1154 Sonora Ct Environmental Checklist Prepared by Ascent Environmental — Sunnyvale City Council, November 28, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1154 Sonora Court Project
Pr
epared for:

City of Sunnyvale
OCTOBER 2023
Attachment 12

Page 1 of 119 ends

20220091.01

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1154 Sonora Court Project
Prepared for:

City of Sunnyvale
Community Development
Department, Planning Division
465 W. Olive Ave nue
Sunnyvale, California 94086
Contact:

Aastha Vashist
Senior Planner
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
C
ontact:

Marianne Lowenthal
Project Manager
916.661.7938
October 2023
Attachment 12

Page 2 of 119 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... III 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT HISTORY ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 2-1

2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.3 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 2-4

2.5 Utilities .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.6 Construction Activities .................................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.7 Required Actions .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-9 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................ ................. 3-1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories ....................................................................................................................... 3-1 Discussion and Mitigation Sections ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ............................................................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 3-20

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-26

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-29

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-34

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-40

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................... 3-47

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3-54

3.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 3-59

3.12 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-62

3.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-63

3.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 3-68

3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-70

3.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-73

3.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-75

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3-84

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 3-86

3.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-92

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................................................... 3-94 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-1

4.1 List of Preparers ................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5-1 Attachment 12

Page 3 of 119 ends

Table of Contents Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
ii 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Appendices
A Project Plans
B Air Quality
C Energy
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................................................................... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Project Site .......................................................................................................................................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-4 Conceptual Project Rendering ..................................................................................................................................... 2-7

Tables
Table 2-1 Project Density Calculations ......................................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-1 Estimated Construction Cut and Fill ........................................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................... 3-10 Table 3.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Santa Clara County ................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3.3-3 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Strategies of 2017 Clean Air Plan ....................................... 3-13 Table 3.3-4 Summary of Average Daily Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3.3-5 Summary of Average Daily Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-15

Table 3.3-6 Cumulative Cancer Risk and Particulate Matter Concentrations ....................................................................3-17 Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption .......................................................................................................................... 3-32 Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption ............................................................................................................................ 3-33 Table 3.8-1 City of Sunnyvale 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ....................................................................... 3-42 Table 3.8-2 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................. 3-43 Table 3.8-3 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions ................................................................................................................... 3-43 Table 3.8-4 Project Consistency with the 2019 Sunnyvale Climate Action Playbook .................................................... 3-44

Attachment 12

Page 4 of 119 ends

Ascent List of Abbreviations
City of Sunnyvale
Aster Avenue Environmental Checklist iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
2017 Scoping Plan 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
2022 Scoping Plan Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality

AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADWF average daily water flow
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
AFY acre-feet per year
AMI area median income

CAA California Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
CAP Climate Action Plan
CCA Community Choice Aggregation
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of Sunnyvale

dBA A-weighted decibels
du/ac dwelling units per acre

EIR environmental impact report
EO Executive Order
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA Environmental Site Assessment

FAR floor area ratio
FTA Federal Transit Administration

gpd gallons per day

ISI Intuitive Surgical

lbs pounds
L
dn day-night average noise level
LID Low Impact Development
LOS level of service
LSAP Lawrence Station Area Plan

mgd million gallons per day
MPO metropolitan planning organizations
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
MTCO
2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Attachment 12

Page 5 of 119 ends

List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
iv 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center

OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

PDA Priority Development Area
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
Plan Bay Area 2050 Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Playbook Climate Action Playbook
PM
10 respirable particular matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less
PM2.5 fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less PRC Public Resources Code

ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SEIR subsequent environmental impact report
sf square feet
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SVCE Silicon Valley Clean Energy
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan

TAC toxic air contaminant
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPP Transit Priority Project

UWMP Urban Water Management Plan

VCP vitrified clay pipe
VMT vehicle miles travelled
VOC volatile organic compound
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority

WPC Master Plan Water Pollution Control Master Plan
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WSA Water Supply Assessment

ZEV zero emission vehicle

μg/m
3 micrograms per cubic meter

Attachment 12

Page 6 of 119 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 1-1
1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT HISTORY
On December 6, 2016, the Sunnyvale City Council adopted the 319-acre Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP) for development of up to 2,323 new residential units and 1.2 million square feet of new office/research and development (R&D) uses. The LSAP would result in mixed-use development and revitalization surrounding the existing Lawrence Caltrain Station. The City of Sunnyvale (City) prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2013082030) for the LSAP that evaluated the environmental impacts associated with development of the entire plan area based on the land use and zoning designations established in the LSAP. Following LSAP adoption, the City Council directed staff to update the plan. The LSAP Update included an increase in housing potential within the LSAP, expansion of the western LSAP boundary, and a Sense of Place Plan that would function as a policy docume nt for the LSAP area circulation, open space, and streetscape improvements. The LSAP Update was approved by the City Council on September 14, 2021, and a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared and certified for the LSAP Update (Sunnyvale 2021). As noted above, the 2016 LSAP buildout included 2,323 new residential units and 1,200,000 new net square feet of Office/R&D uses. The LSAP Update included an additional 3,612 new residential units, for a total LSAP residential development potential of 5,935 units.

The proposed 1154 Sonora Court Project (project) is located within the central portion of the LSAP. The project site is designated in the General Plan as Transit Mixed-Use, and the site is zoned MXD-I/S – Flexible Mixed-Use I/Sonora Court. This designation in the Transit Core West subarea of the LSAP permits high-density residential (54 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] with up to 26 du/ac density incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program). The project would remove an existing 33,055 square foot, one-story building and surface parking lot and develop a seven-story mixed-use office and residential building that would contain 173 residential dwelling units, 142,270 square feet (sf) of office space, and a two-level subterranean parking facility. The majority of mature trees along the Sonora Court frontage would remain. The project is eligible for seven density incentive points as provided for in the LSAP Development Incentives Program based on the community benefits proposed in the project.

Therefore, the base density is 61 du/ac, or 115 units on a 1.881-acre site. Nineteen percent (22 units) of the base density would be deed-restricted affordable units for low-income households and five percent (six units) of the base density would be deed-restricted affordable units for very low-income households. The project was programmatically evaluated in the 2016 LSAP EIR and 2021 LSAP Update SEIR, is consistent with the LSAP, and is considered a subsequent project as part of the implementation of the LSAP.

The EIRs for the LSAP and LSAP Update were prepared at the program “first-tier” level of environmental review consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 15152 and 15168 for the overall LSAP area with the exception of the Intuitive Surgical (ISI) site that was part of the western boundary expansion (evaluated at the project level). The program-level analysis considered the broad environmental impacts of the overall LSAP. The 2016 LSAP EIR (LSAP EIR) and 2021 LSAP Update SEIR (LSAP Update SEIR) acknowledged that subsequent development of the LSAP area would occur in multiple years and phases. As those phases are proposed, such as the project, they are being evaluated to determine whether the entitlements/actions proposed fall within the scope of the approved EIR and incorporate all applicable performance standards and mitigation measures iden tified therein. Should the subsequent development phases not be consistent with the approved LSAP, additional environmental review through the subsequent review provisions of CEQA for changes to previously reviewed and approved projects may be warranted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164).

Consistent with the process described, the City is evaluating the 1154 Sonora Court application to determine what type of additional environmental review would be required. This environmental checklist has been prepared to determine whether the environmental impacts of the project are within the scope of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR, or if changed environmental conditions are of sufficient magnitude to result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts, as compared to those considered in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR. This analysis also considers whether there is new information of substantial importance showing that new or substantially more s evere environmental impacts would occur compared to that evaluated in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.

Attachment 12

Page 7 of 119 ends

Introduction and Project History Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
1-2 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
This page was intentionally left blank.

Attachment 12

Page 8 of 119 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project would remove an existing one-story building and surface parking lot, located at 1154 Sonora Court, and develop a seven-story mixed-use building that would contain 173 residential dwelling units and 142,270 square feet (sf) of office space, and a two-level subterranean parking facility. As part of the project, the majority of mature redwood and cedar trees would be preserved along Sonora Court. The project would assist in implementing the vision of affordable urban living in the Lawrence Station Area and is consistent with the Lawrence Station Area Plan (LSAP), which was recently updated in 2021.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is within the City of Sunnyvale (Figure 2-1), on an approximately 1.9-acre site north of the Lawrence Caltrain Station, and west of Lawrence Expressway (Figure 2-2). The project site would be accessed from Sonora Court.

2.3 EXISTING SETTING
The project site contains one parcel (1154 Sonora Court) that is developed with an existing 33,055 square foot single- story industrial building with surface parking. No natural habitat or water features are present on the project site.

Surrounding land uses consist of residential, office, and industrial uses. The site is within a Tra nsit Priority Area (TPA) and Priority Development Area (PDA). As designated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Plan Bay Area 2050), a TPA is a geographic area that meets the requirements of a Transit Priority Project (TPP) under Senate Bill (SB) 375. SB 375 provides streamlining benefits for a TPP. The criteria for TPPs are:
 consistent with the general land use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in the SCS;
 located within half a mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor;  comprised of at least 50 percent residential use based on total building square footage, or as little as 26 percent residential use if the project has a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; and  built out with a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21155).

Under the RTP/SCS, a PDA is an area within an existing community that local city or county governments have identified and approved for future growth (MTC 2018). The General Plan land use designation for the site is Transit Mixed-Use, and the site is zoned MXD-I/S – Flexible Mixed-Use I, Sonora Court. Allowed uses under this land use designation and zoning include mixed-use (e.g., residential and office/research and development (R&D) uses on a single site), high-density residential (54 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] base maximum density with an additional 26 du/ac incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program), and office/R&D up to 150% floor area ratio (FAR) with incentives. The MXD-I/S zoning district permits up to 100-foot maximum building heights.

The project site is al also within the Transit Core West urban design subarea, which includes guidelines specific to Sonora Court and the immediate LSAP area located north of the railroad tracks, west of Lawrence Expressway.

The LSAP allows for a base maximum residential density for the site of 54 dwelling units/acre (du/ac). The allowable density can be increased by up to 26 du/ac density incentive points through voluntary participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program. In addition, projects can increase densities through participation in the California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915).

Attachment 12

Page 9 of 119 ends

Project Description Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
2-2 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

Source: Studio T Square, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2016.

Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity
Attachment 12

Page 10 of 119 ends

Ascent Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
Aster Avenue Environmental Checklist 2-3

Source: Studio T Square, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-2 Project Site
Attachment 12

Page 11 of 119 ends

Project Description Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
2-4 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project’s objectives are the following:
 Provide transit-oriented development with a mix of residential unit types, including below market-rate housing, within walking distance of the Lawrence Caltrain Station;  Contribute to the development of the LSAP area as a regional and local urban hub, job center, and new neighborhood for urban living, served by a diverse, multi-modal transit system;  Establish distinguished architectural design in the neighborhood;  Preserve the tree-lined character of Sonora Court;
 Provide bike and pedestrian connectivity and public plazas with street furniture to facilitate community interaction and enjoyment; and
 Implement the LSAP policies and development objectives.

2.4.1 Proposed Project
The proposed project is a mixed-use development within the LSAP. The project applicant would demolish the existing industrial building. The site would be redeveloped into a seven-story mixed-use building that would contain 173 residential dwelling units and 142,270 sf of office space. Of the 173 residential units, 28 would be dedicated for affordable units (22 low-income households and six for very low-income households). A two-level subterranean structure would provide 255 striped stalls, with up to 352 including valet. The units would include 56 studio, 68 one- bedroom, and 50 two-bedroom apartments. The complex would be a maximum of 96 feet, 8 inches in height, which is within the 100-foot height limit. Parking spaces would include standard, electric vehicle (EV), and Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliant spaces. An additional 80class I and II bicycle parking spaces would be built. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2-3. A rendering of the project is depicted in Figure 2-4. Details related to project plans are provided in Appendix A.

The project would have a residential density of 92 du/ac, which is achieved through participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and the California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915). The project achieves seven LSAP density points by providing the following incentive:
 Below-grade parking with surface parking at 10 percent or less of the total parking supply (7 points).

With inclusion of the seven incentive points, the base maximum density of 54 du/ac is increased to 61 du/ac.

Additionally, per California Density Bonus Law Section 65915 (f)(1), the project is entitled to a 50 percent state density bonus over the base maximum density with LSAP incentives due to the provision of 24 percent low-income units (28 units total).

The LSAP Development Incentives Program includes examples of how residential densities and allowable units are calculated. The base maximum density is the starting point for where density bonuses are added. The top row of Table 2-1, below, starts at the base maximum density, then increases in each lower row depending on the LSAP incentives and State Density Bonus achieved.

Table 2-1 Project Density Calculations
Scenario Density Calculation Allowable Units
Base Maximum Density 1.881 (lot size in acres) x 54 (base max density) 102 Project achieves 7 LSAP incentive points DU/AC: 54 (base max) + 7 (total incentive points) = 61 du/ac UNITS: 1.881 (lot size in acres) x 61 (density with incentives) 1151
Project achieves a 50% State Density Bonus DU/AC: 61 (density with incentives) x 0.5 (50% state density bonus, rounded up) = 31 + 61 = 92 du/ac
UNITS: 1.881 (lot size in acres) x 92
173
1 The City’s affordable housing requirement is based on the number of units proposed under this provision.

Attachment 12

Page 12 of 119 ends

Ascent Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 2-5

Source: Image produced and provided by WRNS Studio, 2022 Figure 2-3 Project Site
Attachment 12

Page 13 of 119 ends

Ascent Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 2-7

Source: WRNS Studio, adapted by Ascent in 2022.

Figure 2-4 Conceptual Project Rendering
With participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and State Density Bonus, the project’s allowable density is 92 du/ac or 173 allowable units. The proposed density of 92 du/ac and 173 units is therefore deemed to be consistent with the LSAP.

The applicant is seeking a density bonus concession because the office Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project is 173 percent, which exceeds the maximum FAR of 150 percent. In addition, FAR above 35 percent (or 45 percent with green building incentive) is subject to a Development Agreement with the City with negotiated community benefits/development incentives and subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is seeking a concession or incentive from the Development Agreement requirement under the State Density Bonus Law.

2.4.2 Proposed Site Plan
The proposed project is a residential and office development within the LSAP composed of residential units and office space. The site would be accessible from Sonora Court. New sidewalks would be built along the Sonora Court frontage. Street trees and seating areas would be constructed in select locations around the perimeter of the site as well. The new sidewalks and streetscape amenities are part of pedestrian improvements on the site. Future bicycle lanes would be constructed along Sonora Court as a separate project. The proposed project would contribute LSAP Sense of Place fees toward this future improvement.

Consistent with the LSAP EIR, the project is subject to the City’s Tree Replacement Preservation Ordinance and current Tree Replacement Policy. Approximately 13 of the existing trees would be removed during construction of the project.

The City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.94.030 defines a protected tree as any tree of 38 inches or greater in circumference measured four and one-half feet above ground for single-trunk trees. The City requires replacements to offset the loss of protected trees. An arborist report has been prepared that assesses the trees on the site and provides recommendations for replacement trees.

Attachment 12

Page 14 of 119 ends

Project Description Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
2-8 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

2.4.3 Building Height and Massing
The MXD-1/S zoning of the site has a height restriction of up to 100 feet. The proposed building height for the project is 96 feet, 8 inches in feet and is within the City’s height restrictions. A 25-foot building setback would provide enough room for existing street tree canopies on Sonora Court, which is consistent with City Code requirements.

2.5 UTILITIES
The project site is currently served by utility providers for the existing uses. Natural gas and electricity are provided by Pacific Gas and Electric. Water and wastewater disposal and treatment are provided by the City of Sunnyvale. The project applicant would construct and maintain on-site utilities that connect to existing infrastructure for water, sewer, storm drain, electricity, telecommunications, and other services, located adjacent to the project site . The proposed
building would be developed as an all-electric energy structure with no natural gas connection. A new electric line would be installed along the western border of the site to connect to an existing electric line in the northwest. A 6 - inch sewer pipeline would be built on the east side of the project site to connect to the existing sewer pipeline that is located along the eastern boundary of the project site, parallel to San Zeno Way. Additionally, a 6 -inch sewer pipeline would be built on the north side of the project site to connect to the existing sewer line that is located along the northern boundary of the project site, parallel to Sonora Court.

The project would include connections to offsite
utilities adjacent to the project site and some sidewalk repairs. No offsite infrastructure improvements are needed for the project.

STORMWATER
The 1154 Sonora Court Site would drain to onsite storm drain pipes, which would convey stormwater runoff to an existing storm drain catch basin in Sonora Court. Rainwater from the building roof would enter bio-retention planters for treatment prior to being collected by the onsite storm drain. Runoff from at-grade impervious surfaces would be collected by the onsite storm drain system and treatment flows pumped into bio- retention planters onsite before discharging to the City storm drain.

The project would include bioretention basins, self-retaining areas, and storm water filtration devices. The bioretention basins would consist of an 18-inch biotreatment soil mix above a 12-inch permeable drain rock mix. An overflow drain would be connected to the end of a 4-inch perforated pipe to prevent overflow in the basin during storm events. Self-retaining areas that retain stormwater runoff would be integrated into the landscaping along the southeastern and southwestern corners of the project site.

2.5.1 Open Space and Landscaping
Approximately 13 trees would be removed as part of the project, and additional trees would be planted to meet site tree planting requirements and offset the loss of protected trees. Walkways would be installed along the eastern and western boundary. The project would comply with the City’s tree protection standards, as discussed above in Section

1.4.2. Protected trees removed during development of the project site would be replaced in accordance with the City’s tree replacement requirements. Additionally, seating areas would be constructed in several locations around the project boundary. Landscaping would feature native and low water use plants, trees, shrubs, and other ground cover. In addition, consistent with the City’s Bird-Safe Design Guidelines, the City will incorporate into the conditions of approval bird-safe measures which include implementing bird-safe treatment of glazing as appropriate, and by shielding, directing, and programming proposed up-lighting to ensure that the project meets the intent of the bird- safe design guidelines.

