CEQA Checklist — Sunnyvale City Council, December 5, 2023 (part 1 of 12)

20220091.01
1150-1170 Kifer Road Project
Final
Environmental Checklist
Prep
ared for:

City of Sunnyvale
September 2023
Attachment 5

Page 1 of 600 ends

1150-1170 Kifer Road Project

Final
Environmental Checklist

Prepared for:

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

George Schroeder
Principal Planner
Prepared by:

Ascent Environmental, Inc.
455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact:

Kari Zajac
916.732.3329
September 2023
20220090.01

Attachment 5

Page 2 of 600 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road 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 Construction Activities .............................................................................................................................................. 2-27

2.6 Required Actions ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-27 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ................................ ................. 3-1

3.1 Explanation of Checklist Evaluation Categories ................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Discussion and Mitigation Sections ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4-1

4.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 4-17

4.5 Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-22

4.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4- 24

4.7 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-29

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................................................... 4-34

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................................ 4-41

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................................ 4-47

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................................................ 4-52

4.12 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 4-54

4.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-55

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................................... 4-61

4.15 Public Services ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-63

4.16 Recreation .................................................................................................................................................................... 4-66

4.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-68

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 4- 76

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................................. 4- 78

4.20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4-84

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................................................................................................................... 4-86 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5-1

5.1 List of Preparers ............................................................................................................................................................. 5-1 6 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6-1 Appendices
A Project Site Plans
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Model Results
Attachment 5

Page 3 of 600 ends

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-2 Project Site ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 2-3 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4 Project Amenities ......................................................................................................................................................... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Proposed Vehicular and Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation Plan ........................................................................ 2-12 Figure 2-6 Proposed First Floor Landscape Plan .................................................................................................................... 2-13 Figure 2-7 Proposed Fourth Floor Landscape Plan ............................................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2-8 Proposed Perspective of Northeast Corner ........................................................................................................ 2-17 Figure 2-9 Proposed North and East Elevations ..................................................................................................................... 2-19 Figure 2-10 Proposed South Elevations and Perspective....................................................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2-11 Landscape Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 2-25

Tables
Table 2-1 Project Unit Types ........................................................................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 2-2 Project Parking .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-3 LSAP Development Incentives Program Residential Densities ....................................................................... 2-6 Table 4.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Santa Clara County ................................................................................. 4-9 Table 4.3-3 Project Consistency with Applicable Control Strategies of 2017 Clean Air Plan ...................................... 4-11 Table 4.3-4 Summary of Average Daily Pounds Per Day Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions .................................................................................................................................................... 4-12 Table 4.3-5 Summary of Average Daily Pounds Per Day Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions .................................................................................................................................................... 4-13 Table 4.3-6 Cumulative Cancer Risk and Particulate Matter Concentrations .................................................................. 4-15 Table 4.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption ...................................................................................................................... 4-27 Table 4.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption ........................................................................................................................ 4-27 Table 4.8-1 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions .............................................................................................................. 4-36 Table 4.8-2 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions ............................................................................................................... 4-37 Table 4.8-3 Project Consistency with the 2019 Sunnyvale Climate Action Playbook ................................................... 4-37 Table 4.13-1 Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................................................................................................. 4-57

Attachment 5

Page 4 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADWF average daily water flow
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
AFY acre-feet per year
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP best management practice
CAA California Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CARB California Air Resources Board
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
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
EV electric vehicle
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
in/sec inches per second
lbs pounds
Ldn day-night average noise level
Leq noise equivalent level
LID Low Impact Development
LSAP EIR City of Sunnyvale Environmental Impact Report
LSAP Lawrence Station Area Plan
LUTE Land Use and Transportation Element
mgd million gallons per day
Attachment 5

Page 5 of 600 ends

List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commissions
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
PDA Priority Development Area
Plan Bay Area 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy
Playbook Climate Action Playbook
PM10 respirable particulate 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 ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
ROG reactive organic gases
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Rule Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule SB Senate Bill
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
TRA Transit Rich Area
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VCP vitrified clay pipe
VMT vehicle miles travelled
VOC volatile organic compound
VTA Valley Transportation Authority
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
WSA Water Supply Assessment
μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
Attachment 5

Page 6 of 600 ends

City of Sunnyvale
115-1170 Kifer Road 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 (LSAP 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 document for LSAP area circulation, open space, and streetscape improvements. The LSAP Update was approved by City Council on September 14, 2021 and a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (LSAP Update SEIR) was prepared and certified for the LSAP Update (City of 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 1150-1170 Kifer Road 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 – Flexible Mixed-Use I. This designation in the Transit Core West subarea of the LSAP permits high-density residential (45 dwelling units per acre [du/ac]) with up to 35 du/ac density incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program.

The project site consists of two lots totaling 5.82 acres and is currently developed with two, 2-story office buildings totaling 104,498 square feet and a rear surface parking lot. The project would adjust the vertically-oriented lot line between each office building and relocate it in a horizontally-oriented direction so that there would be one lot for the two office buildings (3.82 acres) and one lot for the proposed apartment project (2 acres). The proposed project is located on the existing office parking lot and consists of an 8-story, 225-unit apartment complex with an internal parking garage. The garage would have an entrance for residential users and a separate entrance for employees from the adjacent office site. The project is eligible for 30 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 75 du/ac, or 150 units on a 2-acre site. Twenty-four percent (36 units) of the base density would be deed-restricted affordable units for low-income households and 5 percent (8 units) of the base density would be deed-restricted affordable units for very low income households. The project would offer a range of studio, one-, two-, and three- bedroom options with additional amenities including two courtyards with a pool, barbeque, and seating options. The parking garage would provide parking for both the residential building and existing adjacent office buildings. Office users would access the garage from the western side of the building off the existing drive aisle utilizing parking on the ground floor. Residents would access the parking garage through an entry on San Zeno Way. The project requires a Special Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map approval. The project was programmatically evaluated in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR and is consistent with the LSAP and is considered a subsequent project as part of the implementation of the LSAP.

The LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR 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 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 LSAP EIR and 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 identified 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).

Attachment 5

Page 7 of 600 ends

Introduction and Project History Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1-2 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Consistent with the process described, the City is evaluating the 1150-1170 Kifer Road 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 severe environmental impacts would occur compared to that evaluated in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.

Attachment 5

Page 8 of 600 ends

City of Sunnyvale
115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project would convert an existing parking lot into an eight-story 225-unit apartment complex with a parking garage accessible to both residents and the adjacent offices. The project would offer a range of studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom unit options with additional amenities including two courtyards with a pool, barbeque, and seating options. The parking garage would accommodate approximately 269 vehicle parking spaces and an additional 357 Class I and Class II bicycle parking spaces. 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) and its recently updated land use designations and zoning. The project would require a Special Development Permit and Tentative Parcel Map approval.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is within the City of Sunnyvale (Figure 2-1), on an approximately 2-acre site at the southwest intersection of Kifer Road and San Zeno Way/Lawrence Expressway, and approximately 0.1 mile north of the Lawrence Caltrain Station (Figure 2-2). The project would be accessible from Kifer Road and San Zeno Way.

2.3 EXISTING SETTING
The project site consists of the southern portion of two parcels, comprised of an existing office 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 Transit Priority Area (TPA) and Priority Development Area (PDA). As designated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (MTC 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). As described in the LSAP, the City designates the site as Mixed-Use Transit Core, and the site is zoned MXD-I – Flexible Mixed-Use I. Allowed uses under this land use designation and zoning include mixed-use (residential and office/research and development [R&D] uses on a single site), high-density residential (45 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] with up to 35 du/ac density incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program), and office/R&D with 100-foot maximum building heights.

Attachment 5

Page 9 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-2 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

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

Figure 2-1 Project Vicinity
Attachment 5

Page 10 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-3

Source: prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2022.

Figure 2-2 Project Site
Attachment 5

Page 11 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-4 115-1170 Kifer Road 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;  Implement the LSAP policies and development objectives;  Support pedestrian and bicycle connectivity;
 Retain existing frontage trees; and
 Establish distinguished architectural design in the neighborhood.

2.4.1 Proposed Project
The project is a proposed residential development within the LSAP. The project would convert the southern 2-acres of an office parking lot to residential development. The surface parking lot on the site would be redeveloped into an eight-story, 225-unit apartment complex that includes 44 affordable housing units. Units would include studio, one-, two-, and three-bedroom townhome-style units with a parking garage that would accommodate approximately 269 vehicle parking spaces (see Table 2-1). The complex would be a maximum of 92 feet-2inches in height as measured from the top of street curb on San Zeno Way.

The project would include a parking garage with 269 spaces within the first three floors of the building (see Table 2- 2). The remainder of the spaces would be surface parking near the office buildings. The residential units would wrap around a portion of the garage along with the leasing office and amenity spaces. The parking garage would have two entrances, one for use by the adjacent offices and one for use by the residents. The office uses would access the garage from the western edge of the building off the existing drive aisle from Kifer Road. The office users would use the parking available on the first and second floors of the parking structure and have direct access to walk to the office building through a pedestrian connection on the northern end of the garage. Residents would access the garage through an entry on San Zeno Way that would connect directly to the second and third floors of the project building. The parking garage would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, EV ready circuits, and CalGREEN EV spaces. In accordance with the City’s Reach Codes, 174 spaces would be electric vehicle ready circuits and 95 spaces would have electric vehicle charging stations. CalGREEN EV spaces would be located on the 2nd and 3rd floors. A total of 357 Class I and II bicycle parking spaces would be built.

The proposed apartment complex would have amenities for residents including a fitness center and a clubhouse on the fourth floor and a second clubhouse on the eighth floor. Other amenities would include two lobbies, parlor, and package room (see Figure 2-3). The project would include two amenity decks for residents and a pool deck that would include a pool, barbeque, and seating options (see Figure 2-4). A total of 225 storage units are proposed for residents.

Storage units would be 200 cubic feet for studios and one-bedroom units and 300 cubic feet for three-bedroom units.

Table 2-1 Project Unit Types
Unit Type Unit Average
Square Footage
Units by Floor
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Studio 591 0 0 1 6 5 6 6 6 30
One-bedroom 735 0 0 9 22 24 24 24 22 125
Two-bedroom 1,092 4 0 5 9 10 12 12 10 62
Three-bed townhome 1,359 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
Total Units 836 12 0 15 37 39 42 42 38 225
Source: Jones Architecture in 2022.

Attachment 5

Page 12 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-5
Table 2-2 Project Parking
Parking Number of Spacesa
Surface Parking (Office)
Existing parking to remain 145
Existing parking to be removed 249
Structured Parking (Proposed Building)
Ground story (office) 85
Second story (office/residential) 94b
Third story (residential) 90
Parking Totals
Total office (new and existing) 301c
Residential 113

Total 414
a Per AB 1763 (Density Bonus Law), if 1) A development consists of solely rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families as provided in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and 2) The development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development; then upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit. b Includes 71 shared parking spaces and 23 exclusive residential spaces. c Includes 16 carshare/carpool spaces (5 percent of the office parking spaces).

Source: Prometheus 2022.

