ATT 10 - CEQA Categorical Exemption Report — Mountain View City Council, April 28, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

SIGNAL WARRANT DISCLAIMER
This peak hour signal warrant analysis should be considered solely as an "indicator" of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed this warrant are probably more likely to meet one or more of the other volume based signal warrant (such as the 4-hour or 8-hour warrants).

The peak hour warrant analysis in this report is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Consideration of the other signal warrants, which is beyond the scope of this software, may yield different results.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-37
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #8: Castro St/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 21 161*** 6
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/12/2024 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

17 1

Cycle Time (sec): 53

0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 89*** 0

Critical V/C: 0.300

0 77
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.3

0 51 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 18.6

1 45***
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 48*** 170 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Sep 2024 << 4:30-5:30
Base Vol: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 48 170 48 6 161 21 17 89 51 45 77 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.78 0.22 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.64 0.36 1.00 0.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 1404 396 1750 1592 208 1750 1144 656 1750 1459 341 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 12.1 12.1 8.5 13.6 13.6 10.2 10.4 10.4 10.0 10.2 10.2 Volume/Cap: 0.21 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.14 0.27 0.27 Delay/Veh: 21.0 19.3 19.3 18.8 16.9 16.9 17.5 19.3 19.3 18.1 18.7 18.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.0 19.3 19.3 18.8 16.9 16.9 17.5 19.3 19.3 18.1 18.7 18.7 LOS by Move: C B B B B B B B B B B B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 4 0 3 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-38
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #8: Castro St/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 23 166*** 6
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

23 1

Cycle Time (sec): 53

0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 91*** 0

Critical V/C: 0.340

0 77
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.8

0 85 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.2

1 45***
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 60*** 177 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.52 0.48 1.00 0.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 1416 384 1750 1581 219 1750 931 869 1750 1459 341 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 11.4 11.4 8.0 12.4 12.4 10.8 11.6 11.6 10.0 10.8 10.8 Volume/Cap: 0.26 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.45 0.45 0.06 0.45 0.45 0.14 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 21.3 20.8 20.8 19.2 18.1 18.1 17.1 18.8 18.8 18.1 18.1 18.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.3 20.8 20.8 19.2 18.1 18.1 17.1 18.8 18.8 18.1 18.1 18.1 LOS by Move: C C C B B B B B B B B B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 4 0 3 3 0 3 3 1 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-39
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Prj PM
Intersection #8: Castro St/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 23 168*** 6
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

23 1

Cycle Time (sec): 53

0 18

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 91*** 0

Critical V/C: 0.348

0 77
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 18.8

0 92 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 19.3

1 45***
LOS: B

Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0
Final Vol: 63*** 178 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 60 177 48 6 166 23 23 91 85 45 77 18 Added Vol: 4 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 PasserByVol: -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 63 178 48 6 168 23 23 91 92 45 77 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 63 178 48 6 168 23 23 91 92 45 77 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 63 178 48 6 168 23 23 91 92 45 77 18 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 63 178 48 6 168 23 23 91 92 45 77 18 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.79 0.21 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 1750 1418 382 1750 1583 217 1750 895 905 1750 1459 341 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 7.0 11.3 11.3 7.9 12.3 12.3 10.9 11.7 11.7 10.0 10.9 10.9 Volume/Cap: 0.27 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.46 0.46 0.14 0.26 0.26 Delay/Veh: 21.3 21.1 21.1 19.3 18.3 18.3 17.0 18.7 18.7 18.1 18.0 18.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 21.3 21.1 21.1 19.3 18.3 18.3 17.0 18.7 18.7 18.1 18.0 18.0 LOS by Move: C C C B B B B B B B B B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 4 4 0 3 3 0 3 3 1 2 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-40
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #9: Shoreline Blvd/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 15 729 126***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Permit

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: 9/12/2024 Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:

23 0

Cycle Time (sec): 130

1 67

1 Loss Time (sec): 9

0 56 0

Critical V/C: 0.247

0 34***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 27.4

1 29 1

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 23.6

0 57
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 16 555*** 48
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Sep 2024 << 5:15-6:15
Base Vol: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 16 555 48 126 729 15 23 56 29 57 34 67 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.75 0.25 1.00 2.94 0.06 0.29 0.71 1.00 0.63 0.37 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5154 446 1750 5487 113 524 1276 1750 1127 673 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.04 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 27.2 56.6 56.6 37.8 67.2 67.2 26.6 26.6 53.8 26.6 26.6 64.4 Volume/Cap: 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.08 Delay/Veh: 41.0 23.3 23.3 35.5 17.5 17.5 43.3 43.3 22.7 43.7 43.7 17.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.0 23.3 23.3 35.5 17.5 17.5 43.3 43.3 22.7 43.7 43.7 17.2 LOS by Move: D C C D B B D D C D D B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 1 3 3 1 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-41
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #9: Shoreline Blvd/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 15 734 145***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Permit

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:

23 0

Cycle Time (sec): 130

1 112

1 Loss Time (sec): 9

0 56 0

Critical V/C: 0.265

0 34***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 28.8

1 29 1

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24.1

0 64
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 16 562*** 51
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.92 Lanes: 1.00 2.74 0.26 1.00 2.94 0.06 0.29 0.71 1.00 0.65 0.35 1.00 Final Sat.: 1750 5133 466 1750 5488 112 524 1276 1750 1176 624 1750 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 27.1 53.7 53.7 40.6 67.2 67.2 26.7 26.7 53.8 26.7 26.7 67.3 Volume/Cap: 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.12 Delay/Veh: 41.2 25.2 25.2 33.8 17.5 17.5 43.2 43.2 22.8 43.8 43.8 16.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.2 25.2 25.2 33.8 17.5 17.5 43.2 43.2 22.8 43.8 43.8 16.2 LOS by Move: D C C C B B D D C D D B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-42
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Prj PM
Intersection #9: Shoreline Blvd/Church St

Signal=Protect/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 15 733 152***
Lanes: 0 1 2 0 1

Signal=Permit

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Overlap Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Overlap Lanes: Final Vol:

23 0

Cycle Time (sec): 130

1 116

1 Loss Time (sec): 9

0 56 0

Critical V/C: 0.269

0 34***
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 29.1

1 29 1

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 24.2

0 64
LOS: C

Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0
Final Vol: 16 562*** 51
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 16 562 51 145 734 15 23 56 29 64 34 112 Added Vol: 0 0 0 7 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 16 562 51 152 733 15 23 56 29 64 34 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 16 562 51 152 733 15 23 56 29 64 34 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 16 562 51 152 733 15 23 56 29 64 34 116 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 16 562 51 152 733 15 23 56 29 64 34 116 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green Time: 27.2 52.8 52.8 41.9 67.5 67.5 26.3 26.3 53.5 26.3 26.3 68.2 Volume/Cap: 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.13 Delay/Veh: 41.1 25.8 25.8 32.9 17.4 17.4 43.6 43.6 22.9 44.2 44.2 15.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 41.1 25.8 25.8 32.9 17.4 17.4 43.6 43.6 22.9 44.2 44.2 15.8 LOS by Move: D C C C B B D D C D D B HCM2kAvgQ: 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 3 3 2 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-43
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #11: Hope St/Prj Dwy

Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 17 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

0 0

Cycle Time (sec): 100

0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0

0 0 1!

Critical V/C: 0.000

0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.0

0 0 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.0

0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 36 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 53 53 17 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 960 842 1068 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 960 842 1068 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Hope St/Prj Dwy
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-44
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Hope St/Prj Dwy
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 53
Minor Approach Volume: 0
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 1003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-45
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #11: Hope St/Prj Dwy

Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 0 17 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

0 0

Cycle Time (sec): 100

0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0

0 0 1!

Critical V/C: 0.000

0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 0.0

0 0 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 0.0

0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Final Vol: 0 36 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Hope St/Prj Dwy
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-46
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-47
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Unsignalized (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Prj PM
Intersection #11: Hope St/Prj Dwy

Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 35 8 0
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0

Signal=Stop

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

12 0

Cycle Time (sec): 100

0 0

0 Loss Time (sec): 0

0 0 1!

Critical V/C: 0.032

0 0
0 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 3.9

0 34 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 3.9

0 0
LOS: A

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0
Final Vol: 21 32 0
Signal=Uncontrol/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 36 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 18 -4 0 0 -9 30 10 0 27 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 3 0 0 0 0 5 2 0 7 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 21 32 0 0 8 35 12 0 34 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 21 32 0 0 8 35 12 0 34 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 21 32 0 0 8 35 12 0 34 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Critical Gap Module:

Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Module:

Cnflict Vol: 43 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 100 100 26 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 904 794 1056 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: 1579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 895 784 1056 xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: 0.01 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Level Of Service Module:
2Way95thQ: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 1009 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.1 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 8.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * A * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Peak Hour Delay Signal Warrant Report
******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Hope St/Prj Dwy
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-48
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 21 32 0 0 8 35 12 0 34 0 0 0 ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 8.7 xxxxxx ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach[eastbound][lanes=1][control=Stop Sign]
Signal Warrant Rule #1: [vehicle-hours=0.1]
FAIL - Vehicle-hours less than 4 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #2: [approach volume=46]
FAIL - Approach volume less than 100 for one lane approach.

Signal Warrant Rule #3: [approach count=3][total volume=142] FAIL - Total volume less than 650 for intersection
with less than four approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peak Hour Volume Signal Warrant Report [Urban]
******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Hope St/Prj Dwy
******************************************************************************** Future Volume Alternative: Peak Hour Warrant NOT Met
------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Vol: 21 32 0 0 8 35 12 0 34 0 0 0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Major Street Volume: 96
Minor Approach Volume: 46
Minor Approach Volume Threshold: 844
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-49
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #1001: Castro St/El Camino Real

Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 55*** 99 189
Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/12/2024 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

101

1 Cycle Time (sec): 170

0 137

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1158*** 2

Critical V/C: 0.519

2 1307
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.1

0 42 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 39.6

1 204***
LOS: D

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 49 109*** 115
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap

Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Sep 2024 << 5:30-6:30
Base Vol: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 49 109 115 189 99 55 101 1158 42 204 1307 137 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 0.31 0.69 1.00 1.66 0.86 0.48 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.70 0.30 Final Sat.: 558 1242 1750 2948 1544 858 1750 5404 196 1750 5068 531 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 28.7 28.7 66.9 21.0 21.0 21.0 19.8 70.1 70.1 38.2 88.5 88.5 Volume/Cap: 0.52 0.52 0.17 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.50 Delay/Veh: 65.9 65.9 33.6 70.5 70.5 70.5 72.3 37.5 37.5 59.1 26.5 26.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 65.9 65.9 33.6 70.5 70.5 70.5 72.3 37.5 37.5 59.1 26.5 26.5 LOS by Move: E E C E E E E D D E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 8 4 6 6 6 5 15 15 10 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-50
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #1001: Castro St/El Camino Real

Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 62 107*** 213
Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

103

1 Cycle Time (sec): 170

0 151

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1158*** 2

Critical V/C: 0.529

2 1307
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.1

0 42 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.7

1 204***
LOS: D

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 49*** 112 115
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap

Base Vol: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.69 0.83 0.48 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 548 1252 1750 2983 1498 868 1750 5404 196 1750 5019 580 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 28.7 28.7 66.2 22.9 22.9 22.9 19.6 68.9 68.9 37.5 86.7 86.7 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.53 0.17 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.51 Delay/Veh: 66.2 66.2 34.0 69.2 69.2 69.2 72.9 38.5 38.5 59.9 27.7 27.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 66.2 66.2 34.0 69.2 69.2 69.2 72.9 38.5 38.5 59.9 27.7 27.7 LOS by Move: E E C E E E E D D E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 8 8 4 7 7 7 5 15 15 10 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-51
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Prj PM
Intersection #1001: Castro St/El Camino Real

Signal=Split/Rights=Include
Final Vol: 66*** 103 213
Lanes: 0 1 0 1 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

90 1

Cycle Time (sec): 170

0 151

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1179*** 2

Critical V/C: 0.545

2 1308
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.7

0 42 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 40.2

1 221***
LOS: D

Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
Final Vol: 49*** 114 115
Signal=Split/Rights=Overlap

Base Vol: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 49 112 115 213 107 62 103 1158 42 204 1307 151 Added Vol: 0 2 0 0 -3 0 8 0 0 13 5 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 -1 4 -21 21 0 4 -4 0 Initial Fut: 49 114 115 213 103 66 90 1179 42 221 1308 151 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 49 114 115 213 103 66 90 1179 42 221 1308 151 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 49 114 115 213 103 66 90 1179 42 221 1308 151 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 49 114 115 213 103 66 90 1179 42 221 1308 151 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 0.30 0.70 1.00 1.69 0.80 0.51 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 2.68 0.32 Final Sat.: 541 1259 1750 2983 1442 924 1750 5407 193 1750 5020 579 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 28.3 28.3 67.7 22.3 22.3 22.3 17.7 68.0 68.0 39.4 89.7 89.7 Volume/Cap: 0.54 0.54 0.17 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.49 Delay/Veh: 67.1 67.1 33.1 70.0 70.0 70.0 74.0 39.4 39.4 58.9 25.8 25.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 67.1 67.1 33.1 70.0 70.0 70.0 74.0 39.4 39.4 58.9 25.8 25.8 LOS by Move: E E C E E E E D D E C C HCM2kAvgQ: 9 9 4 7 7 7 5 16 16 11 16 16 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-52
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Existing PM
Intersection #1004: Shoreline Blvd/Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real

Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 302 351*** 173
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: 9/12/2024 Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

294***

2 Cycle Time (sec): 178

0 112

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1088 2

Critical V/C: 0.526

2 1175***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.7

0 147 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 46.0

1 114
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 132*** 188 24
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 Y+R: 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Volume Module: >> Count Date: 12 Sep 2024 << 5:15-6:15
Base Vol: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 188 24 173 351 302 294 1088 147 114 1175 112 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.77 0.23 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.37 1.00 2.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 1750 3281 419 1750 3800 1750 3150 4933 666 1750 5112 487 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.17 0.09 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 25.5 20.8 20.8 35.9 31.2 62.8 31.6 84.4 84.4 24.9 77.7 77.7 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.53 0.49 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.53 Delay/Veh: 72.7 74.5 74.5 64.0 67.5 45.7 67.4 31.7 31.7 71.8 36.9 36.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 72.7 74.5 74.5 64.0 67.5 45.7 67.4 31.7 31.7 71.8 36.9 36.9 LOS by Move: E E E E E D E C C E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 6 6 9 8 13 9 15 15 6 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-53
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background PM
Intersection #1004: Shoreline Blvd/Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real

Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 314 351*** 173
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

304***

2 Cycle Time (sec): 178

0 112

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1090 2

Critical V/C: 0.531

2 1182***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 49.0

0 147 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 46.1

1 114
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 132*** 188 24
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.77 0.23 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.37 1.00 2.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 1750 3281 419 1750 3800 1750 3150 4934 665 1750 5115 485 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 25.3 20.6 20.6 35.6 31.0 63.3 32.3 84.8 84.8 25.0 77.4 77.4 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.53 0.50 0.53 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.53 0.53 Delay/Veh: 73.1 74.7 74.7 64.3 67.8 45.7 66.9 31.5 31.5 71.7 37.2 37.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.1 74.7 74.7 64.3 67.8 45.7 66.9 31.5 31.5 71.7 37.2 37.2 LOS by Move: E E E E E D E C C E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 6 6 9 8 14 9 15 15 6 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

COMPARE Wed Feb 12 12:14:10 2025 Page 3-54
Traffix 8.0.0715 Copyright (c) 2008 Dowling Associates, Inc. Licensed to Hexagon Trans., San Jose

881 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Level Of Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
Background + Prj PM
Intersection #1004: Shoreline Blvd/Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real

Signal=Protect/Rights=Overlap
Final Vol: 314 351*** 172
Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1

Signal=Protect

Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=Include Vol Cnt Date: n/a Rights=Include Lanes: Final Vol:

304***

2 Cycle Time (sec): 178

0 112

0 Loss Time (sec): 12

1 1099 2

Critical V/C: 0.532

2 1187***
1 Avg Crit Del (sec/veh): 48.9

0 147 0

Avg Delay (sec/veh): 46.0

1 114
LOS: D

Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0
Final Vol: 132*** 188 24
Signal=Protect/Rights=Include

Base Vol: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 132 188 24 173 351 314 304 1090 147 114 1182 112 Added Vol: 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 9 0 0 5 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 132 188 24 172 351 314 304 1099 147 114 1187 112 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 132 188 24 172 351 314 304 1099 147 114 1187 112 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 132 188 24 172 351 314 304 1099 147 114 1187 112 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 132 188 24 172 351 314 304 1099 147 114 1187 112 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Saturation Flow Module:

Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 0.98 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.92 0.83 0.99 0.95 0.92 0.99 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.77 0.23 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.63 0.37 1.00 2.73 0.27 Final Sat.: 1750 3281 419 1750 3800 1750 3150 4938 661 1750 5117 483 ------------|---------------||---------------||---------------||---------------| Capacity Analysis Module:

Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.07 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Green Time: 25.2 20.7 20.7 35.5 30.9 63.2 32.3 85.0 85.0 24.9 77.6 77.6 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.53 0.51 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.53 Delay/Veh: 73.1 74.7 74.7 64.4 67.8 45.8 67.0 31.4 31.4 71.9 37.1 37.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 73.1 74.7 74.7 64.4 67.8 45.8 67.0 31.4 31.4 71.9 37.1 37.1 LOS by Move: E E E E E D E C C E D D HCM2kAvgQ: 8 6 6 9 8 14 9 15 15 6 17 17 Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane.