Attachment 12

Page 15 of 119 ends

Ascent Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 2-9

2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Construction activities associated with the project would include demolition activities, excavation, and relocation of soil on the site, backfilling and compaction of soils, construction of infrastructure improvements (water supply, wastewater, drainage facilities, electrical, roadway, and driveway improvements), and construction of the residential development. The project would include excavation and removal of soil to approximately 25 feet below grade to support development of the proposed two-level parking garage.

Construction equipment would vary day-to-day depending on the activities occurring, but could involve operation of demolition equipment, graders, dozers, scrapers, other tractors, cranes, forklifts, generator sets, curb equipment, pavers, paving equipment, rollers, welders, and air compressors. Construction would include connection to adjacent underground utilities and some sidewalk repairs. No pile driving is planned; however, jack hammering may occur during demolition.

Construction workers would access the site via Sonora Court. Construction would include the use of excavated soil from within the project site to be used as fill to raise building pad elevations (Table 2-1). Construction may also require the import of fill from off-site sources. A construction management plan will be required by the City. The City would review and approve construction truck routes. Construction staging for materials and equipment would occur on and off the project site, with occasional construction equipment access required from the adjacent parcel to the west.

Table 2-1 Estimated Construction Cut and Fill
Data Requested Grading
Total cubic yards (CY) of excavated (cut) soil 55,080 CY (estimate) Total CY of cut soil that will be used as fill 0 CY (estimate) Total CY of soil imported from off-site sources 0 CY (estimate) Total CY of soil exported 55,080 CY (estimate)
Haul truck capacities 10-16 CY (estimate)
Construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays. No construction work would occur on Sundays or holidays. No restrictions on construction seasons are expected. Development of the project site would occur in one phase over approximately 24 months.

2.7 REQUIRED ACTIONS
The project would require the following actions by the City.  Approval of a Special Development Permit for site and architectural (i.e., design) review, removal of protected trees.
 Approval of a Development Agreement for office floor area above the base maximum FAR of 35%. The applicant is seeking a concession or incentive from the Development Agreement requirement under the State Density Bonus Law.

Other anticipated permits, approvals, and actions by the City associated with the project includes the following:
 Issuance of demolition permits for removal of existing buildings and parking lots and building permits for construction of the new project.

Attachment 12

Page 16 of 119 ends

Project Description Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
2-10 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
This page was intentionally left blank.

Attachment 12

Page 17 of 119 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION CATEGORIES
The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the categories in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in environmental impact significance conclusions different from those found in the 2016 LSAP EIR (referred to as “LSAP EIR”) or the 2021 LSAP Update SEIR (referred to as “LSAP Update SEIR”). The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact because it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR.

For instance, the environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist because the impacts associated with the project were adequately addressed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR, and the environmental impact significance conclusions of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain applicable. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.

Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the LSAP Draft and Final EIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
The significance of the environmental impacts of the project-specific features not considered in the LSAP and its EIR or the LSAP Update SEIR, is indicated in the columns to the right of the environmental issues.

Any new Circumstances Involving New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the prior environmental documents, which would result in the current project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or having substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous environmental documents were certified as complete is available, requiring an update to the analysis of the previous environmental documents to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. If the new information shows that: (A) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the prior environmental documents; or (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the prior environmental documents; or (C) that mi tigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects or the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the Mitigation Measure or alternative ; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the prior environmental documents would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the Mitigation Measure or alternative, the question would be answered “yes” requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Environmental Checklist Review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental Attachment 12

Page 18 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-2 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, the question would be answered “no” and no additional EIR documentation (supplement to the EIR or subsequent EIR) would be required.

Do Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Address/Resolve Impacts? This column indicates whether the prior environmental documents and adopted CEQA Findings provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “NA” is indicated, this Environmental Checklist Review concludes that there was no impact, or the impact was less-than-significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category to clarify the answers.

The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that would apply to the project are listed under each environmental category. New mitigation measures are included, if needed.

Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the need for additional environmental documentation is contained in each section.

Attachment 12

Page 19 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-3

3.1 AESTHETICS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and
Final EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Any New Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?

1. Aesthetics. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.12-1 to 3.12-5
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.1-
6)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.12-1 to 3.12-5
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.1-
6)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that
are experienced from publicly accessible
vantage points.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.12-1 to 3.12-5
Impacts 3.12.1, 3.12.3
and 3.12.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.1-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.12-1 to 3.12-5
Impacts 3.12.2 and

3.12.4 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.1-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.

3.1.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to aesthetics, described in the LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.12, Visual Resources and Aesthetics, has occurred since certification of the EIR in December 2016 or since certification of the LSAP Update SEIR in September 2021. Construction has started for the approved 1155 -1175 Aster Avenue residential project south of the project site across the railroad tracks.

Attachment 12

Page 20 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-4 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As described in the LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.12, Visual Resources and Aesthetics, there are no scenic vistas within the plan area, and the plan area is not located near any officially designated state or county scenic highway. The LSAP Update SEIR also made this determination. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur for the project. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact 3.12.1 of the LSAP EIR describes permanent changes to the visual character of the LSAP area from development, while Impact 3.12.3 addressed potential shadow impacts of new buildings in the plan area.

Impact 3.12.4 addresses whether the LSAP would contribute to cumulative aesthetic impacts. The LSAP EIR determined that the LSAP would not substantially degrade the visual character or scenic quality of the plan area or its surroundings. The LSAP Update SEIR determined that implementation of the LSAP Update and ISI project would not result in a new significant effect on visual character or quality of public views and the impact is not more severe than the impact identified in the LSAP EIR.

No officially designated scenic vistas or resources, designated roadways, or prominent rock outcroppings are located on or adjacent to the project site. Thirteen trees would be removed during construction of the project, 4 of which are protected. Tree removal would be subject to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance, current Tree Replacement Policy, and LSAP policies pertaining to street design and streetscape amenities such as street trees. Project impacts to the visual character at and surrounding the project site would not be substantial or outside the scope of impacts analyzed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact 3.12.1 of the LSAP EIR describes permanent changes to the visual character of the LSAP area from development, while Impact 3.12.3 addressed potential shadow impacts of new buildings in the plan area.

The LSAP EIR identified that the LSAP would provide opportunities for new development and redevelopment, including higher densities, mixed use, and new urban living elements in areas generally occupied by industrial, office/research and development, and other nonresidential uses. Within the LSAP planning area, the Transit Core West, Transit Core East, and Peninsula subareas adjoining north and south sides of the Caltrain tracks would experience the greatest amount of land use change. The site is located within the Transit Core West urban design subarea. The changes would alter the visual characteristics of those subareas compared to existing conditions and may be visible from existing or future residential uses, depending on viewers’ locations relative to the areas where the higher intensity land uses may develop around the Lawrence Caltrain Station.

The General Plan land use designation for the site is Transit Mixed-Use, and the site is zoned MXD-I/S – Flexible Mixed-Use I, Sonora Court. Zoning for the site establishes a maximum height restriction of 100 feet. The proposed building would construct a building with a maximum height of 96 feet, 8 inches in feet ,, which is less than the maximum allowed height and is therefore consistent with the designation in the LSAP, its associated zoning, and the impacts to visual character analyzed in the LSAP EIR. The LSAP EIR stated that the appearance of the height and mass of taller buildings and structures would be minimized through areawide design guidelines in the LSAP such as BH - UDG4, BMA-UDG1, BMA-UDG2, BO-UDG10, and PK-UDG14. These guidelines, along with other areawide and subarea-specific guidelines, encourage the greatest concentration of taller buildings where the elevated portion of the station creates an existing vertical element. The south-facing side of the proposed building would face the Attachment 12

Page 21 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-5
Caltrain tracks. Variations in height at different portions of the proposed building, along with modulation and articulation of building massing to reduce apparent scale to provide visual interest and variety, would avoid a blocky uniform appearance.

The MXD-I/S zoning requires a 25-foot setback for development on Sonora Court. A 25-foot setback is proposed, which is consistent with zoning requirements. Consistent with LSAP guidelines, the project has also been designed to preserve the mature redwood trees along Sonora Court, provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, and include public plazas within street furniture to facilitate community interaction. These features would create a sense of visual coherence and provide for improved visual character and quality compared to the existing condition. As explained in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR, the LSAP measures would ensure that taller building development would not be visually intrusive and would be consistent with surrounding urban form and context, both when viewed from within the plan area or when viewed from outside the plan area. The LSAP also contains guidelines to ensure appropriate open space and landscaping is included to provide visual interest and overall beautification of the subareas. The project would include a landscaped outdoor courtyard, street design and trees consistent with applicable LSAP guidelines. Although the visual appearance of the Transit Core West subarea would change, the plan area would retain Sunnyvale’s established urban visual character. Project impacts to the visual character at and surrounding the project site would not be substantial or outside the scope of impacts analyzed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.

Therefore, the impact remains less than significant.

The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As identified in LSAP EIR Impact 3.12.3, there are existing sources of nighttime lighting and glare in the plan area because it is largely built out with residential and nonresidential uses. New development in the Transit Core West, Transit Core East, and Peninsula subareas would comprise the predominant potential sources of additional nighttime lighting and illumination in the plan area because those areas could experience the greatest amount of land use changes. Potential sources of nighttime lighting would be expected to include exterior lighting on new nonresidential and residential buildings, light emanating from building interiors, additional street lighting on new street improvements. Additional nighttime illumination could also contribute to existing skyglow conditions. Glare could be created from reflective surfaces, such as vehicles in parking lots and windows on buildings. The LSAP Update SEIR identified that the update would expand urban uses in the project area that would include the potential for light and glare impacts, but development would be required to comply with City and LSAP -specific lighting and glare requirements to minimize the potential impacts (LSAP Update SEIR Impact 3.1-2).

The LSAP contains several areawide design guidelines that would help reduce the potential for spillover lighting and skyglow effects associated with nighttime illumination and to minimize glare from reflective surfaces. G uidelines address the use of luminaries with white, natural appearing light in pedestrian areas and requirements for pole heights that relate to the scale of the street and include shielding or directionality to avoid light spillover and glare.

Potential glare effects from new buildings would be minimized through Guideline BO -UDG3 (clear, nonreflective glazing on all windows at street level) and avoiding highly reflective surfaces and materials (BM -UDG5). Additionally, compliance with Section 19.42.050 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code would further minimize potential light and glare impacts by ensuring that all lights, spotlights, floodlights, reflectors, and other means of illumination are shielded or equipped with special lenses in such a manner as to prevent any glare or direct illumination on any public street or other property.

The LSAP EIR stated that implementation of the proposed lighting, building design, and landscaping guidelines, as well as continued compliance with the City’s existing lighting regulations, would ensure that potential light and glare impacts are reduced to a level that would be less than significant for the LSAP under project and cumulative conditions. No changes in the proposed nighttime lighting conditions for the project site have occurred since approval of the LSAP. Project proposed lighting and compliance with City standards is provided in the project design Attachment 12

Page 22 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-6 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
plans (see project design plan sheets (LT.A.101 to LT.A.105). Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. This impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the LSAP EIR or the LSAP Update SEIR, and no mitigation measures were required.

Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.

Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics.

Attachment 12

Page 23 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-7

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and Final
EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

Resources do not
exist in the LSAP
area. (Draft SEIR
Section 1.3.1)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

No agricultural
zoning or
Williamson Act
contracted lands
exist in LSAP area.
(Draft SEIR Section

1.3.1)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

Resources do not
exist in the LSAP
area. (Draft SEIR
Section 1.3.1)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
land?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

Resources do not
exist in the LSAP
area. (Draft SEIR
Section 1.3.1)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

Resources do not
exist in the LSAP
area. (Draft SEIR
Section 1.3.1)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.

Attachment 12

Page 24 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-8 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.2.1 Discussion and Conclusion
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Agricultural and forestry impacts were scoped out of the LSAP EIR at the Notice of Preparation stage as these resources do not exist in the LSAP area. The project site does not contain any of these resources; therefore, the project would also have no impact.

Mitigation Measures
No significant agriculture and forest resources impacts were identified in the LSAP EIR or the LSAP Update SEIR, and no mitigation measures were required.

Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agriculture and forest resources.

Attachment 12

Page 25 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-9

3.3 AIR QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and Final
EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

3. Air Quality. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.5-1 to 3.12-20
Impact 3.5.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.2-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.5-1 to 3.12-20
Impacts 3.5.2, 3.5.3,
and 3.5.8
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.2-1, 3.2-2, and 4-3)
No No Yes, but the LSAP EIR
and LSAP Update SEIR
impact would remain
significant and
unavoidable for
construction, less than
significant for
operation, and
cumulatively
considerable. The
project would not
make a cumulatively
considerable
contribution to
construction and
operation air quality
impacts.
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.5-1 to 3.12-20
Impacts 3.5.4, 3.5.5,
and 3.5.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.2-3 and 3.2-4)
No No Yes, impacts would be
less than significant.
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.5-1 to 3.12-20
Impacts 3.5.4, 3.5.5,
and 3.5.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.2-5)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.

Attachment 12

Page 26 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-10 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.3.1 Discussion
Since the original adoption of the LSAP in 2016, the City adopted an update to the City’s General Plan LUTE which incorporates and integrates policy direction and land use patterns from other City of Sunnyvale planning documents, including the LSAP. Additional regulatory information has been provided which is relevant to the project’s regulatory setting. These laws, regulations, plans, and guidelines are summarized below and are also included in the 2021 LSAP Update SEIR.

In 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. These guidelines include a new component that provides lead agencies with best practices on centering Environmental Justice, health, and equity in the siting, design, and development of land use projects. The project is not located within or adjacent to a disadvantage community (City of Sunnyvale 2023). Therefore, issues pertaining to environmental justice are not discussed further.

Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQSa,b NAAQSc Primaryb,d NAAQSc Secondaryb,e Ozone 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) – Same as primary standard 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.070 ppm (147 μg/m3) Same as primary standard Carbon monoxide (CO) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Same as primary standard 8-hour 9 ppmf (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Same as primary standard Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Same as primary standard 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) —
24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — —
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 3-hour — — 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3)
1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 — Same as primary standard 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3 24-hour — 35 μg/m3 Same as primary standard
Lead f Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard 30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — —
Rolling 3-Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) No national Standards No national Standards Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 No national Standards No national Standards Vinyl chloride f 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No national Standards No national Standards Visibility-reducing particulate matter 8-hour Extinction of

0.23 per km No national Standards No national Standards Notes: CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards; NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. c. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM
10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the Attachment 12

Page 27 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-11
daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies.
d. National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e. National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f. The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.

Source: EPA 2022b, CARB 2016.

In consideration of the regulatory changes that have occurred at the federal level, as well as new sources of criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emissions associated with new stationary and land use development, mobile source emissions associated with statewide and regional population growth, the attainment status of Santa Clara County has changed since the certification of the LSAP EIR. Table 3.3-2 below summarizes the most recent attainment status of Santa Clara County.

Table 3.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Santa Clara County Pollutant NAAQS CAAQS
Ozone Attainment (1-hour)1 Nonattainment (1-hour) Classification2 Nonattainment (8-hour)3 Classification – Marginal Nonattainment (8-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour)3 Classification – Marginal Nonattainment (24-hour) Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (24-hour) Attainment (24-hour) Nonattainment (Annual)
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment (24-hour) (No State Standard for 24-Hour) Attainment (Annual) Nonattainment (Annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment (Maintenance) (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (Maintenance) (8-hour) Attainment (8-hour)
Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment (Maintenance) (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (Maintenance) (Annual) Attainment (Annual)
Sulfur dioxide (SO2)4 Attainment (1-Hour) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (24-hour)
Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30-day average) Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified (1-hour)
Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment (24-hour)
Visibly Reducing Particles Unclassified (8-hour)
Vinyl Chloride Unclassified (24-hour)
Notes: NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards; CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards 1 Air Quality meets federal 1-hour Ozone standard (77 FR 64036). EPA revoked this standard, but some associated requirements still apply. 2 Per Health and Safety Code Section 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989–1991 data, and therefore does not change. 3 2015 Standard.
4 2010 Standard.

Source: EPA 2022c; CARB 2022a.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA set the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) standards to improve the average fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by cars and light duty trucks. NHTSA and EPA adopted a rule in 2019 for the current fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026 Attachment 12

Page 28 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-12 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
by maintaining the current model year 2020 standards through 2026 (Safer Affordable Fuel -Efficient [SAFE] Vehicles Rule). NHTSA and EPA also issued a regulation revoking California’s CAA waiver, which allows California to set its own emissions standards, asserting that the waiver was preempted by federal law (SAFE Rule Part One, 84 Federal Register 51310, September 27, 2019). California, 22 other states, the District of Columbia, and two cities have filed suit against the SAFE Rule Part One (California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation et al., 1:19-cv-02826, U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia). The lawsuit requests a “permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing or relying on the Preemption Regulation,” but does not stay its implementation during legal proceedings. Part One of the SAFE Vehicles Rule went into effect on November 26, 2019. However, on April 26, 2021, EPA announced plans to reconsider Part One of the SAFE Rule as directed in Executive Order 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis” (discussed below).

Additionally, NHTSA announced its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for model year 2027 and beyond new passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards for model year 2029 and beyond for heavy - duty pickup trucks and vans and for model year 2030 and beyond medium - and heavy-duty trucks (EPA 2022d).

Since the certification of the LSAP EIR, new methodologies pertaining to the quantification of criteria air pollutants from land use projects have been developed. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2022.1.1.3 is the most recent modeling software approved for estimating emissions from land use projects . CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.3 was used because it represents the most recent updates to modeling methodologies and emission factors.

