yes 70 Years 1 Diesel Particulate Matter
DPM Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 581309.64 E, 4139047.73 N (Receptor ID R_028).

Year Start Date End Date Workday Duration Seconds/Day Calendar Days Workdays Annual Duration 2025 4/15/2025 12/31/2025 8 Hours/Day 28,800 260 187 0.72 2026 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 8 Hours/Day 28,800 364 261 1.00 2027 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 8 Hours/Day 28,800 287 206 0.79 8 Hours/Day 28,800 00 0.00
Assumptions: Exposure Duration (ED) is derived by dividing project workdays by total annual workdays (261), assuming 5 workdays a week.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 5.39E‐02 7.63E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 2.37E‐02 7.79E‐05 2.38E‐02 2026 4.31E‐02 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 1.90E‐02 7.79E‐05 1.91E‐02 2027 5.43E‐02 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 2.39E‐02 7.79E‐05 2.40E‐02 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 2.40E‐02 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles Hazard Index: 0.005
Assumptions: DPM Emissions utilize PM10 Exhaust.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 5.39E‐02 6.76E‐04 4.77E‐01 4.63E‐02 1.26E‐02 3.66E‐06 1.26E‐02 2026 4.31E‐02 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 6.63E‐02 8.20E‐04 5.22E‐06 8.25E‐04 2027 5.39E‐02 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 7.20E‐02 1.29E‐03 5.67E‐06 1.30E‐03 0 Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 1.26E‐02 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles 0.003
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total Duration
2025 0.25 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72
2026 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
2027 0.00 0.53 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total
2025 361 1090 0000 1451
2026 0 1090 0000 1090
2027 0 1090 861 000 1951
0 000000 0.00
Calculated Risk
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Risk/Million
2025 2.75E‐07 1.83E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.10 2026 0.00E+00 3.13E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.13 2027 0.00E+00 2.10E‐06 2.39E‐07 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.34 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 TOTAL RISK: 7.58
Year
PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust Calculated Pollutant Concentration Receptor Information
HRA Receptor Receptor Risk Information
Schedule and Duration
Activity Schedule Information
DPM Emission Rates and Concentrations
Year
Emission Rates AERMOD Pollutant Calculated Pollutant Concentration PM2.5 Concentrations
Receptor Risk Results
Year
Risk Per Individual By Age
Exposure Durations
Year
Age‐Dependent Exposure Duration
Daily Breathing Rates
Year
DBR
Receptor Risk: K‐12 Students Unmitigated Results
Name Type Start Age Daily Breathing Rate
Fraction of Time at
Home Averaging Time
Inhalation
Absorption Factor Pollutant
K‐12 Students Elementary School 5 8‐Hour No 70 Years 1 Diesel Particulate Matter
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 581100.77 E, 4139272.99 N (Receptor ID S_016).

Year Start Date End Date Workday Duration Seconds/Day Calendar Days Workdays Annual Duration 2025 4/15/2025 12/31/2025 8 Hours/Day 28,800 260 187 0.72 2026 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 8 Hours/Day 28,800 364 261 1.00 2027 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 8 Hours/Day 28,800 287 206 0.79 8 Hours/Day 28,800 00 0.00
Assumptions: Exposure Duration (ED) is derived by dividing project workdays by total annual workdays (261), assuming 5 workdays a week.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.60E‐01 7.63E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 2.91E‐01 7.79E‐05 2.91E‐01 2026 3.79E‐01 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 1.67E‐01 7.79E‐05 1.67E‐01 2027 3.95E‐01 7.62E‐04 2.80E+01 6.49E+00 1.74E‐01 7.79E‐05 1.74E‐01 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 2.91E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles Hazard Index: 0.058
Assumptions: DPM Emissions utilize PM10 Exhaust.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.07E‐01 6.76E‐04 4.77E‐01 4.63E‐02 3.15E‐01 3.66E‐06 3.15E‐01 2026 3.48E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 6.63E‐02 5.81E‐02 5.22E‐06 5.81E‐02 2027 3.63E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 7.20E‐02 6.32E‐02 5.67E‐06 6.32E‐02 0 Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 3.15E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles 0.063
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total Duration
2025 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72
2026 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
2027 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total
2025 00 640 000 640
2026 00 640 000 640
2027 00 640 000 640
0 000000 0.00
Calculated Risk
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Risk/Million
2025 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.10E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.10 2026 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.48E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.48 2027 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.04E‐06 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.04 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 TOTAL RISK: 7.63
Year
PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust Calculated Pollutant Concentration Receptor Information
HRA Receptor Receptor Risk Information
Schedule and Duration
Activity Schedule Information
DPM Emission Rates and Concentrations
Year
Emission Rates AERMOD Pollutant Calculated Pollutant Concentration PM2.5 Concentrations
Receptor Risk Results
Year
Risk Per Individual By Age
Exposure Durations
Year
Age‐Dependent Exposure Duration
Daily Breathing Rates
Year
DBR
Receptor Risk: Worker Unmitigated Results
Name Type Start Age Daily Breathing Rate
Fraction of Time at
Home Averaging Time
Inhalation
Absorption Factor Pollutant
Worker Worker 16+ 8‐Hour No 70 Years 1 Diesel Particulate Matter
Maximum Exposed Receptor (MER) UTM coordinates: 581364.54 E, 4139074.98 N (Receptor ID W_002).

Year Start Date End Date Workday Duration Seconds/Day Calendar Days Workdays Annual Duration 2025 4/15/2025 12/31/2025 8 Hours/Day 28,800 260 187 0.72 2026 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 8 Hours/Day 28,800 364 261 1.00 2027 1/1/2027 10/15/2027 8 Hours/Day 28,800 287 206 0.79 8 Hours/Day 28,800 00 0.00
Assumptions: Exposure Duration (ED) is derived by dividing project workdays by total annual workdays (261), assuming 5 workdays a week.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.60E‐01 7.63E‐04 1.83E+01 8.76E‐01 1.91E‐01 1.05E‐05 1.91E‐01 2026 3.79E‐01 7.62E‐04 1.83E+01 8.76E‐01 1.09E‐01 1.05E‐05 1.09E‐01 2027 3.95E‐01 7.62E‐04 1.83E+01 8.76E‐01 1.14E‐01 1.05E‐05 1.14E‐01 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 1.91E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles Hazard Index: 0.038
Assumptions: DPM Emissions utilize PM10 Exhaust.

On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
Off‐site Emission
Rate (lbs/day)
On‐site
Concentration
Off‐site
Concentration
Total Concentration
(ug/m3)
2025 6.07E‐01 6.76E‐04 4.77E‐01 4.63E‐02 2.07E‐01 4.94E‐07 2.07E‐01 2026 3.48E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 6.63E‐02 3.81E‐02 7.05E‐07 3.81E‐02 2027 3.63E‐01 7.62E‐04 0.00E+00 7.20E‐02 4.14E‐02 7.65E‐07 4.14E‐02 0 Off‐site Haul Distance: 1.6 miles Maximum Annual Average Concentration: 2.07E‐01 Default Haul Distance: 20 miles 0.041
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total Duration
2025 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.72
2026 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
2027 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.79
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Total
2025 0000 240 0 240
2026 0000 240 0 240
2027 0000 240 0 240
0 000000 0.00
Calculated Risk
Age Bin: 3rd
Trimester>0 Years Age Bin: 0>2 Years Age Bin: 2>9 Years Age Bin: 9>16 Years Age Bin: 16>30
Years
Age Bin: 30>70+
Years Risk/Million
2025 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.53E‐07 0.00E+00 0.35 2026 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.82E‐07 0.00E+00 0.28 2027 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.32E‐07 0.00E+00 0.23 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00 TOTAL RISK: 0.87
Year
PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Dust Calculated Pollutant Concentration Receptor Information
HRA Receptor Receptor Risk Information
Schedule and Duration
Activity Schedule Information
DPM Emission Rates and Concentrations
Year
Emission Rates AERMOD Pollutant Calculated Pollutant Concentration PM2.5 Concentrations
Receptor Risk Results
Year
Risk Per Individual By Age
Exposure Durations
Year
Age‐Dependent Exposure Duration
Daily Breathing Rates
Year
DBR
Facility ID Facility Name Address Source Type Notes Cancer Risk Hazard Index Annual PM2.5 Concentration
14209 City of Mountain View Fleet Services 251 So Shoreline Boulevard Generator 0.56 0.00 0.00 14228 City of Mountain View Fleet Services 1000 Villa Street Generator Not present during construction. 9.08 0.00 0.01 23027 250 Bryant 250 Bryant Street Generator 0.001 0 0
Facility ID Facility Name Address Source Type Distance to the MER (feet) Cancer Risk (Adjusted)
Hazard Index (Adjusted)
Annual PM2.5
Concentration (Adjusted)
14209 City of Mountain View Fleet Services 251 So Shoreline Boulevard Generator 525 0.06 0.00 0.0014228 City of Mountain View Fleet Services 1000 Villa Street Generator 60 0.00 0.00 0.0023027 250 Bryant 250 Bryant Street Generator 345 0.00 0.00 0.00 Permitted Stationary Sources within 1,000 feet of the Project Site Existing Permitted Stationary Source Risks Adjusted for Distance to MER

APPENDIX C:

Historic Resources Evaluation
This page is intentionally left blank.

Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Mountain View, California
Historic Resource Evaluation
Prepared for PlaceWorks
Draft - May 2023
Forget Me Not History
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Existing Historic Status............................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Property Description................................................................................................................................................... 2 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................ 2 Building Description..................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Site History ................................................................................................................................................................. 10

4. Historic Context........................................................................................................................................................ 14

5. Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Evaluative Framework .............................................................................................................................................. 25 California Register Evaluation................................................................................................................................. 27 Period of Significance................................................................................................................................................ 28 Integrity Analysis........................................................................................................................................................ 29 Character-defining Features.................................................................................................................................... 29

6. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................... 29

7. Bibliography................................................................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDIX
Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs
Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images
@
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
1 1. INTRODUCTION
At the request of PlaceWorks, Forget Me Not History has prepared this Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building located at 1000 Villa Street (APN 158-15-027) in Mountain View, California. The building and associated landscaping and parking lots are located within an irregularly shaped, 4.2-acre parcel spanning the majority of the block bounded by W. Evelyn Avenue to the north, Franklin Street to the east, Villa Street to the south, and S. Shoreline Boulevard to the west in the Old Mountain View neighborhood (Figure 1). The building was designed by the prominent architecture firm Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates and was completed in 1980. The following HRE report provides a physical description and historic summary of the property’s development within the City of Mountain View and an evaluation for its listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) for project review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Figure 1. Aerial photograph of the subject property (bounded in red) and immediate vicinity (Google Earth, March 2022, amended).