Appendix C

Volume Summary
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1001
Intersection Name: Castro St and El Camino Real*
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 39 67 105 207 1046 143 177 113 95 44 1001 112 3149 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 2 2 4 20 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 43
Total Approved Trips 2 2 11 23 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 7 53
Background Conditions 41 69 116 230 1046 143 177 121 95 44 1001 119 3202 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 0 0 -3 28
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -4 0 Background + Project Conditions 41 69 116 230 1056 164 177 121 95 44 1005 112 3230 0 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Castro St and Fairmont Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 199 2 0 0 0 5 400 0 0 0 0 606
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 43
Total Approved Trips 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 53
Background Conditions 0 214 2 0 0 0 5 438 0 0 0 0 659
Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 0 -2
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 -6 Background + Project Conditions 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 437 0 0 0 0 651 0 Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Castro St and High School Way
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 38 147 0 0 0 0 0 323 77 57 0 11 653 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 43
Total Approved Trips 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 53
Background Conditions 38 162 0 0 0 0 0 361 77 57 0 11 706 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 Background + Project Conditions 38 160 0 0 0 0 0 369 77 57 0 11 712 0 Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
AM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Castro St and Yosemite Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 159 14 9 0 25 24 311 0 0 0 0 542
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 43
Total Approved Trips 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 53
Background Conditions 0 174 14 9 0 25 24 349 0 0 0 0 595 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 2 7 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 17
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 -2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background + Project Conditions 0 172 18 16 0 25 32 349 0 0 0 0 612 0 Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Hope St and Yosemite Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 5 10 0 1 13 0 0 28 9 3 14 8 91
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 5 10 0 1 13 0 0 28 9 3 14 8 91
Proposed Project Trips 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 13 0 0 26
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Background + Project Conditions 5 11 0 1 13 0 0 31 18 18 14 8 119 0 Intersection Number: 6
Traffix Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: Hope St and Fairmont Ave
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 2 9 1 0 0 2 3 35 0 1 4 0 57
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 2 9 1 0 0 2 3 35 0 1 4 0 57
Proposed Project Trips -1 14 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 -1 0 0 24
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -2 -4 Background + Project Conditions 0 23 3 0 0 2 3 47 0 0 0 0 78 1 1
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
AM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 7
Traffix Node Number: 7
Intersection Name: Hope St and El Camino Real
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 3 0 0 36 1541 0 4 0 0 20 1255 0 2859 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 24
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 34
Background Conditions 3 0 0 36 1564 0 4 0 0 20 1266 0 2893 Proposed Project Trips 31 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 58
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 Background + Project Conditions 34 0 0 45 1564 0 4 0 0 20 1288 0 2955 0 Intersection Number: 8
Traffix Node Number: 8
Intersection Name: Castro St and Church St
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 8 92 4 21 78 32 49 226 45 48 78 21 702 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 35 8 0 1 52
Total Approved Trips 6 7 0 0 2 0 0 3 35 8 0 1 62
Background Conditions 14 99 4 21 80 32 49 229 80 56 78 22 764 Proposed Project Trips 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 7
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background + Project Conditions 14 97 4 21 80 32 49 230 85 59 78 22 771 0 Intersection Number: 9
Traffix Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd and Church St
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 12 628 81 78 25 29 28 680 23 81 36 26 1727 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 10
590 Castro St 0 0 49 10 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 68
Total Approved Trips 0 7 49 10 0 1 8 3 0 0 0 0 78
Background Conditions 12 635 130 88 25 30 36 683 23 81 36 26 1805 Proposed Project Trips 0 -6 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background + Project Conditions 12 629 133 93 25 30 36 683 23 81 36 26 1807 0 09/12/24
Movements
Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
AM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 10
Traffix Node Number: 1004
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd/Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real* Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 218 331 172 116 1110 114 50 297 145 127 779 292 3751 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10
590 Castro St 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 18
Total Approved Trips 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 28
Background Conditions 226 331 172 116 1112 114 50 297 145 127 786 303 3779 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 -6 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background + Project Conditions 226 331 166 116 1122 114 50 297 145 127 789 303 3786 0 Intersection Number: 11
Traffix Node Number: 11
Intersection Name: Hope St and Project Dwy
Peak Hour: AM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 39
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 39
Proposed Project Trips 14 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 33 0 12 67
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Background + Project Conditions 14 2 0 0 0 0 0 36 9 33 0 12 106 0 12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
12/12/24
09/12/24
Movements
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
AM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 1
Traffix Node Number: 1001
Intersection Name: Castro St and El Camino Real*
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 55 99 189 137 1307 204 115 109 49 42 1158 101 3565 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 7 8 19 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 46
Total Approved Trips 7 8 24 14 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 58
Background Conditions 62 107 213 151 1307 204 115 112 49 42 1158 103 3623 Proposed Project Trips 0 -3 0 0 5 13 0 2 0 0 0 8 25
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 4 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 24 -24 0 Passby Trips 0 -1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 -3 3 3
Background + Project Conditions 66 103 213 151 1308 221 115 114 49 42 1179 90 3651 0 Intersection Number: 2
Traffix Node Number: 2
Intersection Name: Castro St and Fairmont Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 351 2 0 0 0 25 313 0 0 0 0 691
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 46
Total Approved Trips 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 58
Background Conditions 0 390 2 0 0 0 25 332 0 0 0 0 749
Proposed Project Trips 0 -3 0 0 0 0 -1 11 0 0 0 0 7
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 4 -2 0 0 0 -24 0 0 0 0 0 -22 Passby Trips 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
Background + Project Conditions 0 390 0 0 0 0 0 346 0 0 0 0 736 0 Intersection Number: 3
Traffix Node Number: 3
Intersection Name: Castro St and High School Way
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 26 263 0 0 0 0 0 255 65 94 0 20 723 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 46
Total Approved Trips 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 58
Background Conditions 26 302 0 0 0 0 0 274 65 94 0 20 781 Proposed Project Trips 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 5
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Passby Trips 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2
Background + Project Conditions 26 300 0 0 0 0 0 285 65 94 0 20 790 0 09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
PM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 4
Traffix Node Number: 4
Intersection Name: Castro St and Yosemite Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 254 8 11 0 38 20 257 0 0 0 0 588
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 46
Total Approved Trips 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 58
Background Conditions 0 293 8 11 0 38 20 276 0 0 0 0 646 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 9 7 0 -3 10 -2 0 0 0 0 21
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 -2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Passby Trips 0 -1 1 2 0 0 4 -1 0 0 0 0 5
Background + Project Conditions 0 290 20 20 0 39 34 273 0 0 0 0 676 0 Intersection Number: 5
Traffix Node Number: 5
Intersection Name: Hope St and Yosemite Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 12 11 1 1 20 2 1 33 14 0 20 8 123
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 12 11 1 1 20 2 1 33 14 0 20 8 123 Proposed Project Trips 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 21 0 -3 32
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 2 0 4 2 Passby Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 7
Background + Project Conditions 12 15 1 1 20 2 1 32 23 28 20 9 164 30 11 41
Intersection Number: 6
Traffix Node Number: 6
Intersection Name: Hope St and Fairmont Ave
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 1 7 3 4 0 2 4 39 4 8 20 10 102
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 1 7 3 4 0 2 4 39 4 8 20 10 102
Proposed Project Trips -1 25 0 0 0 0 0 10 -4 -4 0 -1 25 Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -20 -10 -32 Passby Trips 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
Background + Project Conditions 0 37 5 4 0 2 4 51 0 0 0 0 103 0 12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
PM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 7
Traffix Node Number: 7
Intersection Name: Hope St and El Camino Real
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 17 0 0 36 1661 0 19 0 0 10 1496 0 3239 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 12
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 26
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 38
Background Conditions 17 0 0 36 1675 0 19 0 0 10 1520 0 3277 Proposed Project Trips 18 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 42
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 20 Passby Trips 7 0 0 3 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
Background + Project Conditions 38 0 0 53 1672 0 19 0 0 10 1554 0 3346 0 Intersection Number: 8
Traffix Node Number: 8
Intersection Name: Castro St and Church St
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 21 161 6 18 77 45 48 170 48 51 89 17 751 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 34 2 6 56
Total Approved Trips 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 12 34 2 6 68
Background Conditions 23 166 6 18 77 45 48 177 60 85 91 23 819 Proposed Project Trips 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 0 0 14
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passby Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1
Background + Project Conditions 23 168 6 18 77 45 48 178 63 92 91 23 832 0 Intersection Number: 9
Traffix Node Number: 9
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd and Church St
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 15 729 126 67 34 57 48 555 16 29 56 23 1755 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12
590 Castro St 0 0 19 45 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 74
Total Approved Trips 0 5 19 45 0 7 3 7 0 0 0 0 86
Background Conditions 15 734 145 112 34 64 51 562 16 29 56 23 1841 Proposed Project Trips 0 -1 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passby Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background + Project Conditions 15 733 152 116 34 64 51 562 16 29 56 23 1851 0 09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
PM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11
Intersection Number: 10
Traffix Node Number: 1004
Intersection Name: Shoreline Blvd/Miramonte Ave and El Camino Real* Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 302 351 173 112 1175 114 24 188 132 147 1088 294 4100 Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 12
590 Castro St 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 19
Total Approved Trips 12 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 31
Background Conditions 314 351 173 112 1182 114 24 188 132 147 1090 304 4131 Proposed Project Trips 0 0 -1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 13
Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passby Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background + Project Conditions 314 351 172 112 1187 114 24 188 132 147 1099 304 4144 0 Intersection Number: 11
Traffix Node Number: 11
Intersection Name: Hope St and Project Dwy
Peak Hour: PM Date of Analysis:

Count Date:

Movements
Southbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Eastbound Approach Scenario RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT RT TH LT Total
Existing Conditions 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 53
Approved Project Trips
City Lot 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
590 Castro St 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Approved Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Background Conditions 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 53
Proposed Project Trips 30 -9 0 0 0 0 0 -4 18 27 0 10 72 Reassigned Fairmont Ave Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Passby Trips 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 2 17
Background + Project Conditions 35 8 0 0 0 0 0 32 21 34 0 12 142 0 12/12/24
09/12/24
12/12/24
09/12/24
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2/11/2025
PM
881 Castro St Volumes 2025-02-11

Appendix D

Gross Project Trip, Existing Trip Credit, and Retail Pass-By Trip Assignments
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Development MTA
NORTH
Not to Scale
Figure A
Gross Project Trips
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour Trips XX(XX)
9 5
1 67
23 8
4 10 11
St
Casto
Real
Camino
St
Hope
St
Church
Way
School
High
Ave
Fairmont
Ave
Yosemite
El
Ave
Miramonte
Dwy
Project
St
Casto
St
Casto
St
Casto
St
Hope
St
Hope
St
Casto
St
Hope
Blvd
Shoreline
Blvd
Shoreline
St
Church
Real
Camino
El
Ave
Yosemite
Ave
Fairmont
Real
Camino
El
2(4)
4(4)
11(9)
6(12)
8(16)
8(16)
8(16)
5(10) 9(8)
9(8)
3(2)
1(4)
13(26)
12(10)
14(30)
33(27) 9(18)
18(14)
7(5)
2(2)
2(3)
3(7)
3(7) 7(5)
11(9)
6(12)
9(18)
14(30)
12(10)
33(27)
18(14)
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Development MTA
Figure B
Existing Trip Credits
= Site Location
LEGEND
= AM(PM) Peak-Hour TripsXX(XX)
X = Study Intersection
El Camino RealEl Camino RealEl Camino Real
High
School Way
High School WayHigh School Way
St
Casto
Real
Camino
El
-2(-2)
0(-3) -1(0)
0(-4)
-1(-5)
8(-4)
St
Casto
Ave
Fairmont
-9(-5)
-1(-1)
0(-3)
Way
School
High
St
Casto
0(-9)
0(-3)
St
Casto
Ave
Yosemite
0(-2)
0(-7)
-3(-1)
0(-3)
-2(-1)
St
Hope
Ave
Yosemite
0(-1)
-1(-1)
0(-3)
0(-5)
Ave
Fairmont
St
Hope
0(-4)
0(-5)
-1(-1)
0(-1)
-1(-4)
St
Hope
Real
Camino
El
-2(-9) 0(-4)
0(-4)
St
Casto
St
Church
-2(-2)
0(-1)
-3(-1)
St
Church
Blvd
Shoreline
-5(-1) -2(-2)
Real
Camino
El
Ave
Miramonte
Blvd
Shoreline
-5(-1)
-1(-5)
-3(-3)
Dwy
Project
St
Hope
0(-4)
-1(-9)
1 2
10 9
3 4 5
8 6
11 7
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Development MTA
Figure C
Retail Pass-By Trips
= Site Location
LEGEND
= Retail Pass-By Trips (PM Peak Hour)XX
X = Study Intersection
St
Casto
Ave
Fairmont
St
Casto
Ave
Yosemite
+1
+2
Ave
Fairmont
St
Hope +5
+2
St
Casto
Real
Camino
El
+3
+1
+3
-3
Way
School
High
St
Casto
+3+3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
+4
St
Hope
Ave
Yosemite
+2+5
St
Church
-1
St
Hope
Real
Camino
El
+7 +3
-3
El Camino Re
al
El Camino RealEl Camino Re
al
High School WayHigh School WayHigh School Way
Hope
St
Project
Dwy
+5
+3
+2
+7
St
Casto
1 2
3 4 8
5 6
11 7