The following discussion summarizes new air quality information as it relates to the proposed project and compares this information to the analysis presented in the LSAP EIR. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As identified in Impact 3.5.1 of the LSAP EIR and Impact 3.2-2 of the LSAP Update SEIR, the LSAP supports transit- oriented development near the Lawrence Caltrain Station. The LSAP has been developed to promote greater use of the existing Lawrence Station transit asset and guide the development of a diverse neighborhood for employment, residential, retail, and other support services. The LSAP includes policies which prioritize new residential development near transit stations, improve connections between the transit station and adjacent destinations, and densify and intensify the land uses at key locations within the plan area. The project is also located in a Transit Rich Area (TRA) and Priority Development Area (PDA) as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commissions (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Area long-range plan, Plan Bay Area 2050. Plan Bay Area 2050 serves as MTC and ABAG’s regional transportation plan, helping to identify transportation and land use strategies to guide long- term growth in the MTC and ABAG planning area.

The California Clean Air Act (CAA) requires air districts to create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. These plans must be updated periodically. The most recently adopted air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is the 2017 Clean Air Plan. To fulfill State ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NO
X]) and reduce the transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Clean Air Plan builds upon and enhances BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) and toxic air contaminants (TACs). The 2017 Clean Air Plan does not include control measures that apply directly to individual development projects. Instead, the control strategy includes measures related to stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-greenhouse gas pollutants (BAAQMD 2017a).

The 2017 Plan focuses on two paramount goals (BAAQMD 2017a):
 Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all state and national air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TACs; and  Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Attachment 12

Page 29 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-13
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate that a project:
 Supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan,  Includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and  Would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

A project that would not support the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s goals would not be considered consistent with the plan. On an individual project basis, consistency with BAAQMD’s quantitative thresholds is interpreted as demonstrating support for the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s goals. As shown in the discussion under impact discussion below, the project would not result in exceedances of BAAQMD’s thresholds for criteria air pollutants and thus would not conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan’s goal to attain air quality standards. Furthermore, as shown in Table 3.3-3, the proposed project would include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of such control measures.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact related to consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 3.3-3 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Strategies of 2017 Clean Air Plan 2017 Control Strategy Evaluation
Direct new development to areas that are well served by transit, and conducive to bicycling and walking.

Consistent. The project would be a high-density infill residential development. The residential development would be within walking distance to the Lawrence Caltrain Station, which provides rail service between Gilroy and San Francisco. The project site is also located within walking and bicycling distance of various amenities, including commercial, retail, restaurant, and entertainment opportunities. Therefore, the project would be located in an area that is well-served by transit and conducive to bicycling and walking.

Accelerate the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. Consistent. The project design would provide a parking garage that would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations consistent with the City’s Municipal Code, which would promote the adoption of electric vehicles by providing infrastructure to facilitate their use.

Expand the production of low-carbon, renewable energy by promoting on-site technologies such as rooftop solar, wind and ground-source heat pumps.

Consistent. The proposed project would include green building features required under CALGreen 2022. The proposed project would be all -electric, with no natural gas connection. Additionally, the project would be equipped with a solar PV system (capacity to be determined .

Promote energy and water efficiency in both new and existing buildings.

Consistent. The project would have building features that would promote energy and water efficiency in accordance with Title 24 requirements.

Source: BAAQMD 2017a.

Air quality conditions for the region have improved for fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5) emissions, as the region is now designated as attainment for PM2.5 NAAQS, while no other changes have occurred since approval of the LSAP. The project’s land uses are consistent with the LSAP Update. The project would support a housing density within walking distance of the Lawrence Caltrain Station.

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the guidelines used at the time the LSAP EIR was prepared, do not contain numeric thresholds related to criteria pollutant emissions resulting from ‘plan implementation. The LSAP EIR and Attachment 12

Page 30 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-14 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
LSAP Update SEIR analysis found that construction related emissions would likely exceed BAAQMD thresholds. The analysis concluded that despite the application of Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.3a (apply BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures), 3.5.3b (reduce construction equipment emissions through use of CARB Tier 3 or better
certified construction equipment), and 3.2-1 (require the use of high-performance renewable diesel (HPRD) fuel for diesel-powered construction equipment), construction emissions would be significant and unavoidable. The LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR concluded that cumulative air quality impacts would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

Under a project level analysis, the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were used to evaluate whether the project would violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation through average pounds per day significance thresholds. The 2022 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines use the same average pounds per day significance thresholds, so no update to the analysis is required. The project level thresholds were developed to bring the basin into attainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS and to be protective of human health.

Construction and operational impacts are evaluated separately, below.

Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions Project construction would involve demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating activities that have the potential to generate air pollutant emissions. Emissions were modeled in CalEEMod based on the project land uses, project size, construction length, and model defaults. See Appendix B for details regarding model inputs, defaults and output data. Table 3.3-4 summarizes the estimated average daily emissions of ROG, NO
X, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 during project construction. As shown in Table 3.3-4, project construction emissions for all criteria pollutants would be below the BAAQMD average daily thresholds of significance and therefore impacts would be less than significant and would not result in adverse health impacts.

Table 3.3-4 Summary of Average Daily Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions Construction Year ROG (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) PM10 Exhaust (lbs/day)
PM2.5 Exhaust
(lbs/day)
2023 1.91 19.5 19.0 0.73 0.66
2024 1.69 12.0 18.8 0.44 0.41
2025 10.70 0.24 0.43 0.01 0.01
Maximum (Highest Daily Average) 10.70 19.5 19.0 0.73 0.66 BAAQMD Emissions Threshold 54 54 N/A 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No N/A No No
Notes: ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter; PM2.5 = Fine particulate matter; N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO.

Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022.

As shown above in Table 3.3-4, average daily emission for all modeled criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would not exceed established BAAQMD threshold of significance, therefore, project -generated emissions of ROG, NOx, and exhaust particulate matter would not result in a substantial contribution to the nonattainment status of the region. Regarding fugitive dust emissions, site preparation and grading activities could contribute particulate matter into the local atmosphere. The BAAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold for fugitive dust emissions; instead, the BAAQMD states that projects that incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control during construction would have a less than significant impact related to fugitive dust emissions. The project includes implementation of these BMPs to comply with adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.5.3a. Therefore, construction-related fugitive dust emissions would also not result in a substantial contribution to the nonattainment status of the region or exceed less than significant levels.

Attachment 12

Page 31 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-15
Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions Long-term emissions associated with project operation are shown in Table 3.3-5. Sources of these emissions include building electricity use (it is assumed that there will be no natural gas consumption associated with operation of the Project as the building will be all-electric), landscaping activities and mobile source emissions from transportation- related activities such as resident and worker commutes. CalEEMod was used to model emissions that would result from operation of the Project using project specific data provided by the client as well as model defaults. See Appendix B for details regarding model inputs, defaults and output data. As shown, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD daily thresholds for any criteria pollutant. As shown in Table 3.3-5, emissions would not exceed BAAQMD daily thresholds for any criteria pollutant. As project operational emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds, the project would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projecte d air quality violation, and this impact would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-5 Summary of Average Daily Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions
Emissions Source ROG (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) PM10 Total (lbs/day)
PM2.5 Total
(lbs/day)
Mobile 6.02 4.92 45.0 4.09 0.77
Area 9.1 0.14 11.0 0.02 0.02
Energy (Natural Gas) 1 - - - - -
Total Emissions 15.12 5.06 56.00 4.10 0.79
BAAQMD Emissions Threshold 54 54 N/A 82 54
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No
Notes: ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOx = Oxides of Nitrogen; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter; PM2.5 = Fine particulate matter; N/A = not applicable; no BAAQMD threshold for CO 1 There would be no energy-related criteria pollutant emissions because there would be no natural gas consumption.

Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022.

Conclusion
With the application of adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.5.3a, no project level standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation for construction would occur. Similarly, no standard or substantial contribution would occur for project operational activities. This impact would be less than significant and no adverse impacts to public health would occur.

1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

2. The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour

3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at the affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage).

Attachment 12

Page 32 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-16 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
According to the operational analysis conducted for the LSAP EIR, implementation of the LSAP would result in approximately 26,000 trips on a peak day. The proposed Project would result in approximately 4,000 trips on a peak day, which is a fraction (or approximately 15 percent) of the total trips evaluated in the LSAP EIR . The LSAP EIR found that none of the traffic volumes at any intersection, freeway segment, or freeway ramp would experience more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. Because the LSAP would not generate traffic volumes which exceed BAAQMD screening criteria, and the proposed Project would generate a small subset of this volume, it can be concluded that the Project would not exceed BAAQMD screening thresholds for localized CO emissions. The LSAP Update SEIR Impact 3.2-3 also came to a less than significant conclusion.

Toxic Air Contaminant Concentrations
Construction Impacts
As identified in Impact 3.5.5 of the LSAP EIR, sources of construction-related TACs potentially affecting sensitive receptors include off-road diesel-powered equipment. In the case of most construction projects allowed under the LSAP, duration would be short-term, lasting less than one year. According to BAAQMD (2017), construction - generated diesel PM emissions contribute to negative health impacts when construction is extended over lengthy periods of time. Projects under the LSAP would be subject to, and would comply with, California regulations limiting idling to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions. Additionally, concentrations of mobile-source diesel PM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). The LSAP Update SEIR concluded that the increased development potential in the LSAP Update would not result in a new or substantially more severe TAC emission-related air quality impact beyond what was identified in the LSAP EIR.

As discussed in Impact 3.5.5 of the LSAP EIR, the project would be required to implement adopted Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.3a which requires that BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures are employed. Impact 3.5.5 of the LSAP EIR also includes adopted Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-5, which requires a site-specific analysis of large- scale construction projects (i.e., projects greater than five acres lasting longer than two years) for the potential of construction-generated air pollutant impacts based on specific project details of future development, and the development of adequate mitigation, in consultation of the BAAQMD, to address any such impacts. Under adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-5, projects would be required to include appropriate mitigation measures to mitigate potential impacts on nearby sensitive receptors only if the BAAQMD risk threshold (i.e., probability of contracting cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million) (2022 BAAQMD risk threshold for cancer is now 100 in 1 million) would be exceeded during the project construction period. The proposed project site is approximately 1.9 acres. Since the proposed project is less than five acres, it does not meet the criteria to be considered a large-scale construction project, and Mitigation Measure MM 3.5-5 would not apply. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
TAC impact could occur when new sources associated with a proposed project expose existing nearby sensitive receptors to pollution concentrations or when new sensitive receptors are located in close proximity to existing TAC sources. In accordance with BAAQMD guidance and LSAP EIR Impact 3.5.6, both scenarios were evaluated. However, regarding project-generated TAC sources, the proposed project is a residential development that would not include any new TAC sources; thus, this impact is focused on exposure from existing nearby sources to the proposed project.

This assessment used BAAQMD’s cumulative risk thresholds. The LSAP Update SEIR concluded that the update increased development potential would not result in a new or substantially more severe TAC emission -related air quality impact beyond what was identified in the LSAP EIR.

Attachment 12

Page 33 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-17
Potential Health Impacts Related to Air Emissions from the Project As discussed in the Impact 3.5.6 of the LSAP EIR, future developments that include sensitive receptors may site these receptors in proximity to existing sources of TACs. To evaluate potential TAC exposure from existing TAC sources to the proposed sensitive receptors that would be constructed as part of the project, a review of existing TAC sources within 1,000 feet of the project site were evaluated using available data from the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Map (BAAQMD 2022a). Using the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Calculator with Distance Multiplier, risk and emission levels for stationary sources were adjusted based on their distance to the project site (BAAQMD 2022b). For the nearby Lawrence Expressway and Caltrain rail line, risk and emissions levels available from the LSAP EIR were used and adjusted, using a straight-line interpolation calculation, to adjust risk and emissions levels based on the distance from these sources to the project site. Based on the review of existing TAC sources in the project vicinity, there are three sources located within 1,000 feet to the project, as described below:

1. Luminus Inc. (Source #22265) is located at 1145 Sonora Court, which is approximately 225 feet northwest of the project site’s western boundary and has a cancer risk of 3.041 per million, a hazard index value of 0.001, and a PM

2.5 concentration of 0.004 µg/m3.

Other sources within 1,000 feet of the project property line include Lawrence Expressway, a major roadway with more than 10,000 average daily trips and the Caltrain rail line. The Project shares its southern border with the Caltrain rail line with a small embankment between them. Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane expressway running north and south and is approximately 850 feet east of the project. Cancer risk and PM2.5 concentrations from the Luminus Inc. facility were scaled using the BAAQMD’s Health Risk Calculator with Distance Multipliers tool based on the distance from the project site.

Table 3.3-6 presents the sum of the emissions/risk data for all sources within 1,000 feet of the project’s property-line and represents the potential cumulative impact on future residents. All combined risks and hazards are below the BAAQMD cumulative thresholds for health risks. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3.3-6 Cumulative Cancer Risk and Particulate Matter Concentrations Source ID1 Description Distance to Project
Site (feet)
Cancer Risk
(per million)
PM2.5
Concentration (µg/m3)
Increased Non-
Cancer Risk (Chronic
Hazard Index)
N/A CalTrain-Railroad2 55 57.45 0.100 0.202
N/A Lawrence Expressway-
Major Roadways 855 3.168 0.063 N/A
22265 Luminus Inc. 225 0.94 <0.01 <0.01
Combined Total - - 61.56 0.16 0.02
BAAQMD Cumulative
Significance Threshold - - 100 0.8 10
Cumulative Significance
Threshold Exceeded? - - No No No
Notes: N/A = not applicable; data was not provided in the LSAP Environmental Impact Report (City of Sunnyvale 2016). 1 Source IDs presented here are those used in the Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. 2 The Caltrain health risks reported do not include the reduction effects from electrification of the rail line. However, these risks would be reduced over time as Caltrain electrifies more of their fleet. Full electrification is expected to occur by 2040.

Attachment 12

Page 34 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-18 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Indoor Air Quality
Residents of buildings could be exposed to chemicals associated with buildings materials. T he project would comply with mandatory and applicable regulatory requirements that address indoor air quality, including the following:
 The Composite Wood Products Regulation is a California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulation that reduces public exposure to formaldehyde through the establishment of strict emission performance standards on particleboard, medium density fiberboard and hardwood plywood (collectively known as composite wood products). The regulation, adopted in 2007, established two phases of emissions standards: an initial Phase I, and later, a more stringent Phase 2 that requires all finished goods, such as flooring, destined for sale or use in California to be made using complying composite wood products. As of January 2014 only Phase 2 products are legal for sale in California. Moreover, ASHRAE 62.2 ventilation and air filtration requirements have been incorporated into the California Title 24 Building Code. These requirements contain standards to achieve acceptable indoor air quality via dwelling-unit ventilation, local mechanical exhaust, and source control.  On December 12, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register a final rule to reduce exposure to formaldehyde emissions from certain wood products produced domestically or imported into the United States. EPA worked with CARB to help ensure the final national rule was consistent with California’s requirements for similar composite wood products.

Because the project would comply with all requirements related to building materials no further analysis is required regarding the effects of the environment to residents of the project site. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR determined that construction within the plan area is not anticipated to expose nearby receptors to objectionable odors. As noted in Impact 3.5.7 in the LSAP EIR, construction-generated odors are typically associated with exhaust emissions from diesel fueled equipment and the application of architectural coatings and paving materials, which may be considered objectionable to some individuals. However, because construction- related odors would be intermittent, temporary, and would disperse rapidly with distance from the source, construction- related odors would not result in the frequent exposure of a substantial number of individuals to objectionable odors. It is also important to note that the project would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings, and Rule 15, Emulsified Asphalt, which establish volatile organic compound (VOC) content limits for these construction materials. VOCs are the main sources of odors from these sources. Therefore, compliance with these regulatory requirements would further reduce odor impacts associated with these sources. Short-term exposure to odorous emissions would therefore be considered less than significant. For these reasons, odorous emissions generated during construction under the project would also be less than significant.

The project would generate oil and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use as well as odors related to asphalt paving. The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be temporary. With respect to operation, the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017) identifies land uses associated with odor complaints to include, but not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Residential uses are not identified on this list. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were referenced in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR analysis and would be implemented if the project were approved based on the analysis above.

Attachment 12

Page 35 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-19
Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.3a
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the City of Sunnyvale shall ensure that BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures from Table 8-1 of the BAAQMD 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (or subsequent updates) are noted on the construction documents. These basic construction mitigation measures include the following:
1) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
2) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. 4) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturers’ specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
7) A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Conclusion
While project-specific analyses provide additional detail for the project site, the analysis confirms that with application of mitigation measures and/or uniformly applied development standards and policies the proposed project would result in no (1) peculiar impacts, (2) impacts not analyzed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update EIR, or (3) significant off - site impacts and cumulative impacts not discussed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update EIR, and (4) there is no substantial new information indicating that an impact would be more severe than discussed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update EIR. The conclusions of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update EIR regarding air quality impacts remain valid and no additional analysis is required.

Attachment 12

Page 36 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-20 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.

4. Biological Resources. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impacts 3.9.1, 3.9.2,

3.9.10, and 3.9.11
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.4-
1 and 3.4-2)
No No Yes, impacts to special-
status bats, nesting
raptors, and migratory
birds would remain
less than significant
with application of
adopted mitigation
measures. Impact on
other special-status
species would be less
than significant
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impacts 3.9.5 and 3.9.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.4-
14)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impact 3.9.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.4-
15)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impact 3.9.7
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.4-
15)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impact 3.9.8
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.4-
3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
No No NA, no impact would
occur.

Attachment 12

Page 37 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-21
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.

4. Biological Resources. Would the project:

Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Impact 3.9.9
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.4-
15)

3.4.1 Discussion
Biological resources are discussed in Chapter 3.9, “Biological Resources,” of the LSAP EIR as well as in the LSAP Update SEIR. The analysis below utilizes updated and site-specific results of California Natural Diversity Database and California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory records searches of the Mountain View, Milpitas, Calaveras Reservoir, Cupertino, San Jose West, San Jose East, Castle Rock Ridge, Los Gatos, and Santa Teresa Hills U.S.

Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles, as well as review of recent aerial imagery of the site (CNDDB 2023, CNPS 2023). It also incorporates the results of 1154 and 1170 Sonora Court Biological Resources Report prepared for the project (H. T. Harvey & Associates 2023) and the Arborist Report for 1154-1156 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale CA prepared for the project (Panoramic Design Group 2022). The project site contains an existing office building surrounded by paved parking areas, other buildings, roads, the eight-lane Lawrence Expressway, a Caltrain station, and railroad tracks. The arborist report identified 27 ornamental trees or native trees of varying size and quality surrounding the building consisting of: fern pine (Afrocarpus gracilior), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidum), photinia (Photinia serratifolia), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens; Panoramic Design Group 2022).

There are no native plant communities present on the project site. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As described above, the project site consists of existing development (e.g., buildings, parking lots, roads) and landscaping (e.g., shrubs, trees). The wildlife most often associated with developed and landscaped areas are those that are tolerant of periodic human disturbances, including introduced species such as the European starling ( Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), house mouse (Mus musculus), and Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus). Several common native species are also able to utilize these habitats, especially the buildings and landscaped areas, including western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and a variety of birds. In addition, eaves, gutters, or crevices on the existing building may be attractive to other nesting and/or roosting birds in the area, such as the house finch ( Haemorhous mexicanus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). Species observed during the field survey conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates biologist in July 2022 include some of those previously listed as well as American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), brown creeper (Certhia americana), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis; H.T. Harvey and Associates 2022).

A number of special-status animal species are known to occur (or to have occurred historically) in the project region including American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorchinus townsendii), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) (CNDDB 2023).

Attachment 12

Page 38 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-22 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
American peregrine falcon, a California fully protected species, nests on tall cliffs, bridges, and buildings, and forages in many habitats. No suitable nesting habitat for peregrine falcons is located on or near the project site, and the nearest areas of reported nesting activity are located at least 4.5 miles to the north on tall poles and towers at the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and approximately 6.6 miles to the southeast at San José City Hall. In addition, a pair of peregrine falcons has been observed on the Santa Clara Marriott 1.9 miles to the northeast, though nesting has not been confirmed at this location. Because there is no suitable habitat for this species, it is not expected to occur on the project site. (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2022).

Suitable burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat within the LSAP area, as described in Impact 3.9.1 in the LSAP EIR; is present only on the Corn Palace property located approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site. The project site does not contain any suitable habitat for burrowing owl, as it is completely developed and does not contain grassland habitat.

White-tailed kite, a California fully protected species, nests in tall shrubs and trees and forages in grasslands, marshes, croplands, and ruderal habitats. Mature trees on and adjacent to the site provide ostensibly suitable nesting sites for white-tailed kites; however, sufficient open foraging habitat to support a nesting pair of this species is not present in the site vicinity, and the nearest areas of reported nesting activity of white -tailed kites is located approximately 2.7 miles to the north at the Sunnyvale Baylands Park. Therefore, this species is not expected to occur on the project site. (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2022).

As identified in Impact 3.9.2 of the LSAP EIR, four special-status bat species, including western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) are known to occur near the LSAP area. Potential maternity and night-roosting habitat includes snags, sloughing tree bark, and human structures in the LSAP area. The LSAP EIR determined that, during the summer, large numbers of bats may be present at maternity roosts, and young bats that are unable to fly, also may be present. Removal of roost sites could cause direct mortality of bats. Noise and dust from construction could result in indirect impacts such as disturbance to roosting bats during construction. Potentially suitable roost habitat for special-status bats within the project site includes large ornamental trees and the existing building. The potential for substantial adverse effects to special- status bat is identified as a potentially significant impact in the LSAP EIR. LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.2 would reduce potentially significant impacts through requirements for pre-construction surveys and protection of bats and active roosts.

All native breeding birds, regardless of their listing status, are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Game Code sections 3503 and 3513. As noted in Impact 3.9.3, the LSAP contains several guidelines intended to protect trees, but recognizes that some trees may need to be removed to accommodate new projects. If construction occurs during the nesting season and trees are removed or substantially pruned, this could result in direct impacts on nesting birds and raptors if present. Additionally, noise and other human activity may result in nest abandonment. The project site contains many large ornamental trees which could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors, and removal of these trees may result loss of active nests, destruction of eggs, or death of young that are not capable of flight. Adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.3 would mitigate this impact by requiring preconstruction surveys and avoidance of active nest sites during construction.

Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), and western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) listing status has changed since the certification of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR and are now candidates for endangered status under the California Endangered Species Act (CNDDB, 2023). However, due to recent range contractions (in the case of western bumble bee) and, in the case of Crotch’s bumble bee, due to the absence of undeveloped grassland or scrub habitat in the project vicinity these species are not expected to occur on the project site. (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2022).

Attachment 12

Page 39 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-23
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The two waterways in the LSAP area, the El Camino Storm Drain Channel and Calabazas Creek, are concrete lined and do not support riparian or wetland vegetation. All other portions of the plan area are completely developed or disturbed and no longer support natural communities. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur in the LSAP area. The project site is completely developed and is surrounded by roads, railroad tracks, and other urban and suburban development. The LSAP EIR identified indirect impacts from the construction of new projects due to nitrogen oxide emissions from newly generated vehicle trips. However, the LSAP EIR concluded that emissions from new projects would be limited to the vicinity of the project site and would have a less- than-significant impact on sensitive communities (such as serpentine habitats) in the region (H.T. Harvey and Associates 2022).

19.94 dictate the limited circumstances under which protected trees may be removed and require implementation of protection measures for these trees during construction activities. If any protected trees are affected by future Attachment 12

Page 40 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-24 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
development, the project applicant will be required to comply with Chapter 19.94. The LSAP would implement this standard through guideline STP-UDG8, which requires that replacement trees be provided where tree removal is unavoidable. In addition, the LSAP has identified a policy to enhance the urban forest in the plan area to provide shade and shelter, add scale to pedestrian and vehicular streets, beautify the area, and provide wildlife habitat (LSAP Policy STP-P1). This would be accomplished through guidelines that require planting street trees on all streets, using medium- to large-canopy trees on large streets, and ensuring new tree plantings are appropriate for an urban environment.

The project would be subject to LSAP policy provisions and Municipal Code Chapters 13.16 and 19.94. The Arborist Report for 1154-1156 Sonora Court, Sunnyvale, CA outlines the trees present on the project site (Panoramic Design Group, 2022). Project plans include the removal of 13 trees, 4 of which are protected. The LSAP EIR requires the project to comply with the City of Sunnyvale’s Municipal Code (which includes the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance), as well as following policies and guidelines to reduce potential impacts due to the removal of protected trees to less-than-significant. The project proponent would submit a request for the tree removals along with the special development permit to construct the project. Standard permit conditions in accordance with Chapter 19.94 of the Municipal Code may require replacement of trees as a condition of issuance of a protected tree removal permit. If it is not possible to plant replacement trees on the site, the applicant would pay an in-lieu for additional trees to be planted on City property. For those trees that do not require removal but are in close proximity to construction activities, the City or approving body may require a tree bond from the project proponent for any tree required to remain as a condition of permit approval during development activities as described in Chapter 19.94.

The 1154 and 1170 Sonora Court Biological Resources Report includes analysis of the project proposed design and landscaping and how the project proposes to comply with Option 2 of the City’s Bird-Safe Design Guidelines, as well as LSAP policies and guidelines (relate to building massing and height), to reduce bird collisions (Impact 3.9.4 in the LSAP EIR). The City has incorporated into the conditions of approval the project's proposed design and landscaping (to avoid situations that result in a high collision risk), which include implementing bird-safe treatment of glazing as appropriate, and by shielding, directing, and programming proposed up lighting to ensure that the project meets the City’s intent of designing bird-safe buildings and addresses high-risk collision hazards. By incorporating the project’s recommendations into the conditions of approval, the project would meet the intent of the City’s Bird-Safe Guidelines and thus there would be no conflict with local policies. Through implementation of LSAP policies and guidelines, and compliance with the City’s municipal code and conditions of approval, the project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were referenced in the LSAP EIR analysis and would be implemented if the project were approved.

Attachment 12

Page 41 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-25
Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.2
 Prior to the removal of trees or the demolition of buildings, a bat survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days before the start of construction activities. If bat roosts are identified, the City shall require that the bats be safely flushed from the sites where roosting habitat is planned to be removed. If maternity roosts are identified during the maternity roosting season (typically May to September), they must remain undisturbed until a qualified biologist has determined the young bats are no longer roosting. If roosting is found to occur on-site, replacement roost habitat (e.g., bat boxes) shall be provided to offset roosting sites removed. If no bat roosts are detected, no further action is required if the trees and buildings are removed before the next breeding season.
 If a female or maternity colony of bats is found on the project site, and the project can be constructed without the elimination or disturbance of the roosting colony (e.g., if the colony roosts in a large oak tree not planned for removal), a qualified biologist shall determine what buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction-free barrier of 200 feet from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside of the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1).  If an active nursery roost is documented on-site and the project cannot be conducted outside of the maternity roosting season, bats shall be excluded from the site after July 31 and before March 1 to prevent the formation of maternity colonies. Nonbreeding bats shall be safely evicted under the direction of a bat specialist.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.3
 All construction and clearing activities shall be conducted outside of the avian nesting season (January 15–August 31), when feasible. If clearing and/or construction activities occur during the nesting season, preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors, special-status resident birds, and other migratory birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, up to 3 days before initiation of construction activities. The qualified biologist shall survey the construction zone and a 250-foot radius surrounding the construction zone to determine whether the activities taking place have the potential to disturb or otherwise harm nesting birds.  If an active nest is located within 100 feet (250 feet for raptors) of construction activities, the project applicant shall establish an exclusion zone (no ingress of personnel or equipment at a minimum radius of 100 feet or 250 feet, as appropriate, around the nest). Alternative exclusion zones may be established through consultation with the CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as necessary. The City shall be notified if altered exclusion zones widths are authorized by these agencies before the initiation of work. The exclusion zones shall remain in force until all young have fledged.

Conclusion
No new significant or substantially more severe biological impacts would occur with the project. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

Attachment 12

Page 42 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-26 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and
Final EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

5. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.10-1 to 3.10-8
Impacts 3.10.1 and

3.10.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page

3.3-4)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.10-1 to 3.10-8
Impacts 3.10.2 and

3.10.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.3-1)
No No Yes, impacts would be
less than significant
with the application of
the adopted mitigation
measure
d. Substantially disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside the formal
cemeteries?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.10-1 to 3.10-8
Impacts 3.10.2 and

3.10.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.3-1)
No No Yes, impacts would be
less than significant
with the application of
the adopted mitigation
measure

3.5.1 Discussion
A search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) on March 18, 2022 (NWIC File No. 21-1288) revealed that no resources had previously been recorded within or adjacent the project site. The NWIC search also identified that two cultural resource reports have covered portion of the project site. These cultural resource reports contained no recorded archaeological resources or recorded buildings or structures. The findings of the records search are consistent with the EIR and SEIR analysis. The single-story commercial building located on the project site was constructed in 1975. The structure is less than 50 years old and not considered of historic age. Evaluation under the California Register of Historical Resources is not required, and therefore the building is not a resource under CEQA. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
As identified under Impact 3.10.1 of the LSAP EIR, Sunnyvale has numerous buildings that may have historical value.

However, none of the structures or sites identified in the City’s Heritage Resources Inventory is located within or immediately adjacent to the LSAP area. As described above, no historic structures are located within the project site; Attachment 12

Page 43 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-27
thus, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
As discussed in Impact 3.10.2 in the LSAP, while the LSAP would not directly affect archaeological resources, implementation of the LSAP would allow new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements that could involve subsurface disturbance for installation of foundations, utilities, or subterranean building features. As identified in Impact 3.10.2, subsequent actions have the potential to impact undiscovered archaeological resources. If such resources were to represent “unique archaeological resources” as defined by CEQA in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(g), any substantial change to or destruction of these resources would be a significant impact. Implementation of adopted LSAP Mitigation Measur e MM 3.10.2 would require halting of construction activities and protection of any discovered archaeological resources.

As previously described, the project site contains no recorded archaeological resources. Further, the project would be subject to adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.10.2. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
c) Substantially disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
While the LSAP would not directly affect human remains, implementation of the LSAP would allow new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements that could involve subsurface disturbance for installation of foundations, utilities, or subterranean building features. As identified in Impact 3.10.2, subsequent actions have the potential to impact unrecorded human remains. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of accidental discovery of human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. These sections also provide guidance if the remains are determined to be Native American. The actions re quired under these sections would ensure a less than significant impact to human remains.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were adopted with the LSAP and would continue to remain applicable if the project was approved.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.10.2
 All subsequent projects within the LSAP plan area shall be required to include information on the improvement plans that if, during the course of grading or construction cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric or historic sites) are discovered, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can access the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures as part of a treatment plan in consultation with the City and all other appropriate agencies. The treatment plan shall include measures to document and protect the discovered resource. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3), preservation in place will be the preferred method of mitigating impacts to the discovered resource. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6254.10, information on the discovered resource shall be confidential.

Attachment 12

Page 44 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-28 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the LSAP EIR. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources.

Attachment 12

Page 45 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-29

3.6 ENERGY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and Final
EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

6. Energy. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.11-44 to 3.11-47
Impact 3.11.8.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.5-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.11-44 to 3.11-47
Impact 3.11.8.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.5-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant

3.6.1 Discussion
The City of Sunnyvale as well as the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, and unincorporated Santa Clara County are members of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which serves as the CCA for its member jurisdictions. SVCE was established in March 2016 following the adoption of the 2014 CAP and works in partnership with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) to deliver GHG-efficient electricity to customers within its member jurisdictions. Consistent with state law, all electricity customers in the city of Sunnyvale were automatically enrolled in SVCE; however, customers can choose to opt out and be served by PG&E. SVCE offers two levels of service: all customers are automatically enrolled in GreenStart, which provides at a minimum 50 percent of its energy from carbon-free sources, while accounts can upgrade to GreenPrime, which delivers 100 percent renewable and 100 percent carbon-free electricity for an additional charge (SVCE 2022). According to the Sunnyvale Climate Action Plan Biennial Progress Report released in 2019, 98 percent of residential and commercial accounts received clean electricity from SVCE and 100 percent of City facilities were powered by renewable energy (City of Sunnyvale 2018). Currently, all power supplied by SVCE is carbon -free. PG&E supplies natural gas service to the City of Sunnyvale through state-regulated public utility contacts. The project would construct all-electric buildings and no natural gas connections would be provided.

On August 13, 2019, the City adopted the Climate Action Playbook (Playbook) which builds upon the City’s previous Climate Action Plan (CAP 1.0) prepared in 2014. Through implementation of measures in the CAP 1.0, the City experienced a 12 percent decrease below 1990 emissions levels in 2016. In 2016, the City emitted 880,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO
2e). To demonstrate compliance with the state’s long-term climate change reduction goals, the City must achieve an interim target of a 56 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 (Senate Bill [SB] 32) with the goal of meeting the state’s target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions by 2050 (Executive Order [EO] S-3-05). The Playbook includes a Game Plan 2020 which contains the “next moves” for the City and contains 46 actions that are planned for implementation over three years (2019–2022). Several Playbook next moves are directly Attachment 12

Page 46 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-30 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
applicable to land use development projects. The City requires land use development projects to adhere to the CAP as a condition of approval.

The regulatory setting provided in the LSAP EIR remains applicable to this analysis. The regulatory information provided on pages 3.11-45 through 3.11-47 of the LSAP EIR includes a description of building efficiency standards; green building standards; applicable policies of the City’s CAP; and approved LSAP policies. Since certification of the LSAP EIR, various State and federal policies have been updated. These are identified below as well as in the LSAP Update SEIR.  Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and CAFE Standards: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established nationwide fuel economy standards to conserve oil. Under this act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle economy standards. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Three Energy Policy Acts have been passed, in 1992, 2005, and 2007, to reduce dependence on foreign petroleum, provide tax incentives for alternative fuels, and support energy conservation.
 Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 2005: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light -duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct.

Federal tax deductions are allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs. The En ergy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.  State of California Energy Efficiency Action Plan: The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan has three primary goals for the state: double energy efficiency savings by 2030 relative to a 2015 base year (per SB 350), expand energy efficiency in low-income and disadvantaged communities, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. This plan provides guiding principles and recommendations on how the state would achieve those goals. These recommendations include:
 identifying funding sources that support energy efficiency programs,  identifying opportunities to improve energy efficiency through data analysis,  using program designs as a way to encourage increased energy efficiency on the consumer end,  improving energy efficiency through workforce education and training, and  supporting rulemaking and programs that incorporate energy demand flexibility and building decarbonization (CEC 2019).
 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Energy conservation standards for new residential and non- residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations).

Attachment 12

Page 47 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-31
 AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000): The CEC and CARB prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT (CEC and CARB 2003).  AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statues of 2005): required CEC to prepare the State Alternative Fuels Plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California.
 Advanced Clean Cars program: In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles, into a single package of standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. In August 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which sets sales requirements for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) to ultimately reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.  CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan), which outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017). It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste). CARB released the F inal 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) on November 16, 2022 (CARB 2022b). The 2022 Scoping Plan traces the pathway for the state to achieve its carbon neutrality goal by 2045 using a combined top down, bottoms up approach using various scenarios. CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan on December 16, 2022.  SB X1-2: All California utilities are to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB X1 -2 also requires the renewable electricity standard to be met increasingly with renewable energy that is supplied to the California grid from sources within, or directly proximate to, California. SB X1 -2 mandates that renewables from these sources make up at least 50 percent of the total renewable energy for the 2011 -2013 compliance period, at least 65 percent for the 2014-2016 compliance period, and at least 75 percent for 2016 and beyond.  SB 100: SB 100 raises California’s RPS requirements to 60 percent by 2030, with interim targets, and 100 percent by 2045. The bill also establishes a state policy that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2045. Under the bill, the state cannot increase carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid or allow resource shuffling to achieve the 100 percent carbon free electricity target.
 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five- fold increase over current levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent. By addressing renewable fuels and the CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 builds upon progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? As described in Impact 3.11.8.1 of the LSAP EIR, buildout of the LSAP would increase the consumption of energy.