N
W. Evelyn Avenue
Franklin Street
Villa Steet
S. Shoreline Boulevard
Oak Street
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
2 METHODOLOGY
To prepare this HRE, Forget Me Not History completed a site visit of the subject property on April 12, 2023. The property was documented in digital photographs and field notes. All photographs presented in this report were taken during the site visit, unless otherwise noted.

Forget Me Not History conducted archival research at the Mountain View History Center housed at the Mountain View Public Library and digital repositories, including Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com, Online Archive of California, Internet Archive, David Rumsey Map Collection, and others. The City of Mountain View provided drawings and plans of the original design and subsequent alterations to the municipal building. The firm reviewed a wide array of documents, including architectural drawings, newspaper articles, aerial and archival photographs, maps, and publications on the development of Mountain View, the architecture firm Goodwin B. Steinberg & Associates, and mid- to late-twentieth century Shed architecture and solar technology in the United States. In particular, the Environmental Design Archives (EDA) at the University of California, Berkeley; Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD); Avery Index to Architecture Periodicals; and US Modernist Architecture Magazine Library were reviewed for information on the architecture firm. The California Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Santa Clara County and the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources were also reviewed.

EXISTING HISTORIC STATUS
The Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building has not been previously documented and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Mountain View Register of Historic Resources.1

2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a physical description of the subject property and immediate vicinity.

Additional photographs are provided in Appendix A.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The property containing the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building spans the majority of the block bounded by W. Evelyn Avenue to the north, Franklin Street to the east, Villa Street to the south, and S. Shoreline Boulevard to the west in the Old Mountain View neighborhood.

The immediate setting comprises late nineteenth and early twentieth century, one- and two-story, detached residences located at the southwest corner of the block and south of Villa Street. A two-story office building constructed in 1961 and a four-story apartment building completed in 2013 are located on the east side of Franklin Street. The Caltrain right-of-way and Central Expressway (County Route G6) extend east-west immediately north of W. Evelyn Avenue.

The Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building is situated at the southeast corner of the property and is oriented southeast toward the intersection of Franklin and Villa streets. Oak Street enters the block and terminates at a cul-de-sac immediately west of the building. A low masonry sign is located at the southwest corner of the building. The sign is formed by three walls of concrete slump stone blocks built into the embankment. A flagpole is located just behind the sign, and a small ledge supporting two lights extends along the base of the sign. A contemporary steel communication tower is located within a chain link fence enclosure at the west façade. Small parking lots are located south and east of the building, with a larger parking lot located to the north. A small pump house servicing the 1 California Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), Santa Clara County, accessed April 27, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
3 surrounding residential neighborhood was constructed ca. 2005 within a fenced area at the northwest corner of the parcel. The remainder of the property comprises landscaping with grass, ivy, shrubs, and a variety of trees.

Figure 2. Site plan of the subject property (bounded in red) (Google Earth, March 2022, amended).

BUILDING DESCRIPTION
The two-story Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building is constructed of reinforced concrete slump stone blocks and has an irregular plan formed by wings and projections with varying depths across each façade. The main story is located at grade, and the lower story is partially embedded in the sloped terrain of the site. Except for an expanse of a flat roof centered above the main lobby, the building features multi-directional shed roofs with varying heights and slopes. The shed roofs are covered with clay tile. A number of skylights in varying sizes, including a large pyramidal skylight above the main lobby, are situated on the flat roof section of the building.

The building features several window types that are referenced as follows:
§ elongated, aluminum-sash fixed windows enframed by projecting slump stone blocks (referenced as “elongated fixed window”) (Figure 3)
main building
sign & flagpole
communication tower
pump house
N
W. Evelyn Avenue
Villa Steet
Franklin Street
S. Shoreline Boulevard
Oak Street
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
4 § elongated, aluminum-sash box bay windows that extend slightly above the roofline and that have a flat roof (“referenced as “elongated box bay window”) (Figure 4) § aluminum-sash, six-light fixed windows with elongated lower lights and enframed by projecting slump stone blocks (referenced as “six-light fixed window”) (Figure 5) § bands of aluminum-sash fixed clerestory windows located on select north-facing walls (referenced as “clerestory window”) (Figure 6)
Figure 3. Elongated fixed windows on the south
façade.

Figure 4. Elongated box bay window on
the east façade.

Figure 5. Six-light fixed window on the
east façade.

Figure 6. Clerestory window on the
east façade.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
5 South Façade
For the purposes of this report, the primary façade of the building is known as the south façade. It is one story in height except for a two-story section at the east end. The main entrance to the building is located centrally on the south façade and is flanked by wings that extend south on each side, forming an entry plaza (Figure 7). A wide concrete walkway with two sets of stairs and a concrete ramp flanked by terraced slump stone block planters extend from the southern parking lot to the entry plaza. The main entrance comprises an aluminum commercial storefront assembly with glazed double doors. The entrance is enframed by a deep, projecting shed roof canopy with a sloped ceiling.

Figure 7. South façade, view north from the southern parking lot.

Elongated fixed windows are located east and west of the main entrance and face the entry plaza; one of the eastern windows extends above the roofline and has a shed roof covered with clay tile. Slump stone block planters span underneath both sets of windows. A smaller aluminum commercial storefront assembly with a single glazed door is located on the west wall facing the entry plaza. This entrance is enframed by projecting slump stone blocks. Terraced slump stone block planters extend along the eastern wall facing the entry plaza, wrap around the building corner, and terminate just below a single elongated fixed window facing the parking lot.

At the eastern section of the south façade (facing the parking lot), a concrete staircase descends from the entry plaza to a paved patio at the lower level of the building. This portion of the façade is two stories in height and has a shallow projection with a shed roof. Two elongated fixed windows and an inset balcony with a metal railing are located at the main story within this projection (Figure 8). An entrance and bands of windows are located at the balcony. A recessed entrance flanked by bands of windows and slump stone block planters is located at the lower story.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
6 Figure 8. Eastern section of the south façade, view northeast.

The western section of the south façade features a prominent 45-foot-tall clock tower with a full-height alcove on the south wall, a shed roof, and a geometric polychrome clock panel at the roofline (Figure 9).

Slump stone block planters are located at the base of the clock tower and wrap around the corner, connecting with the planters extending along the ramp. The remainder of the façade is characterized by wall surfaces of varying depths and elongated fixed windows of varying heights.

Figure 9. Clock tower on the south façade, view north.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
7 East Façade
The east façade is one story in height and features complex surfaces formed by projections with varying depths. A box bay window located above an L-shaped, slump stone box planter and an entrance with a glazed door accessed by a concrete staircase are located at the southern end of the façade (Figure 10).

The entrance and an adjacent set of clerestory windows face north (Figure 11). At the central section of the façade, a grouping of three box bay windows are flanked on each side by a six-light fixed window (Figure 12). A box bay window and a recessed entrance with a glazed door and concrete staircase are located at the north end of the façade (Figure 13).

Figure 10. Southern section of the east façade,
view west.

Figure 11. Southern section of the east façade,
view southwest.

Figure 12. Central section of the east façade, view
west.

Figure 13. Northern section of the east façade,
view west.

North Façade
The north façade is two stories in height, and its main story is dominated by three large openings formed by soaring shed roofs supported by steel tube supports and crossbeams, which are painted blue (Figure 14). The central opening is taller-in-height and extends north beyond the wall plane. The openings have sloped ceilings with expanses of angled skylights below (Figure 15). The main story is also finished with smooth cement plaster.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
8 Figure 14. North façade, view south from the northern parking lot.

Recessed entrances are located on either side of the central opening. Each entrance has metal glazed doors with angled skylights above. Each entrance leads to a concrete walkway with slump stone block planters and a staircase that descends to the ground level. The walkways are supported by slump stone block columns and are open underneath. A secondary entrance with a solid door opens to the eastern walkway, while the western walkway provides access to an adjacent balcony enclosed by slump stone block walls at the north and east ends and a metal gate at the west end. A secondary entrance is accessed from the balcony (Figure 17).

At the east end of the lower story is a wide window box with divided lights and angled windows forming the roof. A set of blue steel tube supports is located to the west and is stacked underneath the steel supports at the main story (Figure 16). Fenced areas enclosing mechanical equipment, an emergency generator, and animal cages are located immediately to the north. Underneath the walkway is a recessed entrance stacked underneath the one above. A wide louvered metal vent for air intake, a smaller louvered metal vent, and a solid metal door are located in the central section of the lower story. An inset storage area enclosed with a metal gate is located underneath the western balcony, and an inset entrance and a set of metal double doors are located underneath the western walkway. The remainder of the lower story is lined with two small inset parking garages (Figure 18). Extending from the northwest corner of the building is a small carport with an L-shaped plan, metal supports, and a flat roof covered with ribbed metal sheets.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
9 Figure 15. Eastern section of the main story of
the north façade, view southeast.

Figure 16. Eastern section of the lower story of
the main façade, view southeast.

Figure 17. Central section of the north façade,
view south.

Figure 18. Western section of the north façade,
view south.

West Façade
The west façade is predominantly one story in height due to the rise in topography. At the north end of the west façade is a single glazed door accessed by a concrete staircase (Figure 19). A variety of windows, including elongated fixed, six-light fixed, box bay, and clerestory windows, extend along the central portion of the façade (Figure 20). The south end of the façade transitions to two stories in height; a metal gate encloses this area (Figure 21). At the main story, a short staircase rises to a walkway with a metal railing with glass panels. Behind the railing are a solid metal door and a band of projecting slump stone blocks infilled with a ribbon window situated above a standing seam metal panel. A second staircase descends to the lower patio. A slump stone block retaining wall spans the eastern edge of the patio, and an inset entrance flanked by windows and a slump stone block planter is located at the northern end (Figure 22). A large square slump stone block planter is located at the ground level immediately south of this gated area.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
10 Figure 19. Northern section of the west façade,
view east.

Figure 20. Central section of the
west façade, view east.

Figure 21. Southern section of
the west façade, view east.

Figure 22. Lower story patio and entrance on
central section of the south façade, view
northeast.

3. SITE HISTORY
The following chronology on the development of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building and immediate vicinity was compiled using archival maps, aerial photographs, and newspaper articles. A compilation of these maps and photographs is presented in Appendix B. 1890s to Late 1970s
By the late 1890s, the block containing the subject property had been developed with a mix of residential and light industrial properties. The two-lane Bailey Avenue extended north-south within the present-day alignment of S. Shoreline Boulevard; Oak Street extended north and terminated mid-block; and Front Street (present-day W. Evelyn Avenue) extended west and terminated just east of Franklin Street. The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks extended east-west just north of the block, which was advantageously located two blocks east of the railroad depot and bustling commercial corridor extending along Castro Street.