Appendix E

Signal Warrant Analyses

1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Castro St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: High School Way Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB EB EB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 10.3 10.5 10.5 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 68 68 68 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 653 706 712

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. Yes Yes Yes
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 585 638 644 Minor Street - Highest Approach High School Way X 68 68 68 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Existing
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Background+Pro
ject
Background
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

AM PEAK PERIOD
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
Approach
Lanes
or
File: 3 Castro & High School
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
1/6/2025
0 Castro St & High School Way AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 585 638 644 Minor Street - Highest Approach High School
Way X 68 68 68
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Approach
Lanes
Existing
Background
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

AM PEAK PERIOD
Background+Pro
ject
BackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 3 Castro & High School
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Castro St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: High School Way Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB EB EB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 11.5 12.0 12.0 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 114 114 114 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.4 0.4 0.4
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 723 781 790

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. Yes Yes Yes
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 609 667 676 Minor Street - Highest Approach High School Way X 114 114 114 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

Approach
Lanes
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Existing
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Background+Pr
oject
Background
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
or
File: 3 Castro & High School
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
1/6/2025
0 Castro St & High School Way PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 609 667 676 Minor Street - Highest Approach High School
Way X 114 114 114
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Approach
Lanes

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Background
Background+Proj
ect
Existing
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

Existing
BackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 3 Castro & High School
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: 0 date: 1/0/00
Major Street: Castro St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Yosemite Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay WB WB WB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 11.8 12.3 12.2 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 34 34 41 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 542 595 612

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 508 561 571 Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 34 34 41 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Existing
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Background+Pro
ject
Background
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

AM PEAK PERIOD
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
Approach
Lanes
or
File: 4 Castro and Yosemite
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
1/6/2025
0 Castro St & Yosemite Ave AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 508 561 571 Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 34 34 41 Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

AM PEAK PERIOD
Background+Pro
ject
Existing
BackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 4 Castro and Yosemite
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: 0 date: 1/0/00
Major Street: Castro St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Yosemite Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay WB WB WB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 12.2 12.8 12.8 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 49 49 59 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 588 646 676

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 539 597 617 Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 49 49 59 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Existing
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Background+Pr
oject
Background
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
or
File: 4 Castro and Yosemite
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
1/6/2025
0 Castro St & Yosemite Ave PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Castro St X 539 597 617 Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 49 49 59 Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Approach
Lanes

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
BackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 4 Castro and Yosemite
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Yosemite Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay NB NB NB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 9.3 9.3 9.4 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 37 37 49 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 91 91 119

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 52 52 65
Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 25 25 40 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Approach
Lanes
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
Background+Pro
ject
Background
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

AM PEAK PERIOD
Existing
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND or
File: 5 Hope and Yosemite
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
1/6/2025
0 Hope St & Yosemite Ave AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 52 52 65
Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 25 25 40 Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

AM PEAK PERIOD
Background+Pro
ject
Background
Approach
Lanes
Existing
ExistingBackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 5 Hope and Yosemite
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Yosemite Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay NB NB NB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 9.5 9.5 9.6 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 48 48 56 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 123 123 164

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 72 72 84
Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 28 28 57 Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Background+Pr
oject
Background
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:
or
File: 5 Hope and Yosemite
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
1/6/2025
0 Hope St & Yosemite Ave PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 72 72 84
Minor Street - Highest Approach Yosemite Ave X 28 28 57 Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above. * Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Background
Background+Proj
ect
Existing
Approach
Lanes
ExistingBackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 5 Hope and Yosemite
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Fairmont Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB EB WB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 9.1 9.1 8.9 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 5 5 2 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 56 56 78

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 48 48 76
Minor Street - Highest Approach Fairmont Ave X 5 5 2
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Existing
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

AM PEAK PERIOD
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
Background+Pro
ject
Background
Approach
Lanes
or
File: 6 Hope and Fairmont
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
1/6/2025
0 Hope St & Fairmont Ave AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 48 48 76 0 0 0 0 Minor Street - Highest Approach Fairmont Ave X 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No No No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Approach
Lanes
Existing
0 0
Background
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. 0 AM PEAK PERIOD
Background+Pro
ject
0 ExistingBackgroundBackground+Project
000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 6 Hope and Fairmont
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 Minor Street: Fairmont Ave Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay EB EB WB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 9.2 9.2 8.7 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 38 38 6 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 103 103 103

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. No No No
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 58 58 97
Minor Street - Highest Approach Fairmont Ave X 38 38 6
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Existing
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Background+Pr
oject
Background
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
or
File: 6 Hope and Fairmont
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
1/6/2025
0 Hope St & Fairmont Ave PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches Hope St X 58 58 97
Minor Street - Highest Approach Fairmont Ave X 38 38 6
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

Existing
Approach
Lanes
* Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Background
Background+Proj
ect
ExistingBackground
Background+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 6 Hope and Fairmont
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: El Camino Real Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 35 Minor Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

AM PEAK PERIOD
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay SB SB SB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 12.3 12.3 12.8 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 3 3 34 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 2859 2859 2921

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. Yes Yes Yes
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

AM PEAK PERIOD
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches El Camino Real X 2852 2852 2883 Minor Street - Highest Approach Hope St X 4 4 34
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Existing
The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for 1 moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for 2 moving lanes; AND
The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with 4 or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with 3 approaches.

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

AM PEAK PERIOD
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Existing
Background+Pro
ject
Background
Approach
Lanes
or
File: 7 Hope and ECR
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (AM)
1/6/2025
0 El Camino Real & Hope St AM PEAK PERIOD
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches El Camino Real X 2852 2852 2883 Minor Street - Highest Approach Hope St X 4 4 34
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

AM PEAK PERIOD
Background+Pro
ject
ExistingBackgroundBackground+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 7 Hope and ECR
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (AM)
1/6/2025
0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS WORKSHEET
Analyst: JL date: 11/4/24
Major Street: El Camino Real Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 35 Minor Street: Hope St Critical Approach Speed* (mph) 25 *Posted Speed.

Critical speed of major street traffic > 50 mph (64 km/h)….…..…...….......……..

In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population….…...……….…..

Urban (U)
Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)

PM PEAK HOUR
Minor Street Approach Direction w/ Highest Delay SB SB SB Highest Minor Street Average Delay (sec/veh) 13.0 13.0 13.5 Corresponding Minor Street Approach Volume (veh/hr) 17 17 38 Minor Street Total Delay (veh-hrs) 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Entering Volume (veh/hr) 3239 3239 3308

1. No No No

2. No No No

3. Yes Yes Yes
Signal Warranted based on Part A? No No No
PART B

PM PEAK HOUR
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches El Camino Real X 3203 3203 3251 Minor Street - Highest Approach Hope St X 19 19 38
Signal Warranted based on Part B? No No No
Rural (R)
Background+Pr
oject
Background

PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
The need for a traffic control signal should be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in either of the following two categories (Parts A and B) are met:

The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds 4 vehicle-hours for a 1- lane approach and 5 vehicle-hours for a 2-lane approach; AND Existing
The Warrant is satisfied if the plotted point for vehicles per hour on the major street (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher vehicle volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in California MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.

Background+Pr
oject
Background
Source: California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).
or
File: 7 Hope and ECR
Tab: Signal Warrants 3 (PM)
1/6/2025
0 El Camino Real & Hope St PM PEAK HOUR
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
One
2 or
More
Major Street - Both Approaches El Camino Real X 3203 3203 3251 Minor Street - Highest Approach Hope St X 19 19 38
Signal Warranted Based on Part B - Peak-Hour Volumes? No No No *Warrant is satisfied if plotted points fall above the appropriate curve in graph above.

PM PEAK HOUR
Source: Figure 4C-3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (FHWA's MUTCD 2009 Edition, as amended for use in California).

Background
Background+Proj
ect
ExistingBackground
Background+Project
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Minor Street - Highest Approach (vph)
Major Street - Total of Both Approaches (vph)
Warrant 3, Part B - Peak-Hour Vehicular Volume
*100
*150
2 or more lanes & 2 or more lanes
2 or more lanes & 1 lane
1 lane & 1 lane
File: 7 Hope and ECR
Tab: Warrant 3, Part B-Graph (PM)
Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Project Details
Timestamp
of Analysis
December 16, 2024, 11:39:58 AM
Project
Name
881 Castro St (Castro Commons) Mixed
Use
Project
Description
140 condominium units and 9,776 square
feet of ground-floor commercial with two
levels of below grade parking.

Project Location Map
Jurisdiction:

Mountain View

APN TAZ
15806010 371
15806008 371
15806040 371
15806037 371
15806038 371
15806039 371
15806036 371
Analysis Details
Data Version VTA Countywide Model December
2019
Analysis
Methodology
Parcel Buffer Method
Baseline Year 2024
Project Land Use
Residential:

Single Family DU:

Multifamily DU: 140
Total DUs: 140
Non-Residential:

Office KSF:

Local Serving Retail KSF: 9
Industrial KSF:

Residential Affordability (percent of all
units):

Extremely Low Income: 0 %
Very Low Income: 0 %
Low Income: 0 %
Parking:

Motor Vehicle Parking: 120
Bicycle Parking: 182
Proximity to Transit Screening
Inside a transit priority area? Yes (Pass)
Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Residential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Results Land Use Type 1: Residential
VMT Metric 1: Home-based VMT per Capita
VMT Baseline Description 1: Bay Area Regional Average
VMT Baseline Value 1: 13.95
VMT Threshold Description 1 / Threshold Value 1: -15% / 11.86 Land Use 1 has been Pre-Screened by the Local Jurisdiction: N/A Without Project With Project & Tier 1-3
VMT Reductions
With Project & All VMT
Reductions
Project Generated Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) Rate

11.28 11.04 11.04
Low VMT Screening
Analysis
Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass) Yes (Pass)

Santa Clara Countywide VMT Evaluation Tool - Version 2 - Report Tier 1 Project Characteristics
PC01 Increase Residential Density
Existing Residential Density: 11.68
With Project Residential Density: 12.23
PC02 Increase Residential Diversity
Existing Residential Diversity Index: 0.79
With Project Residential Diversity Index: 0.78
PC03 Affordable Housing
PC04 Increase Employment Density
Existing Employment Density: 86.09
With Project Employment Density: 86.26

Appendix B
Roadway Construction Noise Model
Construction Noise

Noise Level @ 50 ft Single Family Res to the N Gateway Park SFR to the East Distance 85 85 160
Demolition 80 75.391 75.391 69.897
Site Preparation 81 76.391 76.391 70.897
Grading 84 79.391 79.391 73.897
Building Construction 75 70.391 70.391 64.897
Paving 75 70.391 70.391 64.897

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/18/2024
Case Description: Demolition
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- Demolition Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Excavator No 40 80.7 50.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 50.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening
Night Day Evening Night ---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 80.7 79.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/18/2024
Case Description: Site Prep
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- Site Prep Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Auger Drill Rig No 20 84.4 50.0 0.0 Compactor (ground) No 20 83.2 50.0 0.0 Backhoe No 40 77.6 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Compactor (ground) 83.2 76.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Backhoe 77.6 73.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 84.4 80.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/18/2024
Case Description: Grading
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- Grading Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Dozer No 40 81.7 50.0 0.0 Grader No 40 85.0 50.0 0.0 Excavator No 40 80.7 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Grader 85.0 81.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Excavator 80.7 76.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 85.0 83.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/18/2024
Case Description: Building Construction
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- Building Construction Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0 Man Lift No 20 74.7 50.0 0.0 Crane No 16 80.6 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Man Lift 74.7 67.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Crane 80.6 72.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 80.6 74.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 10/18/2024
Case Description: Paving
**** Receptor #1 ****
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night ----------- -------- ------- ------- ----- Paving Residential 65.0 55.0 50.0 Equipment
---------
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Usage Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding Description Device (%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA) ----------- ------ ----- ----- ----- -------- --------- Roller No 20 80.0 50.0 0.0 Vacuum Street Sweeper No 10 81.6 50.0 0.0

Results
-------
Noise Limits (dBA)
Noise Limit Exceedance (dBA)

----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Calculated (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
---------------- -------------- -------------
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- Equipment Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq Lmax Leq
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ Roller 80.0 73.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Vacuum Street Sweeper 81.6 71.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 81.6 75.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Appendix C
Vibration Analysis Worksheets
Construction Vibration

Vibration @ 25 ft Single Family Res to the N Commercial to N Distance 30 15
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.068 0.191
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.058 0.164
Static Roller 0.05 0.038 0.108
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.002 0.006
Vibration @ 25 ft Single Family Res to the NW Single Family Res to the NE Distance 70 26
Vibratory Roller 0.21 0.045 0.198

Appendix D
California Emissions Estimator Model Results
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 1 / 66
881 Castro Street Project v2 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 Y ear, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition - phase I (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Demolition - phase I (2026) - Unmitigated

3.5. Demolition - Phase II (2026) - Unmitigated

3.7. Site Preparation - Phase I (2026) - Unmitigated

3.9. Site Preparation - Phase II (2026) - Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 2 / 66

3.11. Grading - Phase I (2026) - Unmitigated

3.13. Grading - Phase II (2027) - Unmitigated

3.15. Building Construction -Phase I (2026) - Unmitigated

3.17. Building Construction -Phase I (2027) - Unmitigated

3.19. Building Construction -Phase II (2027) - Unmitigated

3.21. Building Construction -Phase II (2028) - Unmitigated

3.23. Paving - Phase I (2027) - Unmitigated

3.25. Paving - Phase II (2028) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 3 / 66

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 4 / 66

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 5 / 66

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 6 / 66

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

6.1. Climate Risk Summary

6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores

6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores

7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores

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
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 7 / 66

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name 881 Castro Street Project v2
Construction Start Date 12/1/2025
Operational Y ear 2028
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.70
Precipitation (days) 32.8
Location 881 Castro St, Mountain View, CA 94041, USA
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 2022.1.1.29

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq
ft)
Population Description
Apartments Mid
Rise
140 Dwelling Unit 0.00 283,124 8,757 — 419 —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 8 / 66
Strip Mall 9.78 1000sqft 0.00 9,776 0.00 — — —
Enclosed Parking
with Ele
vator
200 Space 1.31 96,040 0.00 — — —

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

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. 2.09 1.80 13.6 26.6 0.05 0.45 1.85 2.29 0.41 0.43 0.83 — 7,418 7,418 0.48 0.80 10.6 7,679 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.26 1.79 15.9 30.7 0.06 0.45 2.39 2.84 0.42 0.57 1.00 — 8,438 8,438 0.43 0.59 0.29 8,624 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.47 1.20 9.79 16.0 0.03 0.31 1.37 1.67 0.28 0.33 0.61 — 4,196 4,196 0.19 0.26 2.63 4,281 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.27 0.22 1.79 2.91 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 695 695 0.03 0.04 0.43 709