However, projects developed under the LSAP would need to comply with Building Energy Efficiency Standards included in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and implement the energy efficiency requirements of the City’s CAP. Implementation of the LSAP would also result in an improvement in VMT per capita as compared to Attachment 12

Page 48 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-32 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
citywide VMT under the existing General Plan and the proposed Land Use and Transportation Element update (see LSAP Draft EIR Table 3.4-1 in Section 3.4, Transportation and Circulation). This is consistent with the intent of the LSAP to improve the use of alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle use and associated VMT. Construction and operational energy use associated with the project are discussed separately, below. Construction and operational energy use was also evaluated in LSAP Update Impact 3.5-1.

Construction
Energy would be required to operate and maintain construction equipment and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical buildings and infrastructure associated with the Project would be nonrecoverable. Most energy consumption would result from operation of off -road construction equipment and on-road vehicle trips associated with commutes by construction workers and haul trucks trips.

Table 3.6-1 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the construction of the project by phase. Most of the construction-related energy consumption would be associated with off-road equipment and the transport of equipment and waste using on-road haul trucks for all phases of construction. An estimated 110,844 gallons of gasoline and 83,533 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix B).

Table 3.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption
Construction Phase Diesel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons)
Off-Road Equipment 40,253 -
On-Road Trucks 43,280 -
Worker Commute Vehicles - 110,844
Total 83,533 110,844
Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include off-road equipment and on-road gallons from worker and vendor trips.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

The energy needs for project construction would be temporary and are not anticipated to require additional capacity or substantially increase peak or base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. Associated energy consumption would be typical of that associated with residential projects of this size in an urban setting. Automotive fuels would be consumed to transport people to and from the project site. Energy would be required for construction elements and transport construction materials. The one-time energy expenditure required to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the project would be nonrecoverable. There is no atypical construction related energy demand associated with the proposed project. Non-renewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary manner when compared to other construction activity in the region.

Operational
The project would increase electricity consumption in the region relative to existing conditions. However, the new facilities would, at a minimum, be built to 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are more efficient than 2019 Standards, as the 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric- ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, and strengthens ventilation standards (CEC 2022). The project would have no natural gas use and would be all electric. Off-model adjustments were made to electricity consumption for each land use to account for increased electricity demand resulting from the absence of natural gas use. See Appendix B for calculation details. Table 3.6-2 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the operation of the project for the first full year (2025) of operations.

Attachment 12

Page 49 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-33
Table 3.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Electricity 5,563,792 kWh/year
Gasoline 129,160,624 gal/year
Diesel 4,367,393 gal/year
Notes: kWh/year = kilowatt-hours per year; gal/year = gallons per year.

Source: Calculations by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Operation of the project would be typical of residential uses requiring electricity for lighting, climate control, kitchen facilities, and miscellaneous appliances. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would be integrated into the project to reduce the project’s energy demands.

The net fuel consumption associated with project-related vehicle trips would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary in comparison to other similar developments in the region. State and federal regulations regarding fuel efficiency standards for vehicles in California are designed to reduce wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of energy for transportation. Additionally, the project site is also located near the Lawrence Caltrain Station which will reduce fuel use from vehicle trips and from increased ridership. For these reasons, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.

Complying with Title 24 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and participating in the CCA complies with the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan Update and the City’s local Climate Action Plan Playbook to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy use from fossil fuel sources. Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were identified in the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR regarding energy, nor are any additional mitigation measures required for the project.

Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy.

Attachment 12

Page 50 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-34 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

7. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Refer to
California Geological Survey Special
Publication 42.)
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impact not evaluated
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-2)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impacts 3.7.1 and

3.7.5 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impacts 3.7.1 and

3.7.5 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
iv) Landslides? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impact not evaluated
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-2)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impacts 3.7.2 and

3.7.6 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-2
through 3.6-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.

Attachment 12

Page 51 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-35
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

Any New Circumstances
Involving New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impacts 3.7.3, 3.7.5,
and 3.7.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994, as updated), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impacts 3.7.3 and

3.7.6 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.7-1 to 3.7-8
Impact not analyzed.

Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.6-3)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Draft EIR page 3.7-11
Impacts 3.7.4 and

3.7.6 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.6-1)
No No Yes, impacts would be
less than significant
with the application of
the adopted mitigation
measure.

3.7.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to geology and soils, described in the LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.7, “Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources,” has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR or the LSAP Update SEIR. The regional and local settings remain the same as stated in Section 3.7.

The California Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District has resulted in changes to CEQA with regard to the effects of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. The effects of the environment on a project are generally outside the scope of CEQA unless the project would exacerbate these conditions, as concluded by the California Supreme Court (see [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369, 377 [“we conclude that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users.”]). Changes to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect this decision were adopted on December 28, 2018. Local agencies are not precluded from considering the impact of locating new development in areas subject to existing environmental hazards; however, CEQA cannot be used by a lead agency to require a Attachment 12

Page 52 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-36 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
developer or other agency to obtain an EIR or implement mitigation measures solely because the occupants or users of a new project would be subjected to the level of hazards specified. However, previous discussions of effects of the environment related to geology and soils on future residents are included herein for disclosure purposes. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
On page 3.7-8 of the LSAP Draft EIR, it is noted that the Plan Area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and would therefore not be subject to hazards associated with substantial fault-rupture. Impacts associated with fault-rupture were not evaluated in the LSAP EIR and no impact was identified in the LSAP Update SEIR.

The proposed project is located within the Plan Area evaluated in the LSAP Draft EIR, which was determined not to be subject to hazards associated with fault-rupture. The project would not result in any new or more severe impacts relating to fault rupture. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
See section a- III) below.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? As noted in Impact 3.7.1 of the LSAP Draft EIR, the LSAP area, including the project area, is located in a seismically active area and could experience strong seismic ground shaking and seismic -related ground failure from earthquakes on active faults located outside of the plan area (City of Sunnyvale 2016). The anticipated increase in population and development under the LSAP could result in the exposure of people, structures, and infrastructure to seismic -related hazards such as ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure such as liquefaction and settlement.

A preliminary geotechnical investigation report was prepared for the project. The report states that the project site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California that is characterized by northwest -trending valleys and ridges (Rockridge 2022:4). These topographic features are controlled by folds and faults that resulted from the collision of the Farallon plate and North American plate and subsequent strike-slip faulting along the San Andreas Fault system. The San Andreas Fault is more than 600 miles long from Point Arena in the north to the Gulf of California in the south. The major active faults in the area are the San Andreas, Hayward, and Monte Vista -Shannon faults. The report states that during a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, very strong shaking could occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction. The report states that intensity of earthquake ground motion at the site will depend on the characteristics of the generating fault, distance to earthquake epicenter, and magnitude and duration of the earthquake.

Soil susceptible to liquefaction includes loose to medium dense sand and gravel, low -plasticity silt, and some low- plasticity clay deposits. The report states that the project site been mapped within a zone of liquefaction potential (CGS 2002), an evaluation of the liquefaction potential of soil encountered below groundwater at the site. The analysis identified thin layers of potentially liquefiable soils at depths of 13 to 20 feet below ground surface (bgs).

However, because the proposed basement would be founded about 25 feet bgs, there are no potentially liquefiable layers in proximity to the bottom of the proposed building foundations and the likelihood of liquefaction -induced events are low(Rockridge 2022:10).

Attachment 12

Page 53 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-37
The LSAP EIR concluded that implementation of existing regulations and building standards, such as the CBC implemented through Chapter 16.16 of the City’s Municipal Code, would address seismic hazards, and result in a less than significant impact. The CBC includes design criteria for seismic loading and other geologic hazards to minimize impacts of ground shaking on buildings. The project would be subject to applicable requirements from the CBC, as well as recommendations made by the geotechnical investigation for the project. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. iv) Landslides?
On page 3.7-8 of the LSAP Draft EIR, it is noted that the Plan Area is not located within a landslide hazard zone and would therefore not be subject to hazards associated with landslides. Impacts associated with landslides were not evaluated in the LSAP EIR.

The proposed project is located within the Plan Area evaluated in the LSAP EIR, which was determined not to be subject to hazards associated with fault-rupture or landslides. The project would result in no impacts pertaining to landslides. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact 3.7.2 of the LSAP EIR identifies that implementation of the project could include development of new uses, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements. Grading and site preparation activities associated with such development could temporarily remove buildings and pavement potentially disturbing the soils, which could result in additional potential for wind and water erosion. However, construction within the LSAP area would be required to comply with CBC Chapter 70 standards, which would ensure implementation of appropriate site -specific measures during grading and other construction activities to reduce and minimize the potential for soil erosion to a less than significant level. Additionally, any development involving clearing, grading, or excavation that causes soil disturbance of one or more acres would be required to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which includes specific requirements related to the installation and maintenance of erosion control measures.

The project area is approximately 1.9 acres and would require the preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would consider the full range of erosion control best management practices (BMPs), including any additional site- specific and seasonal conditions. As further discussed in LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a Construction General Permit (Order No. 20090009 -DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order 2012-0006-DWQ) that provides additional standards and requirements to avoid soil erosion. In addition, the City’s grading standards (Municipal Code Section 18.12.110) specify that when grading will create a nuisance or hazard to other properties, public way, or public facilities due to erosion from storm runoff or rainfall, grading cannot commence or continue without specific consent in writing from the Director of Public Works or the Director of Community Development.

Compliance with existing standards and BMPs would minimize potential project impacts to a less- than-significant level. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The LSAP EIR stated that future structures and improvements that could be developed under the LSAP could experience stresses on various sections of foundations and connected utilities, as well as structural failure and Attachment 12

Page 54 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-38 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
damage to infrastructure if located on expansive or unstable soils (LSAP EIR Impact 3.7.3). The City requires preparation of geotechnical reports for all development projects, which include soil sampling and laboratory testing to determine the soil’s susceptibility to expansion and differential settlement and provide recommendations for design and construction methods to reduce potential impacts, as necessary.

The preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the project identified potential geotechnical issues related to shallow groundwater, suitable lateral support to the sides of excavations to limit deflections and to protect surrounding improvements, and dewatering-induced settlement of surrounding improvements. The report provided recommended specific construction activities including installation of a mat foundation, soil anchors, and the need to identify a suitable shoring system. In addition, the report provided considerations for construction dewatering systems (Rockridge 2022: 11-18).

In addition to the above, the CBC requires the incorporation of special design and construction methods to reduce potential site conditions related to expansive soil and settlement. Compliance with recommendations in the geotechnical report and with CBC regulations and standards would ensure the adequate design and construction of building foundations, and ground preparation to resist soil movement.

For a discussion of impacts relating to landslides, see analyses under section a-IV) above.

The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property? See analyses under item c) above.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
As described in the LSAP and consistent with the analyses in the LSAP EIR, the project would use the City’s existing wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. Septic systems would not be required and therefore no impact pertaining to alterative wastewater disposal would occur. This condition has not changed, and no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The underlying geology of the LSAP area consists of basin and alluvial deposits that have the potential to contain fossils, based on previously reported finds in similar materials in other locations in the Bay Area. New development and redevelopment activities in the LSAP area could involve the installation of footings and foundations and/or excavations. Because the plan area is developed, it is likely that a substantial amount of ground disturbance and placement of fill has altered the subsurface soils and underlying geologic materials at varying depths. However, if a large area were excavated to depths greater than 10 feet, it is possible the excavation could be within Holocene age deposits or older Pleistocene alluvial materials, which could contain fossils. Paleontological resources are classified as nonrenewable scientific resources. The inadvertent damage or destruction during excavation and grading activities at construction sites could further reduce this finite resource base. This is a potentially significant impact for the LSAP.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.7.4 that would require halting of construction activities and protection of any discovered paleontological resources would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

The project would be subject to adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.7.4. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, Attachment 12

Page 55 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-39
nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were adopted with the LSAP and would continue to remain applicable if the project was approved.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.7.4
 All subsequent projects within the LSAP plan area shall be required to include information on the improvement plans that if, during the course of grading or construction fossils are discovered, work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the Sunnyvale Community Development Department shall be notified, and the significance of the find and recommended actions must be determined by a qualified paleontologist. In addition, before the commencement of project site preparation, all construction personnel shall be informed of the potential to discover fossils and the procedures to follow.

Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils.

Attachment 12

Page 56 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-40 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the
LSAP Draft and Final
EIR or the LSAP
Update Draft and
Final SEIR.

8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.13-1 to 3.13-10
Impact 3.13.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.7-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.13-1 to 3.13-10
Impact 3.13.1
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.7-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant

3.8.1 Discussion
On August 13, 2019, the City adopted the Climate Action Playbook (Playbook) which builds upon the City’s previous Climate Action Plan (CAP 1.0) in 2014. Through implementation of measures in the CAP 1.0, the City experienced a 12 percent decrease below 1990 emissions levels in 2016. In 2016, the City emitted 880,000 MTCO 2e. To demonstrate compliance with the state’s long-term climate change reduction goals, the City must achieve an interim target of a 56 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32) with the goal of meeting the state’s target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions by 2050 (EO S-3-05). The Playbook includes a Game Plan 2020 which contains the “next moves” for the City and contains 46 actions that are planned for implementation over three years (2019 –2022). Several Playbook next moves are directly applicable to land use development projects. The City requires land use development projects to adhere to the CAP as a condition of approval.

In April 2017, the City Council adopted the LUTE of the General Plan which incorporates and integrates policy direction and land use patterns from other City of Sunnyvale planning documents, including the LSAP. Since the adoption of the LSAP EIR there have been several new or updated GHG executive orders, plans, policies, or regulations issued since certification of the LSAP EIR, but none of these new items, which are part of the regulatory setting, constitute substantial information indicating that the project would have a significant impact not analyzed in the LSAP EIR.

The LSAP Update SEIR determined that the regulatory setting of the 2016 LSAP EIR remained applicable to the LSAP Update SEIR analysis. Several new laws, plans, regulations, and guidelines have been introduced that related to GHGs and have become effective since the writing of the LSAP Update SEIR. These laws, regulations, plans, and guidelines are summarized below:
 Scoping Plan Update: EO B-30-15 and SB 32 require CARB to prepare updates to the Scoping Plan to address the 2030 target for the state. On December 24, 2017, CARB approved the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which outlines potential regulations and programs, including strategies consistent with AB 197 requirements, to achieve the 2030 target. CARB released the Final 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Attachment 12

Page 57 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-41
Scoping Plan) on November 16, 2022, pursuant to AB 1279 (summarized below). The 2022 Scoping Plan traces the pathway for the state to achieve its carbon neutrality goal by 2045 using a combined top down, bottoms up approach using various scenarios. CARB adopted the 2022 Scoping Plan on December 16, 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan readjusted the previous SB 32 target of reducing statewide GHG emissions by 40 percent below a 1990 inventory to 48 percent in consideration of the more aggressive targets established by AB 1279.  AB 1279: On September 16, 2022, the State legislature passed AB 1279 which codified stringent emissions targets for the State of achieving carbon neutrality and an 85 percent reduction in 1990 emissions level by no later than 2045 (this superseded the previous GHG emissions reduction target set forth by EO S-3- 05 and SB 32).  SB 379: SB 379 was passed by the State on September 16, 2022. This bill requires every city and county to implement an online permitting platform that verifies code compliance and issues permits in real time for a residential solar system. The bill would require the Energy Commission to set guidelines, adopted through a specified public process to report the number of permits issued for residential solar energy system and residential energy storage systems paired with residential solar energy systems and the relevant characteristics of those systems.
 California Renewables Portfolio Standard: SB X1-2 of 2011 requires all California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB 100 of 2018 sets a three-stage compliance period requiring all California utilities, including independently owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, to generate 52 percent of their electricity from renewables by December 31, 2027; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent carbon-free electricity by December 31, 2045. On September 16, 2022, SB 1020 was signed into law. This bill supersedes the goals of SB 100 by requiring that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 90 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2035, 95 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2040, 100 percent of all retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers by December 31, 2045, and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all state agencies by December 31, 2035.  Bay Area Air Quality Management District Justification Report: In April 2022, the BAAQMD released the Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts (Justification Report). This report includes guidance for determining a project’s consistency with California’s long-term climate goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. The report recommends using the approach endorsed by the California Supreme Court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) (62 Cal.4 th 204), which evaluates a project based on its
effect on California’s efforts to meet the State’s long term climate goals. As the Supreme Court held in that case, a project that would be consistent with meeting those goals can be found to have a less-than-significant impact on climate change under CEQA. If a project would contribute its “fair share” of what will be required to achieve those long-term climate goals, then a reviewing agency can find that the impact will not be significant because the project will help to mitigate the effects of global climate change (62 Cal.4 th 220–223) (BAAQMD 2022).
 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines: In April 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District release the 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. The 2022 CEQA Guidelines include a new chapter with best practices for centering Environmental Justice, health, and equity; a new appendix with the rationale for the recommended climate impacts thresholds of significance; a new appendix to assist with developing community-scale greenhouse gas reduction strategies aligned with the State CEQA Guidelines and the Air District’s plan-level thresholds; an appendix with guidance on using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2022) for Bay Area projects; and a new criteria pollutants and precursors screening tool for mixed land use projects. In addition, the 2022 CEQA Guidelines include updated chapters on thresholds of significance, air quality and climate impacts, and mitigating impacts; updated criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts screening tables for single land use projects; updated basic and enhanced best management practices for construction-related fugitive dust; and an updated appendix with guidance for conducting individual project and cumulative cancer risk and hazards analysis.
 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2022 CEQA Guidelines: In April 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District release its 2022 CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines Update. The 2022 CEQA Guidelines Attachment 12

Page 58 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-42 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
include a new chapter with best practices for centering Environmental Justice, health, and equity; a new appendix with the rationale for the recommended climate impacts thresholds of significance; a new appendix to assist with developing community-scale greenhouse gas reduction strategies aligned with the State CEQA Guidelines and the Air District’s plan-level thresholds; an appendix with guidance on using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2022) for Bay Area projects; and a new criteria pollutants and precursors screening tool for mixed land use projects. In addition, the 2022 CEQA Guidelines include updated chapters on thresholds of significance, air quality and climate impacts, and mitigating impacts; updated criteria air pollutant and precursor impacts screening tables for single land use projects; updated basic and enhanced best management practices for construction-related fugitive dust; and an updated appendix with guidance for conducting individual project and cumulative cancer risk and hazards analysis.
 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Energy conservation standards for new residential and non- residential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (now the CEC) in June 1977 and most recently revised in 2022 (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations).