The northern section of the property (abutting the railroad tracks) contained Mrs. S. E. Bubb’s grain warehouse and a corral. An orchard extended along the east side of Oak Street. The remainder of the Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
11 parcels contained one-story wood stables or detached residences. Several residential properties had rear ancillary structures such a water tank, windmill, and hen house.2 By 1904, the Mountain View Fruit Exchange had acquired the grain warehouse, while the rest of the parcels remained largely unchanged.3 Four years later, the Mountain View Water Works had acquired a parcel abutting Franklin Avenue and had constructed a pump house, an oil tank, and an 85-foot-tall, 100- 000-gallon steel water tank on a steel trestle.4
In 1915, the San Francisco-based California Supply Company acquired the northeast corner of the block and built a “pickle works” that produced a variety of pickle products (emitting a “pungent aroma” as a by-product) and thousands of gallons of catsup. The company expanded in the 1920s, constructing new warehouses and other infrastructure at the site and employed upward of 300 people, sustaining both its employees and the broader community during the Great Depression. Carl Nielson served as the first superintendent of the pickle works, and his son Arthur Nielson worked at the plant and later became the city’s Police Chief.5
By the early 1920s, the Growers Packing and Warehousing Association had acquired and expanded the Mountain View Fruit Exchange building located west of the pickle plant. The Mountain View Water Works facility, located south of the pickle plant, expanded with the construction of a new shed. In 1924, the Mountain View Fire Department had repurposed the original Mountain View Water Works building facing Franklin Street, and the water works had relocated to the rear of the property. The large orchard had been redeveloped with two residences and wood and coal storage buildings facing Oak Street and a hay warehouse accessed from Villa Street. The remainder of the block remained residential.6 By 1943, the Mountain View Supply Co. had acquired and expanded the pickle and catsup factory extensively, taking over the entire northern portion of the block and constructing a warehouse and numerous pickle vats along the west side of Oak Street. It also erected a separate pickle factory building at the southeast corner of the block (adjacent to the intersection of Villa and Franklin streets). The company would later be acquired by the California Conserving Company and then Hunt Foods (Figure 23).7 The remainder of the block remained primarily residential. 8 2 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1897, Sheet 1. 3 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1904, Sheet 1. 4 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1908, Sheet 1. 5 Mary Jo Ignoffo, Milestones: A History of Mountain View (Cupertino, CA: California History Center & Foundation, 2002), 95, 124; Nicholas Perry, Mountain View (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012), 42; “Mt. View Canneries Busy Packing Crop of Summer Peaches,” Daily Palo Alto Times, July 24, 1928. 6 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1921, Sheet 5; City of Mountain View, “MVFD History,” September 13, 2022, accessed April 27, 2023, https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/fire/aboutus/mvfd-history?locale=en#ad-image-1. 7 Ignoffo, Milestones, 95, 124; Perry, Mountain View, 42. 8 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1943, Sheet 5.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
12 Figure 23. Hunt Foods Pickle Plant located within the subject property, 1951 (Mountain View Public Library).

In 1963, the Hunt Foods pickle factory was shut down and demolished after being cited for manufacturing contaminated pickle products. The Mountain View Water Works and Fire Department buildings had also been demolished. Three residences remained along the east side of Oak Street, with additional residences located at the southeast corner of the block. In 1968, Baily Avenue was widened and renamed Shoreline Boulevard; residences lining Baily Avenue were demolished, and a vibrant Mexican American community located north of the subject property was displaced. 9 Over the next
decade, the block remained the same, except for the extension of Front Street (W. Evelyn Avenue) west to S. Shoreline Boulevard, and the extension of Oak Street north to Front Street (W. Evelyn Avenue).
10 Late 1970s to Present
In 1977, the City of Mountain View announced it would build the approximate $4 million Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building within a large parcel formed by consolidating the vacant pickle works and Mountain View Water Works/Fire Department properties and the three remaining residences along the east side of Oak Street (Figure 24). The selected site was also located kitty-corner from the main fire and police stations constructed in 1952.11 The city retained the prominent architecture firm Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates to design the building, which blended white concrete slump stone block walls and clay tile roofs that evoked Spanish Colonial Revival architecture of the early twentieth century; multi-directional shed roofs, clerestory windows, and boxed enframement around windows and entrances characteristic of Shed architecture of the 1970s; and active and passive solar 9 Nick Perry, “The Birth and Breaking of a Forgotten Community,” Mountain View Voice, September 6, 2022, accessed April 27, 2023, https://www.mv-voice.com/morgue/2002/2002_09_06.history1.html. 10 “They’re tearing down the old pickle plant in Mountain View,” Palo Alto Times, March 9, 1963; Santa Clara County, California [aerial photograph], 1:12,000, Flight CAS-2310, Image 2310-1-90, May 2, 1968, accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Photography Collection; Mountain View, California [aerial photograph], 1:20,000, Flight SFB, Roll 9, Frame 131, June 25, 1974, accessed via USGS EarthExplorer. 11 “Bonds Sold for Police Building,” San Jose Mercury News, March 16, 1977; “Police, Fire Building Costs OK’d,” San Jose Mercury News, June 15, 1977; Evelyn Richards, “New police-fire building gets final OK in Mtn. View,” Palo Alto Times, July 20, 1978.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
13 technology developed in response to the 1970s energy crisis. An overview of the architecture firm and the building’s design and construction is presented in Section 4.12 Figure 24. Aerial photograph, 1974; the approximately boundary of the subject property delineated in red (USGS EarthExplorer, amended).13 Shortly after the project was announced, the three houses remaining within the project footprint were placed for sale at auction. The oldest house at 149 Oak Street was estimated to have been constructed ca. 1885-1895 and was described as being in poor condition. The other two houses at 161 Oak Street (built ca. 1910-1915) and 1098 Villa Street (built ca. 1920) were noted as being in better condition. It is unknown if the houses were purchased and relocated or demolished.14 After principal architect Goodwin Steinberg revised the design due to budget cuts, including eliminating the solar cooling technology and an emergency generator building and fueling station, the city approved the final design of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building and retained the Santa Clara-based Vassar Construction Co. as the contractor. The new facility, which included the main building, sign and flagpole, landscaping, and parking lots, was dedicated in March 1980.

In 1984, several features that had been eliminated from the proposed plans were completed. A concrete pad to support an emergency generator and a 1,000-gallon underground storage tank were constructed at the location of the proposed emergency generator building. 15 The concrete staircase and lower-story
patio were constructed at east end of the south façade. The architecture firm Spencer Associates 12 Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View. 13 Mountain View, California [aerial photograph], 1:20,000, Flight SFB, Roll 9, Frame 131, June 25, 1974, accessed via USGS EarthExplorer. 14 “Three houses put on action block,” Palo Alto Times, December 2, 1977. 15 Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police/Fire Emergency Generator, Project 82-05,” drawing set dated June 29, 1984, on file at the City of Mountain View.

S. Shoreline Boulevard
Franklin Street
Oak Street
Villa Street
W. Evelyn Avenue
existing police and
fire stations
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
14 oversaw this addition, which was based on the original design proposed by Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates.16 In conjunction with the project, the City of Mountain View Public Works Department rebuilt the entry patio in-kind.17
Based on a review of drawings and plans provided by the city and visual observation during the site visit, the subject property has undergone minimal alterations over the next four decades. Exterior alterations include the following:
§ In 1988, the solar panels on the roof were removed and replaced with clay tiles. Existing clay tiles were repaired as needed.18
§ In 1994, three sets of exterior stairs were replaced with a similar design; one staircase is located at the northern end of the west façade and the other two staircases are located at the north and south ends of the east façade.
19 § In 1997, the parking lot was extended to the north.20 § In 2010, the emergency generator system located at the northeast corner of the building was replaced.
21 § In 2014, the courtyard at main story on the west façade (above the extant lower story courtyard) was infilled with a new room, and the tile covering the entry plaza was replaced with a concrete slab. HMC Architects designed the in-fill project.22

4. HISTORIC CONTEXT
The following historic context provides an overview of the settlement of Mountain View, the establishment of the Mountain View Police and Fire Departments, and the design and construction of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building in the late 1970s.

Settlement of Mountain View
From the mid- to late nineteenth century, Mountain View evolved into a bustling community within the broader Santa Clara Valley. In the early 1850s, a small settlement with a hotel, saloon, post office, grocery store, and other amenities developed around a stagecoach stop on the nine-hour journey between San Francisco and San Jose. The stagecoach stop was located near the intersection of El 16 Spencer Associates, “Mountain View, Alterations & Additions for the City Hall, Municipal Operations Center, Data Processing, Project #82-30,” drawing set dated May 30, 1984, on file at the City of Mountain View. 17 City of Mountain View Public Works Department, “Police/Fire Plaza Repair and DP Steps and Patio, Project 82- 30A,” drawing set dated April 1985, on file at the City of Mountain View. 18 Thoroughbred Systems Inc., “Police/Fire Administration Building Reroofing, Project #88-26,” drawing set dated September 1988, on file at the City of Mountain View.
19 David Evans and Associates, “City of Mountain View Plan and Detail Drawings for Police/Fire Administration Building, Side Stairs, 1000 Villa Street, Mountain View, California, Project #88-27,” drawing set dated December 12, 1994, on file at the City of Mountain View.
20 City of Mountain View Department of Public Works, “Police Parking Expansion, Project #95-29,” drawing set dated August 27, 1997, on file at City of Mountain View. 21 Crosby Engineers, “City of Mountain View Police/Fire Building and Well No. 22, Emergency Generator, Project #07-41,” drawing set dated November 3, 2010, on file at City of Mountain View. 22 HMC Architects, “City of Mountain View, Police/Fire Administration Building Refurbishments, Project #12-28,” drawing set dated February 12, 2014, on file at City of Mountain View.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
15 Camino Real and Stevens Creek (around one mile south of the subject property). An early resident Jacob Shumway reportedly named the settlement for the views of the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains. In 1864, the San Francisco and San Jose Railroad (later absorbed by the Southern Pacific Railroad) laid its tracks parallel to El Camino Real, bypassing the initial village, which became known as Old Mountain View. A commercial district and adjacent residential neighborhoods developed around the new railroad depot at Castro Street (located two blocks east of the subject property) and became known as New Mountain View (Figure 25). The two communities later expanded and merged into a shipping center for locally produced wine, grain, fruit, and lumber.23
In 1902, Mountain View incorporated, with the subject property located within the official boundary, which extended from the railroad tracks south to El Camino Real and from Calderon and Montgomery streets west to Pettis Avenue. In the decades that followed, the city underwent tremendous growth with the installation of electrical and telephone lines and street signs; the establishment of a library, newspaper, and municipal water system; and the development of new businesses along Castro Street. Its population increased in tandem, with a large influx of residents arriving when the Pacific Press Publishing Association, the publishing arm of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, built a press on Villa Street in 1904. Approximately one hundred Seventh Day Adventist families settled along Pettis and Lantham streets in close proximity to the press. By the late 1920s, Mountain View’s boundary had extended north to Jackson Street, east to Calderon Avenue, south to El Camino Real, and west to Chiquita Avenue, and it contained several ethnic neighborhoods, including Chinese and Japanese enclaves near Villa and View streets and a Mexican community north of the railroad tracks.24 Figure 25. 1876 map showing the location of Old and New Mountain View; the approximate location of the subject property is outlined in red (David Rumsey Map Collection, amended).25
23 Ignoffo, Milestones, xvi, 33-38, 46-57; Perry, Mountain View, ix. 24 Ignoffo, Milestones, 77-82, Perry, Mountain View, ix-x. 25 Sherman Day, Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, California, Map No. 1 (San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876), accessed via David Rumsey Map Collection.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
16 The California Supply Company pickle plant, which was constructed in 1915 within the subject property, expanded alongside the proliferation of orchards and canneries in Mountain View and broader region in the early twentieth century. Numerous canneries were established in the valley to process the excess of locally grown fruit and to meet the demand for canned fruits and vegetables during World War I and II.