The project would have a re sidential density of 113 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 30 LSAP density points by providing the following incentives:
 Secondary Bicycle/Pedestrian Pathway (10 points)
 Landscaped area greater than 35% of site area (5 points)  Gateway signage (5 points)
 Installation of Level 2 Electric Vehicle charging stations (4 points)  Wayfinding signage (2 points)
 Bicycle parking, publicly accessible, at least 20% more Class I spaces and 10 more Class II spaces beyond minimum requirement (2 points)
 Bicycle repair station (2 points)
With the inclusion of the 30 incentive points, the base maximum density of 45 du/ac is increased to 75 du/ac.

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

The LSAP Development Incentives Program includes examples of how residential densities and allowable units are calculated (Table 2-3). The base maximum density is the starting point for where density bonuses are added. The top row of the table below starts at the base maximum density, then increases in each lower row depending on the LSAP incentives and State Density Bonus achieved.

Attachment 5

Page 13 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-6 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Table 2-3 LSAP Development Incentives Program Residential Densities Scenario Density Calculation Allowable Units
Base Maximum Density 2 (lot size in acres) x 45 (base max density) 90 Project achieves 30 LSAP incentive points DU/AC: 45 (base max) + 30 (total incentive points) = 75 du/ac
UNITS: 2 (lot size in acres) x 75 (density with
incentives)
1501
Project achieves a 50% State Density Bonus DU/AC: 75 (density with incentives) x 0.5 (50% state density bonus, rounded up) = 38
+ 75 = 113 du/ac
UNITS: 2 (lot size in acres) x 113
226
1 The City’s affordable housing requirement is based on the number of units proposed under this provision.

Source: City of Sunnyvale LSAP Update
With participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and State Density Bonus, the project’s allowable density is 113 du/ac or 226 allowable units. The proposed density of 113 du/ac and 225 units is therefore deemed to be consistent with the LSAP.

The project is also requesting eleven waivers. The California State Density Bonus Law allows for unlimited waivers from development standards if a project meets the requirement for a “housing development” and at least 10 percent of the units would be affordable to moderate income units.1 The project would develop 225 units, of which 36 units (24 percent of the base density) would be deed-restricted affordable units for low-income households and eight units (5 percent of the base density) would be deed-restricted affordable units for very low income households. Per Govt.

Code 65915 (e)(1), waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) 2 at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this State Density Bonus Law. Project waivers are listed below.

1. Reduced lot width under the minimum of 200 feet as required by Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.35.070

2. Reduced building setback to a secondary shared use path under the minimum 10 feet required by Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.35.070.

3. Waiver from Reduced Floor Plate Sizes above 75 feet per LSAP guideline RB-UDG6

4. Waiver from Horizontal Building Modulation per LSAP guideline BMA-UDG4

5. Waiver from Vertical Building Modulation per LSAP guideline BMA-UDG1

6. Waiver from Height Variation within 15 feet of Height Limit per LSAP guideline BMA-UDG5

7. Waiver from Upper Floor Setbacks above 50 feet per LSAP guideline RB-UDG5

8. Waiver from Six-Foot High Exterior Walls in Parking Structure per LSAP guideline PK-UDG22

9. Waiver from Parking Structure Wall Recesses on along Shared-Use Path per LSAP guideline PK-UDG17

10. Waiver from Blank Wall Restrictions Along Shared-Use Path per LSAP guideline BO-UDG11

11. Waiver from Parking Access from Side or Rear per LSAP guideline SP-UDG9

1 A “Housing Development” is defined as a development project of five or more residential units, including mixed-use development (Govt. Code Section 65915(h)(4)(i)).
2 Under Govt. Code Section 65915(b) a project seeking a density bonus must contain at least one of the following: 10 percent of total units for lower income households; five percent of units for very low income households; a senior citizen housing development; or 10 percent of total units for moderate income households.

Attachment 5

Page 14 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-7

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-3 Project Site Plan
Attachment 5

Page 15 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 16 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-9

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-4 Project Amenities
Attachment 5

Page 17 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 18 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-11

2.4.2 Proposed Site Plan
The project is a residential development within the LSAP composed of an apartment complex offering affordable housing units, residential amenities, and parking. The site would be accessible for office users from the existing driveway on Kifer Road and residents would access the site from San Zeno Way (see Figure 2-5). Residential units would wrap a portion of the parking garage along with the leasing office and amenity spaces (Figure 2-4). A shared use path for bicyclists and pedestrians would be constructed along the southern frontage of the project site and pedestrian sidewalks would be constructed along San Zeno Way. The project would include landscaping surrounding the building on the ground floor and interior landscaping on the fourth floor courtyards and eighth floor patios. The ground floor would include 20,023 square feet of landscaped area. Landscaping on the ground floor would include trees, shrubs, vines, and grasses. Street trees, tall hedges for screening, and seating pods would be constructed in select locations around the perimeter of the site.

The project would comply with LSAP policies regarding site design, which require development under the LSAP to be compatible with their surroundings. The LSAP also includes policies regarding street design to create safe and comfortable movement on foot, including streetscape amenities like street trees, and street furniture.

The project is subject to the City’s Tree Replacement Preservation Ordinance and current Tree Replacement Policy.

There is a total of 94 trees proposed for removal. Twelve of the 94 trees to be removed are designated as protected trees. 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. For multi-trunk trees, protected trees are those where at least one trunk has a circumference 38 inches, or in which the measurements of the circumferences of each of the multi-trunks, when added together equal an overall circumference 113 inches or greater.

The City requires tree replacements for removal of protected trees. The project proposes to plant 42 trees on the ground floor of the project site and 47 trees on the fourth floor for a total of 89 trees. Planted trees would be of varying sizes and species, including Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii), vine maple (Acer circinatum), sour gum (Nyssa sylvatica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and redbud (cercis occidentalis “alba”) (Figures 2-6 and 2-7).