Title 24 requires the design of building shells and building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which were recently adopted on August 11, 2021, became effective on January 1, 2023.
 CALGreen Updates: CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. The 2022 standards became effective on January 1, 2023 and replace the 2019 standards that are current as of the writing of this analysis. Each iteration of the CALGreen standards improves the energy efficiency and sustainability of new development from the pri or iteration.  Advanced Clean Cars program: In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles, into a single package of standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. In August 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II program, which sets sales requirements for zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) to ultimately reach the goal of 100 percent ZEV sales in the state by 2035.

City of Sunnyvale 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory  The City of Sunnyvale tracks and reports its sources of GHG emissions through a regularly updated emissions inventory. The most recent inventory was created for the year 2020. Table 3 .8-1 summarizes Sunnyvale’s GHG emissions by sector in 2020.

Table 3.8-1 City of Sunnyvale 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Sector MTCO2e Percent
Transportation 268,180 47
Commercial/Industrial Gas 130,080 23
Residential Gas 101,838 18
Commercial/Industrial Electric 2,259 <1
Residential Electric 678 <1
Solid Waste 41,684 7
Off Road Equipment 18,244 3
Total1 564,827 100
1 Total may not sum due to rounding.

Notes: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent Source: City of Sunnyvale 2019.

Attachment 12

Page 59 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-43
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
See response in item (b) below.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The LSAP EIR determined significance by comparing the 2016 LSAP’s emissions to the City’s efficiency metric threshold of GHG emissions per service population based on the City’s GHG emissions inventory and emissions targets at that time, and whether the LSAP policies are consistent with those in the City’s original CAP. The LSAP Update was evaluated using a similar methodology; however, based on the updated GHG emissions inventory and GHG reduction targets in the City’s Playbook (City of Sunnyvale 2019). Because the Playbook did not provide a GHG emissions per service population threshold, one was calculated based on the revised GHG emission targets and service population also provided in the City’s Playbook (City of Sunnyvale 2019).

As indicated in Section 3.3, “Air Quality” of this checklist, the project would need to comply with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.5.3a, which requires that BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures are employed. Project -related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period in relation to the overall life of the project. The project construction would result in a total of approximately 1,882 MTCO 2e. Construction emissions presented in Table 3.8-2
are for informational purposes only and are not considered in the project’s efficiency metric.

Table 3.8-2 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year Project Emissions MTCO2e
2023 1,037
2024 833
2025 12
Total 1,882
Notes: MTCO2e = Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022.

Operational-related GHG emissions were estimated to be 2,499 MTCO2e/year at opening year from the proposed project and are presented in Table 3.8-3.

Table 3.8-3 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source Project Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Mobile 1,821
Area 15
Energy 520
Water 62
Waste 81
Refrigerants <1
Total 2,499
Notes: MTCO2e = Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022.

This project’s land use is a subset of the LSAP that was recently updated and adopted in 2021. The LSAP Update SEIR was certified with the determination that the land uses proposed would not exceed a city -specific efficiency metric threshold of 1.27 MTCO2e per year per service population (residents and employees) based on the GHG emission targets of the Playbook. The GHG reduction targets in the City’s Playbook are consistent with CARB’s reduction goals Attachment 12

Page 60 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-44 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
for 2030 and 2050. Because this project’s land uses are a subset of the LSAP Update, the project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were already included and evaluated in the SEIR. As such, the project would be consistent with the LSAP Update SEIR and would not exceed the City’s updated GHG efficiency metric threshold of

1.27 MTCO2e per year per service population (see Impact 3.7-1 in the LSAP Update SEIR) and demonstrates consistency with the City’s 2019 Climate Action Playbook to meet updated City and State targets.

The City’s Playbook identifies GHG reduction strategies that set the foundation for climate action and Plays that identify opportunities for action to achieve the City’s overall GHG reduction targets. The Playbook lays out six strategies that outline the overarching approach to achieve 80 percent GHG emissions reductions below 1990 levels by 2050. Within each strategy, there are several Plays that identify areas for action and measurable targets to define progress. Consistency with the Playbook and the City’s long-term goal of carbon neutrality are being demonstrated through multiple project features, namely by developing the project as all- electric, without a natural gas connection.

Table 3.8-4 below provides a detailed summary of the project’s consistency with the Playbook (strategies and plays which are not applicable to the project were not included in the consistency analysis). As a result, the project would be consistent with applicable regional and local plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions.

Table 3.8-4 Project Consistency with the 2019 Sunnyvale Climate Action Playbook Strategies and Play Project Consistency
Strategy 1: Promoting Clean Electricity Consistent. The proposed project would support the goals of Strategy 1 by using SVCE’s carbon-free electricity and installing a rooftop solar PV system (size of system to be determined).

Play 1.1: Promote 100 percent clean electricity.

The City is committed to working with SVCE to expand 100 percent clean energy services to 100 percent of our community. Supporting and protecting this clean electricity supply is critical to other Strategies from this Playbook that rely on decarbonization (namely, Strategies 2 and 3).

Consistent. SVCE, the area’s electricity provider, delivers 100 percent carbon-free electricity. As a result, the project would operate on clean energy at initiation.

Play 1.2: Increase local solar photovoltaics (PV).

Targeted incentives, regulations and educational resources will be essential to increasing adoption of distributed solar resources in Sunnyvale. These will help ensure local supply but also help to offset demands on the electricity grid during peak demand periods.

Consistent. The project would be equipped with a solar PV system consistent with the City of Sunnyvale Municipal Code ).

Strategy 2: Decarbonizing Buildings Consistent. This all-electric building development meets decarbonizing goals years in advance of the City’s target date.

Play 2.3: Achieve all-electric new construction.

While the state requires moving toward Zero Net Energy (ZNE) for new construction, the City will work towards also incentivizing and promoting all - electric new construction options for deep decarbonization.

Consistent. The proposed project would be developed as an all - electric powered building.

Strategy 3: Decarbonizing Transportation and Sustainable Land Use Consistent. The project is near the Lawrence Caltrain Station. The walking distance to the platforms is approximately 4 50 feet.

Station adjacency would promote public transit use, leading to a healthier lifestyle, improved local air quality, and reduced GHG emissions. Furthermore, the project would include bicycle parking spaces and dedicated EV parking stalls with charging
stations. The
latter promote the use of electric vehicles and further supports the push for increased zero-emission vehicles in the area.

Play 3.1: Increase opportunities for and encourage development of mixed - use sites to reduce vehicle miles per person.

Consistent. The project would provide residential uses in an area identified as a transit priority area, with Lawrence Caltrain Station located within walking distance, and a bus stop located adjacent to the project site.

Attachment 12

Page 61 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-45
Strategies and Play Project Consistency
The City is committed to creating places to live that are less dependent on automobiles, through ensuring access to nearby services and activity centers. Furthermore, Sunnyvale seeks to provide housing options for all incomes and lifestyles, particularly near transit corridors and Caltrain stations, to support alternative modes of transportation.

Play 3.2: Increase transportation options and support shared mobility.

Multimodal transportation choices need to be enhanced to offer a variety of travel options in and around the city that are connected to regional transportation systems and destinations. Advocating for and increasing transportation options and shared mobility will create safer, healthier, and more convenient movement throughout Sunnyvale.

Consistent. The project would include dedicated bike parking to encourage bike transportation per City of Sunnyvale requirements for new development. Additionally, the project is in a major transit corridor and near the Lawrence Caltrain Station, located within walking distance.

Play 3.3: Increase zero-emission vehicles.

Shifting to electric or alternatively fueled (e.g., hydrogen) vehicles has significant potential to reduce GHG emissions related to transportation.

Since SVCE provides 100 percent carbon-free electricity, promoting a shift to electric vehicles away from fossil fuels would significantly reduce emissions.

Other priorities include electrification of public transportation, car sharing, and electric bikes and scooters, and also improving availability of alternative fueling stations (e.g., EV charging facilities, hydrogen fueling stations).

Currently (as of October 1, 2018) 2.4 percent of vehicles registered in Sunnyvale are battery-electric vehicles and 1.3 percent are plug -in hybrid electric vehicles.
a. 2030 Target: 20 percent of all vehicles on road are zero- emission vehicles by 2030 and 75 percent of all vehicles on road are zero -emission by 2050 Consistent. The proposed project would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, EV ready circuits, and CalGREEN EV spaces.

These project features would promote the adoption of zero - emission vehicles.by providing infrastructure to facilitate their use.

Strategy 4: Managing Resources Sustainably Consistent. This project would include the installation of on-site trees in the landscaping would enhance natural carbon
sequestration at the site, aligning with the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan and benefiting stormwater infiltration capacity.

Play 4.1: Achieve Zero Waste goals for solid waste.

Diverting waste away from landfills, either to recycling, energy recovery or composting facilities, is critical for the City to realize its Zero Waste goals as outlined in its Zero Waste Strategic Plan. This can be accomplished by waste prevention – consuming and throwing away less – and being smarter about the items that must be thrown away. Expanding Sunnyvale’s food scraps collection program (FoodCycle) will help to increase the amount of organic material diverted away from the landfill.

However, state laws and policies limit access to diversion technologies so that 75 percent diversion is the current limit. Increasing diversion to 90 percent will require changes at the state level to allow use of technologies that recover energy from unrecyclable resident waste, primarily plastic and paper.

Consistent. The project would not conflict with implementation of the City’s Zero Waste Strategic Plan. Although the project would generate additional waste the project would comply with City’s Zero Waste goals and state laws and policies to reduce solid waste.

Play 4.2: Ensure resilience of water supply.

As the region faces water supply challenges driven by recurring droughts and population growth, it will be critical to find ways to reduce the amount of water consumed and increase the sustainability of water supplies. Water conservation and water reuse, i
n the form of recycled and purified water, will
help Sunnyvale reduce the stress placed on Northern California’s water resources.

Consistent. This project would comply with all water conservation requirements.

Play 4.3: Enhance natural carbon sequestration capacity. The natural environment, including plants and soil, have an immense capacity to store carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.

Through implementation of the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan and Consistent. The landscape design for this project would incorporate new trees and shrubs to support carbon
sequestration and reduce urban heat island effect.

Attachment 12

Page 62 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-46 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Strategies and Play Project Consistency
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan, Sunnyvale can continue to capture carbon by expanding its urban tree canopy and designing landscape features to address stormwater pollution and flood risk.

Source: Ascent 2022.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Conclusion
As discussed, the proposed project would not result in a less efficient generation of GHG emissions compared to the City’s Climate Action Playbook. The project also aligns with the City’s goals of reducing GHG emissions through consistency with the Playbook’s strategies and plays. This impact would be less than significant and the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 12

Page 63 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-47

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
Impacts 3.3.1 and

3.3.7 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.8-1 and 3.8-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
Impact 3.3.2
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.8-1 and 3.8-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
Impacts 3.3.3 and

3.3.7 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.8-3)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
d. Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
Impacts 3.3.3 and

3.3.7 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.8-4)
No No Yes. Impacts would be
less than significant
with application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.
e. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in the
project area?
Draft EIR page 3.3-9
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.8-
15)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
No No Yes. Impacts would be
less than significant
with application of the
Attachment 12

Page 64 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
C ity of Sunnyvale
3-48 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Impacts 3.3.5 and

3.3.8 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.8-5)
adopted mitigation
measure.
g. Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Draft EIR page 3.3-9
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.8-15)
No No NA, no impact would
occur

3.9.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hazards and hazardous materials, described in LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.3, “Hazards and Human Health,” has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR.

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site in March 2022 (Ramboll 2022). The Phase I ESA identified land uses at the project since 1939 and found the site was used for agricultural land uses, then was occupied by commercial businesses including a mailing service, a travel agency, an information storage appliance vendor, and a semiconductor machinery manufacturing business. No historical evidence of manufacturing or chemical usage was observed onsite.
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
As identified in Impact 3.3.1 of the LSAP Draft EIR, hazardous materials are routinely used, stored, and transported throughout the plan area to businesses located north of the Caltrain tracks, and such operations are anticipated to continue into the future. Implementation of the LSAP allows for the development of additional land uses, including industrial uses and certain commercial uses (e.g., gas stations, dry cleaners, medical facilities,) that routinely store, use, and transport hazardous materials. LSAP goal LU-G2 provides that existing uses in the plan area may remain as legal, conforming uses with the ability to grow and expand, but that such uses would be discouraged from using hazardous materials in their operation, especially when located adjacent to residential uses.

New development, such as the proposed project, or redevelopment that involves construction, demolition, and landscaping activities would require the transport, use, and disposal of various building materials, including some hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, fuels, demolition materials, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides.) The transport, use, and disposal of such materials could pose a potential hazard to the public and the environment if not properly transported, used, stored, and disposed. However, the LSAP EIR determined that hazardous materials that may be associated with future development or redevelopment under the LSAP, including the proposed project, would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and fede ral regulations during construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. The City’s Department of Public Safety is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administrative requirements, Attachment 12

Page 65 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-49
permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the LSAP area.

The project would include construction, demolition, and landscaping activities that could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as gasoline, fuels, demolition materials, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides. The project would be subject to the same standards noted above. With continued compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, this impact would remain less than significant. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The LSAP EIR stated that subsequent projects under the LSAP could involve the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the LSAP area (see Impact 3.3.2 of the LSAP Draft EIR). These activities could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure of the public to hazardous materials.

Redevelopment activities associated with the LSAP could result in exposure to hazardous materials that may be contained in building features.

The LSAP EIR stated that there is the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within the LSAP area, particularly in the area north of the Caltrain tracks where land uses have been dominated by industrial activities. The transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, residents, and others are required to follow local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation. Furthermore, facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. As the LSAP is implemented, it is anticipated there would not be a substantial increase in the number of facilities or types of activities involving the use of hazardous materials compared to existing conditions, and the LSAP does not designate land for new heavy industrial or manufacturing.

The potential for existing contamination at the project site from previous land uses was determined to be low and is discussed in section d) below.

Compliance with existing regulations would minimize risk of accidental upset or accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment to a level that is less than significant.

The LSAP does not propose new school sites.

The LSAP EIR stated that subsequent projects under the LSAP could involve the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the LSAP area (see Impact 3.3.2 of the LSAP Draft EIR). These activities could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment and exposure of the public to hazardous materials.

Redevelopment activities associated with the LSAP could result in exposure to hazardous materials that may be Attachment 12

Page 66 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-50 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
contained in building features. The LSAP EIR stated that there is the potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination, particularly in the area north of the Caltrain tracks where land uses have been dominated by industrial activities. Potential for contamination at the project site was determined to be low and is discussed in section d) below.

The transport, storage, and use of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, residents, and others are required to follow local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation.

Furthermore, facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases. As the LSAP is implemented, it is anticipated there would not be a substantial increase in the number of facilities or types of activities involving the use of hazardous materials compared to existing conditions, and the LSAP does not designate any land for new heavy industrial or manufacturing.

The project would result in demolition, construction, and landscaping activities that may result in temporary and limited handling of hazardous materials. However, no schools are located within ¼ mile distance of the project and would not be impacted by project activities. All demolition, construction, and landscaping activities would be subject to applicable regulations described Section 3.3.2 of the LSAP Draft EIR. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As identified in Impact 3.3.3, future projects in the LSAP area could encounter contaminated soil, soil vapors, or groundwater, which could pose a risk to human health or the environment.

There are contaminated sites within the LSAP, but the known hazardous materials release sites in the LSAP area have undergone remediation and are no longer listed as active or open sites. Thus, this impact was identified as potentially significant and would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 in the LSAP EIR, which requires preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, among other provisions. The LSAP Update SEIR updated this mitigation with Mitigation Measure 3.8 -1 (see the Mitigation Measures section) below.

A Phase I ESA was prepared for the project site in March 2022 (Ramboll 2022). The Phase I ESA identified land uses at the project since 1939 and found the site was used for agricultural land uses, then was occupied by commercial businesses including a mailing service, a travel agency, an information storage appliance vendor, and a semiconductor machinery manufacturing business. No historical evidence of manufacturing or chemical usage was observed onsite.

The Phase I ESA indicated that releases of hazardous materials had occurred on properties near to the site, including the following:

Peninsula Building Materials, 1175 Aster Avenue. The property is listed on the GeoTracker and LUST databases for gasoline impacts to groundwater and tetrachloroethene (PCE) impacts in soil vapor. This matter was granted regulatory closure in 1997.

Calstone Company, 1155 Aster Avenue. This property is listed with active status on GeoTracker and the CPSSLIC database with open status for unspecified impacts. There are ongoing regulatory activities as part of the 1155 Aster Avenue development.

Texas Instruments/Former National Semiconductor Corporation , 2900 Semiconductor Drive and Surrounding areas.

The property is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) (EPA ID No. CAD041472986), Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS), US Engineering and Institutional Controls, Hazardous Waste/Contaminated Sites (CalSites), Record of Decision (ROD), Potentially Responsible Party (PRP), CPS-SLIC, Deed Restriction (DEED), California Hazardous Material Incident Reporting System (CHMIRS), and CORTESE databases This site is listed as open Attachment 12

Page 67 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-51
– remediation as of March 29, 2010. The database listing indicates that 1,1,1 – trichloroethane, benzene, VOCs, and xylene are the potential contaminants of concerns within groundwater and soil.