Other nearby canneries in Mountain View included the Sanguinetti Cannery (later acquired by the Richmond Chase Canning Company) that employed upward of 400 people at its plant at Bailey Avenue (present-day Shoreline Boulevard) and the railroad tracks. Following World War II, Mountain View and the broader valley underwent prolific growth, with the city’s population swelling from 6,500 residents in 1950 to 31,000 residents in 1960. In the postwar era, the city was transformed through the construction of industrial parks, apartments, and large tracts of single-family homes, and its boundary expanded as the city annexed adjacent neighborhoods. During this decade, nearby Moffat Field and Ames Laboratories employed thousands of people and overtook the canneries as the local economic drivers, although the Pacific Press Publishing, Hunt Foods (until the pickle plant closed in 1963), Teasdale Packing Company, and Gemello Winery remained prominent businesses.
26 Mountain View Police & Fire Departments
Formed shortly after the city incorporated, the Mountain View Police Department, which consisted of two officers, operated from a room inside City Hall for the next four decades. The department grew slowly, acquiring its first police car in 1929 and expanding to four officers serving under Police Chief Art Excel by 1940. It received two-way radios in 1948 and installed police call boxes on Castro Street in 1952. That year Arthur Nielson, the son of the pickle plant manager who joined the force in 1941, was promoted to Police Chief and steered the department through substantial growth over the next two decades before retiring in 1971.27
The Mountain View Fire Department followed a similar trajectory as the Police Department. Established in 1874, a volunteer fire department initially protected the community with one single fire engine until a series of destructive fires in the 1920s stressed the need for a fully staffed department with sufficient equipment. In 1924, the Fire Department moved to a repurposed building in the Mountain View Water Works facility on Franklin Street (within the subject property), and it would expand to include five firefighters, assisted by nearly thirty volunteers, and a half dozen fire trucks (Figure 26). The volunteer firefighters eventually disbanded in 1964.28
26 Ignoffo, Milestones, 86-89, 95-97, 124; Perry, Mountain View, x. 27 Ignoffo, Milestones, 88-89, 118-126. 28 Ignoffo, Milestones, 106-107, 126; “Mt. View streamlines police and fire protection—citizens approve,” Daily Palo Alto Times, June 24, 1952; City of Mountain View, “MVFD History.” Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
17 Figure 26. Mountain View Fire Station on Franklin Street (within the subject property), 1950 (Mountain View Public Library).

In 1951, Mountain View voters passed $225,000 in bonds to construct new police and fire stations at the southeast corner of Franklin and Villa streets. The San Jose-based architecture firm Higgins and Root designed the buildings (Figure 27). Completed in 1952, the new police headquarters included offices, police cells, a courtroom, and judge’s chambers. When the main fire station was completed the following year, the department moved from the Water Works property to its new station fronting Villa Street.29
Figure 27. Drawing of the adjacent police and fire stations at Villa and Franklin streets, 1951 (Newspapers.com).30
29 Ignoffo, Milestones, 126; “Work on unit of MV center is on schedule,” Palo Alto Times, March 219, 1952; “Mt.

View streamlines police and fire protection—citizens approve,” Daily Palo Alto Times, June 24, 1952; City of Mountain View, “MVFD History.”
30 “Proposed Civic Center Unit,” Daily Palo Alto Times, May 2, 1951.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
18 By the 1970s, however, the police station at the southeast corner of Villa and Franklin streets was regarded as outdated and cramped, and in 1977, the City of Mountain View announced it would fund an approximate $4 million Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building, in part paid with capital improvement bonds.31 The design and construction of the police and fire headquarters building, however, would be overshadowed by bitter and protracted labor disputes between the city and the Police and Fire Departments that began in the mid-1970s and continued through the early 1980s.

Beginning in the mid-1970s, the Mountain View Fire Firefighters, represented by its union Firefighters Local 1965, and city officials engaged in a years-long, bitter dispute over the terms of salary increases and an updated retirement plan. Over the next several years, firefighters staged several pickets outside City Hall and a thirty-nine-day strike that lasted from July to August 1980.32 The labor disputes continued the following year, with a one-year contract finally signed in mid-1981. By mid-1983, both sides withdrew their respective lawsuits and reached an agreement over damages caused during the strike.33
The Mountain View Police Department, represented by the Police Officers’ Association, also began advocating for increased salaries, arguing that low wages resulted in high turnover and low morale in the department. Police officers obtained a salary increase in late 1977, although they continued to advocate for additional raises and a retirement plan through 1980, staging pickets at City Hall and a sickout but not a strike.34
Goodwin B. Steinberg & Associates
In 1977 amidst labor negotiations with the Police and Fire Departments, the City of Mountain View retained the prominent Silicon Valley architecture firm Goodwin B. Steinberg & Associates to design the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building. Goodwin B. Steinberg served as the principal architect and collaborated with a team of architects, including Pete Dalton and Karl Coombs, on the building’s design.35
Goodwin (Goody) B. Steinberg (1922-2010) was born in Chicago, Illinois, to Edward P. and Anna Steinberg. He gained his first exposure to architecture helping his father, a Chicago-based architect, design a cemetery as a young boy. After high school, Goodwin Steinberg initially enrolled at Illinois Institute of Technology but felt stifled by the program director Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s trademark 31 “Bonds Sold for Police Building,” San Jose Mercury News, March 16, 1977. 32 “Fire fighters OK retirement study,” Palo Alto Times, July 21, 1977; “M.V. firefighters angry over negotiations ‘impasse,’” San Jose Mercury News, September 7, 1978; “Mtn. View firefighters picket City Hall,” Palo Alto Times, September 11, 1978; Evelyn Richards, “Suspensions force fire station’s closure,” Palo Alto Times, September 13, 1978; “Mountain View firefighters out on strike in contract dispute,” Palo Alto Times, July 18, 1980; Sue Goldfarb, “City Hall picketing continues,” San Jose Mercury News, July 23, 1980; “Firefighters’ strike was costly for city,” Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo Alto, CA), October 22, 1980; Ruthann Richter, “Mtn. View firefighters end strike,” Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo Alto, CA), August 26, 1980. 33 “Firefighters’ contract signed,” Mountain View Sun, June 3, 1981; Ed Hering, “Mtn. View firefighters approve 1- year contract,” San Jose Mercury News, June 16, 1982; Robert Rudy, “Firemen, city reach agreement,” Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo Alto, CA), July 11, 1983. 34 “Mountain View Police Hit By Big Turnover,” San Jose Mercury News, February 8, 1977; “M.V., Officers Discuss Terms for New Contract,” San Jose Mercury News, July 26, 1977; “Mtn. View police land wage raise,” Palo Alto Times, August 23, 1977; Bernard Bauer, “Police and firefighters picket city hall in pension dispute,” San Jose Mercury News, July 12, 1980; “Mtn View cops sign pact as firemen picket,” San Jose Mercury News, August 8, 1980. 35 Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977; Scott Herhold, “Architectural design for police, fire station wins award,” San Jose Mercury News, 1978 newspaper article, clipping in an unlabeled folder with articles from 1975 to 1983 on the Mountain View Police Department, on file at the Mountain View History Center, Mountain View Public Library.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
19 International Style and top-down teaching method. Preferring to design buildings that reflected their site and regional context, Steinberg transferred to the University of Illinois, graduating with an architecture degree.36
In 1944, he married Geraldine (Gerry) Tabin (1925-2021), served in the U.S. Air Force during World War II, and visited the San Francisco Bay Area while stationed at Hamilton Air Force Base in Marin County. In 1952, he returned to the San Francisco Bay Area and settled with his wife and two children in Los Alto Hills. The Steinbergs raised three children: Joan Steinberg Laurence, Thomas Steinberg, and Robert (Rob) Steinberg, who became a noted architect and successor to his father’s firm. 37 In 1953, Goodwin Steinberg founded his namesake architecture firm and achieved remarkable success in the wake of the region’s significant postwar growth and transformation into Silicon Valley. Over the course of his fifty-year career, he estimated he had designed thousands of projects, ranging from singleresidences, apartment buildings, houses of worship, industrial parks, and civic, corporate, and educational buildings. He notably designed upward of 700 custom homes and several hundred tract homes. Architectural critic Dave Weinstein states that Steinberg’s signature residential designs include full-height windows and skylights to maximize interior lighting, fireplaces as focal points, extensive use of stone and wood, and long, linear profiles that complement the surrounding site.38 A sampling of large-scale projects that Steinberg highlights in his book From the Ground Up include:

§ Los Altos Chamber of Commerce, ca. 1962
§ Congregation Beth Am, ca. 1960, with an expansion in 1999 by his son Rob Steinberg, Los Altos Hills
§ Rolm Corporation Campus, early 1980s, San Jose, CA
§ Milpitas Civic Center, ca. 1982
§ Cupertino Community Center, ca. 1986
§ SCI Manufacturing Corporation, date unknown, San Jose, CA § San Ramon Civic Center, ca. 1988
§ Guided Learning Center, Cupertino Unified School District, ca. 1988 § Careny Science Center, Bellarmine College Preparatory, 1988, San Jose, CA § Tech Museum of Innovation, 1998, San Jose, CA
§ Santa Clara County Children’s Center (now The Harker School), San Jose, 1999 § Stanford University campus, various buildings
§ Los Altos History Museum, 200139
36 Goodwin Steinberg and Susan Wolfe, From the Ground Up: Building Silicon Valley (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002), 3-5. 37 Geraldine Steinberg had a notable career in county politics. After practicing law for several years, she became the first woman to sit on the Santa Clara County Planning Commission in the early 1970s and the first woman elected to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in 1976. Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, xiii; “Geraldine Steinberg, first woman elected to board of supervisors, dies,” Palo Alto Daily Post, May 27, 2021, accessed May 15, 2023, https://padailypost.com/2021/05/27/geraldine-steinberg-first-woman-elected-to-board-ofsupervisors-dies/. 38 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, xiv; Dave Weinstein, “Goody Steinberg, Letting in the light, Silicon Valley homes exhibit modern style tailored to fit California life,” SFGATE, May 1, 2004, accessed April 24, 2023, https://www.sfgate.com/homeandgarden/article/SIGNATURE-STYLE-Goody-Steinberg-Letting-in2785089.php#photo-2203223. 39 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up; “Goodwin B. Steinberg (Architect),” Pacific Coast Architecture Database, accessed May 15, 2023, https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/5940/.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
20 In contrast to prevailing postwar office designs, which typically featured rectangular buildings with rigid interior floorplans, Steinberg preferred to design office and civic buildings with that conveyed openness within campus-like settings. In particular, he highlights his design for the ROLM Corporation campus, completed in the early 1980s in San Jose, as including four buildings nestled within green belts, waterfalls, and ponds that created an indoor-outdoor connection and “an ambiance conducive to interaction, interdependence, and integration” (Figure 28).40 He placed the parking lots around the perimeter of the buildings, preserving the remainder of the site for landscaping.41 Figure 28. Rolm Corporation campus, undated photograph; note the similar use of a large opening with crossbeam supports and soaring shed roof as a focal point (Goodwin Steinberg).42
In addition to new designs, Goodwin Steinberg worked on several historic preservation projects, including the incorporation of stained glass windows and other important components when rebuilding the First Presbyterian Church of San Jose in 1972. In the 1980s, he worked on the restoration of the Fremont and Cora Older House, built in 1912 in Saratoga, and the rehabilitation of the 1868 Santa Clara County Courthouse following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. He also played in a key role in the creation of the Guadalupe River Parkway in San Jose.43
Throughout his storied career, Goodwin Steinberg honed his design philosophy, which emphasized closely collaborating with clients, landscape architects, and builders to design buildings that reflected the surrounding community. He counted the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building among his signature projects that reflected this philosophy, stating:

My work on the Tech Museum, the county courthouse, the Mountain View police and fire administration building, and other civic projects helped me to feel that I was a contributing 40 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, 67. 41 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, 66-69, 79. 42 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, 70. 43 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, 29-31, 90-91; “Eleventh-hour rescue in Silicon Valley,” Historic Preservation 37, no. 6 (1985): 14-19.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
21 member of my community, bringing my professional expertise to a region in which my family and other families could flourish. I believe that an architect can find greater personal fulfillment and a better quality of life by concentrating his work in a community rather than diluting himself with major projects over great distances.44
In 1992, his son Rob Steinberg became the president of the firm, which became known as the Steinberg Group, and he has grown the firm, presently known as Steinberg Hart, to include offices throughout California and in New York, Texas, and Shanghai, China. Prior to his death in 2010, Goodwin Steinberg was elevated to the American Institute of Architects Fellows, the highest honor for exceptional contributions to the architecture field.45
Architectural Design
Goodwin Steinberg’s design for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building incorporated many of his signature elements for large-scale buildings. The building is situated within extensive landscaping at the southeast corner of the parcel. The main façade is one story in height and located at grade with a large entry plaza designed to provide an “open feeling inviting community involvement.”46 The lower story is partially embedded in the sloped terrain of the site, allowing the majority of the parking to be located to the rear and below-grade, thus obscured from view when approaching the main entrance. The site’s topography also allows the north façade to expand to two stories in height, with wide expanses of skylights across the main story and day-to-day police and mechanical operations to occur at the lower story.47
Functionally, Steinberg located offices, interview rooms, records storage, a library, public reception areas, and a public meeting hall for the police department and offices for the fire department at the main story. The northern section of the lower story was designed to house additional offices, interview rooms, storage for evidence and stolen property, and covered parking for the police department. The majority of fire department operations and equipment remained at the 1952 fire station across the street.48
A 1977 newspaper article characterized the building’s style as a “mix [of] old Spanish architecture ideas with modern space-age concepts for energy savings.”49 Indeed, Steinberg blended elements of early twentieth century Spanish Colonial Revival architecture with aspects of the popular 1970s Shed architecture. As described previously, the use of white painted concrete slump stone blocks, clay tile roofs, and the soaring clock tower evoke Spanish Colonial Revival architecture that developed in California and spread nationwide from 1915 to 1940 (Figure 29). The steel supports at the north façade were deliberately painted bright blue to add a pop of color against the expanses of white walls.50 44 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up, 93. 45 Steinberg and Wolfe, From the Ground Up; Steinberg Hart, “Culture,” https://www.steinberghart.com/values/culture, accessed April 24, 2023. 46 “New police building to cost $1 million more than anticipated,” Palo Alto Times, June 1, 1978. 47 “Award for Energy Efficiency,” Palo Alto Times, November 18, 1978; Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977. 48 “Bonds Sold for Police Building,” San Jose Mercury News, March 16, 1977; “Police, Fire Building Costs OK’d,” San Jose Mercury News, June 15, 1977; “$500,000 savings eyed in Mtn. View,” Palo Alto Times, May 31, 1977; Evelyn Richards, “New police-fire building gets final OK in Mtn. View,” Palo Alto Times, July 20, 1978; Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977; “$500,000 savings eyed in Mtn.

View,” Palo Alto Times, May 31, 1977; Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View. 49 Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977. 50 Virginia Savage McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015), 521.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
22 Figure 29. Drawing of the proposed Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building,1978 (Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates).
51 In comparison, the multi-directional shed roofs, elongated and clerestory windows, and boxed enframement around windows and entrances are characteristic of Shed architecture, a popular style from the mid-1960s to mid-1980s. This architectural style evolved from Sea Ranch, a planned community dating to the early 1960s along the northern coast of California. The first residences constructed at Sea Ranch employed box-like forms, unpainted wood cladding, and multi-directional shed roofs, drawing inspiration from barns and other vernacular structures. The style spread nationwide, emphasizing geometric volumes and forms, asymmetrically located windows as the primary exterior ornamentation, and the extensive use of clerestory windows to provide natural lighting as a form of passive solar design. The primary design features of Shed architecture include:
§ One to one-and-one-half story height
§ Multi-directional, shed roof forms with no overhang
§ Continuous wood cladding (boards or shingles), occasionally with sections of brick veneer § Window variations as the primary source of exterior detail § Large plate glass windows set flush with walls
§ Clerestory windows located above lower roof forms
§ Boxed enframement around windows or window groupings
§ Deep box bay windows
§ Recessed entrances52
Solar Technology
The first wave of experimentation with solar technology in residential architecture began in the late 1930s. It included orienting buildings toward the south, installing extensive glazing to capture sunlight for lighting and heating, and installing prototype solar panels on roofs. The technology proved to be cost prohibitive and would be eclipsed by an increase in the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. By the end of the 1950s, interest in solar powered residential architecture had waned.53 51 Drawing included in Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View. 52 McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses, 649-650. 53 Daniel Barber, “Solar Architecture and Solar Design, 1930s-1950s,” in Energy History Online, 2023, accessed April 24, 2023, https://energyhistory.yale.edu/units/solar-architecture-and-solar-design-1930s-1950s. ,,,,--
~- ~ .
. .,__
~,
~ -
{ .

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
23 In 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) imposed an embargo on oil exports to the United States and several other countries in retaliation for their support for Israel during the Arab-Israeli War (or Yom Kippur War). A second oil crisis occurred in 1979 when oil production dropped during the Iranian Revolution. During this decade, the price of oil soared as supplies dwindled, causing rationing, long lines at gas stations, public campaigns to lower thermostats, and reduced hours at schools and offices. The oil crisis also led to renewed experimentation and government funding for solar technology to improve the energy efficiency of buildings of all types. 54 While designing the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building, Goodwin Steinberg and his associates studied solar technology installed at the Santa Clara Community Recreation Center and at unspecified buildings in Georgia and Arizona. In 1977, the Santa Clara Community Recreation Center was constructed within the city’s 52-acre Central Park (Figure 30). According to newspaper coverage, the building featured new solar cell technology that produced electricity for direct consumption rather than heating hot water. The rooftop solar energy system had been designed by the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory to provide 80 percent of the building’s heating and 30 percent of its cooling needs. The Department of Energy provided two-thirds of the funding for the $1 million solar heating and cooling system as a demonstration project. The custom-designed system was lauded as the “first large solar-heated and cooled buildings in the world and the only one of its kind in the American West.”55 Vice President Walter Mondale and Governor Jerry Brown attended the building’s dedication in March 1980. In his remarks, Vice President Mondale emphasized the Carter’s administration commitment to developing renewable energy sources to address the nation’s energy crisis.56
In addition to its distinctive, blended architectural style, Goodwin Steinberg integrated up-to-date technology for active and passive solar heating and cooling in the design for the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building. He placed approximately 250 three-foot by eight-foot solar collectors on southern-facing roof slopes. A form of active solar technology, solar collectors had air or water pipes enclosed with a piece of glass on the top and with a panel with an opaque black surface on the bottom. The sun heated the air or water pipes inside the collectors. At the Mountain View building, water heated in the rooftop solar collectors was conveyed to a storage tank designed to keep the water warm for several days. It was intended to provide hot water for the building and up to 70 percent of its annual heating needs and 40 percent of its annual cooling needs. The building design initially included a solar cooling system that was eliminated due to budget cuts.57 54 Giovanna Borasi and Mirko Zardini, eds., Sorry Out of Gas: Architecture’s Response to the 1973 Oil Crisis (Montreal:

Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2007), 41-45; Meg Jacobs, Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s (New York: Hill and Wang, 2016), eBook edition, 6. 55 “On the Peninsula,” San Francisco Examiner, October 7, 1977. 56 Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977; John Hall, “Solar Energy: A hot topic updated,” San Francisco Examiner, April 26, 1974; David S. Smith, “Funds Urged for Design of Solar Pool Heat,” Desert Sun (Palm Springs, CA), April 29, 1977; “On the Peninsula,” San Francisco Examiner, October 7, 1977; Doug Willis, “Mondale in Calif. Swing, Pushes for U.S. solar energy development,” Independent Press Telegram (Long Beach, CA), October 9, 1977; “Mondale to attend ceremony,” Palo Alto Times, October 7, 1977. 57 Borasi and Zardini, eds., Sorry Out of Gas, 79; Scott Herhold, “Architectural design for police, fire station wins award;” Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
24 Figure 30. Installation of “solar collectors” installed on the roof of the Santa Clara Community Recreation Center, 1976, left, and photograph of the completed building, 1979, right (Newspapers.com).58
By contrast, passive solar systems relied on simple, low-cost design features including building orientation; the size and location of windows and shading to capture heat in the winter and repel it in the summer; the use of brick, stone, or concrete construction material and wall thickness to store heat during the day and release it at night.
59 Passive solar design features at the Mountain View building include large skylights on the roof, clerestory windows at the roofline of north facing walls, and wide expanses of angled skylights set within beveled openings across the north façade that would illuminate interior offices, reducing the number of days that required interior lighting. Narrow windows across the east, south, and west façades were designed to minimize light and heat entering the building.60 In 1978, the building’s design won an honorable mention in the government building category in the Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp’s prestigious national Energy Conservation Awards Program. It was also highlighted as a notable building in the January 1979 edition of Architectural Record. 61 Building Completion
After receiving initial construction bids that were $1 million overbudget, the City of Mountain View faced public pressure to eliminate the solar heating and cooling technology from the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building. City staff worked with Goodwin Steinberg to eliminate several features, including exercise rooms with saunas, a pneumatic tube system, a magnetic card key 58 John Hall, “Solar Energy: A hot topic updated,” San Francisco Examiner, April 26, 1974; “Mini computer as a monitor,” San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle, February 18, 1979. 59 Borasi and Zardini, eds., Sorry Out of Gas, 79, 108; Vicki Garrett and Thomas M. Koontz, “What Can We Learn from the Failure of Adoption of Passive Solar Homes?” Policy Summary Series #VG2007, Ohio State University School of Environment and Natural Resources, August 2007, 1. 60 Emmett Eggleston, “Police Station: Sun Panels, Spanish Look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977; “Buildings in the News,” Architectural Record (January 1979): 49; Scott Herhold, “Architectural design for police, fire station wins award.” 61 Scott Herhold, “Architectural design for police, fire station wins award;” “Buildings in the News,” Architectural Record (January 1979): 49.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
25 system, the generator building and fueling station, and ultimately the solar cooling system. Solar heating was retained because the city felt it would recoup the costs within two decades of operation.62 The Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building was dedicated in March 1980, with Police Chief Robert K. Schatz and Fire Chief Robert B. Burns in attendance. Burns was promoted to Fire Chief in 1976, after serving for fourteen years with the department, and retired in 1982.63 Robert K.

Schatz became a city police officer in 1950 and served as the Police Chief from 1971 to 1984; he then served for eleven years on the city council. He passed away in 1997, and the building renamed in his honor in 2004.64
Over the next decade, the building underwent several modifications. As stated previously, an emergency generator was installed at the northeast corner of the building, and the staircase and lower-story patio were installed at the east end of the south façade. Most notably, the rooftop solar collectors were removed and replaced with clay tiles, signaling the end of the building’s experimental solar technology.65 Despite these alterations, the building remains true to Goodwin Steinberg’s late 1970s architectural design.

5. EVALUATION
The following section provides an overview of the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and evaluation of the subject property for listing in the California Register.

EVALUATIVE FRAMEWORK
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register is the authoritative guide to the state's significant historical and archeological resources. The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological and cultural significance, identifies historical resources for state and local planning purposes, determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding and affords certain protections under CEQA.66
62 Ellen Norman, “New police-fire building gets boost from council,” Palo Alto Times, June 1, 1977; “Bonds Sold for Police Building,” San Jose Mercury News, March 16, 1977; “Police, Fire Building Costs OK’d,” San Jose Mercury News, June 15, 1977; “New police building to cost $1 million more than anticipated,” Palo Alto Times, June 1, 1978; “M.V. chief wins back several pet projects,” San Jose Mercury News, July 13, 1978; “More frills cut from Mt. View police, fire building plan,” Palo Alto Times, July 19, 1978; Evelyn Richards, “New police-fire building gets final OK in Mtn.

View,” Palo Alto Times, July 20, 1978. 63 “New fire chief for Mountain View,” Palo Alto Times, April 30, 1976; Ruthann Richter, “Fire chief to retire early,” Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo Alto, CA), April 16, 1982. 64 “Robert K. Schatz,” obituary, SFGATE, April 1, 1997, accessed April 24, 2023, https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Robert-K-Schatz-2847614.php; Perry, Mountain View, 42. 65 Summarized from sets of drawings listed in the bibliography. 66 Excerpted from California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Register of Historical Resources,” accessed April 24, 2023, https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238; California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register,” Technical Assistance Series #6, 2011, accessed April 24, 2023 https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20update.pdf; California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Register of Historical Resources: Questions and Answers,” Technical Assistance Series #3, 2002, accessed April 24, 2023,
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/03%20cal_%20reg_%20q_and_a.pdf.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
26 Criteria
A historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following four criteria:
§ Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or
§ Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; or
§ Criterion 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method or construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or § Criterion 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

Special Considerations for Historical Resources Achieving Significance within the Past Fifty Years In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the California Register if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance.67 Period of Significance
Period of significance is the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons or it attained its principal design characteristics. Period of significance usually begins with the date when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance; this is often a date of construction.68
Integrity
Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.

It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that 67 Excerpted from California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Register and National Register: A Comparison.” 68 Excerpted from National Park Service, “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form,” National Register Bulletin #16A, 1997, accessed April 24, 2023,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16A-Complete.pdf.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
27 has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.69 The seven aspects of integrity are defined as follows:
§ Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
§ Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
§ Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. § Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. § Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
§ Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
§ Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.70
Character-defining Features
A character-defining feature is an aspect of a property’s design or construction that conveys its architectural style, function, or type. Character-defining features can include building systems, construction material, ornamentation, massing, craftsmanship, site features, and landscaping that date to the period of significance. A historic resource must retain the majority of its character-defining features to convey its significance and to maintain integrity.71

CALIFORNIA REGISTER EVALUATION
Based on the evaluation under the four criteria below, the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building is recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

California Register Criterion 1 (Events)
By the time the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building was completed in 1980, the block and surrounding neighborhood had already been developed with a mix of residential, commercial, and light industrial buildings for nearly a century. Similarly, the building was the third iteration of Police and Fire Department buildings in the immediate area, including the fire station completed along Franklin Street in 1924, and the police and fire stations constructed at the intersection 69 California Office of Historic Preservation, “California Register and National Register.” 70 National Park Service, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,” National Register Bulletin #15, 1997, accessed April 24, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. 71 Lee H. Nelson, “Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character,” Preservation Brief #17, accessed April 24, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-17-architectural-character.pdf.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
28 of Franklin and Villa streets in the early 1950s. Furthermore, the design and construction of the building from 1977 to 1980 was overshadowed by protracted labor negotiations between the city and Police and Fire Departments, culminating with a contentious thirty-nine-day strike by the Mountain View Fire Department in mid-1980. As such, the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building did not play a significant role in the history of the Police and Fire Departments and the expansion of municipal facilities in the City of Mountain View in the late twentieth century, and it did not spur new development in the surrounding area. Therefore, the building is recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1.

California Register Criterion 2 (People)
A wide array of city staff have worked at the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building since it opened in 1980. None are known to have made significant contributions to local, state, or national history. While Police Chief Robert K. Schatz and Fire Chief Robert B. Burns held key positions in their respective departments when the building was dedicated, their leadership does not rise to a level of significance under this criteria. Thus, the subject property is recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2.

California Register Criterion 3 (Design/Construction)
Architect Goodwin Steinberg is recognized as a master architect, and the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building is a representative example of the large-scale civic projects that he designed during his fifty-year career with his namesake firm. The building skillfully blends Shed architecture, expressed in the soaring multi-directional shed roofs and varied fenestration, with elements of regional Spanish Colonial Revival architecture, including the white painted slump stone brick walls and clay tile roofing that soften the building’s angularity. The prominent clock tower further evokes mission-era bell towers. The incorporation of a broad entry plaza, extensive vegetation, and subtle transitions in the site’s topography reflect his intent to create an inviting, open building within a campus-like setting. Furthermore, he integrated experimental active and passive solar technology in the building’s design, that, while ultimately not successful, were nationally recognized as critical to addressing the 1970s energy crisis. The building’s design would subsequently be featured in Architectural Record.

Although it is less than fifty years old, the building meets the threshold for special consideration for listing in the California Register because a sufficient amount of time has passed to understand Steinberg’s exemplary career and the history and significance of Shed architecture and experimental solar technology of that era. As such, the subject property is recommended as eligible for listing under Criterion 3 as the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg.

California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) While Criterion 4 is generally applied to archaeological resources, it can be used to identify buildings with significant construction methods and other related physical information. The subject property is recommended as ineligible for listing in the California Register under this criterion because the experimental solar technology was removed from the building in the late 1980s. The majority of the building’s construction material, including the concrete slump blocks, fenestration, and clay tile roofing, do not themselves embody important physical information.

PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE
The period of significance for the subject property is 1980, corresponding with the year it was constructed, because its significance stems from its association with an architect of distinction and its architectural design.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
29 INTEGRITY ANALYSIS
The Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building retains integrity of location and setting as it remains in its original location and orientation toward the intersection of Franklin and Villa streets.

It also remains surrounded by the majority of the single-family residences and commercial buildings in place when the building was completed in 1980. The removal of the solar technology in the late 1980s and other minor exterior alterations, including the replacement of select exterior staircases, the addition of a small room on the west façade, and the removal of the tile at the entry plaza, have not impacted the original design, materials, and workmanship. The subject property displays integrity of feeling and association through its intact Shed architecture and its continued use as the police and fire department headquarters. Thus, it retains integrity of feeling and association.

CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
The character-defining features of the subject property include:

§ One- and two-story height accommodating the topography § Orientation southeast toward the intersection of Franklin and Villa streets § Irregular footprint formed by wings and projections with varying depths across each façade § Reinforced concrete slump stone block construction
§ Multi-directional shed roofs with varying heights and slopes § Clay tile roofing
§ Entry plaza with main entrance enframed by a shed roof canopy § Distinctive clock tower on the south façade
§ Terraced slump stone block planters
§ Fenestration including elongated fixed windows, elongated box bay windows, six-light fixed windows, clerestory windows, and skylights
§ Entrances including glazed doors
§ Projecting concrete slump stone blocks enframing windows and entrances § Large openings with steel tube supports and crossbeams and angled skylights across the north façade
§ Walkways, balcony, and staircases at the north façade § Concrete slump stone block sign and flagpole

6. CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building is recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 as a significant example of the work of master architect Goodwin Steinberg. The period of significance dates to 1980 when the building was completed, and the property retains its integrity despite the removal of the rooftop solar collectors in the late 1980s. As such, the property qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA.