2.2. Construction Emissions by Y ear, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Y ear TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 9 / 66
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2026 2.09 1.80 13.6 26.6 0.05 0.45 1.85 2.29 0.41 0.43 0.83 — 7,418 7,418 0.48 0.80 10.6 7,679 2027 1.88 1.59 11.9 19.8 0.04 0.39 1.46 1.85 0.35 0.35 0.71 — 5,362 5,362 0.31 0.41 5.98 5,496 2028 1.54 1.29 9.78 14.2 0.02 0.32 1.42 1.74 0.29 0.34 0.63 — 3,517 3,517 0.12 0.14 5.23 3,567 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.46 0.40 3.48 11.6 0.02 0.09 0.41 0.51 0.09 0.08 0.17 — 2,211 2,211 0.10 0.06 0.03 2,232 2026 2.02 1.69 12.9 21.3 0.03 0.45 1.52 1.97 0.41 0.37 0.78 — 4,632 4,632 0.18 0.20 0.18 4,697 2027 2.26 1.79 15.9 30.7 0.06 0.45 2.39 2.84 0.42 0.57 1.00 — 8,438 8,438 0.43 0.59 0.29 8,624 2028 1.52 1.27 9.92 13.5 0.02 0.32 1.42 1.74 0.29 0.34 0.63 — 3,432 3,432 0.13 0.18 0.14 3,488 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.85 < 0.005 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 — 161 161 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 163 2026 1.22 0.98 8.25 15.3 0.03 0.26 1.06 1.32 0.24 0.25 0.49 — 3,785 3,785 0.18 0.23 2.22 3,859 2027 1.47 1.20 9.79 16.0 0.03 0.31 1.37 1.67 0.28 0.33 0.61 — 4,196 4,196 0.19 0.26 2.63 4,281 2028 0.94 0.78 6.18 8.47 0.01 0.20 0.81 1.01 0.18 0.19 0.37 — 2,082 2,082 0.08 0.10 1.31 2,116 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.7 26.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 26.9 2026 0.22 0.18 1.51 2.79 0.01 0.05 0.19 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.09 — 627 627 0.03 0.04 0.37 639 2027 0.27 0.22 1.79 2.91 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.31 0.05 0.06 0.11 — 695 695 0.03 0.04 0.43 709 2028 0.17 0.14 1.13 1.54 < 0.005 0.04 0.15 0.18 0.03 0.04 0.07 — 345 345 0.01 0.02 0.22 350

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 10 / 66
Unmit. 11.9 11.5 3.54 33.5 0.06 0.18 4.97 5.15 0.17 1.26 1.44 72.1 7,926 7,998 7.60 0.24 17.2 8,276 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.2 9.92 3.72 19.7 0.06 0.17 4.97 5.14 0.17 1.26 1.43 72.1 7,576 7,648 7.62 0.26 2.48 7,918 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 10.8 10.5 2.31 24.8 0.05 0.06 4.87 4.93 0.06 1.23 1.30 72.1 5,928 6,000 7.58 0.25 8.60 6,271 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.97 1.92 0.42 4.52 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 0.01 0.23 0.24 11.9 981 993 1.25 0.04 1.42 1,038

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.72 2.53 1.72 20.2 0.05 0.03 4.97 5.00 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,186 5,186 0.20 0.20 15.1 5,265 Area 9.11 8.93 1.50 13.1 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,794 1,794 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,796 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 925 925 0.12 0.01 — 931 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 20.6 31.4 1.11 0.03 — 67.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 61.4 0.00 61.4 6.13 0.00 — 215 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.09 2.09
Total 11.9 11.5 3.54 33.5 0.06 0.18 4.97 5.15 0.17 1.26 1.44 72.1 7,926 7,998 7.60 0.24 17.2 8,276 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.62 2.42 2.01 18.9 0.05 0.03 4.97 5.00 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 4,877 4,877 0.23 0.22 0.39 4,948 Area 7.56 7.48 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 0.00 1,754 1,754 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,756 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 11 / 66
Energy 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 925 925 0.12 0.01 — 931 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 20.6 31.4 1.11 0.03 — 67.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 61.4 0.00 61.4 6.13 0.00 — 215 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.09 2.09
Total 10.2 9.92 3.72 19.7 0.06 0.17 4.97 5.14 0.17 1.26 1.43 72.1 7,576 7,648 7.62 0.26 2.48 7,918 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 2.59 2.39 1.89 18.4 0.05 0.03 4.87 4.90 0.03 1.23 1.26 — 4,919 4,919 0.22 0.21 6.52 4,993 Area 8.17 8.12 0.09 6.21 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 0.00 63.1 63.1 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 63.2 Energy 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 925 925 0.12 0.01 — 931 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 20.6 31.4 1.11 0.03 — 67.0 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 61.4 0.00 61.4 6.13 0.00 — 215 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.09 2.09
Total 10.8 10.5 2.31 24.8 0.05 0.06 4.87 4.93 0.06 1.23 1.30 72.1 5,928 6,000 7.58 0.25 8.60 6,271 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.47 0.44 0.35 3.36 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.89 0.01 0.23 0.23 — 814 814 0.04 0.03 1.08 827 Area 1.49 1.48 0.02 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 Energy 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 153 153 0.02 < 0.005 — 154 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 1.78 3.42 5.20 0.18 < 0.005 — 11.1 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 10.2 0.00 10.2 1.02 0.00 — 35.6 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35
Total 1.97 1.92 0.42 4.52 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.90 0.01 0.23 0.24 11.9 981 993 1.25 0.04 1.42 1,038

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition - phase I (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 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 12 / 66
Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.39 0.36 3.10 11.0 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,847 1,847 0.07 0.01 — 1,853 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.24 0.24 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.23 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 < 0.005 0.04 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 22.3 22.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 22.3 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 13 / 66
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 99.2 99.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 101 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 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 265 265 0.02 0.04 0.01 278 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.30 7.30 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.41 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 19.3 19.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 20.3 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.21 1.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.23 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.19 3.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.35

3.3. Demolition - phase I (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 14 / 66
1,853—0.010.071,8471,847—0.08—0.080.08—0.080.0211.03.070.350.38Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.24 0.24 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.03 0.03 0.22 0.80 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 135 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.4 97.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 98.7 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 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 15 / 66
Hauling 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.07 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 260 260 0.02 0.04 0.01 273 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 7.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.27 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.9 18.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 19.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.19 1.19 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.13 3.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 3.29

3.5. Demolition - Phase II (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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.38 0.35 3.07 11.0 0.02 0.08 — 0.08 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,847 1,847 0.07 0.01 — 1,853 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.25 0.25 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 16 / 66
269—< 0.0050.01268268—0.01—0.010.01—0.01< 0.0051.600.450.050.06Off-Roa d
Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.04 0.04 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.08 0.29 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 44.4 44.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 44.5 Demoliti
on
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 107 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 0.03 0.01 0.34 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 0.08 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 — 275 275 0.02 0.04 0.57 289 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 14.3 14.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 14.5 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.0 40.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.04 42.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.37 2.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.40 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 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 17 / 66
Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.62 6.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 6.95

3.7. Site Preparation - Phase I (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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.36 0.31 2.51 6.80 0.01 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 1,026 1,026 0.04 0.01 — 1,029 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.05 0.04 0.34 0.93 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 141 141 0.01 < 0.005 — 141 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 18 / 66
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.06 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.3 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.4 97.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 98.7 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 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.5 13.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 13.7 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.23 2.23 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.26 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

3.9. Site Preparation - Phase II (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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 19 / 66
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.10 0.09 0.72 1.96 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.02 — 0.02 — 295 295 0.01 < 0.005 — 296 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 20 / 66
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.13 0.36 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 48.9 48.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.0 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 107 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 0.03 0.03 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 97.4 97.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 98.7 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 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.3 28.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 28.7 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 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.69 4.69 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.76 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 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 21 / 66

3.11. Grading - Phase I (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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.42 0.39 2.72 14.9 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.09 — 0.09 — 2,440 2,440 0.10 0.02 — 2,448 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.06 0.39 2.13 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 348 348 0.01 < 0.005 — 349 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 22 / 66

57.8—< 0.005< 0.00557.657.6—< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.005—< 0.005< 0.0050.390.070.010.01Off-Roa d
Equipm
ent
Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.04 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 168 168 < 0.005 0.01 0.61 171 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 0.49 0.10 5.91 2.91 0.03 0.06 1.27 1.33 0.06 0.35 0.41 — 4,810 4,810 0.38 0.77 10.0 5,060 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 22.4 22.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 22.8 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 0.07 0.01 0.87 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 685 685 0.05 0.11 0.62 720 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.71 3.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 3.77 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 0.01 < 0.005 0.16 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 113 113 0.01 0.02 0.10 119

3.13. Grading - Phase II (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 23 / 66
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.41 0.38 2.69 14.9 0.02 0.09 — 0.09 0.08 — 0.08 — 2,440 2,440 0.10 0.02 — 2,449 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.02 0.02 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.11 0.76 4.21 0.01 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 689 689 0.03 0.01 — 691 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.05 0.05 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 24 / 66
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.02 0.02 0.14 0.77 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 114 114 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 114 Dust
From
Mater
ial
Movement
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.04 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 165 165 < 0.005 0.01 0.55 168 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 0.23 0.05 2.87 1.44 0.02 0.03 0.64 0.67 0.03 0.18 0.21 — 2,373 2,373 0.19 0.38 4.65 2,494 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 153 153 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 155 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 0.23 0.05 3.04 1.45 0.02 0.03 0.64 0.67 0.03 0.18 0.21 — 2,374 2,374 0.19 0.38 0.12 2,490 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 43.6 43.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.07 44.3 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 0.06 0.01 0.84 0.41 < 0.005 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.01 0.05 0.06 — 670 670 0.05 0.11 0.57 703 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.22 7.22 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.33 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 25 / 66
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 0.01 < 0.005 0.15 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 0.02 0.09 116

3.15. Building Construction -Phase I (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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.10 0.93 8.80 8.89 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.10 0.93 8.80 8.89 0.02 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.55 0.47 4.42 4.47 0.01 0.17 — 0.17 0.16 — 0.16 — 768 768 0.03 0.01 — 771 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 26 / 66
Off-Roa
Equipment

0.10 0.08 0.81 0.82 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 127 127 0.01 < 0.005 — 128 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.47 0.46 0.31 5.50 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,213 1,213 0.02 0.05 4.43 1,232 Vendor 0.08 0.03 1.06 0.52 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 857 857 0.05 0.13 2.09 897 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 0.45 0.40 0.40 4.70 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,124 1,124 0.03 0.05 0.11 1,139 Vendor 0.08 0.02 1.12 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 857 857 0.05 0.13 0.05 896 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 0.22 0.20 0.18 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.59 0.00 0.14 0.14 — 571 571 0.01 0.02 0.96 579 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.55 0.26 < 0.005 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.01 0.03 0.04 — 431 431 0.02 0.06 0.45 450 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 94.5 94.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 95.9 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 71.3 71.3 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 74.6 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

3.17. Building Construction -Phase I (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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 27 / 66
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.06 0.90 8.66 8.86 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.22 0.19 1.83 1.87 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.06 — 0.06 — 323 323 0.01 < 0.005 — 324 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.04 0.03 0.33 0.34 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 53.5 53.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 53.7 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.43 0.39 0.36 4.39 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,103 1,103 0.03 0.05 0.10 1,118 Vendor 0.07 0.02 1.07 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 840 840 0.05 0.13 0.05 878 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 28 / 66
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 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.06 0.06 — 236 236 < 0.005 0.01 0.36 239 Vendor 0.02 0.01 0.22 0.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 0.01 0.02 — 177 177 0.01 0.03 0.17 186 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 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 39.0 39.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.06 39.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 29.4 29.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 30.7 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

3.19. Building Construction -Phase II (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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.06 0.90 8.66 8.86 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.06 0.90 8.66 8.86 0.02 0.33 — 0.33 0.30 — 0.30 — 1,528 1,528 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 29 / 66
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.61 0.52 4.98 5.10 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 879 879 0.04 0.01 — 882 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.91 0.93 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 146 146 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.45 0.40 0.30 5.14 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,191 1,191 0.02 0.05 4.00 1,209 Vendor 0.07 0.03 1.02 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 839 839 0.05 0.12 1.85 879 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 0.43 0.39 0.36 4.39 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,103 1,103 0.03 0.05 0.10 1,118 Vendor 0.07 0.02 1.07 0.51 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 840 840 0.05 0.13 0.05 878 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 0.25 0.22 0.20 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 642 642 0.01 0.03 0.99 651 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.60 0.29 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.04 0.04 — 483 483 0.03 0.07 0.46 506 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 30 / 66
Worker 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 106 106 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.16 108 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.11 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 80.0 80.0 < 0.005 0.01 0.08 83.7 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

3.21. Building Construction -Phase II (2028) - 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.04 0.88 8.55 8.85 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,529 1,529 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

1.04 0.88 8.55 8.85 0.02 0.31 — 0.31 0.28 — 0.28 — 1,529 1,529 0.06 0.01 — 1,534 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.59 0.50 4.90 5.07 0.01 0.18 — 0.18 0.16 — 0.16 — 876 876 0.04 0.01 — 879 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 31 / 66
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.11 0.09 0.89 0.93 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.43 0.38 0.26 4.84 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,170 1,170 0.02 0.01 3.59 1,177 Vendor 0.07 0.03 0.96 0.48 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 819 819 0.04 0.12 1.63 857 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 0.42 0.37 0.35 4.12 0.00 0.00 1.19 1.19 0.00 0.28 0.28 — 1,084 1,084 0.03 0.05 0.09 1,099 Vendor 0.07 0.02 1.02 0.49 0.01 0.01 0.23 0.24 0.01 0.06 0.07 — 819 819 0.04 0.12 0.04 856 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 0.24 0.21 0.18 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.16 0.16 — 628 628 0.01 0.03 0.89 637 Vendor 0.04 0.01 0.57 0.28 < 0.005 0.01 0.13 0.13 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 469 469 0.02 0.07 0.40 490 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 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 104 104 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 105 Vendor 0.01 < 0.005 0.10 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 77.7 77.7 < 0.005 0.01 0.07 81.2 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

3.23. Paving - Phase I (2027) - Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 32 / 66
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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.18 1.88 2.57 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.04 — 0.04 — 343 343 0.01 < 0.005 — 344 Paving 0.07 0.07 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.03 0.03 0.27 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 48.8 48.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 49.0 Paving 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 < 0.005 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 8.09 8.09 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.11 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 33 / 66
——————————————————Daily,
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 41.3 41.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.14 41.9 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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.51 5.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 5.59 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 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.91 0.91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.93 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

3.25. Paving - Phase II (2028) - 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.18 1.86 2.57 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 343 343 0.01 < 0.005 — 344 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 34 / 66
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.21 0.18 1.86 2.57 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 343 343 0.01 < 0.005 — 344 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.06 0.05 0.53 0.73 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 97.7 97.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 98.0 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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-Roa
d
Equipm
ent

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 Onsite
truc
k

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 40.6 40.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 40.8 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 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 37.6 37.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 38.1 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 35 / 66
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 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.8 10.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 11.0 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 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.79 1.79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.82 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
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.68 1.57 1.01 11.8 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.85 0.02 0.72 0.74 — 2,966 2,966 0.12 0.12 8.60 3,012 Strip
Mall

1.04 0.96 0.70 8.43 0.02 0.01 2.14 2.15 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,221 2,221 0.08 0.08 6.49 2,253 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 36 / 66

0.000.000.000.000.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Enclose d
Par
king
with
Elevator
Total 2.72 2.53 1.72 20.2 0.05 0.03 4.97 5.00 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 5,186 5,186 0.20 0.20 15.1 5,265 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

1.62 1.50 1.18 11.2 0.03 0.02 2.84 2.85 0.02 0.72 0.74 — 2,790 2,790 0.14 0.13 0.22 2,831 Strip
Mall

1.00 0.92 0.83 7.76 0.02 0.01 2.14 2.15 0.01 0.54 0.55 — 2,087 2,087 0.09 0.09 0.17 2,116 Enclose
d
Par
king
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 Total 2.62 2.42 2.01 18.9 0.05 0.03 4.97 5.00 0.03 1.26 1.29 — 4,877 4,877 0.23 0.22 0.39 4,948 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.29 0.27 0.20 1.97 0.01 <