In March 2022, a subsurface investigation was conducted at the 1175 and 1155 Aster Avenue sites, including the collection and analysis of soils and groundwater from four locations. All constituents were below laboratory detection limits with the exception of minor detections of chloroform in three of the four locations, all of which were below applicable screening criteria. However, based on available groundwater data, including the lack of identified groundwater impacts on the project site and at the Aster property, this matter is not considered to constitute a vapor encroachment condition or Recognized Environmental Condition (Ramboll 2022).

The Phase I site assessment for 1154 Sonora Court did not find any Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) and was prepared consistently with the requirements in adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.3.3, which was replaced by LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-1. As outlined below under adopted LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure 3.8 -1, no further action is required because the Phase I ESA did not identify an existing REC.

This impact would remain less than significant with implementation of adopted LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure

3.8-1. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The LSAP Draft EIR stated that the LSAP area is outside the Moffett Airfield’s influence area and safety zones, and there are no private airstrips near the LSAP area. Therefore, impacts related to airport or private airfield safety were not discussed in the LSAP EIR. No new airports have been developed near the project area. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As addressed in Impact 3.3.5 of the LSAP EIR, construction activities for individual projects in the LSAP could temporarily affect operating conditions on these roadways from movement of heavy equipment, worker vehicle parking, and materials delivery and storage, depending on the locations. Construction activities associated with the project would include demolition activities, excavation, and relocation of soil on the site, backfilling and compaction of soils, on-site facilities improvements, and utilities connections (water supply, drainage facilities, electric connections, and driveway and small roadway improvements (see design plan sheets C.A.2.00, C.A.3.00). These activities could involve work or construction staging in adjacent roadways; this may result in the need for temporary traffic lane narrowing or closures, which could affect emergency response or evacuation routes. This was identified as a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to less than significant through implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.5, which requires the City to develop a construction traffic control plan if project activities could impair or inhibit emergency response or evacuation. The LSAP Update SEIR also concluded that this adopted mitigation measure would continue to address this impact.

The project site improvements are subject to compliance with adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.5. No changes to the conditions of the site are known to have occurred. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 12

Page 68 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-52 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As identified on LSAP Draft EIR page 3.3-9, there are no Fire Hazard Severity Zones or state responsibility areas or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones for local responsibility areas within or adjacent to Sunnyvale. No changes to the location of the project have occurred and no changes to the risks from wildfires has occurred since approval of the LSAP and the LSAP Update. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures 3.3.3 and 3.3.5 were adopted as part of the LSAP. Mitigation Measure 3.3.3 was replaced with LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 that requires preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and, if deemed necessary by the Phase I ESA, the preparation of a Phase II ESA. As noted above, a Phase I has been completed for the project. No cleanup activities were deemed necessary on the project site, and the potential for contamination was considered low. The project would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, which would be monitored and enforced by the City. Therefore, the portion of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 associated with preparation of the Phase I ESA has been completed and is no longer required.

The following mitigation measures would continue to be applicable if the project was approved.

LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.8-1 (Replaced Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.3 in LSAP EIR) The City shall require that a Phase I ESA is prepared and submitted with any application for new development or redevelopment within the adopted LSAP boundary. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared by a qualified professional registered in California and in accordance with ASTM E1527-13 (or the most current version at the time a development application is submitted for the project). [This portion of the mitigation measure has been completed and is no longer required.]
If determined necessary by the Phase I ESA, a Phase II ESA shall be conducted to determine the lateral and vertical extent of soil, groundwater, and/or soil vapor contamination, as recommended by the Phase I ESA. [This portion of the mitigation measure is not required.]
The City shall not issue a building permit for a site where contamination has been identified until remediation or effective site management controls appropriate for the use of the site have been completed, consistent with applicable regulations and to the satisfaction of the City of Sunnyvale, DTSC, or San Francisco Bay RWQCB (as appropriate) before initiation of construction activities. Deed restrictions, if appropriate, shall be recorded. If temporary dewatering is required during construction or if permanent dewatering is required for subterranean features, the City shall not issue an improvement permit or building permit until documentation has been provided to the City that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has approved the discharge to the sewer. Discharge of any groundwater removed from a construction site within the adopted LSAP and to the El Camino Storm Drain Channel, Calabazas Creek, or storm drain shall be subject to Water Pollution Control Permit requirements.

If the Phase I ESA determines there are no RECs, no further action is required. However, the City shall ensure any grading or improvement plan or building permit includes a statement if hazardous materials contamination is discovered or suspected during construction activity, all work shall stop immediately until a qualified professional has determined an appropriate course of action.

Mitigation Measure MM 3.3.5
Prior to issuance of a permit for a specific development project or before approving a City- initiated roadway improvement identified in the LSAP, the City shall determine whether project construction activities have the potential to affect traffic conditions on roadways as a result of construction of the development project or roadway improvement(s). If there is the potential the activities could impair or inhibit emergency response or evacuation, a Construction Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared for City review and approval. The plan shall include, but not be Attachment 12

Page 69 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-53
limited to, schedule of construction and anticipated methods of handling traffic for each phase of construction to ensure the safe flow of traffic and adequate emergency access, including maintaining an open lane for vehicle travel at all times. All traffic control measures shall conform to City of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara County, and/or Caltrans standards, as applicable. The City shall ensure final approved plans for private development projects specify the requirement, as appropriate, to implement the construction traffic control plan.

Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes related to hazards and hazardous materials have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts. No additional analysis is required.

Attachment 12

Page 70 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-54 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.

10. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.1 and 3.8.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.9-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.2, 3.8.5,

3.11.5.1, and 3.11.5.3
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.9-2)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:

i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-17 to 3.8-18
Impact 3.8.3 and 3.8.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.9-1)
No No NA, impacts would be
less than significant
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-17 to 3.8-18
Impact 3.8.3 and 3.8.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.9-1)
No No NA, impacts would be
less than significant.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.1, 3.8.3 and

3.8.4 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.9-5)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant.

Attachment 12

Page 71 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-55
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.3 and 3.8.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.9-5)
No No NA, impacts would be
less than significant.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation?
Draft EIR page 3.8-15
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.9-5)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Draft EIR Impact 3.8.2
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.9-2)
No No NA, impacts would be
less than significant.

3.10.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hydrology and water quality, described in LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR.
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
As addressed in Impact 3.8.1 of the LSAP EIR, construction activities associated with development of projects allowed under the LSAP may include grading, demolition, and vegetation removal which would disturb and expose soils to water erosion, potentially increasing the amount of silt and debris entering downstream waterways. In addition, refueling and parking of construction equipment and other vehicles on-site during construction could result in oil, grease, or related pollutant leaks and spills that may discharge into storm drains. Development under the LSAP Draft EIR was determined to result in water quality impacts resulting primarily from increasing intensity of land uses, not from new types of land uses. Urban runoff typically consists of pollutants such as heavy metals, oil, and grease, sediment, and other chemicals. Generally, the type and amounts of water quality pollutants in storm water runoff generated by subsequent activities under the LSAP EIR would not vary considerably from existing conditions.

Individual development projects under the LSAP EIR, like the project, would be subject to water quality requirements outlined in Hydrology and Water Quality Regulatory Framework Section (3.8.2) of the LSAP Draft EIR.

Chapter 12.60 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code, Stormwater Management, provides regulations and gives legal effect to certain requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit issued to Sunnyvale regarding municipal stormwater and urban runoff requirements. During construction of projects in the City, the dischargers, through individual coverage under the State’s General Construction NPDES permit, must develop and implement a SWPPP and perform monitoring of discharges to stormwater systems to ensure compliance with State regulations and General Plan Policy EM-8.5. Individual projects developed under the LSAP EIR would also be required to implement BMPs for preventing erosion and movement of unwanted material into waters within or outside the Attachment 12

Page 72 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-56 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
plan area. All private development projects would be required to include appropriate features to meet applicable regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Provision C.3 requirements and implement low impact design (LID). Common LID strategies that would be appropriate for the plan area would include treatment methods such as bio-retention basins and flow-through planters, green roofs, media filtration devices, and pervious surfaces. These features would be included within individual sites on a project-by-project basis.

The project completed a stormwater management plan to document NDPES provision C.3 and identify BMPs to be incorporated into project design. The project was found to result in a decrease in impervious surface area over existing conditions at the project site. In addition, the project would implement the following storm water control measures to reduce run off, and to decrease pollutant concentrations from site runoff: Site design measures such as minimization of changes to runoff hydrograph and the utilization of self-retaining and self-treating areas to reduce storm water; source controls such as implementing beneficial landscaping techniques, continued maintenance, covering drains, covering dumpster areas, and including drainage to sanitary sewers; other site design measures would include flow-through planters and bioretention through landscaping (see design plan sheets C.A.6.00, L.A.7.00, and L.A.7.01).

Compliance with existing requirements of Chapter 12.60 of the Municipal Code, the City’s Municipal Code Chapter

12.60, the City of Sunnyvale Urban Runoff Management Plan, and MRP Provision C.3 requirements, along with implementation of General Plan policies EM-8.6, EM-10.1, and EM-10.3 and LSAP goal U-G1 and policies U-P1 through U-P4, would reduce surface water quality impacts associated with occupancy of projects in the LSAP to a less -than- significant level under project and cumulative conditions.

The project is subject to the water quality control requirements identified above. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Implementation of projects allowed by the LSAP would have little or no effect on groundwater recharge because the LSAP area is largely built out and would therefore neither increase nor decrease the amount of permeable surface . In addition, the area is underlain by soils with low percolation rates, which results in a muted effect from changes in the amount of permeable surface. The LSAP does not propose the installation of any wells in the plan area that could alter groundwater flows. As identified on Draft EIR page 3.11-28, city-wide groundwater withdrawal is not expected to increase beyond 1,000 acre-feet per year except in multiple dry year conditions and is actively managed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District to avoid groundwater overdraft through its conjunctive use efforts. No mitigation was required. The project is not located within an area subject to a sustainable groundwater plan.

If groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering may be required. However, this activity would be temporary and limited and would not substantially deplete or interfere with recharge of groundwater at the local aquifer. The project would not substantially change development patterns nor the amount of impermeable surface from that approved in the LSAP, nor the amount of permeable surface on the project site. The project would be required to adhere to SWPPP and MRP provisions, General Plan policies, and City regulations described in section b) above. In addition, the project would also not include the construction or operation of a well facility. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 12

Page 73 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-57
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

The LSAP EIR concluded that stormwater runoff in the LSAP area is not expected to increase and stated that individual development projects would be required, per Section 12.60.160(a) of the City’s Municipal Code, to demonstrate that development of each individual development project would not increase runoff over pre-project rates and durations. In addition, General Plan policy EM-9.1 requires that the City maintain and operate the storm drain system so that stormwater is drained from 95 percent of the streets within one hour after a storm stops. The EIR concluded that compliance with the existing regulations contained in the City’s Municipal Code would reduce potential impacts associated with flooding and stormwater drainage to a level that is less than sig nificant.

The project area is located entirely within Zone X, which identifies areas with lower flood risk due to levees. The project applicant completed a Stormwater Management Plan form and determined that the project would decrease the total area of impermeable surface by 8,144 square feet (9 percent) compared to existing conditions.

The project is required to comply with Section 12.60.160 of the City’s Municipal Code. Project design plans include water quality control and drainage features for the site (see design plan sheets C.A.6.00, L.A.7.00 , and L.A.7.01). The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; See analysis under item c) above.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
See analysis under item c) above.
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
See analysis under item c) above.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact 3.8.3 in the LSAP EIR identified that there are some locations within the LSAP Plan Area that are within FEMA - designated 100-year flood hazard Zone AO. The LSAP EIR stated that projects within Zone AO could be subject to 100-year flood hazard. Areas that could be redeveloped under the LSAP (i.e., where new buildings could be constructed) would be limited to the Peninsula subarea (the current location of the Calstone/Peninsula Building Materials operations), the Lawrence/Reed/Willow subarea and a small part of the Southern Residential subarea north of the Lawrence/Reed Willow subarea, and the undeveloped part of the Southern Residential area at the southern boundary of the LSAP (i.e., Corn Palace parcel). The Southern Residential subarea was not part of the adopted LSAP boundary in 2016. The Southern Residential subarea was also excluded from the 2021 LSAP Update. There is also narrow band of Zone AO mapped just north of the Caltrain tracks at the southern parts of the Transit Core West and East subareas. The Zone AO also extends southwest of the Caltrain tracks within the LSAP and east and west of Calabazas Creek.

The project area is located entirely within Zone X, which identifies areas with lower flood risk due to levees. The project applicant completed a preliminary Stormwater Management Plan for the project that outlines the drainage areas and proposed treatment control measures (see design plan sheet 41 in Appendix A). Additionally, the project is required to comply with Section 12.60.160 of the City’s Municipal Code to reduce risk of flood flows and offsite Attachment 12

Page 74 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-58 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
drainage. Project design plans include water quality control and drainage features for the site to prevent impeding or redirecting flood flows (see design plan sheets page 41 in Appendix A). The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
See analysis under item c) above for impacts from flood hazards.

As discussed on LSAP Draft EIR page 3.8-15, seiches and tsunamis would not be expected to affect the LSAP area because it is more than 3 miles from San Francisco Bay. Mudflow would not present a hazard because there are no steep, erodible slopes near the LSAP area. The project would not alter these conditions.

As discussed on LSAP Draft EIR page 3.8-15, the LSAP area is located outside of the inundation area for Stevens Creek Reservoir and is not considered to be at risk of inundation in the event of a dam failure. The LSAP area is not in an area subject to flooding from levee failure or sea level rise. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid..
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
See analysis under item b) above.

Mitigation Measures
Flooding impacts identified in the LSAP EIR require application of Mitigation Measure MM 3.8.3 for subsequent projects in the Peninsula subarea and the agricultural parcel at the southernmost end of the LSAP area (the parcel was not part of the adopted LSAP boundary). The project is located outside of these areas and would not be subject to this mitigation measure.

Attachment 12

Page 75 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-59

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

11. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? Draft EIR Setting p.

3.1-1 to 3.1-9
Impacts 3.1.1 and 3.1.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.10-1)
No No NA, this impact would
be less than significant.
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Draft EIR Setting p.

3.1-1 to 3.1-9
Impacts 3.1.2 and 3.1.4
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.10-2)
No No N/A, this impact would
be less than significant.

3.11.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to land use and planning described in LSAP EIR Section 3.1, Land Use, has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR. As previously noted, the City Council adopted an update to the City’s LUTE of its General Plan in April 2017. The LUTE incorporates and integrates policy direction and land use patterns from other City of Sunnyvale planning documents, including the LSAP.
a) Physically divide an established community?
As noted in Impact 3.1.1 in the LSAP EIR, the LSAP area is developed with a combination of residential and non- residential uses. The EIR stated that the existing Caltrain tracks bisect the plan area, with Lawrence Expressway providing the only north-south connection between the areas to the north and to the south. The LSAP EIR stated that the conversion from non-residential to residential uses in the Peninsula subarea would result in development consistent with the adjoining residential areas, and no physical division would occur. This was identified as a less- than-significant impact in the LSAP EIR.

LSAP policy implementation would ensure that new land uses in the LSAP area would not divide any established communities and would enhance the project area’s connectivity with the City as a whole. The LSAP includes several circulation network improvements to provide improved access through the plan area. In addition to providing new streets in the LSAP, improvements to existing streets would be implemented to ensure safety for all street users.

Extensive bicycle and pedestrian facility enhancements would be implemented, including additional crosswalks, changes in signal timing, and two grade-separated pedestrian/bicycle crossings at the Caltrain tracks. Therefore, the EIR determined that the LSAP would have a less-than-significant impact regarding the division of an established community (see Impacts 3.1.1 and 3.1.4).

Attachment 12

Page 76 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-60 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
The existing land use on the project site consists of an office building with associated landscaping and parking. The project would result in construction of a mixed-use residential and office building on a parcel that is already developed. The project would therefore not divide an established community.

Project implementation would not physically divide an established community. Similar to the existing use, vehicle access to the proposed project would be provided on Sonora Court along the north side of the project site. The project would not conflict with transportation and circulation improvements proposed by the LUTE update (see Section 3.16 Transportation for discussion on project impacts to transportation). Pedestrian access would be provided at the Sonora Court entrance, and new walkways would be built along the east and west perimeters of the project site.

The LSAP establishes the development of a mixed-use, compact, and well-connected urban form that would further increase housing and employment opportunities in the City. The LSAP would change land use designations in certain areas of the plan area to accommodate future growth and to realize the City’s vision. This impact for the LSAP was less than significant.

The City’s General Plan designates the site as Transit Mixed-Use, and the site is zoned MXD -I/S – Flexible Mixed- Use I/Sonora Court . Allowed uses under this land use designation and zoning include mixed-use (e.g. residential and office/research and development (R&D) uses on a single site), high-density residential (54 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] base maximum density with an additional 26 du/ac incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program), and office/R&D up to 150 percent floor area ratio (FAR) with incentives. The MXD -I/S zoning district permits up to 100-foot maximum building heights. The project site is also within the Transit Core West urban design subarea, which includes guidelines specific to Sonora Court and the immediate LSAP area located north of the railroad tracks, west of Lawrence Expressway. As discussed in Section 3.4.1, the project would have a residential density of 92 du/ac, which is achieved through participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and the California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915). The proposed density is deemed to be consistent with the LSAP. The applicant is seeking a density bonus concession because the office Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the project is 173 percent, which exceeds the maximum FAR of 150 percent. In addition, FAR above 35 percent (or 45 percent with green building incentive) is subject to a Development Agreement with the City with negotiated community benefits/development incentives and subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant is seeking a concession or incentive from the Development Agreement requirement under the State Density Bonus Law.