7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Borasi, Giovanna, and Mirko Zardini, eds. Sorry Out of Gas: Architecture’s Response to the 1973 Oil Crisis.

Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2007.
“Buildings in the News.” Architectural Record (January 1979): 47-49.

California Office of Historic Preservation. Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), Santa Clara County. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
30 -----. “California Register of Historical Resources.” Accessed April 24, 2023. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238.
-----. “California Register of Historical Resources: Questions and Answers.” Technical Assistance Series #3. 2002. Accessed April 24, 2023.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/03%20cal_%20reg_%20q_and_a.pdf. -----. “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register.” Technical Assistance Series #6. 2011. Accessed April 24, 2023. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011%20up date.pdf.
“Eleventh-hour rescue in Silicon Valley.” Historic Preservation 37, no. 6 (1985): 14-19.

Garrett, Vicki, and Thomas M. Koontz. “What Can We Learn from the Failure of Adoption of Passive Solar Homes?” Policy Summary Series #VG2007. Ohio State University School of Environment and Natural Resources. August 2007.

Ignoffo, Mary Jo. Milestones: A History of Mountain View. Cupertino, CA: California History Center & Foundation, 2002.

Jacobs, Meg. Panic at the Pump: The Energy Crisis and the Transformation of American Politics in the 1970s.

New York: Hill and Wang, 2016, eBook edition.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015.

National Park Service. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” National Register Bulletin #15. 1997. Accessed April 24, 2023.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf. -----. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” National Register Bulletin #16A. 1997. Accessed April 24, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB16AComplete.pdf.

Nelson, Lee H. “Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving their Character.” Preservation Brief #17. Accessed April 24, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-17-architectural-character.pdf. “Open House.” The View of Mountain View 4, no. 4 (December 1980): 1.

Perry, Nicholas. Mountain View. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2012.

Steinberg Goodwin, and Susan Wolfe. From the Ground Up: Building Silicon Valley. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002.

Aerial Photographs
Mountain View, California [aerial photograph]. 1:23,600. Flight GS-HR, Roll 2, Frame 144. September 26, 1948. Accessed via USGS EarthExplorer.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
31 Mountain View, California [aerial photograph]. 1:20,000. Flight SFB, Roll 9, Frame 131. June 25, 1974.

Accessed via USGS EarthExplorer.

Santa Clara County, California [aerial photograph]. 1:12,000. Flight CAS-2310, Image 2310-1-90. May 2, 1968. Accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Photography Collection.

Drawings
City of Mountain View Department of Public Works. “Police Parking Expansion, Project #95-29.” Drawing set dated August 27, 1997. On file at City of Mountain View. -----. “Police/Fire Plaza Repair and DP Steps and Patio, Project 82-30A.” Drawing set dated April 1985.

On file at the City of Mountain View.

Crosby Engineers. “City of Mountain View Police/Fire Building and Well No. 22, Emergency Generator, Project #07-41.” Drawing set dated November 3, 2010. On file at City of Mountain View.

Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates. “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944.” As-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978. On file at the City of Mountain View. -----. “Mountain View Police/Fire Emergency Generator, Project 82-05.” Drawing set dated June 29, 1984. On file at the City of Mountain View.

Spencer Associates. “Mountain View, Alterations & Additions for the City Hall, Municipal Operations Center, Data Processing, Project #82-30. Drawing set dated May 30, 1984. On file at the City of Mountain View.

Thoroughbred Systems Inc. “Police/Fire Administration Building Reroofing, Project #88-26.” Drawing set dated September 1988. On file at the City of Mountain View.

David Evans and Associates. “City of Mountain View Plan and Detail Drawings for Police/Fire Administration Building, Side Stairs, 1000 Villa Street, Mountain View, California, Project #88-

27.” Drawing set dated December 12, 1994. On file at the City of Mountain View.

HMC Architects. “City of Mountain View, Police/Fire Administration Building Refurbishments, Project #12-28.” Drawing set dated February 12, 2014. On file at City of Mountain View.

Maps
Day, Sherman. Historical Atlas Map of Santa Clara County, California, Map No. 1. San Francisco: Thompson & West, 1876. Accessed via David Rumsey Map Collection.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps. Mountain View, California. 1897, Sheet 1; 1904, Sheet 1; 1908, Sheet 1; 1921, Sheet 5; 1943, Sheet 5.

Webpages
Barber, Daniel. “Solar Architecture and Solar Design, 1930s-1950s.” Energy History Online. 2023.

Accessed April 24, 2023. https://energyhistory.yale.edu/units/solar-architecture-and-solar-design1930s-1950s.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California
32 City of Mountain View. “MVFD History.” September 13, 2022. Accessed April 27, 2023. https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/fire/about-us/mvfd-history?locale=en#adimage-1. “Goodwin B. Steinberg (Architect).” Pacific Coast Architecture Database. Accessed May 15, 2023. https://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/5940/.

Steinberg Hart. “Culture.” https://www.steinberghart.com/values/culture. Accessed April 24, 2023.

Newspapers
Daily Palo Alto Times.

Desert Sun (Palm Springs, CA).

Independent Press Telegram (Long Beach, CA).

Mountain View Sun.

Mountain View Voice.

Palo Alto Daily Post.

Palo Alto Online.

Palo Alto Times.

Peninsula Times Tribune (Palo Alto, CA).

San Francisco Examiner.

San Francisco Sunday Examiner & Chronicle.

San Jose Mercury News.

SFGATE (associated with the San Francisco Chronicle).

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs @
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs SOUTH FAÇADE
South façade, view north from the southern parking lot.

Western section of the south façade, view north.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Western section with the clock tower on the south façade, view north.

Ramp and entry plaza on the south façade, view north.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs West side of the entry plaza, view west.

Entrance on the west side of the entry plaza, view west. ,1,
.__'r\~'-
,,
\_!:..
~
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Windows on the north side of the entry plaza, view north.

Main entrance accessed from the entry plaza, view northeast.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Windows and planters on the northern and eastern side of the entry plaza, view northeast.

Stairs descending from the entry plaza to the eastern section of the south façade, view east.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Eastern section of the south façade, view north.

Eastern section of the south façade, view northeast.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs EAST FAÇADE
East façade, view west from Franklin Street.

Southern section of the east façade, view west.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Southern section of the east façade, view southwest.

Central section of the east façade, view west.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Northern section of the east façade, view west.

NORTH FAÇADE
North façade, view south from the northern parking lot.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Central section of the north façade, view south.

Western section of the north façade, view south.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Main story of the western section of the north façade, view southwest.

Main story of the eastern section of the north façade, view southeast.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Eastern entrance to the main story, view south.

Wide box bay window at the lower story of the eastern section, view south.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Eastern section of the lower story, view southeast.

Air vent on the lower story of the eastern section, view south. <.AllTION BUILOtNC.
\<;; SUPPLIED BY
l~tERGlNC Y C.lN[ltATOR
M"IN Ell<. UI.ICAL
Stll'T OH
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Balcony accessing the western entrance to the main story, view west.

Gated storage area underneath the western balcony, view south.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Western entrance accessing the lower story, view south.

Gated garage at west end of the lower story, view south.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Carport at the west end of the north façade, view southwest.

WEST FAÇADE
West façade, view east from the adjacent landscaped area.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Northern section of the west façade, view east.

Central section of the west façade with the communication tower, view east.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Central section of the west façade, view east.

Southern section of the west façade with the lower story patio, view east.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Lower story patio and entrance, view northeast.

Entrance and stairs at the main story, view east.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix A. Existing Conditions Photographs Southern section of the west façade, view south.

Sign and flagpole located at the southwest corner of the building, view northeast.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images @
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images

MAPS & AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1897; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (San Francisco Public Library, amended).72
72 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1897, Sheet 1.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1904; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (San Francisco Public Library, amended).73
73 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1904, Sheet 1.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1908; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (San Francisco Public Library, amended).74
74 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1908, Sheet 1.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1921; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (San Francisco Public Library, amended).75
75 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1921, Sheet 5.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1943; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (San Francisco Public Library, amended).76
76 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, Mountain View, California, 1943, Sheet 5.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Aerial photograph, 1948; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (USGS EarthExplorer, amended).77
77 Mountain View, California [aerial photograph], 1:23,600, Flight GS-HR, Roll 2, Frame 144, September 26, 1948, accessed via USGS EarthExplorer.

Bailey Avenue (S. Shoreline Boulevard)
Front Street
(W. Evelyn Avenue)
Franklin Street
Villa Street
Oak Street
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Aerial photograph, 1968; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Photography Collection, amended).78 78 Santa Clara County, California [aerial photograph], 1:12,000, Flight CAS-2310, Image 2310-1-90, May 2, 1968, accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Aerial Photography Collection.

Franklin Street
Oak Street
Villa Street
S. Shoreline Boulevard
Front Street
(W. Evelyn Avenue)
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Aerial photograph, 1974; the approximate boundary of the subject property delineated in red (USGS EarthExplorer, amended).79
79 Mountain View, California [aerial photograph], 1:20,000, Flight SFB, Roll 9, Frame 131, June 25, 1974, accessed via USGS EarthExplorer.

S. Shoreline Boulevard
Franklin Street
Oak Street
Villa Street
W. Evelyn Avenue
existing police and
fire stations
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Demolition plan showing the footprint of the three and the abandoned segment of Oak Street, 1978; the subject property delineated in red (Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates).80 80 Demolition Plan, Sheet C-1, in Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View.

H1 ..
/
I ..
,
'
' I i li'Ml,l!'El'lf' ~ I AVENI/£ , '
,...;''-";-t-c--:,~:' :.~·. .. I (nJAMEKJ.V/tlfONT / ,JTII~"' , • ..:. ,., 1 1.l'. •• f
I. ,...,.~,
' '.-f~l::
-
-"'r"-4',",J. ~W/,
... ~~" ...
,,,.
., . •. ~·1'~,'- "' •' <',t;.,i• ' .,~'
◄
I
• I
.:
,,
•# X
UJ!tf/'$

IYNK NI
W'
• SIU

ILMHJFMIII
~1-~ c;i:t;,."
1i(•
,,'i!'
-,J
~,•;..~•''
0 ~"1'
•~r.f.
~~,.,.,,,-
■■■■.~ ~ ,:
., ~
'.I'
,
ol' , ;,
~;;J.,/f,-;, .. , ,,,-. ~: -~ A_.~·: ,1 • ~•' L,...;._,....,......::;,.......:,;,;=.::.;;.~"":"""""'T_._ ____ "T'"_ :· , • ..-·>' "'•~\• .,. ,·#·'
",_,i: 1 .... :.. . , , ,.,!.~-"'-i,• _.-~• I I ;,: ., ~ ... : ,r,,r .. ,,., •,~:,.~ ·:, ,• "i; /,\._, .... ,1 /'
(. .... ··.~.,-t:
.STHEET
. ,_
;.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images

ARCHIVAL IMAGES
Hunt Foods Pickle Plant located within the subject property, 1951 (Mountain View Public Library).