0.005 0.51 0.51 < 0.005 0.13 0.13 — 466 466 0.02 0.02 0.62 473 Strip
Mall

0.18 0.17 0.14 1.38 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 0.38 < 0.005 0.10 0.10 — 349 349 0.01 0.01 0.46 354 Enclose
d
Par
king
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 Total 0.47 0.44 0.35 3.36 0.01 0.01 0.89 0.89 0.01 0.23 0.23 — 814 814 0.04 0.03 1.08 827

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 37 / 66
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.04 0.01 — 270
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 46.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 47.1
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.03 < 0.005 — 200
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 512 512 0.08 0.01 — 517
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 267 267 0.04 0.01 — 270
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 46.7 46.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 47.1
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 198 198 0.03 < 0.005 — 200
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 512 512 0.08 0.01 — 517
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — 44.2 44.2 0.01 <

0.005 — 44.6
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.73 7.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.81 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 38 / 66
Enclose
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — — 32.8 32.8 0.01 < 0.005 — 33.1
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 84.7 84.7 0.01 < 0.005 — 85.6

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.02 0.31 0.13 <

0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 395 395 0.03 < 0.005 — 396 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 Enclose
d
Par
king
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 Total 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 413 413 0.04 < 0.005 — 414 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.04 0.02 0.31 0.13 <

0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 395 395 0.03 < 0.005 — 396 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 39 / 66

0.00—0.000.000.000.00—0.00—0.000.00—0.000.000.000.000.000.00Enclose d
Par
king
with
Elevator
Total 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 413 413 0.04 < 0.005 — 414 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise

0.01 <

0.005 0.06 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 65.4 65.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 65.6 Strip
Mall
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 2.96 2.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.96 Enclose
d
Par
king
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 Total 0.01 < 0.005 0.06 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 68.4 68.4 0.01 < 0.005 — 68.5

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.16 0.08 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 0.00 1,754 1,754 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,756 Consum
er
Product
s

6.27 6.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 40 / 66
————————————————1.131.13Architect
ural
Coating
s
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

1.55 1.45 0.11 12.6 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 40.2 40.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 40.3 Total 9.11 8.93 1.50 13.1 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.12 — 0.12 0.00 1,794 1,794 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,796 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.16 0.08 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 0.00 1,754 1,754 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,756 Consum
er
Product
s

6.27 6.27 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

1.13 1.13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 7.56 7.48 1.38 0.59 0.01 0.11 — 0.11 0.11 — 0.11 0.00 1,754 1,754 0.03 < 0.005 — 1,756 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 7.16 7.16 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.17 Consum
er
Product
s

1.14 1.14 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s

0.21 0.21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent

0.14 0.13 0.01 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.28 3.28 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.29 Total 1.49 1.48 0.02 1.13 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 0.00 10.4 10.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.5 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 41 / 66

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 Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.34 14.2 21.5 0.76 0.02 — 45.8
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 6.46 9.88 0.35 0.01 — 21.2
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 20.6 31.4 1.11 0.03 — 67.0 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 7.34 14.2 21.5 0.76 0.02 — 45.8
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 3.42 6.46 9.88 0.35 0.01 — 21.2
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.8 20.6 31.4 1.11 0.03 — 67.0 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 42 / 66
Apartme
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 1.22 2.35 3.56 0.13 < 0.005 — 7.59 Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.57 1.07 1.64 0.06 < 0.005 — 3.51 Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 1.78 3.42 5.20 0.18 < 0.005 — 11.1

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 55.8 0.00 55.8 5.58 0.00 — 195
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.53 0.00 5.53 0.55 0.00 — 19.4
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 61.4 0.00 61.4 6.13 0.00 — 215 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 43 / 66
195—0.005.5855.80.0055.8———————————Apartme
nts
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 5.53 0.00 5.53 0.55 0.00 — 19.4
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 61.4 0.00 61.4 6.13 0.00 — 215 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — 9.25 0.00 9.25 0.92 0.00 — 32.3
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.92 0.00 0.92 0.09 0.00 — 3.20
Enclose
d
Par
king
with
Elevator
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 10.2 0.00 10.2 1.02 0.00 — 35.6

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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 2.03
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 44 / 66
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.09 2.09
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.03 2.03
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.06 0.06
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.09 2.09
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Apartme
nts
Mid Rise
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.34 0.34
Strip
Mall
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.35 0.35

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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 45 / 66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
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. 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) Equipm
ent
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 46 / 66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
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)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 47 / 66
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species 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 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 48 / 66
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
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 - phase I Demolition 12/1/2025 1/31/2026 6.00 54.0 — Demolition - Phase II Demolition 7/1/2026 8/31/2026 6.00 53.0 — Site Preparation - Phase I Site Preparation 2/1/2026 3/31/2026 6.00 50.0 — Site Preparation - Phase
II
Site Preparation 9/1/2026 12/31/2026 6.00 105 —
Grading - Phase I Grading 4/1/2026 5/31/2026 6.00 52.0 — Grading - Phase II Grading 1/1/2027 4/30/2027 6.00 103 — Building Construction
-Phase I
Building
Construction 6/1/2026 3/31/2027 6.00 261 —
Building Construction
-Phase II
Building
Construction 5/1/2027 8/31/2028 6.00 419 —
Paving - Phase I Paving 4/1/2027 5/31/2027 6.00 52.0 —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 49 / 66
Paving - Phase II Paving 9/1/2028 12/31/2028 6.00 104 —

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 - phase I Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel A verage 0.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition - phase I Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition - phase I Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition - phase I Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 281 0.38 Demolition - phase I Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Demolition - phase I Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Demolition - Phase II Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel A
verage 0.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Demolition - Phase II Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 367 0.40 Demolition - Phase II Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition - Phase II Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 281 0.38 Demolition - Phase II Skid Steer Loaders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 71.0 0.37 Demolition - Phase II Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Site Preparation -
Phase I
Gr
aders Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation -
Phase I
Rub
ber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation -
Phase I
T
ractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation -
Phase I
Bore/Dr
ill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Site Preparation -
Phase I
Plate
Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 50 / 66
Site Preparation -
Phase I
Sw eepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Site Preparation -
Phase II
Gr
aders Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 148 0.41
Site Preparation -
Phase II
Rub
ber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 7.00 367 0.40
Site Preparation -
Phase II
T
ractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Site Preparation -
Phase II
Bore/Dr
ill Rigs Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 83.0 0.50
Site Preparation -
Phase II
Plate
Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43
Site Preparation -
Phase II
Sw
eepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Grading - Phase I Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading - Phase I Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading - Phase I Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase I Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase I Plate Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading - Phase I Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 281 0.38 Grading - Phase I Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Grading - Phase I Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Grading - Phase II Graders Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 6.00 148 0.41 Grading - Phase II Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 367 0.40 Grading - Phase II Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase II Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Grading - Phase II Plate Compactors Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 8.00 0.43 Grading - Phase II Excavators Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 281 0.38 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 51 / 66
Grading - Phase II Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38 Grading - Phase II Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Building Construction
-Phase I
Cr anes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
-Phase I
F
orklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
-Phase I
Gener
ator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
-Phase I
T
ractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
-Phase I
W
elders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 16.0 0.51
Building Construction
-Phase I
Cement
and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A verage 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction
-Phase I
Air
Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.56
Building Construction
-Phase I
Pumps Diesel A
verage 1.00 4.00 6.00 0.69
Building Construction
-Phase I
Sw
eepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Building Construction
-Phase II
Cr
anes Diesel Tier 3 1.00 4.00 367 0.29
Building Construction
-Phase II
F
orklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
-Phase II
Gener
ator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 82.0 0.20
Building Construction
-Phase II
T
ractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction
-Phase II
W
elders Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 16.0 0.51
Building Construction
-Phase II
Cement
and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A verage 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Building Construction
-Phase II
Air
Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.56
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 52 / 66
Building Construction
-Phase II
Pumps Diesel A verage 1.00 4.00 6.00 0.69
Building Construction
-Phase II
Sw
eepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46
Paving - Phase I Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A
verage 0.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving - Phase I Pavers Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 81.0 0.42 Paving - Phase I Paving Equipment Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving - Phase I Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Paving - Phase I Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving - Phase I Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Paving - Phase II Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel A
verage 0.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving - Phase II Pavers Diesel Average 0.00 6.00 81.0 0.42 Paving - Phase II Paving Equipment Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving - Phase II Rollers Diesel Tier 4 Final 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46 Paving - Phase II Tractors/Loaders/Back
hoes
Diesel Average 0.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving - Phase II Sweepers/Scrubbers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 36.0 0.46

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition - phase I — — — —
Demolition - phase I Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - phase I Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - phase I Hauling 3.70 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - phase I Onsite truck — — HHDT
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 53 / 66
Site Preparation - Phase I — — — —
Site Preparation - Phase I Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation - Phase I Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation - Phase I Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase I Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading - Phase I — — — —
Grading - Phase I Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading - Phase I Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading - Phase I Hauling 68.5 20.0 HHDT
Grading - Phase I Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction -Phase I — — — —
Building Construction -Phase I Worker 144 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction -Phase I Vendor 32.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction -Phase I Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction -Phase I Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving - Phase I — — — —
Paving - Phase I Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving - Phase I Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving - Phase I Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving - Phase I Onsite truck — — HHDT
Demolition - Phase II — — — —
Demolition - Phase II Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition - Phase II Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition - Phase II Hauling 3.92 20.0 HHDT
Demolition - Phase II Onsite truck — — HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase II — — — —
Site Preparation - Phase II Worker 12.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Site Preparation - Phase II Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 54 / 66
Site Preparation - Phase II Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation - Phase II Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading - Phase II — — — —
Grading - Phase II Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading - Phase II Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading - Phase II Hauling 34.6 20.0 HHDT
Grading - Phase II Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction -Phase II — — — —
Building Construction -Phase II Worker 144 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2 Building Construction -Phase II Vendor 32.3 8.40 HHDT,MHDT Building Construction -Phase II Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction -Phase II Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving - Phase II — — — —
Paving - Phase II Worker 5.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving - Phase II Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving - Phase II Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving - Phase II Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

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

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq
ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 55 / 66

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition - phase I 0.00 0.00 0.00 600 —
Demolition - Phase II 0.00 0.00 0.00 620 —
Site Preparation - Phase I — — 0.00 0.00 —
Site Preparation - Phase II — — 0.00 0.00 —
Grading - Phase I 0.00 21,375 52.0 0.00 —
Grading - Phase II 0.00 21,375 103 0.00 —
Paving - Phase I 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31
Paving - Phase II 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31

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

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Apartments Mid Rise — 0%
Strip Mall 0.00 0%
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 1.31 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Y ear and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Y ear kWh per Y ear CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 56 / 66
2027 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2028 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/Y ear VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Y ear Apartments Mid
Rise
545 545 545 198,925 4,022 4,022 4,022 1,468,021
Strip Mall 316 316 316 115,340 3,032 3,032 3,032 1,106,711 Enclosed Parking
with Ele
vator

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated
Hearth Type Unmitigated (number)
Apartments Mid Rise —
Wood Fireplaces 0
Gas Fireplaces 71
Propane Fireplaces 0
Electric Fireplaces 0
No Fireplaces 69
Conventional Wood Stoves 0
Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 0
Pellet Wood Stoves 0
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 57 / 66

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)
573326.1 191,109 17,232 5,173 3,424

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Apartments Mid Rise 477,603 204 0.0330 0.0040 1,232,570 Strip Mall 83,536 204 0.0330 0.0040 55,709
Enclosed Parking with
Elev
ator
354,525 204 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) Apartments Mid Rise 3,832,500 114,420
Strip Mall 1,784,120 0.00
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 0.00 0.00
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 58 / 66

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Apartments Mid Rise 104 —
Strip Mall 10.3 —
Enclosed Parking with Elevator 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 Apartments Mid Rise Average room A/C &
Other residential
A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 2.50 2.50 10.0
Apartments Mid Rise Household
refriger
ators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.12 0.60 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Other commercial A/C
and heat
pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Strip Mall Stand-alone retail
refriger
ators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00
Strip Mall Walk-in refrigerators
and freez
ers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

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 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 59 / 66

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) 881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 60 / 66

6. Climate Risk Detailed Report

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

Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 12.7 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 4.40 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 8.55 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observ
ed 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 in
undation 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 1 0 0 N/A
Sea Level Rise 1 0 0 N/A
Wildfire 1 0 0 N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 0 0 0 N/A
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 61 / 66
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 1 1 1 2
Sea Level Rise 1 1 1 2
Wildfire 1 1 1 2
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought N/A N/A N/A N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation 1 1 1 2
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest
exposure.

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

6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures

7. Health and Equity Details

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

Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 14.9
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 62 / 66
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
Economic —
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 63 / 66
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 —
Insured adults 91.18439625
Arthritis 96.2
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 64 / 66
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
Elderly 62.6
English Speaking 85.1
Foreign-born 56.2
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 65 / 66
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.

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
881 Castro Street Project v2 Detailed Report, 2/20/2025 66 / 66
Screen Justification
Land Use Based on applicant provided information
Construction: Construction Phases Based on applicant provided information Construction: Trips and VMT The haul trucks will each have a capacity of 12 cubic yards.

Construction: Off-Road Equipment Based on applicant provided information Construction: Dust From Material Movement based on applicant provided information. Split the export quantities into the two phases.

Operations: Hearths No fireplaces
Operations: Vehicle Data Based on the transportation study provided by Hexagons. The project would generate 861 gross
daily trips.

Operations: Water and Waste Water Based on applicant provided information

Appendix E
Utility Impact Study

MEMORANDUM

TO: George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) DATE: December 2, 2024

FROM: Leif Coponen, PE; Brett Crews, PE JOB#: RNCN.07.24

SUBJECT: 881 Castro St – Utility Impact Study (DRAFT)

Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants Inc. has retained Schaaf & Wheeler to determine impacts from the 881 Castro St (Castro Commons) Project (Project) on the City of Mountain View’s (City) potable water and sanitary sewer systems.

This memorandum and its findings will be used to assist the City with planning efforts. The Project site is located on the eastern side of Castro Street just North of W El Camino Real . The Project proposes to construct an 8 -story mixed -use building with 140 dwelling units , 9,776 square feet of commercial retail/restaurant space, and two stories of below-grade parking. The new building will be replacing five existing single story commercial buildings and one existing two-story apartment complex. The Project site encompasses a total area of 1.31-acres. The Project area encompasses six existing parcels, APN 158-06- 008, APN 158 -06-010, APN 158 -06-036, APN 158 -06-037, APN 158 -06-038, and APN 158-06-039. The Project site is shown in Figure 1.

This memo is a confirmation of existing studies and does not include a detailed impact study. The incremental difference in potable water demand and sanitary sewer flow is estimated for the proposed Project development and the impact of the incremental differences on the utility systems are evaluated for both an Existing and Future Cumulative Condition. The Existing Condition is evaluated to determine any Project impacts on the City’s utility systems with current infrastructure and current land use throughout the City. The Future Cumulative Condition is evaluated to determine any Project impacts on the City’s utility systems with future planned infrastructure and future planned land use and growth. Previous technical studies encompassing the Project area include: 2022 Water Master Plan (WMP) and 2022 Sewer Master Plan (SMP). Projected potable water demand and sanitary sewer flow generation for the proposed mixed use Project are based on updated unit duty factors determined as part of the North Bayshore Precise Plan Phase II (NBPPPII) Utility Impact Study (Schaaf & Wheeler, October 2016).