2.4.3 Building Height and Massing
The MXD-I zoning of the site has height restriction of up to 100 feet. The proposed building height for the project is approximately 92 feet and is within the height restriction. Figures 2-8, 2-9, and 2-10 provide illustrative examples of the proposed apartment complex elevation and perspective.

Attachment 5

Page 19 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-12 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

Source: Image produced and provided by Spatial Informatics Group, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-5 Proposed Vehicular and Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation Plan Attachment 5

Page 20 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-13

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-6 Proposed First Floor Landscape Plan
Attachment 5

Page 21 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 22 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-15

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-7 Proposed Fourth Floor Landscape Plan
Attachment 5

Page 23 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 24 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-17

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-8 Proposed Perspective of Northeast Corner
Attachment 5

Page 25 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 26 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-19

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-9 Proposed North and East Elevations
Attachment 5

Page 27 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 28 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-21

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-10 Proposed South Elevations and Perspective
Attachment 5

Page 29 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 30 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-23

2.4.4 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. The project would result in construction of one 8- inch private sanitary sewer line to connect to the existing 10-inch public sewer main on San Zeno Way. The proposed building would be developed as an all-electric energy structure with no natural gas connection. Storm drains from 15 storm drain areas would be installed along the boundary of the site to the bioretention basin located on the northern portion of the project site. The project would connect to an existing electric line south of the project site. 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 project would include Low Impact Development (LID) features reducing impervious surfaces to allow stormwater to filter into the ground. Features would include permeable pavers and flow through planters. The project’s impervious surface would be treated with bioretention basins, self-retaining areas, and storm water filtration devices.

A bioretention basin would be installed along the northern boundary of the project site (see project design plan sheet 43 in Appendix A). Drainage would flow from 20 drainage areas north to the bioretention basin. A second bio retention basin would be located along San Zeno Way. Self-retaining areas that retain stormwater runoff would be integrated into the landscaping along the project site. Flow through planters would be located along the northern boundary of the site to further enhance site drainage.

2.4.5 Open Space and Landscaping
Construction would include removal of up to 94 trees, including 12 protected trees. A Tree Protection Plan has been prepared for the project that shows trees to be protected and removed, as well as identifies where protective fencing would be installed. The project would include landscaping on the ground floor, fourth story courtyards, and eighth story (see Figures 2-6 and 2-7). Pursuant to Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.37.060(a)(3), and the City’s tree replacement requirements, the project would be required to plant 51 trees. The project proposes to plant 42 trees on the ground floor of the project site and 47 trees on the fourth floor for a total of 89 trees. No new trees would be planted on the eighth floor (see Figure 2-11). Landscaping on the ground floor would be 20,023 square feet and include plating of tree, shrubs, vines, and grasses. Planted trees would be of varying sizes and species, including Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii), vine maple (Acer circinatum), sour gum (Nyssa sylvatica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and redbud (cercis occidentalis “alba”). Ground floor landscaping would also include seating for pedestrians and bicyclists. Landscaping in the courtyards and eighth floor would be comprised of open space surrounding seated gathering spaces. On the fourth story the eastern courtyard would have a pool and the western courtyard would have seating and a barbeque. Irrigation equipment would be installed in planted areas under hardscape surfaces. Including upper floor landscaping, the total landscaping area for the project is 35,312 square feet.

Attachment 5

Page 31 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-24 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 5

Page 32 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-25

Source: prepared and produced by Jones Architecture in 2023, adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2023.

Figure 2-11 Landscape Site Plan
Attachment 5

Page 33 of 600 ends

Attachment 5

Page 34 of 600 ends

Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 2-27

2.5 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.

Construction would occur over approximately 29 months. Construction equipment would vary day-to-day depending on the activities occurring, but could involve operation of demolition equipment, graders, dozers, scrapers, drill rig, 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 and a drill rig would be used to install drilled displacement columns for the building’s structural base.

The building construction phase would be the longest phase and occur for 12 months. No below grade construction is proposed and there would be minimal excavation of soils off site. A construction management plan would be required by the City. The City would determine the construction truck routes. 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.

2.6 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 Tentative Parcel Map to create a lot for the office and residential parcels.

Other anticipated permits, approvals, and actions associated with the project includes the following:
 Issuance of demolition permits for removal of existing parking lots and building permits for construction of the new project.
 Approval of a final Parcel Map to record the new parcel boundaries.

Attachment 5

Page 35 of 600 ends

Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
2-28 115-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
This page intentionally left blank.

Attachment 5

Page 36 of 600 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 3-1
3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

3.1 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.

3.1.1 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.

3.1.2 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.

3.1.3 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.

3.1.4 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 mitigation measures or Attachment 5

Page 37 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist for Supplemental Environmental Review Ascent Environmental City of Sunnyvale
3-2 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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 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.

Notably, where the only basis for preparing a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an EIR is a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact, the need for the new EIR can be avoided if the project applicant agrees to one or more mitigation measures that can reduce the significant effect(s) at issue to less- than-significant levels. (See River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Board (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168.)

3.1.5 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.

3.2 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS

3.2.1 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.

3.2.2 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.

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

Attachment 5

Page 38 of 600 ends

City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-1
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

4.1 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
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant.
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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant.

4.1.1 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. 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. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur for the project.

Attachment 5

Page 39 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-2 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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. Up to 94 trees would be removed during construction of the project, twelve 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. A Tree Protection and Replacement Plan would be implemented for the project to protect the remaining trees during construction. A total of 89 trees would be planted. 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. Therefore, the impact remains less than significant.
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?
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 Draft 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 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 project site is located in the Transit Core West subarea of the LSAP. The MXD-I zoning for the site establishes a maximum height restriction of 100 feet. The proposed building height for the project is approximately 92 feet and is within the zoning height restrictions. 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. Variations in height at different portions of the proposed building, specifically along the southern elevation, along with articulation of building massing to reduce apparent scale to provide visual interest and variety, would avoid a blocky uniform appearance.