The LSAP allows for development of up to 5,935 new residential units and 1,200,000 new net square feet of Office/R&D uses. As of March 2023, t he approved and/or constructed development that has occurred since the LSAP adoption includes 1,437 residential units, leaving a remaining 4,498 units for buildout. The proposed project would build 173 units, which is within the remaining LSAP buildout capacity. The project remains consistent with LSAP goals and is subject to LSAP design guidelines and policies. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measured were needed for the LSAP regarding land use and planning. No mitigation measures pertaining to land use and planning would be required for the project.

Attachment 12

Page 77 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-61
Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been identified requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and approval of the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning.

Attachment 12

Page 78 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-62 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

12. Mineral Resources. Would the Project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
Scoped out at Notice
of Preparation stage.

Mineral resources do
not exist in LSAP area.

Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Section

1.3.2)
No No NA, there would be no
impact.
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
Scoped out at Notice
of Preparation stage.

Mineral resources do
not exist in LSAP area.

Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Section

1.3.2)
No No NA, there would be no
impact.

3.12.1 Discussion and Conclusion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Mineral resource impacts were scoped out of the LSAP EIR at the Notice of Preparation stage because no mineral resources exist in the LSAP area, and because the area is already developed with urban land uses. The project site is developed with an office use and would be redeveloped with residential and office uses. The project site does not contain mineral resources any of these resources; therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
No significant mineral resources impacts were identified in the LSAP EIR or the LSAP Update SEIR, and no mitigation measures were required.

Attachment 12

Page 79 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-63

3.13 NOISE
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update Draft
and Final SEIR.

Any New
Circumstances Involving
New or Substantially
More Severe Significant
Impacts?
Any Substantially
Important New
Information Requiring
New Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior
Environmental
Documents’
Mitigations Address/
Resolve Impacts?

13. Noise. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.6-1 to 3.6-15
Impacts 3.6.1, 3.6.2,

3.6.4, and 3.6.5
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impacts 3.11-
1, 3.11-3, and 3.11-4)
No No Yes, impact would
be less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.6-1 to 3.6-15
Impact 3.6.3
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact 3.11-
2)
No No NA, impact would
be less than
significant
c. For a project located within an airport land
use plan or where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Draft EIR p 3.6-16
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.11-10)
No No NA, no impact
would occur.

3.13.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to Noise, described in the LSAP Draft EIR Section 3.6, “Noise,” has occurred since certification of the EIR in 2016 or the LSAP Update SEIR in September 2021. This analysis is based on the Environmental Noise Study prepared for the proposed project (CSDA Design Group 2022).

Since preparation of the 2016 LSAP EIR, a California Supreme Court decision, and subsequent revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, resulted in changes to CEQA regarding the effects of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. The effects of the environment on a project are generally outside the scope of CEQA unless the project would exacerbate these conditions, as concluded by the California Supreme Court (see California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369, 377 [“we conclude that agencies generally subject to CEQA are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents. But when a project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users.”]). Changes to the State CEQA Guidelines to reflect this decision were adopted on December 28, 2018. As noted in the BAAQMD’s revised CEQA thresholds of significance, local agencies are not precluded from considering the impact of locating new development in areas subject to existing environmental hazards; however, CEQA cannot be used by a lead agency to require a developer or other agency to obtain an EIR or implement mitigation measures solely because the occupants or users of a new project would be subjected to the level of emissions specified. However, previous, and updated discussions of effects of the environment related to noise on future residents are included herein for disclosure purposes.

Attachment 12

Page 80 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-64 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Long-Term Operational Noise
LSAP Draft EIR Table 3.6-5 shows General Plan standards for evaluating a project’s contribution to ambient noise level increases. The primary factor contributing to the ambient noise environment as a result of the LSAP would be the increase of vehicular traffic from increased densities. Residential and mixed-use residential land uses in the LSAP area are located along major roadways including the Lawrence Expressway, which runs north -south through the LSAP area. The LSAP Draft EIR Tables 3.6-7 and 3.6-10 show the calculated roadway noise levels under existing and cumulative traffic levels compared to the buildout of the LSAP. The LSAP EIR stated that, in comparison to existing and cumulative traffic noise levels, the LSAP would result in a predicted increase in traffic noise levels below the applicable noise level thresholds. Therefore, predicted traffic noise levels would not result in a substantial permanent increase in traffic noise levels along other primarily affected roadways.

As discussed in the LSAP EIR, traffic noise levels along Lawrence Expressway directly east of the project site range from 72.8 to 74.1 A-weighted decibels (dBA) day-night average noise level (L dn) under existing conditions with traffic
from build out of the LSAP (see LSAP Draft EIR Table 3.6-6), a conditionally acceptable noise environment for all land uses according to City noise standards. Under the cumulative conditions, buildout of the Plan would not result in cumulatively considerable roadway noise level increases beyond noise level thresholds at all vicinity roadway segments (see LSAP Draft EIR Table 3.6-10). Under cumulative conditions, Lawrence Expressway between Kifer Road and Reed Avenue would exceed the 75 dBA L
dn threshold established in the City’s General Plan noise standards for residential uses. However, the 2016 LSAP EIR determined that the LSAP’s contribution to this noise level would not be perceptible, and future development in this area would be required to meet interior noise standards of 45 dBA L dn.

There are no stationary noise source issues within the LSAP, and future LSAP uses would be required to comply with City noise standards.

To evaluate the project’s impact on applicable standards, noise modeling and analysis was conducted by CSDA Design Group (2022). The project site would be exposed to maximum instantaneous noise levels up to 104 dBA; however, the L
dn, which describes the continuous 24-hour noise environment, are up to 74 dBA at the portion of the site next to the railway and as low as 60 dBA on the north side of the site along Sonora Court.

Per Sunnyvale General Plan Policy SN-8.7, since the project is exposed to railroad noise, the project should attempt to achieve an outdoor Ldn of no greater than 70 dBA in common areas, backyards, patios and medium and large balconies.

According to the Noise Study, using the measured noise levels and geometry of the project building, including the planned 6-foot glazed sound wall along the West Courtyard of the project, receivers at the project courtyards (at normal standing height) positioned 5 feet from the building edge would be exposed to noise levels no greater than 70 dBA L dn
(CSDA 2022). Additionally, the City’s noise land use compatibility matrix identifies exterior noise levels from 60 dBA to 75 dBA and 70 dBA to 80 dBA for residential and commercial/office uses, respectively, as conditionally acceptable.

Therefore, noise levels at exterior use areas of the project would not exceed the City’s 75 dBA Ldn conditionally acceptable exterior noise standard for residential uses and would not conflict with the City’s General Plan.

An additional exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 24 dBA is typically provided by residential buildings with the windows closed (EPA 1978: 11). Therefore, if the project’s building façade noise levels exceed 69 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels for the project would potentially exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn and potentially result in health impacts (e.g., sleep disturbance). Consistent with the assumptions of the LSAP EIR under Mitigation Measures

3.6.4, where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, the City will require that a report be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit.

As stated in the LSAP EIR,
“the need for noise attenuation measures in building construction and project design from any noise source and for all land uses will be determined on a project-by-project basis at the time development is proposed.

Attachment 12

Page 81 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-65
Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn, a report must be submitted with the building plans describing the noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit. Where exterior day-night average noise levels are 60 dBA to 70 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels can typically be maintained below 45 dBA Ldn with the incorporation of an adequate forced air mechanical ventilation system in the residential units to allow residents the option of controlling nois e by keeping the windows closed. In all areas exceeding 70 dBA Ldn, the inclusion of windows and doors with high Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems would most likely be necessary to meet 45 dBA.”
Therefore, if interior noise levels would potentially conflict with the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn, pursuant to the LSAP EIR, the required interior-to-exterior noise reduction analysis would incorporate noise insulation features necessary to ensure compliance with interior noise standards. Per Policy Sn -8.3, the project would attempt to achieve a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other areas of residential units exposed to train or aircraft noise, where the exterior L dn exceeds 55 dBA. The project would be consistent with the City’s interior noise level standards through implementation of existing regulations. Additionally, as discussed above, the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR addressed traffic noise from the buildout of the LSAP which encompasses the project. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid Temporary Short-Term Noise from Construction
As identified in Impact 3.6.4 of the LSAP DEIR, major noise-generating construction activities associated with development under the LSAP would include removal of existing pavement and structures, site grading and excavation, installation of utilities, the construction of building foundations, cores, and shells, paving, and landscaping. The highest noise levels would be generated during the demolition of existing structures when impact tools are used (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) and during the construction of building foundations. Site grading and excavation activities would also generate high noise levels, as these phases often require the simultaneous use of multiple pieces of heavy equipment such as dozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders. Lower noise levels result from building construction activities when these activities move indoors, and less heavy equipment is required to complete the tasks. Construction equipment would typically include, but would not be limited to, earth-moving equipment and trucks, mobile cranes, compressors, pumps, generators, paving equipment, and pneumatic, hydraulic, and electric tools. As depicted in LSAP Draft EIR Table 3.6-9, noise levels generated by individual pieces of construction equipment typically range from approximately 74 dBA to 89 dBA maximum noise level (the maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period at 50 feet). This impact was identified in the LSAP EIR as potentially significant and was mitigated by Mitigation Measure

3.6.4. This mitigation measure requires that subsequent projects in the LSAP shall employ site-specific noise attenuation measures during construction to reduce the generation of construction noise.

As stated in the LSAP EIR,
“The City of Sunnyvale does not establish quantitative noise limits for demolition or construction activities occurring in the city. According to Municipal Code Chapter 16.08, the legal hours of construction are between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. These hours are intended to mitigate temporary noise impacts by avoiding construction during nighttime periods that would disturb noise-sensitive land uses (residential). Noise generated by small infill projects would likely have relatively short overall construction durations, with the noisiest phases of construction (e.g., demolition, foundations, project infrastructure, building core and shell) limited to a time frame of one year or less. These phases of construction are not anticipated to generate noise levels in excess of 60 dBA L eq and
would not increase the ambient noise environment by 5 dBA Leq or more at sensitive land uses in the area over extended periods of time (beyond one construction season). Interior construction, landscaping, and finishing activities would not be expected to result in noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq. The following mitigation measures are identified to ensure that temporary construction noise impacts are minimized (Mitigation Measure 3.6.4 is presented below).”
Attachment 12

Page 82 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-66 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist
As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,“ the project would comply with City Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 which would limit construction activities to less sensitive times of day. No nighttime construction would occur. Therefore, construction activities would not result in sleep disturbance, and on-site project construction would not have an adverse effect on humans due to sleep awakenings at the nearest sensitive receptor located approximately 300 feet north of the project site. Additionally, to be in compliance with adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.6.4, the project would include noise attenuation measures to reduce the generation of construction noise. Thus, the project would be consistent with, and within the scope of what was analyzed under the LSAP EIR as well as the LSAP Update SEIR.

Summary
As detailed above, the project would be consistent with the analysis conducted under the LSAP EIR. The project would be required to meet the City’s interior noise level standards through implementation of existing regulations.

Additionally, the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR addressed traffic noise from the buildout of the LSAP which encompasses the project. Finally, the project would comply with the City’s Municipal Code which establishes allowable hours of construction. Implementation of LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.6.4 requires noise attenuation measures to reduce the generation of construction noise. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? As discussed in Impact 3.6.3 of the LSAP EIR, the LSAP includes sensitive land uses in portions of the city adjacent to the existing Caltrain corridors. Ground vibration from conventional railroad trains or light rail trains passing could exceed the guidelines set forth by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) if new buildings with sensitive uses such as residences are constructed within approximately 100 feet of the tracks. Such uses located in these areas could be exposed to ground vibration levels exceeding FTA guidelines. As identified in the LSAP Draft EIR, 85 vibration decibels is the level considered by the FTA to be acceptable, though only if there are an infrequent number of events per day.

The LSAP includes policies and guidelines specific to each subarea within the plan area that are intended to highlight overall design considerations and address potential noise impacts at a programmatic level.

Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be conducted by the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would be from a roller, which would create approximately 94 vibration decibels at 25 feet or 85 vibration decibels at 50 feet (FTA 2018: 184). As described in the LSAP EIR, the Municipal Code Chapter 16.08 limits hours of construction between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays to mitigate potential noise and vibration impacts during hours of the day that would disturb noise -sensitive land uses.

As detailed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project would comply with the requirements for when construction activities would take place. As detailed in impact a), no nighttime construction would occur. Thus, construction activities would not result in sleep disturbance, and on-site project construction would not have an adverse effect on humans due to sleep awakenings at the nearest sensitive receptor. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? As identified on LSAP Draft EIR page 3.6-16, the Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (City of Sunnyvale 2016) shows the LSAP area outside of the Moffett Federal Airfield noise contours. The LSAP is not located near a private airstrip.

Attachment 12

Page 83 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-67
The Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been amended since the LSAP Draft EIR was approved; however, the project remains outside of the Moffett Federal Airfield noise contours (Santa Clara County ALUC 2018: Figure 5). Additionally, no new private airstrips have been developed within the LSAP area at the time the project application was completed, and this environmental checklist was prepared. There are no new circumstances or new information requiring new analysis or verification. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measure was identified in the LSAP EIR and would continue to remain applicable if the project were approved. Measures that are not applicable to the project (such as for pile driving) would not be required.

Mitigation Measure 3.6.4
Subsequent projects in the LSAP shall employ site-specific noise attenuation measures during construction to reduce the generation of construction noise. These measures shall be included in a Noise Control Plan that shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Sunnyvale Building Services Division. Measures specified in the Noise Control Plan and implemented during construction shall include, at a minimum, the following noise control strategies:
 Equipment and trucks used for construction shall use the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds;
 Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA.

External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA.

Quieter procedures, such as use of drills rather than impact tools, shall be used; and  Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or include other measures.  Noise reducing pile-driving techniques shall be employed during Project construction. These techniques shall include:
 Installing intake and exhaust mufflers on pile-driving equipment;  Vibrating piles into place when feasible, and installing shrouds around the pile- driving hammer where feasible;  Implement “quiet” pile-driving technology (such as pre-drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions; - Use cushion blocks to dampen impact noise, if feasible based on soil conditions. Cushion blocks are blocks of material that are used with impact hammer pile drivers. They consist of blocks of material placed atop a piling during installation to minimize nois e generated when driving the pile. Materials typically used for cushion blocks include wood, nylon and micarta (a composite material); and - At least 48 hours before pile-driving activities, the applicant shall notify building owners and occupants within 600 feet of the Project area of the dates, hours, and expected duration of such activities.

Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any substantially important new information been found requiring new analysis or verification. Therefore, the conclusions of the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid and project approval would not
result in new or substantially more severe significant noise impacts. No further analysis is required.

Attachment 12

Page 84 of 119 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent
City of Sunnyvale
3-68 1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

Any New
Circumstances Involving
New Significant Impacts
or Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Do Prior Environmental
Documents Mitigations
Address/Resolve
Impacts?
14 Population and Housing. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.2-1 to 3.2-6
Impacts 3.2.1 and

3.2.3 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR Impact

3.12-1)
No No NA, impact would be
less than significant
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.2-1 to 3.2-6
Impacts 3.2.2 and

3.2.4 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
(Draft SEIR page 3.12-5)
No No NA, no impact would
occur.

3.14.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to population and housing described in LSAP EIR Section 3.1, Population and Housing, has occurred since certification of the LSAP EIR. The LSAP’s adopted buildout, as updated in 2021, is 5,935 new residential units and 1,200,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D uses. As of March 2023, the approved and/or constructed development that has occurred since the LSAP adoption include 1,437 residential units, leaving a remaining 4,498 units for buildout. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
As identified in Impact 3.2.1, the LSAP provides for approximately 1.2 million square feet of additional office/R&D/industrial uses. This would further increase employment opportunities in the City. Some of the new jobs would likely be filled by those already residing in the City and the surrounding area where commute times and distances are relatively short. However, for those wishing to relocate into the City, the potential increase in housing demand in the City and the plan area, specifically, could be accommodated by the new residential units. Table 3.2-3 in the 2016 LSAP EIR lists the net increase in housing units from the LSAP as 2,323. Of these units, 1,437 units have been approved. The 2021 LSAP Update included an additional 3,612 new residential units, for a total LSAP development potential of 5,935 units. The 173 units proposed as part of the project would be within the projected net increase in the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR. The physical environmental effects of this growth are addressed in the LSAP EIR.

The project is consistent with the land use designations and anticipated residential and employment growth set forth in the LSAP. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt. The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 12

Page 85 of 119 ends

Ascent Environmental Checklist
City of Sunnyvale
1154 Sonora Court Environmental Checklist 3-69
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in Impact 3.2.2, the LSAP land use designations allow a broad and flexible mix of land uses that would support both residential and commercial growth and would provide a wider range of housing choices to complement Sunnyvale’s existing range of residential densities. The areas for new residential development are in locations that contain non-residential uses. As such, projects developed under the LSAP would not displace housing. The LSAP also addresses affordable housing through LSAP policies H-P1, H-P2, and H-P3. Further, the LSAP also includes an “Anti- Displacement” component. As stated in the LSAP, to avoid displacement of lower-income residents, no upzoning or increases in allowable densities on sites currently occupied by housing would occu r. Retaining existing density allowances would minimize the financial incentive to demolish and replace existing units to achieve higher property values, thus minimizing the concern that existing residents would be physically displaced by new development.

Because subsequent projects that could be developed under the LSAP would not displace substantial numbers of housing units or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, there would be no impact under existing or cumulative conditions.

The project would consist of development of 173 housing units on a parcel that currently supports mixed-use, including residential and office/research and development. The project would have a proposed density of 92 du/ac, which is achieved through the LSAP Development Incentives Program and the California Density Bonus Law (Gov.

Code Section 65915). The density is therefore deemed to be consistent with the LSAP. A dditionally, the project would not result in the removal of existing housing. The project would not result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts than were identified in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR, nor would there be new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that reduce impacts but that City declines to adopt . The findings of the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures were needed for the certified LSAP EIR regarding population and housing. No additional mitigation measures are required for the project for this issue.

Attachment 12

Page 86 of 119 ends

Sunnyvale City CouncilNovember 28, 2023

Sunnyvale City Council
November 28, 2023