Based on the findings and recom mendations of the previous technical studies, the Project does not contribute to additional deficiencies in the water system. The proposed Project increases the total base water demand for the site by 17,923 gpd under the modeled Existing Conditions and by 13,863 gpd under the modeled Future Cumulative Conditions. The system is sufficient to maintain minimum pressures under peak hour demand (PHD) with and without the Project demand in the Existing and Future Condition. There is sufficient capacity in the water system to serve fire flows at and around the Project site in the Existing & Future Condition. The Project does not worsen existing deficiencies no r contribute to new deficiencies .

There is one CIP, CIP 16 , and two Annual Replacement Projects, AR 1 -5, south of the Project from the 2022 WMP. These CIPs are to address deficiencies near the Project site; however, they are not necessary to serve the Project . The associated Project water demands do not significantly impact the water system in the Existing nor Future Cumulative Condition. The City’s water system is sufficient to support the increased modeled demands.

Schaaf & Wheeler

CONSULT ING CIVIL ENGINEERS
4699 Old Ironsides Dr., Suite 350
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1860
t. 408-246-4848
[email protected]
George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) December 2, 2024

Schaaf & Wheeler Page 2

Based on the findings and recommendations of the previous technical studies, the Project does not contribute to additional deficiencies in the sewer system . There are no deficiencies along the flow path in the Existing Condition nor in the Future Cumulative Condition pre- and post-Project. The proposed Project increases the total base sewer generation for the site by 13,608 gpd under the modeled Existing Conditions and 11,054 gpd under the modeled Future Cumulative Conditions. There are no CIPs in the 2022 SMP that outline upsizing pipes along the pipes in the flow path. Under both the Existing and Future Condition, 312 linear feet (LF) of the project’s conveyance path was found to be surcharged, however following the City’s minimum freeboard criteria the surcharged pipe segment is not considered deficient. The increased Project sewer flows do not significantly impact the sewer system.

Introduction
The Project proposes to construct a mixed-use development with 140 dwelling units and 9,776 square feet of commercial restaurant and retail . This study assumes half of the commercial space is retail and half is restaurant. This study estimates the incremental difference in water demand and sewer flow resulting from Project development and evaluates impacts compared to previous study findings . The incremental difference is added to the City’s computer models for Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions . The Existing and Future Cumulative Conditions use the City’s models developed as part of the 2022 WMP and SMP. Projected increases in demands across the City in the Future Cumulative Condition model are consistent with growth projections from the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the planning horizon year 2030.

Water System Impact
Incremental Project Contribution
The incremental difference in Average Daily Demand (ADD) with the Project is 17,923 gpd greater than the Existing demand and 13,863 gpd greater than the Future Cumulative demand allocated in the models.

The site is currently occupied by five existing single story commercial buildings and one existing two-story apartment complex. The ADD is an estimated daily average demand based on totalized annual water use.

Project water demand is esti mated from the dwelling units provided in the Project Drawings dated September 2024. Unit counts were further updated based on correspondence in November 2024. Table 1 shows the Project demand estimation using water unit duty factor s from Table 2 -2 in the NBPPPII UIS .

Table 2 presents the water demand in the City’s hydraulic models for the Existing Condition, and Table 3 shows the water demand for the Future Cumulative Condition. The Project site’s potable and fire water demand is serviced by one 12-inch water main along Castro Street and one 12-inch water main along Hope Street. The Project is in the City’s Pressure Zone 2.

Table 1: Project Estimated Water Demand
Address Individual Use Dwelling Units/
Square Footage
Water Duty Factor Water Demand
(gpd)
881 Castro St
High-Density
Residential 140 DU 100 gpd/DU 14,000
Retail 4,888 SF 130 gpd/1000 SF 635
Restaurant 4,888 SF 1,200 gpd/1000 SF 5,866
Total 20,501
George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) December 2, 2024

Schaaf & Wheeler Page 3

Table 2: Existing Model Water Demand
APN Land Use
Modeled Water Demand
(gpd)
158-06-008 Commercial 864
158-06-010 Commercial 547
158-06-036 High-Density Residential 360
158-06-037 Public Facility 187
158-06-038 Mixed Use 475
158-06-039 Office 144
Total 2,578

Table 3: Future Cumulative Model Water Demand
APN Land Use
Modeled Water Demand
(gpd)
158-06-008 Commercial 2,506
158-06-010 Commercial 1,598
158-06-036 High-Density Residential 403
158-06-037 Public Facility 1,094
158-06-038 Mixed Use 518
158-06-039 Office 518
Total 6,638

Fire Flow Requirement
The anticipated Project-specific fire flow requirement at the site is based on the 2022 California Fire Code (CFC) Appendix B, which gives the minimum fire flow requirement based on fire-flow area and building construction type. Construction type and estimated floor area for the Project and existing buildings are taken from the Project Plan Set dated September 2024. Based on the California State Fire Marshal Code Interpretation 11-015 for mixed use construction, the fire flow requirement for the proposed buildings is estimated using a percentage approach between Type IV-B construction proposed for the multi-family residential levels (Floors 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8) and Type I-A for first two floors and underground parking garage. After Project development, the Project specific required fire flow at the site is anticipated to be 3,128 gpm, utilizing a 50% reduction in fire flow because the building is equipped with automatic sprinklers.

Adjacent parcels to the Project have a planning-level required fire flow of 3,500 gpm at the same model nodes. The modeled fire flow was therefore not modified from 3,500 gpm at the nodes to ensure adjacent parcels’ requirements were met for planning purposes.

Model Results
The water system is evaluated under Peak Hour Demand (PHD) to ensure a minimum pressure of 40 psi can be maintained per the City’s design performance criteria. A peaking factor of 1.73, taken from the 2022 WMP, is applied to the average daily water demand. There are no existing hydraulic deficiencies per the minimum pressure requirements near the Project site pre- or post-Project in either the Existing or Future Cumulative condition. The system has capacity for the increased Project demand while meeting PHD performance criteria and does not affect previous study findings.

George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) December 2, 2024
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 4
The water system is also evaluated to ensure adequate capacity is available to convey fire flows under Maximum-Day Demand (MDD) conditions while maintaining a minimum pressure of 20 psi in the system.

A peaking factor of 1.25, taken from the 2022 WMP, is applied to the ADD to represent MDD conditions for which the fire flow analysis is conducted. From the previous studies, the planning-level fire flow requirement is met at the Project site in the Existing Conditions as shown in Figur e 2. In the Existing Conditions, pre- and post-project available fire flow is 8,640 gpm at the 12-inch pipe in Castro Street and is 10,3 50 gpm at the 12-inch in Hope Street. There are multiple deficiencies to the west and south of the Project. The existing deficiencies in High School Way and W El Camino Real are due to an artificial model constraint limiting velocity to 15 ft/s. Due to modeling nuance, the further away from a larger water main, the higher the available fire flow due to how the model handles reducing flows to reduce pipe velocities. The Project demands have no impact on the available flows at these deficient locations.

The Future Cumulative Conditions planning-level fire flow requirements are met at the Project site assuming all CIPs outlined in the 2022 WMP, are constructed. In the Future Conditions, pre and post-Project available fire flow is 8,540 gpm at the 12-inch pipe in Castro Street and is 10,300 gpm at the 12-inch in Hope Street.

There are deficiencies to the west of the Project pre- and post-Project. These deficiencies are due to the same modeling nuance to account for velocity criteria. The Project does not have any impact on the available flows at the deficient nodes. There is one CIP, CIP 16 and two Annual Replacement Projects, AR 1-5, south of the Project from the 2022 WMP. These CIPs are to address deficiencies near the Project site; however, they are not necessary to serve the Project.

Project Contribution to Existing Deficiencies
There are no deficiencies at the Project site in the Existing Condition nor in the Future Cumulative Condition, assuming all the CIPs outlined in the 2022 WMP have been constructed. The system has sufficient capacity to serve the Project. There are multiple deficiencies in the Existing and Future Cumulative Condition to the west and south of the Project. The Project flows have no impact on the available flows at these locations.

Sewer System Impact
Incremental Project Contribution
The incremental difference in Base Wastewater Flow (BWF) with the Project is 13,608 gpd greater than the Existing Condition flow and 11,054 gpd greater than the Future Cumulative Condition flow estimate in the computer models. Base wastewater flow (B WF) is from residential, commercial, institutional, office and industrial sources and represents a daily average for wastewate r flows and is used to model City-wide demands.

Project generated sewer flow is estimated from the number of residential units and total square footage of commercial retail/restaurant space provided in the Project Plan Set dated September 2024. Unit counts were further updated based on correspondence in November 2024. The high-density residential, retail, and restaurant sewer duty factors are used from Table 4-2 in the NBPPPII Utility Impact Study to estimate sewer flow. Table 4 provides the estimated Project sewer flow. Table 5 presents the sewer generation in the City’s hydraulic models for the Existing Condition, and Table 6 shows the sewer generation for the Future Cumulative Condition . The proposed sewer system connections are assumed to be one to the existing 6-inch SS line within Hope Street and one to the existing 10-inch SS line within Castro Street.

George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) December 2, 2024

Schaaf & Wheeler Page 5

Table 4: Project Estimated Sewer Flow
Address Individual Use Dwelling Units/
Square Footage
Generation Factor Sewer Generation
(gpd)
881 Castro St
High-Density
Residential 140 DU 75 gpd/DU 10,500
Retail 4,888 SF 100 gpd/1000 SF 489
Restaurant 4,888 SF 900 gpd/1000 SF 4,399
Total 15,388

Table 5: Existing Model Sewer Flow
APN Land Use
Modeled Sewer Demand
(gpd)
158-06-008 Commercial 605
158-06-010 Commercial 387
158-06-036 High-Density Residential 232
158-06-037 Public Facility 132
158-06-038 Mixed Use 335
158-06-039 Office 89
Total 1,780

Table 6: Future Cumulative Model Sewer Flow
APN Land Use
Modeled Sewer Demand
(gpd)
158-06-008 Mixed Use 1,642
158-06-010 Mixed Use 1,050
158-06-036 High-Density Residential 249
158-06-037 Mixed Use 719
158-06-038 Mixed Use 335
158-06-039 Mixed Use 338
Total 4,334

Model Results
The affected area of roughly 4.67 miles of gravity system evaluated for the Project impact begins at two connections, one on the west side of the project area on Castro Street, and one on the east side along Hope Street. The sewer flow collected along Castro Street continues north until reaching the West Trunk main at the intersection of Castro Street and Church Street. The sewer flow collected at the intersection of Hope St and Fairmont Avenue continues north along Hope Street, then discharging into the West Trunk Main at the intersection of Hope Street and Church Street. The flows from the two connections are then conveyed by the West Trunk Main to the Shoreline Sewage Pump Station. The Project sewer conveyance pathway is highlighted in Figure 3.

Sewer capacity is analyzed under Peak Wet Weather Flow (PWWF) and Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF). PWWF is used to determine hydraulic deficiencies according to the performance criteria in Table George Dix (Rincon Consultants Inc.) December 2, 2024
Schaaf & Wheeler Page 6
7, and ADWF is used to determine Project flow contribution when determining fair-share allocation for improvement costs. Once pipes are considered deficient, the design criteria outlined in Table 8 shall be used to size the CIP to correct the deficiency.

Table 7: Sewer System Performance Criteria
Criteria Entire System
Minimum Freeboard in Each Manhole (ft) 5.0
Table 8: CIP Design Criteria
Criteria Pipe Diameter
≤ 12 inch
Pipe Diameter
> 12 inch
Maximum Flow Depth/Pipe Diameter (d/D) 0.50 0.75
The PWWF scenario applies diurnal peaking curves for residential and non-residential flows and simulates system response as rainfall enters the system. The diurnal peaking curves are adopted from the City’s 2022 SMP. Groundwater Infiltration (GWI) and rainfall-dependent infiltration (RDI/I) are included but are not peaked. The ADWF scenario is developed in the model by adding BWF and groundwater GWI. GWI is modeled as a constant inflow and includes base infiltration (BI) and constant flows discharged to the sewer system. Since the ADWF scenario models average daily flows, BWF and GWI are not peaked.

In the Existing Condition, 312 LF of the project’s conveyance path was found to be surcharged. In the Existing Condition post-project the increased Project flow does not generate new deficiencies. All surcharged pipe along the Project’s conveyance path, under Existing Condition pre- and post-project, are not considered deficient based on the freeboard requirements listed in Table 7.

In the Future Cumulative Condition-pre project, 312 LF of the project conveyance path was found to be surcharged. In the Future Cumulative condition post-project, the increased Project flow does not generate new deficiencies. All surcharged pipe along the Projects conveyance path, under Future Cumulative Condition pre- and post-project, are not considered deficient based on the freeboard requirements listed in Table 7.

Project Contribution to Deficiencies
There are no deficiencies along the Project conveyance pathway in the Existing Condition or in the Future Cumulative Condition. The Project does not contribute to any additional deficiencies.

Project LocationFIGURE 1:
881 Castro St - Utility Impact Study
J:\RNCN\07-Castro_UIS\GEOdata\Arcmap_projects\ Printed 10/22/2024 $
0 800 1,600 Feet
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

CUESTA DR

VIEW ST

E MIDDLEFIELD RD

N WHISMAN RD

ELLIS ST

MOFFETT BLVD

E EVELYN A

FAIRCHILD DR

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

SYLVAN AVE

HANS AVE

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

DALE AVE

CALDERON AVE

OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY

L' AVENIDA AVE

W EVELYN AVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

TULANE DR

FERGUSON DR

BURGOYNE ST

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

GRETEL LN

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

WALNUT DR

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

MONTALTO DR
OAK LN

SPRING ST

E EL CAMINO REAL

NGSTORFF AVE

BERNARDO AVE

YUBA DR

RAVENDALE DR

DALMA DR

PEAR AVE

W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MORGAN ST

MARTENS AVE

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

MEADOW LN

NORTH DR

SHERLAND AVE

GILMORE ST

YALE DR

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

GOLDEN WAY

NATIONAL AVE

LIDA DR

ORANGETREE LN

HOSPITAL DR

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

INDEPEN

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

MADISON DR
LEE DR

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

PAMELA DR

PLAZA CT

COLUMBIA DR

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

DEVONSHIRE AVE

N WHISMAN DR

CORNELL DR

CRANE AVE

POST ST

BONITA AVE

CHURCH ST

VILLA ST

PARK DR

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST

E DANA ST

RENGSTORFF AVE
101
85 HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD
237

CENTRAL EXPY

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

ROCK ST

BEGEN AVE

YOSEMITE AVE

RT JONES RD
Project Location
City of Mountain View

CENTRAL EXPY
85 VILLA ST

EASY ST

MOFFETT BLVD

PETTIS AVE

W EVELYN AVE

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ESCUELA AVE

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

CENTRAL AVE

CHIQUITA AVE

WRIGHT AVE

CRISANTO AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

ORCHARD AVE

VILLA ST

HOPE ST
Legend

CITY OF

SUNNYVALE

CITY OF

LOS ALTOS
CASTR
O
ST

FAIRMONT
AVE

LANE AVE

HOPE ST

VIEW ST

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

SIERRA AVE

YOSEMITE AVE

W EL CAMINO REAL
Legend
December 2024
Fire Flow Analysis
Water System Model
FIGURE 2:
881 Castro St - Utility Impact Study
J:\RNCN\07-Castro_UIS\GEOdata\Arcmap_projects\ Printed 10/22/2024 $
0 240 480 Feet
Graham Reservoir
AR 1-3
AR 1-4
19 AR 2-2
AR 2-1
16 AR 5
AR 1-4
AR 1-4
AR 5
AR 1-2
AR 1-5
AR 1-5