Attachment 5

Page 40 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-3
The LSAP Update and associated zoning requires a 15-foot setback for development on San Zeno Way. A 15-foot setback is proposed for the project on the ground floor adjacent to San Zeno Way to provide sufficient space for existing tree canopies and the main residential entrance. Per State Density Bonus Law, the project is requesting waivers for a reduced building setback for the shared use path, as specified in Table 19.35.070 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and reduced setback for the upper floors as specified in the LSAP design guideline RB-UDG5. As explained in the LSAP EIR, the LSAP measures would ensure that development of taller buildings, such as the project, 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. With articulation of building massing to reduce apparent scale to provide visual interest and variety the project would avoid a blocky uniform appearance. 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 landscaped outdoor courtyards on floors four and eight, and street design and trees consistent with applicable City and 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. Therefore, the impact remains less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As identified in 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.

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. For example, a lighting should be shielded and carefully placed to prevent glare and light spillover (Guideline L-UDG10) Dark sky goals would be incorporated into the Lighting Master Plan (L-UDG3). Other guidelines 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). Shading and perimeter landscaping at surface parking lots (PK-UDG10) would reduce the amount of glare that could be generated from vehicle windshields.

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 plans (see Attachment 5

Page 41 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-4 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
project design plan sheet 115). Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR remain valid, and this impact would remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the LSAP EIR or 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 that 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 5

Page 42 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-5

4.2 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 LSAP area.

No No NA
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.

No No NA
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 LSAP area.

No No NA
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Scoped out at
Notice of
Preparation stage.

Resources do not
exist in LSAP area.

No No NA
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 LSAP area.

No No NA

4.2.1 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?

Attachment 5

Page 43 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-6 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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.

Attachment 5

Page 44 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-7

4.3 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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No Yes, impact would be
less than significant.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.5-1 to 3.12-20
Impact 3.5.8
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No Yes, impact 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
No No Yes, impacts would be
less than significant.

4.3.1 Discussion
Since adoption of the LSAP, the City adopted an update to the City’s General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (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 LSAP Update SEIR.

Regulatory updates to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have occurred since 2016. The most recent standards for NAAQS and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are summarized below in Table 4.3-1. Notably, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updated the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2015 to

0.070 parts per million (ppm) (EPA 2022a).

Attachment 5

Page 45 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-8 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Table 4.3-1 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) –e 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 PM10 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 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 2022a.

Attachment 5

Page 46 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-9
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 4.3-2 below summarizes the most recent attainment status of Santa Clara County.

Table 4.3-2 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; CARB 2022b.

On August 2, 2018, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA proposed the Safer Affordable Fuel- Efficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule). This rule addresses emissions and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles and is separated in two parts as described below.

Part One, “One National Program” (84 FR 51310) revokes a waiver granted by EPA to the State of California under Section 209 of the Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) to enforce more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles than those required by EPA for the explicit purpose of greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and indirectly, criteria air pollutants and ozone precursor emission reduction. This revocation became effective on November 26, 2019, restricting the ability of California Air Resources Board (CARB) to enforce more stringent GHG emission standards for new vehicles and set zero emission vehicle mandates in California. CARB has estimated the vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions impacts to criteria air pollutants from SAFE Rule Part One and has provided off- model adjustment factors to adjust emissions output from CARB’s Emission Factor model.

Attachment 5

Page 47 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-10 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Part Two addresses Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2021 to 2026. This rulemaking proposes new CAFE standards for model years 2022 through 2026 and would amend existing CAFE standards for model year 2021. The proposal would retain the model year 2020 standards (specifically, the footprint target curves for passenger cars and light trucks) through model year 2026, but comment is sought on a range of alternatives discussed throughout the proposed rule. This simultaneously proposes tailpipe carbon dioxide standards for the same vehicles covered by the same model years. The final SAFE Rule Part Two was released on March 31, 2020. The outcome of any pending or potential lawsuits (and how such lawsuits could delay or affect its implementation) are unknown at this time.

Since the certification of the LSAP EIR, new methodologies pertaining to the quantification of criteria air pollutants have been developed. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 is the most recent version and is recommended for use in quantifying criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and other air districts in the State (California Air Pollution Officers Association 2017). The LSAP Update SEIR provided updated air pollutant emission estimates for the expanded development potential under the LSAP Update.

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, the LSAP is a transit-oriented development in support of 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.

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.

Attachment 5

Page 48 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-11
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 4.3-3, 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 no impact related to consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Table 4.3-3 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 from Gilroy to 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, which would promote the use 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, including use of solar PV system on the rooftop of the building (Per the City’s Reach Code solar panels are required for high-rise residential buildings). The project would also be all- electric, with no natural gas connection.

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 2017, City of Sunnyvale 2021b.

Air quality conditions for the region have improved for respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) emissions, 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. The project would be consistent with applicable air quality plans, and no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR remain valid.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality 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’. According to the 2011 BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines and the current (i.e., 2017) BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines used as the basis for this analysis, to identify whether a plan would violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the LSAP must demonstrate consistency with the control measures contained in the most recent Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2017a). Based on the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the plan must also demonstrate that projected vehicle miles travelled (VMT) increases as a result of the plan area are less than or equal to projected population increases over its planning period. As discussed in Impact 3.5.2 and shown in Table 3.5.8 of the LSAP EIR, the plan’s projected VMT increase (109 percent) would increase at a lower rate than population growth (175 percent) in comparison to existing conditions (BAAQMD 2017b). Therefore, the LSAP EIR concluded that this impact would be less than significant. The LSAP Update SEIR Attachment 5

Page 49 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-12 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
provided updated air pollutant emission estimates for the expanded development potential under the LSAP Update that also identified no significant air quality impacts.