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Hunt Foods Pickle Plant located within the subject property, 1963 (Mountain View Public Library).

Drawing of the building,1978 (Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates).81 81 Drawing in Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View. \
~~-""
-- ~ ~ -
~ -";
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Photograph of Police Chief Robert K. Schatz with a model of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building, 1977 (Newsapers.com).82
82 “Police station: Sun panels, Spanish look,” Palo Alto Times, October 21, 1977.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Model and drawing of the Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building, 1978 (Mountain View History Center).83 83 “Architectural design for police, fire station wins award,” San Jose Mercury News, 1978, newspaper clipping located in an unlabeled folder with articles on the Mountain View Police Department from 1975 to 1983, on file at the Mountain View History Center at the Mountain View Public Library.

A modd I I.be
t.aia Vi«w Pol'"
l>ul from tltc: and from the
en;nt't r
ner lo
el
,pace.
-
copped b.lve bco> ln<otpo
d into 1-cvlp rel dc1
Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Model and section of the building published in the January 1979 edition of Architectural Record (US Modernist Architecture Magazine Library).84
84 “Buildings in the News,” Architectural Record (January 1979): 49. , ...

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Photograph of the building, ca. 1980 (Mountain View Public Library).

Photograph of the building accompanying the notice for
the open house, 1980 (Mountain View History
Center).85
85 “Open House,” The View of Mountain View 4, no. 4 (December 1980): 1.

Historic Resource Evaluation Forget Me Not History
Mountain View Police Services - Fire Administration Building Draft - May 2023 Mountain View, California Appendix B. Archival Maps & Images Goodwin Steinberg, undated photograph (Palo Alto Online).86 Goodwin Steinberg signature, 1978 (Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates).87 86 “Celebrated architect Goodwin Steinberg, 89, dies after illness,” Palo Alto Online, December 16, 2010, accessed April 25, 2023, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/12/16/celebrated-architect-goodwin-steinberg-89-diesafter-illness. 87 Signature located in Goodwin B. Steinberg Associates, “Mountain View Police & Fire Facility, Job 944,” as-built drawing set dated March 30, 1978, revised July 7, 1978, on file at the City of Mountain View. • J
Forget Me Not History LLC
San Francisco, CA
(415) 855-1209
[email protected]
fmnhx.com

APPENDIX D:

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
This page is intentionally left blank.

June 2024 | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Mountain View Public Safety Building
Project
for SVA Architects
Prepared for:

SVA Architects
Contact: Nathan Herrero, Principal
2030 Franklin Street, Suite 210
Oakland, CA 94612
Prepared by:

PlaceWorks
Cathleen Fitzgerald, PE, Senior Engineer
2040 Bancroft Way, Suite 400
Berkeley, California 94704
510‐848‐3815
[email protected]
www.PlaceWorks.com
~ PLACEWORKS

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Table of Contents
Section Page
June 2024 PlaceWorks

1. Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 OBJECTIVE ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 SITE IDENTIFICATION ................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................................................. 6

2.4 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 7

2.5 EXCEPTIONS AND DEVIATIONS ............................................................................................. 7

2.6 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Site Description ............................................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 NAME OF SITE OWNER ................................................................................................................ 9

3.2 SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 9

3.4 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.4.1 Topography ............................................................................................................................. 9

3.4.2 Geologic Information ........................................................................................................... 9

3.4.3 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Containing Minerals and Radon Gas .......................... 10

3.4.4 Groundwater and Surface Water Information ................................................................ 11

4. Site History and Background Information ................................................................................................. 13

4.1 PREVIOUS REPORTS .................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 PAST USAGE OF THE SITE ......................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 Historical Aerial Photographs ............................................................................................ 13

4.2.2 Historical Topographic Maps ............................................................................................. 14

4.2.3 Sanborn Maps ....................................................................................................................... 15

4.2.4 City Directory ....................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.5 Building Permits ................................................................................................................... 17

4.2.6 Environmental Lien and Activity and Use Limitations (AULs) ................................... 18

4.2.7 Prior Agricultural Use ......................................................................................................... 18

4.2.8 Mines ...................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.9 Illegal Drug Manufacturing ................................................................................................ 18

4.3 SURROUNDING PROPERTY LAND USES ............................................................................ 19

5. Environmental Records Review ................................................................................................................. 21

5.1 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW ..................................................... 21

5.1.1 Federal NPL (Superfund) sites ........................................................................................... 22

5.1.2 Federal Delisted NPL Sites ................................................................................................ 22

5.1.3 Federal sites subject to CERCLA removals & CERCLA orders ................................. 22

5.1.4 Federal CERCLIS sites with NFRAP ............................................................................... 23

5.1.5 Federal RCRA facilities undergoing Corrective Action ................................................. 23

5.1.6 Federal RCRA TSD facilities .............................................................................................. 23

5.1.7 Federal RCRA Generators .................................................................................................. 24

5.1.8 Federal Institutional Control / Engineering Controls ................................................... 25

5.1.9 Federal ERNS List ............................................................................................................... 25

5.1.10 State-and Tribal (Superfund) equivalent sites .................................................................. 25

5.1.11 State- and Tribal Hazardous Waste Facilities ................................................................... 26

5.1.12 State and Tribal- equivalent Landfill and/or Solid Waste Disposal Sites .................... 27

5.1.13 State and Tribal Leaking Storage Tanks ........................................................................... 27

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Table of Contents
Section Page
Page ii PlaceWorks

5.1.14 State Cleanup Program Sites .............................................................................................. 29

5.1.15 State and Tribal Registered Underground Storage Tanks .............................................. 30

5.1.16 State and Tribal Voluntary Cleanup Sites ......................................................................... 30

5.1.17 Orphan Sites ......................................................................................................................... 31

5.2 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW ................................................ 31

5.2.1 Local Brownfield Lists ........................................................................................................ 31

5.2.2 Local Lists of Hazardous Waste Sites .............................................................................. 32

5.2.3 Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks .......................................................................... 33

5.2.4 HAZNET .............................................................................................................................. 34

5.2.5 High Risk Historical Records ............................................................................................. 34

5.2.6 State of California Geologic Energy Management Division ........................................ 34

5.2.7 San Francisco Bay Air Quality Management District .................................................... 35

5.2.8 Vapor Migration ................................................................................................................... 35

5.2.9 User-Provided Information ................................................................................................ 37

6. Site Reconnaissance and Key Personnel Interview(s) ............................................................................. 39

6.1 CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY ....................................................................................... 39

6.2 SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS ....................................................................................................... 39

6.2.1 General Description of Structures ................................................................................... 39

6.2.2 Heating and Cooling System .............................................................................................. 40

6.2.3 Potable Water Supply and Sewage Disposal System or Septic Systems ...................... 40

6.2.4 Use and Storage of Petroleum Products and Hazardous Materials ............................ 40

6.2.5 Vehicle Maintenance Lifts .................................................................................................. 40

6.2.6 Emergency Generators and Sprinkler System Pumps ................................................... 40

6.2.7 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Associated with Electrical or Hydraulic Equipment............................................................................................................................................ 40

6.2.8 Floor Drain and Sumps ...................................................................................................... 41

6.2.9 Catch Basins .......................................................................................................................... 41

6.2.10 Dry Wells ............................................................................................................................... 41

6.2.11 Pits, Ponds, Lagoons, and Pools of Liquid ...................................................................... 41

6.2.12 Odors ..................................................................................................................................... 41

6.2.13 Stains or Corrosion on Floors, Walls, or Ceilings ........................................................... 41

6.2.14 Stained Soil or Pavement .................................................................................................... 41

6.2.15 Stressed Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 41

6.2.16 Solid Waste and Evidence of Waste Filling ..................................................................... 41

6.2.17 Wastewater and Stormwater Discharge ............................................................................ 42

6.2.18 Monitoring, Water Supply, or Irrigation Wells ................................................................ 42

6.3 INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................................... 42

7. Data Gap Identification ................................................................................................................................ 43

8. Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 45

9. Credentials ................................................................................................................................................... 47

10. References ................................................................................................................................................... 49

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Table of Contents
June 2024 Page iii

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Research Documentation
Appendix B. EDR
Appendix C. Site Photographs
Appendix D. Questionnaire
Appendix E. Qualifications
List of Figures
Figure
Figure 1 Regional Location
Figure 2 Local Vicinity
Figure 3 Aerial Photograph

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS
Table of Contents
Page iv PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.

June 2024 Page 1

1. Executive Summary
PlaceWorks has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on behalf of SVA Architects (Client/User) for the Mountain View Public Safety Building Project, located at 1000 Villa Street in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site consists of one developed parcel that is approximately 4.2 acres in size. Currently, the project site consists of one two-story building that houses the City’s Police Department, Fire Department administrative staff, Emergency Dispatch (911 call center), and Emergency Operations Center. The site also includes a 42-stall public parking lot, a 100-stall restricted staff parking lot, a pump station, and a K-9 training area. The Phase I ESA was performed in general conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM E 1527-21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 1 of this report. Our conclusions are intended to help the user evaluate the “environmental risk” associated with the site, as defined in the ASTM E 1527-21 Standard, and discussed in the Introduction section of this report.

The project site is bounded by W. Evelyn Avenue and the Caltrain Railroad easement to the northeast, Franklin Street to the southeast, Villa Street to the southwest, and Oak Street, residential properties, and S. Shoreline Road to the northwest. (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Figure 1 depicts the regional location of the project site, Figure 2 shows the local vicinity of the project site, and Figure 3 is an aerial photograph showing the current condition of the project site. Regional access to the site is provided by State Route 82, SR-85, and US 101. Local access is provided by W. Evelyn Avenue, Franklin Street, Villa Street, and Oak Street (Figure 3).

The objective of a Phase I ESA is to assess whether “recognized environmental conditions” (REC), historical RECs (HREC), and controlled RECs (CREC) are associated with the project site. Our conclusions are intended to help the user evaluate the “business environmental risk” associated with the project site. Our opinion regarding a REC's potential impact on the project site is based on the scope of our work, the information obtained during the course of our work, the conditions prevailing at the time our work was performed, the applicable regulatory requirements in effect at the time our work was performed, and our experience evaluating similar sites.

RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (RECs)
The ASTM E 1527-21 Standard defines a REC as (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. A de minimis condition is not a recognized environmental condition.

No RECs were identified related to activities on the project site. However, there is the potential for the migration of soil vapors and/or groundwater from the adjacent properties to the east, which were former dry

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT

MOUNTAIN VIEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT

SVA ARCHITECTS

1. Executive Summary