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE
ST
AMM AV
E

SNOW ST

BUSH ST

VELARDE ST

MERCY ST

JESSIE LN

W DANA ST

PALO ALTO AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

CHURCH ST

MONTALTO DR

FRANKLIN ST

ANZA ST
PARKDR

TROPHY DR

LANE AVE

HOPE ST

PARK DR

YOSEMITE AVE

MARILYN DR

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

EICHLER CT BORANDA AVE

CASTRO ST

MERCY ST

BONITA AVE

PAUL AVE

PHYLLIS CT

KATIE CT

CENTRE ST

HANS AVE

LORETO ST
CAMIL
LE CT

RUSTIC LN

SHARY AVE

BRYANT ST

VIEW ST

HOPE ST
VIC

TOR WAY
EI

CHLER D
R
PE
TIE
W
AY

SONIA W
AY

FAIRMONT AVE
OAK LN

MERCY ST
ISA
BE
LLE
AVE

SIERRA AVE

MERCY ST
OAK ST
OAK ST

EHRHORN AVE

NILDA AVE

STARR W
AY

HARPSTER DR

PAMELA DR

CALDERON AVE

MIRAMONTE AVE

LATHAM ST

PHYLLIS AVE

SSHOREL
INE
BLVD

W EL CAMINO REAL
Project Location
From 2022 WMP, August 2022
Recommended CIP
Existing City Water Main
Pressure Zone 2
Fire Flow Deficiency
Legend
Project Water Nodes
Legend
December 2024
Peak Wet Weather Flow
Sewer System Model
FIGURE 3:
881 Castro St - Utility Impact Study
J:\RNCN\07-Castro_UIS\GEOdata\Arcmap_projects\ Printed 10/23/2024 $
0 890 1,780 Feet
101

CENTRAL EXPY
85 W EL CAMINO REAL

CALIFORNIA ST

VILLA ST

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

EASY ST

CASTRO ST

LATHAM ST

MIRAMONTE AVE

VIEW ST

MOFFETT BLVD

SIERRA VISTA AVE

MONTECITO AVE

CHARLESTON RD
OAK ST

N RENGSTORFF AVE

FARLEY ST

PETTIS AVE

SAN RAMON AVE

GARCIA AVE

CALDERON AVE

ALVIN ST

OLD MIDDLEFIELD WAY

L' AVENIDA AVE

W EVELYN AVE

SHOWERS DR

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

ORTEGA AVE

ESCUELA AVE

TERRA BELLA AVE

MERCY ST

STIERLIN RD

S SHORELINE BLVD

MOORPARK WAY

CENTRAL AVE

BAYSHORE PKWY

BURGOYNE ST

AMPHITHEATRE PKWY

CHIQUITA AVE

THOMPSON AVE

ALICE AVE

WRIGHT AVE

ANZA ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

HACKETT AVE

GLADYS AVE

SPRING ST

HUFF AVE

S RENGSTORFF AVE

PLYMOUTH ST

YUBA DR

CRITTENDEN LN

DALMA DR

PEAR AVE

JARDIN DR W DANA ST

CRISANTO AVE

PIONEER WAY

MARINE WAY

MORGAN ST

SHOREBIRD WAY

MORTON CT

NILDA AVE

SAN PIERRE WAY

SHERLAND

GILMORE ST

KAREN WAY

JANE LN

MARILYN DR

CASEY AVE

VELARDE ST

ERNESTINE LN

FAYETTE DR

LIDA DR

PIAZZA DR

MINARET AVE

CYPRESS POINT DR

MILLER AVE

SALADO DR

INDEPENDENCE AVE

COLLEGE AVE

HIGH SCHOOL WAY

SPACE PARK WAY

ELSIE AVE

EHRHORN AVE

SAN PABLO DR

VASSAR AVE

MAYFIELD AVE

LASSEN AVE

GLENBOROUGH DR

DOANE AVE

BLACKFIELD WAY

HOLLINGSWORTH DR

VINCENT DR

ORCHARD AVE

ORMONDE DR

LANDINGS DR

CENTRAL EXPY

N WHISMAN DR

CHURCH ST

N SHORELINE BLVD

VILLA ST

PARK DR

CHARLESTON RD

PLYMOUTH ST

SAN ANTONIO RD

LEONG DR

SPRINGER RD
BAY ST

LATHAM ST

W DANA ST
Permanente Creek
N RENGSTORFF AVE 101
Stevens Creek

HOPE ST

MOFFETT BLVD

ARMAND AVE
237

SAN LUIS AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

ROCK ST

ALTA AVE

FAIRMONT AVVE

YOSEMITE AVE

JOAQUIN AVE

RT JONES RD

PARSONS AVE
3 4
6 5
1 Recommended CIPs
Project Location
Surcharged City Sewer Main
From 2022 SMP, August 2022
City Sewer Main
Legend
Affected Sewer Conveyance Pathway
PS

SHORELINE

PUMP STATION
December 2024

Appendix F
Historic Resources Evaluation

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
99 South Almaden Boulevard
San José, California 95113
408-577-3008

w w w. r in co n co nsu ltan ts. co m
August 27, 2025
Rincon Project No. 24-16059
Edgar Maravilla, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street, #2
Mountain View, California 94041
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Historical Resources Evaluation in Support of California Environmental Quality Act Documentation for the Proposed 881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project Dear Mr. Maravilla:

Rincon Consultants , Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Mountain View (City) to prepare a historical resources evaluation memorandum in support of the proposed 881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project ( project). This study includes the methods and results of a Northwest Information Center (NWIC) records search, background and archival research, pedestrian survey , and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) , and City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources evaluation of six cultural resources. This study was conducted to determine whether the project would result in an impact to historical resources in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City is the CEQA lead agency.

Project Description
The project site is approximately 1.31 acres and includes six parcels – 700 W. El Camino Real (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 156-06-008), 750 Fairmount Avenue (APN 158-06-036), 843 Castro Street (APN 158-06-039), 871 Castro Street (APN 156-06-038), 881 Castro Street (APN 158-06-037), and 903 Castro Street (APN 158-06-010) (Figure 1, Attachment A). The project involves merging these parcels and the adjacent Fairmont right-of-way (ROW) into a single parcel for development.

Development of the project site includes demolishing five existing commercial buildings with retail and office uses, and one two-story apartment building. Following demolition of on-site structures (including utility connections, surface parking, and landscaping), the project would involve construction of a new eight-story, mixed -use building with 1 40 residential units and 13,352 square feet of ground -floor commercial space. Two levels of below-grade parking would be provided in the building.

Personnel
Architectural Historian Josh Bevan, AICP, MSHP is the primary author of this memorandum and evaluations. Senior Architectural Historian Rachel Perzel , M A, served as the project manager and reviewed this memorandum and the attached DPR 523 Series forms . Cultural Resources Principal Margo Nayyar, MA provided senior oversight and quality assurance review . Geographic Information Systems Analysts Bryan Valladares and Abby Robles prepared the figures found in this report. Mr.

Bevan, Ms. Perzel, and Ms. Nayyar meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for history and architectural history (National Park Service 1983).

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 2 ends

Methods
Cultural Resources Records Search
To identify previously conducted cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within a 0. 25-mile radius of the project site, Rincon requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the NWIC at Sonoma State University on September 4 , 2024. The CHRIS search included review of the California OHP Archaeological Determination of Eligibility (ADOE) list, which was negative. Rincon also reviewed the NRHP, CRHR, California Historical Landmarks list, Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD), and the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (local register) (OHP 2022; Mountain View, City of 2022, 2024a).

Archival and Background Research
Rincon completed background and archival research in support of this study in September and October 2024. A variety of primary and secondary source materials were consulted. Sources included but were not limited to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) reports prepared for the properties within the project site in 2024, historical maps, aerial photographs and newspaper articles held by the Mountain View Public Library and online repositories, City of Mountain View Building Division records, and written histories of the area , including the draft City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement. The following sources were utilized to develop an understanding of the project site and its context:
▪ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Gingko Furniture 903 Castro Street and 751 Fairmont Avenue, Mountain View, California 94041 prepared by PSI in 2024, including aerial photograph, topographic map, Sanborn map, and city directory data (PSI 2024a) ▪ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Multi-Tenant Commercial & Multi -Family Residential Buildings 750 Fairmont Avenue and 843, 845, 871, 873, 881, & 889 Castro Street , Mountain View, California 94041 prepared by PSI in 2024 , including aerial photograph, topographic map, Sanborn map, and city directory data (PSI 2024b)
▪ Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office data accessed via ParcelQuest.com ▪ Historical aerial photographs accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Library FrameFinder (UCSB)
▪ Historical newspaper clippings obtained from Newspapers.com and the Mountain View Mountain View Public Library’s digitized newspaper collection at Mountain View Public Library ▪ Various historical records via Ancestry.com
▪ Draft City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (Page & Turnbull 2024) ▪ City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Last updated September 28, 2022) ▪ City of Mountain View Building Division, In-person research on October 15, 2024, and online permit records review in October 2024
▪ Mountain View Public Library Mountain View Public Library, In-person research on October 15, 2024
Pedestrian Survey
Architectural Historian, Josh Bevan, conducted a historical resources survey of the project site on October 15, 2024. Mr. Bevan completed a visual inspection of built environment features within the project site to assess their overall condition and integrity, and to identify and document any potential Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 3 ends

character-defining features. Observations were recorded using detailed notes and digital photographs.

The project site was noted as being fully developed with litt le exposed soils. Therefore, an archaeological survey was not conducted.

Evaluations
Rincon evaluated each of the six properties under the criteria of the NRHP, CRHR, and local registe r to determine if any of the properties qualify as a historical resource as defined by CEQA Section 15064.5(a).

Results
Cultural Resources Records Search
The CHRIS records search was received on September 25, 2024 (No. 24-0351) and documented the following: previous cultural resources studies and previously recorded cultural resources within a

0.25-mile radius of the project site, review of the Archeological Determinations of Eligibility (negative), and the California Inventory of Historic Resources 1976 (negative).

Previous Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search identified 11 cultural resources studies that have been previously conducted within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site (Attachment B). None of these studies investigated areas within the project site. The only study that occurred directly adjacent to the project site is Study S -004893, Cultural Resources Survey, 04 -SCl-82 P.M. 18.8/21.6 04220 -151121, Widening from Route 85 to Showers Drive in the Cities of Los Altos and Mountain View occurred along Route 85 (El Camino Real) in 1 978. This study investigated the adjacent street but did not result in the identification of resources within or adjacent to the project site.

Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search and background research identified two cultural resources that have been previously recorded within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site, neither of which are located within or adjacent to the project site. Records search results can be found in Attachment B.

Archival and Background Research
Results of the archival and background research informed the NRHP, CRHR, and local register evaluations conducted in support of this study. Findings are documented in detail in Attachment B.

Pedestrian Survey and Evaluations
The following section summarizes the results of fieldwork and evaluations for six historic-age properties within the project site: 700 W. El Camino Real (APN 156-06-008), 750 Fairmount Avenue (APN 158-06-036), 843 Castro Street (APN 158-06-039), 871 Castro Street (APN 156-06-038), 881 Castro Street (APN 158 -06-037), and 903 Castro Street ( APN 158-06-010). As part of the historical resources assessment, the properties were recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility on DPR series forms, which are included in Attachment B and summarized below. Please refer to the attached DPR forms for expanded histories , additional photographs, evaluations, and references to sources and repositories consulted for each property.

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 4 ends

700 W. El Camino Real
Physical Description
The property at 700 W. El Camino Real is a 0.42 -acre parcel located at the northwest corner of El Camino Real and Hope Street in downtown Mountain View (Photograph 2, Attachment A). The property is bounded by El Camino Real to the south, Hope Street to the east, Fairmont Avenue to the north, a commercial property at 881 Castro Street to the northwest, and Gateway Park to the west. This property contains a one-story, branch bank building, situated along the center of the east property line, with the remainder of the site containing paved surface parking areas, concrete parking lot islands, and perimeter landscaping. The property was vacant during the survey. Entrance driveways to the property are located at the northeast and southeast corners on Hope Street, and an exit driveway is located at the southwest corner on El Camino Real. The bank building was constructed in 1972 and has been altered to a contemporary appearance while retaining its original footpri nt and roof shape.

It has a concrete foundation and appears to have a steel frame. Its exterior is clad with metal panels with vertical ridges. Fenestration includes floor -to-ceiling tinted storefront windows and glazed metal doors set in dark anodized metal frames around the first story. A clerestory ribbon window that wraps around the entire building is set above the first story ceiling line and has a lighter, bronze anodized finish and narrow mullion profil e. This variation in mullion profile and metal finish indicates the storefront windows are likely replacements to original windows. The metal doors also have high kickplates that indicate they were likely installed ca. 1990s to comply with accessibility code. The roof is set above the clerestory windows reads as a flat slab floating above the storefronts and has a flat fascia, clad with sheet metal with a similar detail to the cladding along the exterior walls and columns.

The soffit beneath the overhanging roof is enclosed with non -original wood panels. Square soffit - mounted lights are placed around the building. The main entrance to the building is located on the south façade, with an automatic teller machine (ATM) terminal set into the façade to the immediate west. The east exterior features two banks of windows, with a windowless wall section at center. The rear (north) façade contains an additional entrance, access via concrete ramp and stairs. The west exterior is set alongside a drive -through lane and contains a two -lite teller’s window . The building appears to be in good condition.

Site History
The currently vacant bank building at 700 W. El Camino Real was built in 1972, during the later years period identified as “Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” in the draft City of Mountain View Historic Context Statement (hereafter, HCS) (Peninsula Times Tribune 1972, Page & Turnbull 2024) . The property was developed by Barclay’s Bank to serve as a branch banking location, on a site that had been previously occupied by two properties: a gas station that stood within the southern extent of the existing site along El Camino Real, and an office building fronted to Fairmont Avenue at the north end of the site. Research of City of Mountain View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024). After development of branch bank, Barclay’s occupied the building until ca. 1987; thereafter, the building was altered as subsequent tenant’s in cluding Sumimoto Bank and California Bank & Trust became occupants between the early 1990s and recent past (PSI 2024a).

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 5 ends

Historical Resources Evaluation
700 W. El Camino Real does not appear to be significant to the pattern of post -World War II development in Mountain View, nor for its association with Barclay’s Bank of California, and has not been identified as the location of any historically significant events. Research did not identify any individuals associated with the building who have made significant contributions to history.

Investigation of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated wit h the building’s original design . Beyond a rendering, original permit or plans for the building were not found through review of available City building records and archival research. Overall, the building does not appear to be a significant example of a type, period, method of construction, architectural style, or to possess high artistic value.

Therefore, the property at 7 00 W. El Camino Real is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and the local register due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. 750 Fairmont Avenue
Physical Description
The property at 750 Fairmont Avenue is a 0.13-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Fairmont Avenue and Hope Street in downtown Mountain View ( Photograph 3, Attachment A). The property is bound by Fairmont Avenue to the southwest, Hope Street to the southeast, the commercial property at 881 Castro Street to the northwest, and a residential property at 864 Hope Street to the northeast.

This property contains a two-story, multi-family residential building situated toward the rear parcel line.