Under a project level analysis, the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify whether a 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 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. Table 4.3-4 summarizes the estimated average daily emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10 and PM2.5 during project construction. As shown in Table 4.3-4, 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 4.3-4 Summary of Average Daily Pounds Per Day Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions
Emissions Source ROG (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOX (lbs/day) 2025 0.42 4.03 3.67 0.17 0.16 0.01
2026 0.94 7.40 10.35 0.27 0.25 0.03
2027 5.37 2.14 3.37 0.09 0.08 0.01
Average Daily Emissions 6.73 13.58 17.38 0.53 0.50 0.04 BAAQMD Emissions Threshold 54 54 N/A 821 541 N/A
1 Exhaust emissions only
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.

Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022 (Appendix B).

As shown in Table 4.3-4, 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.

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 but rather 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 and this impact would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions Long-term emissions associated with project operation are shown in Table 4.3-5. 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 projected air quality violation, and this impact would be less than significant.

Attachment 5

Page 50 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-13
Table 4.3-5 Summary of Average Daily Pounds Per Day Operational Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Precursor Emissions
Emissions Source ROG (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOX (lbs/day) Area 6.04 0.11 9.17 0.05 0.05 <1
Energy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile 1.75 1.52 13.14 0.02 0.02 0.02
Total Emissions 7.79 1.63 22.31 0.07 0.07 0.02
BAAQMD Emissions Threshold 54 54 N/A 821 541 N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A No No N/A
1 Exhaust emissions only
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 or SOX Source: Modeled by Ascent 2022 (Appendix B).

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. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR, including the LSAP Update SEIR, remain valid.
c) 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 (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
The SFBAAB is currently in non-attainment for the CAAQS and NAAQS for Ozone (1-Hour and 8-Hour Standards) and PM2.5 and NAAQS for PM10 (EPA 2022b, CARB 2022a, CARB 2022b). The LSAP EIR noted that, due to future uncertainties regarding the details of future individual projects under the LSAP, the LSAP could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. The cumulative impact (Impact 3.5.8 of the LSAP EIR) was determined to be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 3.5.3a, which requires that BAAQMD basic construction mitigation measures are employed. The LSAP Update SEIR provided updated air pollutant emission estimates for the expanded development potential under the LSAP Update and concluded that there would be no increase in severity of this cumulative air quality impact.

As shown in Tables 3.3-3 and -4, construction-related emissions of ROG, NO X, PM10, and/or PM2.5 would not exceed
BAAQMD’s significance thresholds. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard or result in adverse health impacts. This impact would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
BAAQMD recommends comparing project’s attributes with the following screening criteria as a first step to evaluating whether the project would result in the generation of carbon monoxide concentrations that would substantially contribute to an exceedance of the Thresholds of Significance. The project would result in a less than significant impact to localized carbon monoxide concentrations if:

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.

Attachment 5

Page 51 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-14 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

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).

The project would include 225 dwelling units. Based on the ITE trip generation estimates for the land use type of “Apartments Mid Rise,” there would be approximately 1,224 vehicle trips to the site on weekdays, 1,105 vehicle trips to the site on Saturdays, and 921 vehicle trips to the site on Sundays. Considering the small size of the surrounding roadways in the project vicinity, this increase in project trip generation would not be expected to exceed the screening thresholds listed above. Therefore, the impact of localized carbon monoxide emissions would be less than significant.

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 (2017a), 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 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.

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) would be exceeded during the project construction period. Since the proposed project is less than five acres and would not last longer than two years, it is not 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 impacts could occur when new stationary 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. Therefore, this impact is focused on pollutant exposure of future project residents from existing nearby sources. 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.

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 Attachment 5

Page 52 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-15
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. Verizon Wireless - National Semiconductor (Source #16291) is located at 1242 Kifer Road, which is approximately 980 feet east of the project site’s eastern boundary and has a cancer risk of 1.16 per million, a hazard index value of 0.002, and a PM2.5 concentration of 0.001 µg/m3.

2. Luminus Inc. (Source #22265) is located at 1145 Sonora Court, which is approximately 680 feet southwest 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 PM2.5 concentration of 0.004 µg/m3.

3. Costco Wholesale (Source #109899_1) is located at 150 Lawrence Station Road, which is approximately 550 feet southeast of the project site’s eastern boundary. The facility operates a gas station with a cancer risk of 164.57 per million, a hazard index value of 0.79, and no PM2.5 concentration data.

Other pollutant sources within 1,000 feet of the project property line include Lawrence Expressway and the Caltrain rail line. Lawrence Expressway is an eight-lane expressway running north and south, with more than 10,000 average daily trips, and is approximately 150 feet east of the project site. The Caltrain rail line is approximately 570 feet south of the project site. Table 4.3-6 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 4.3-6 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 570 12.13 0.02 N/A
N/A Lawrence Expressway-
Major Roadways
150 15.53 0.32 N/A
16291 Verizon Wireless -
National
Semiconductor
980 0.16 <1 <1
22265 Luminus Inc. 680 0.75 <1 <1
109899_1 Costco Gas Station 550 52.58 0 0.25
Combined Total - - 81.15 0.35 0.26
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. e) Create objectionable odors 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- Attachment 5

Page 53 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-16 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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 (BAAQMD 2017b) 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 measure was referenced in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR analysis and would be implemented if the project were approved. Mitigation Measure MM 3.5.6, TAC and PM2.5 exposure, referenced in the LSAP EIR has been completed in this analysis and additional mitigation is not required.

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 5

Page 54 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-17

4.4 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 the 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
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 remains 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, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or the U.S. 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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.9-1 to 3.9-14
Impact 3.9.9
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA, no impact would
occur.

Attachment 5

Page 55 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-18 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.4.1 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 records searches prepared for the project as part of the Biological Resources Report (H.T. Harvey 2022). Records searches were completed 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 a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site in January 2022 (CNDDB 2022, CNPS 2022).

The analysis also incorporates the Arborist’s Report Tree Inventory Assessment for 1150 and 1170 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale CA prepared for the project (Monarch Consulting Arborists 2022). The project site contains an existing parking lot surrounded by paved parking areas, buildings, and the eight-lane Lawrence Expressway. The arborist report identified 196 trees and 15 different species of trees. There are 57 “significant size” trees and 134 trees not larger than 12 inches in diameter.
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 a parking lot 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).

Suitable burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat was only identified within one portion of the LSAP area as described in Impact 3.9.1 in the LSAP EIR; 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 (H.T. Harvey 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 (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), 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 which are unable to fly, may be also present. Removal of roost sites could cause direct mortality of bats. The site reconnaissance in January 2022 confirmed that there is no suitable habitat for roosting bats on or adjacent to the project site (H.T. Harvey 2022).

However, the LSAP EIR determined that noise and dust from construction could result in indirect impacts to bats during construction. Bats may occur adjacent to the project site and be impacted by construction noise and dust. This impact that would be mitigated through implementation of adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.2, which would require pre-construction surveys and protection of bats and active roosts. Project compliance with Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.2 would sure that impacts to roosting bats would be minimized.

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 if nesting birds are present within 200 feet (500 feet for raptors) of a work site. The project site contains Attachment 5

Page 56 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-19
large ornamental trees which could provide suitable habitat for nesting birds and raptors, and removal of these trees may result in potentially significant impacts. Adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.9.3 would mitigate this impact by requiring preconstruction surveys and avoidance of active nest sites under project and cumulative conditions.

As identified in Impact 3.9.4 of the LSAP EIR, there is the potential hazard for birds to collide with tall buildings.

Regardless of overall height, the LSAP EIR identified that the ground floor and first few stories of buildings present the greatest hazards to most birds. A low number of native, resident birds and occasional migrant birds occur in the project vicinity (H.T. Harvey 2022). However, there is still the potential for birds to collide with the project buildings because trees and vegetation, which attract birds, would be located immediately next to the building. Reflections of the sky in the glass facades may also be perceived by birds as an open flight path and night lighting associated with the building may disorient birds. Project design features would reduce the potential for collisions because the facades would be composed of opaque wall panels broken up by smaller windows allowing birds to better perceive the building facades as solid obstructions. Therefore, the proposed glazing on the facades of the building is expected to result in relatively few bird collisions. The project would also be consistent with the City’s Bird-Safe Design Guidelines, as well as LSAP EIR policies and guidelines to reduce bird collisions. Specifically, the project would be consistent with Option 2 of the City’s Bird-Safe Design Guidelines to avoid large expanses of glass near open areas and avoid the funneling of open space towards a building façade. There are no existing open spaces on or adjacent to the project site and the project would be rectangular and does not represent a configuration that would funnel birds towards building facades. In accordance with the Bird-Safe Design Guidelines the project would not include any glass skyways or up lighting. The Bird-Safe Design Guidelines prohibit transparent glass walls coming together at building corners.

A transparent glass corner is located on the first and second stories of northeast corner of the proposed building.

Due to the low abundance of birds on and immediately adjacent to the project site, it is not anticipated that the single glass corner would result in a substantial bird collisions (H.T. Harvey 2022). Consistent with the Bird-Safe Design Guidelines the project includes plans for landscape vegetation on the roof terraces. Glass would be reduced at the top of the building and to reduce glazing at the top of the building. The project would be consistent with the Bird-Safe Design Guidelines.

No new significant impacts or substantially more severe biological impacts would occur with implementation of the project. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. 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 vegetation. All other areas in the LSAP 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 and other urban and suburban development. The project site does not contain riparian or any other sensitive habitat. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The LSAP EIR stated that the aquatic habitat within the LSAP area, Calabazas Creek and the El Camino Storm Drain Channel, are considered protected waters of the United States. No direct fill or loss of these waters is proposed as part of the LSAP. The project site is developed and does not contain any wetland or other aquatic habitat. No habitat on the project site possesses the field characteristics used by the federal and state resource/regulatory agencies in defining their jurisdiction (i.e., waters of the U.S., under the Clean Water Act, or waters of the State, under the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act). Therefore, no jurisdictional or regulated waters or aquatic habitats are known to occur on the project site. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and this would remain a less-than-significant impact.

Attachment 5

Page 57 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-20 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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?
As stated in the LSAP EIR, the LSAP area does not overlap with an Essential Connectivity Area as defined by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In addition, the LSAP would not result in a significant change in land use intensity and therefore would not alter the movements of wildlife currently utilizing the LSAP area. The entire LSAP area and surrounding lands are either developed or disturbed and provide very limited wildlife movement opportunities. The project is located within an existing developed area and provides no wildlife movement corridors.

Because there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The LSAP EIR stated that implementation of LSAP Policy OSP-6 and Guideline STP-UDG6 would ensure the protection and enhancement of the trees throughout the plan area wherever possible. Sunnyvale Municipal Code Chapters 13.16 and 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 impacted by future development, the project applicant will be required to comply with Chapter 19.94. The LSAP would implement this requirement through guideline STP-UDG8, which requires that replacement trees be provided where tree removal is unavoidable. In addition, the LSAP has 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. Impacts would be less than significant.