The building spans nearly the entire width of the property, with paved driveways on Fairmont Avenue and Hope Street, and landscaped beds adjacent to the driveway at the front of the sit e. The building appears to have a concrete foundation and has a C -shaped footprint with a recessed central section flanked by left and right wings. The structure is wood framed and capped by a hip roof with a moderate overhang and asphalt shingles. The ext erior features lapped wood siding along portions of the first story and textured stucco elsewhere. All windows visible from the public right -of-way appear to have replacement vinyl sash set in rectangular openings. Visible doors appear to be paneled wood or flush wood, depending on their location, with exterior storm doors. The entrance at the right (eastern) side of the first story on Fairmont Avenue is set beneath a bracketed gable. The building contains two garage bays aligned with each driveway. One set face Fairmont Avenue and another faces Hope Street.

The garage doors appear to open overhead and appear to be wood, with decorative border trim. The garages facing Fairmont Avenue are set beneath a carport with a deck at the second story. The deck’s railing is a replacement made of wood. The building appears to be in good condition.

Site History
The multi-family residential building at 750 Fairmont Avenue was constructed in 1956 during the period identified as “Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” in the draft HCS (ParcelQuest 2024, UCSB 1956, Page & Turnbull 2024) . The building is minimally adorned and is a modest example of post -World War II, vernacular multi -family residential construction, with limited elements of ranch styling (bracketed canopy, border trim on garage doors).

Research of City of Mounta in View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024 ). Since its construction in 1956, the building has been minimally altered, including window replacement with existing vinyl sash, and replacement of a deck railing that spans across a carport on the south side of the building (City of Mountain View 2024b). The building retains its C -shaped footprint, four garage Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 6 ends

bays with border trim, one entrance with a bracketed canopy, and has not been subject to any apparent additions or significant alterations of its massing. Since its construction the building has been occupied by several tenants across its four apartments (PSI 2024b, R.L Polk & Co. 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968).

Historical Resources Evaluation
750 Fairmont Avenue does not appear to be significant to the pattern of post-World War II development in Mountain View and has not been identified as the location of any historically significant events.

Research did not identify any individuals associated with the building who appear to have made significant contributions to history. Investigation of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design. An original permit or plans for the building were not found through review of available City building records and archival research. Research of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design . Overall, the building does not appear to be a significant example of a type, period, method of construction, architectural style, or to possess high artistic value.

Therefore, the property at 750 Fairmont Avenue is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and the local register due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. 843 Castro Street
Physical Description
The property at 843 Castro Street is a 0.07 -acre parcel located on the east side of Castro Street, between Yosemite Avenue (north) and Fairmont Avenue (south) in downtown Mountain View (Photograph 4). The property is bounded by Castro Street to the west, a neighboring commercial building at 825 Castro Street to the north, neighboring residences on Hope Street to the east, and a neighboring commercial building at 871 Castro Street to the south. This property contains a one-story commercial-office building constructed in 19 47-1948. The rear of the parcel is paved ground, including parking directly behind the building and a driveway that parallels Castro Street between Yosemite and Fairmont Avenue. The building’s façade is symmetrical with two storefronts that mirror each other; one for the address 843 Castro Street and the other for 845 Castro Street; at the time of survey, the building appeared to be occupied by a single business across both interior uni ts.

Replacement entrance doors are set in narrow bays at the outer sides of the façade and are metal with full glazing. The two inner bays have single -lite rectangular windows with similar replacement metal frames, single-lite display windows set on Roman brick bulkheads. Roman brick columns divided the four bays, and an opaque transom tops each bay. A pent eave mounted to the parapet and covered with clay tiles overhangs the façade. It features a gutter with streamline/stripe detailing. The north and south sides of the building abut neighboring buildings. The rear exterior has a painted concrete block exterior and two entrances, each with a flush metal door and an adjacent vinyl casement window set behind a metal security. The building appears to be in good condition.

Site History
The building at 843 Castro Street was constructed ca. 1947 -1948, based upon review of historical newspapers and aerial photographs (Mountain View Leader Review 1947, UCSB 1948) . This approximate construction date differs from Santa Clara County Assessor data, which lists a date of 1928 (ParcelQuest 2024). Research found that this property was a vacant site between the mid-1930s and 1940s, before the existing building was constructed (NARA 1934) . 843 Castro Street was Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 7 ends

developed during the period identified as “Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” in the draft HCS (Page & Turnbull 2024). Research of City of Mountain View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024). Historically, the property contained businesses with addresses 843, 845, and 853 Castro Street, ranging from automobile part suppliers and television/electronics retailers to real estate brokerages between the late 1940s and 1970s (Mountain View Register Leader 1947, Mountain View Register 1950, PSI 2024 b). More recent occupants include tax consultation businesses and insurance agencies (PSI 2024b). Since its original construction, the building has been modified with a pent eave covered with roofing tiles, as well as replacement entrance doors and replacement windows at the rear (City of Mountain View 2024b).

Historical Resources Evaluation
843 Castro Street does not appear to be significant to the pattern of post -World War II development in Mountain View and has not been identified as the location of any historically significant events.

Research did not identify any individuals associated wi th the building who appear to have made significant contributions to history. Investigation of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design. An original permit or plans for the building were not found through review of available City building records and archival research. Research of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design . Overall, the building does not appear to be a significant example of a type, period, method of construction, architectural style, or to possess high artistic value.

Therefore, the property at 843 Castro Street is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and the local register due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. 871 Castro Street
Physical Description
The property at 871 Castro Street is a 0.07 -acre parcel located on the east side of Castro Street, between Yosemite Avenue (north) and Fairmont Avenue (south) in downtown Mountain View. The property is bounded by Castro Street to the west, a commercial pro perty at 843 Castro Street to the north, a commercial property at 881 Castro Street to the south, and residences on Hope Street to the east. The property contains a one -story commercial building constructed in 19 50-1956. The rear of the parcel is paved ground, including parking directly behind the building and a driveway that parallels Castro Street between Yosemite and Fairmont avenues. The building’s façade is symmetrical and has a concave profile, with two storefronts angled inward toward the center. Each storefront features a large rectangular display window with a wood frame, set on a Roman brick bulkhead. Aluminum - framed glazed entrance doors for each unit are placed near t he center of the façade, with a glazed transom above. The doors appear to be modern replacements for what were likely original aluminum doors. At the time of survey, both commercial units appeared to be addressed as 873 Castro Street and occupied by a single use. The remainder of the façade is clad with Roman brick. The building is capped by a flat roof with a parapet and a short, flat canopy that overhangs the entrance area. The rear façade is finished with stucco and contains a rear entrance with a flush door set behind a wood screen door with painted over glazing. To the right of the door are two one-over-one wood windows, set behind metal security grilles, and a third window is located further to the right, with a replacement vinyl sash set behind a security grille. The building appears to be in good condition.

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 8 ends

Site History
The building at 871 Castro Street was built ca. 1950 -1956, based on review of historical aerial photography (Mountain View Public Library 1950-1955, UCSB 1956). This date range falls shortly after Santa Clara County Assessor data listing 1949 as the year built (ParcelQuest 2024). 871 Castro Street was developed during the period identified as “Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” in the draft HCS (Page & Turnbull 2024). Research of City of Mountain View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024). The building was first occupied by AAA California State Association and Parker’s Flowers, but by 1962, was solely occupied by Parker’s.

Founded by owner Orville W. Parker (1923-1985), the business continued at this location into the early 1990s, based on available occupancy data (PSI 2024b; R.L. Polk & Co. 1962, 1964, 1966, 1968 ; Ancestry 2024). Since its original construction the building’s exterior has been minimally altered, with replacement entrance doors in its primary façade and vinyl sash windows at the rear façade.

Historical Resources Evaluation
871 Castro Street does not appear to be significant to the pattern of post -World War II development in Mountain View and has not been identified as the location of any historically significant events.

Although Orville Parker of Parker’s Flowers was a relatively long-term owner-proprietor who worked in the building for over two decades, Mr. Parker’s contributions to history were not found to be demonstrably significant. Research did not identify any other individuals associated with the building who appear t o have made significant contributions to history. Investigation of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design. An original permit or plans for the building were not found through review of available City building records and archival research. Research of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design .

Overall, the build ing does not appear to be a significant example of a type, period, method of construction, architectural style, or to possess high artistic value.

Therefore, the property at 871 Castro Street is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and the local register due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. 881 Castro Street
Physical Description
The property at 881 Castro Street is a 0.13-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Castro Street and Fairmont Avenue in downtown Mountain View. The property is bounded by Castro Street to the west, a commercial property at 871 Castro Street to the north, Fairmont Avenue to the south, and residences on Hope Street to the east. The property contains a one -story commercial building constructed in 1955. The rear of the parcel is paved ground, with surface parking located along the rear (east) property line. The building and parking area are separate by a driveway that parallels Castro Street between Yosemite and Fairmont avenues. T he building is nearly rectangular in plan, with its façade set at an angle such that it parallels Castro Street. The foundation appears to be concrete, and the building features a rear side-gabled section and a front section capped with a flat parapeted roof.

The primary (west) façade features two storefronts, one for the unit addressed 881 Castro Street at the north and one for 889 Castro Street at the south. The north storefront is recessed and angled into the building footprint, with an aluminum -frame window set above a Roman brick -clad bulkhead. The entrance contains a modern aluminum glazed door set beneath a glazed transom. To the south a wall Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 9 ends

panel clad with Roman brick separates the two storefronts. The south storefront features an angled bulkhead to the left of the entrance, which contains a similar aluminum glazed door and transom. To the right, the storefront is recessed but is not concave. It features a low bulkhead with Roman brick, aluminum storefront windows and wraps around the southwest corner of the building, terminating just beyond the corner. A flat canopy with horizontal ribbed fascia spans across the entire primary façade, beneath a parapet that is finished with stucco and coping trim. The south exterior is primarily finished with stucco and features two windows, both single -lite and wood-frame in a horizontal configuration, located in the rear half of the building. Two louvered gable vents are visible above the windows. The rear exterior is also finished with stucco and features two similar single-lite horizontal windows, as well as a smaller vinyl-sash window at center, and another single-lite horizontal window near the north end.

A rear entrance with a flush door set behind metal screen door with scrolled iron detailing is located at the north end of the façade. The north exterior is mostly obscured from view by a neighboring building; only a short section near the northwest corner is visible and it consists of painted concrete masonry units (CMU). The building appears to be in good condition.

Site Property History
Research of this property’s developmental history found that the existing building was original ly constructed ca. 1934-1939 and expanded during post-World War II years, ca. 1950-1956 (Mountain View Public Library 1950-1955, UCSB 1956). The property’s development began in the period identified as “Early Twentieth-Century Development, Immigration & Multiculturalism (1910-1944)” in the draft HCS, and continued during the “Postwar Suburbanization, City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” period (Page & Turnbull 2024). Research of City of Mountain View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024). Originally, the building featured a rear, gabled section with a smaller front wing or addition, which was expanded by 1956. Occupancy data for years prior to 1950 was not found through archival research, while the years 1950 to ca. 2000 saw the building house auto supply businesses including Aatom’s, Tom’s, and National Auto Supply in the unit addressed 881, and Eddy’s Sport Shop, in t he unit addressed 889 (Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024, PSI 2024 b). Eddy’s was established in 1950 by Edward M. David (1913-1973), who led the sporting goods business that eventually passed to subsequent generations of family management, including his son Gerald David (1939-2012), who expanded the sporting goods business to include a gun shop (Ancestry 2024, Strebe 2002) . The business relocated to another property in 2000, two years before it ceased operation. Based on available docum entation of the building, Eddy’s was the business most strongly associated with this property and appears to have bridged the years during which the building was modified from its pre-World War II form to its existing form. Over time, the building’s storef ronts have been modified with replacement windows and entry doors, while retaining an abundantly glazed appearance (Mountain View Public y 1950-1955, UCSB 1956). The south exterior has been altered with window removal, and the rear exterior has been modified with the removal of an early wing and insertion of additional windows.

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street does not appear to be significant to the patterns of early twentieth century and post- World War II development in Mountain View and has not been identified as the location of any historically significant events. Although Orville Parker of Parker’s Flowers was a relatively long -term owner-proprietor who worked in the building for over two decades, Mr. Parker’s contributions to history were not found to be demonstrably significant. Research did not identify any other individuals associated w ith the building who appear to have made significant contributions to history.

Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 10 ends

Investigation of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design. An original permit or plans for the building were not found through review of available City building records and archival research . Research of the property’s developmental history failed to identify construction or design professionals associated with the building’s original design. Overall, the building does not appear to be a significant example of a type, period, method of construction, architectural style, or to possess high artistic value.

Therefore, the property at 881 Castro Street is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, and the local register due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. 903 Castro Street
Physical Description
The property at 903 Castro Street is a 0.22-acre parcel located at the southeast corner of Castro Street and Fairmont Avenue in downtown Mountain View. The property is bounded by Castro Street to the west, Fairmont Avenue to the north, the commercial prope rty at 700 W. El Camino Real to the east, and Gateway Park to the south. The property contains a one -story commercial building with a commercial unit accessed on Castro Street addressed 903 Castro Street , and an additional commercial unit addressed as 751 Fairmont Avenue. The building was constructed in 1955 and is designed in the Commercial Modern style. The building is roughly rectangular in plan, and is composed of a front (west) one -story mass (903 Castro Street unit) and a slightly lower rear (east) mass (751 Fairmont Avenue unit), both of which are capped by flat roofs. The building is primarily finis hed with stucco, excepting portions of the primary façade that feature stone veneer as described further below.

The primary façade features a recessed nor thwest corner, which contains a corner entrance and a pilon element with two rectangular openings that rises above the roofline. Storefronts within the primary façade feature large display windows divided by narrow metal mullions, the windows are set on low bulkheads that are clad with orange -brown-beige Roman brick and framed with columns that are either clad with the same brick or finished with stucco. Projecting columns clad with brick divide the façade into two primary storefronts. The south storefront is recessed, with an angled bulkhead and contains aluminum glazed doors separated by a brick column. A set of three metal pole, rising from a small planting bed supports the overhanging canopy at this location. The canopy is flat and has metal coping. It spans across the entire façade and intersects with the pilon element. Above the canopy a short parapet is visible along the roofline. The east and south façades are not fenestrated; they feature painted concrete masonry units (CMU) and stucco finishes, respectively. The north façade is oriented to Fairmont Avenue and features a modern aluminum -frame storefront with a glazed aluminum door within its east end. The storefront is flanked to the east by a garage bay with a roll-up door and to the west by a narrow garage bay with roll-up door. A secondary entrance with a flush door is located near the center of the façade, as well as a loading bay with roll -up door. Two horizontal windows with aluminum frames are located in the west end of the building. The buildi ng appears to be in good condition.

Site History
The property at 903 Castro Street was developed in 1955-1956 with a one-story commercial building that housed Goddard & Brown Furniture by 1956 (Mountain View Public Library 1955, Parcel Quest 2024, UCSB 1956). Research of City of Mountain View building records and online repositories failed to identify design professionals associated with the building’s original design (City of Mountain View 2024b, Avery Index 2024, Mountain View Public Library 2024, Newspapers.com 2024; US Modernist 2024). 903 Castro Stre et was developed during the period identified as “Postwar Suburbanization , City Building & Silicon Valley Innovation (1945-1979)” in the draft HCS (Page & Turnbull 2024). After Historical Resources Evaluation
881 Castro Street Mixed-Use Project, Mountain View, California

Page 11 ends

Mountain View City CouncilApril 28, 2026

Mountain View City Council
April 28, 2026