The project would be subject to LSAP policy provisions and Municipal Code Chapters 13.16 and 19.94. The Arborist’s Report Tree Inventory Assessment for 1150 and 1170 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale CA outlines the trees present on the project site (Monarch Consulting Arborists 2022). Project plans include the removal of 94 trees. Twelve of the 94 trees to be removed are designated as protected trees. A total of 89 new trees would be planted as part of development on the project site. Planted trees would be of varying sizes and species, including Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii), vine maple (Acer circinatum), sour gum (Nyssa sylvatica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and redbud (cercis occidentalis “alba”). The project would comply with applicable replacement standards.

As identified in (a) above, the project design would be consistent with the City’s Bird-Safe Design Guidelines.

The project would not result in any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts; therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The LSAP EIR determined that the LSAP area is not located in a habitat conservation plan area. As a result, no conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan would occur, and no impact would result. No new conservation plans have been adopted since approval of the LSAP. Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur pertaining to conflicts with adopted conservation plans. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

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

Attachment 5

Page 58 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-21
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 5

Page 59 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-22 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.5 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
pursuant to Section 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
No No NA, impacts would
remain less than
significant
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
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.
c) Substantially disturb human remains,
including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Draft EIR page 3.7-11
Impacts 3.7.4 and

3.7.6 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.

4.5.1 Discussion
The analysis below is based on the Archaeological Resources Assessment Report prepared for the project (BASIN 2022). A search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) revealed that no resources had previously been recorded on the project site. Three reports have been prepared for projects adjacent to the project site, but did not identify any cultural resources. Two built-environment features have been recorded within 1,000 feet of the project site. One resource is a railroad alignment and the second is a building. The NWIC search also identified that two cultural resource reports have covered the project site. The project site contains no recorded archaeological resources and no recorded buildings or structures. A field inventory of the project site was completed on December 20, 2021 to confirm the findings of the records search. No evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources was observed on the project site (BASIN 2022). The findings of the records search and site visit are consistent with the EIR and SEIR analysis.
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 are located within or immediately adjacent to the LSAP area. As described above, no historic structures are located within the project site; 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.

Attachment 5

Page 60 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-23
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. The project site has a low potential for the presence of subsurface cultural resources (BASIN 2022). However, there is still the potential for the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during ground disturbing construction activities. Implementation of adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM

3.10.2 would require halting of construction activities and protection of any discovered archaeological resources.

The project site contains no recorded archaeological resources and would be subject to adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure MM 3.10.2. No new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. c) Substantially disturb 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 required under these sections would ensure a less than significant impact to human remains.

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.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measure was 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.

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 5

Page 61 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-24 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.6 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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant

4.6.1 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. 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 contracts.

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 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.

Attachment 5

Page 62 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-25
 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 Energy 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).

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, will go into effect starting 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 recently adopted 2019 Standards took effect on January 1, 2020.

Each iteration of the CALGreen standards improves the energy efficiency and sustainability of new development from the prior iteration.
 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.

Attachment 5

Page 63 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-26 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
 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.  Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule (SAFE Rule): Part One of the SAFE Rule revokes a waiver granted by EPA to the State of California under Section 209 of the CAA to enforce more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles than those required by EPA for the explicit purpose of GHG emission reduction, and indirectly, criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emission reduction. On March 31, 2020, Part Two of the SAFE Rule was published and would amend existing CAFE and tailpipe CO2 emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026.  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 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
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.

Attachment 5

Page 64 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-27
Table 4.6-1 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 96,329 gallons of gasoline and 84,359 gallons of diesel fuel would be used during construction of the project (see Appendix B).

Table 4.6-1 Construction Energy Consumption
Construction Phase Diesel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons)
Off-Road Equipment 41,624 —
Off-Road Trucks 42,735 —
Worker Commute Vehicles — 96,329
Total 84,359 96,329
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. Table 4.6-2 summarizes the levels of energy consumption associated with the operation of the project for the first full year (2027) of operations compared to the existing land uses.

Table 4.6-2 Operational Energy Consumption
Energy Type Energy Consumption Units
Electricity 2,327,272 kWh/year
Gasoline 30,627,971 gal/year
Diesel 1,005,170 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 projects 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 would reduce fuel use from vehicle trips and from increased ridership. For these reasons, the project would not result in Attachment 5

Page 65 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-28 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As noted above, new land uses developed as part of project implementation would comply with the Title 24 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are intended to increase the energy efficiency of new development projects in the state and move the State closer to its zero-net energy goals. The project would be automatically enrolled as a member of the SVCE, which serves as the CCA for the County. SVCE works in partnership with PG&E to deliver GHG-efficient electricity to customers within its member jurisdictions. According to the Sunnyvale Climate Action Plan Biennial Progress Report released in 2018, 98 percent of residential and commercial accounts received electricity from SVCE, and 100 percent of City facilities were powered by renewable energy (City of Sunnyvale 2018).

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

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 5

Page 66 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-29

4.7 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
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
No No Yes, impact remains
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
No No Yes, impact remains
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
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
No No NA, no impact would
occur.
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
No No NA, no impact would
occur.

Attachment 5

Page 67 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-30 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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?
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
No No Yes, impact would
remain 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
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
No No Yes, impacts would
remain less than
significant with the
application of the
adopted mitigation
measure.

4.7.1 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 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) Expose people or structures to 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.)
Attachment 5

Page 68 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-31
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. Therefore, findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the 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 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, Calaveras, and San Gregorio 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). The analysis identified thin layers of potentially liquefiable soils between 8 and 53 feet below the project site that could become unstable in the event of an earthquake (Rockridge 2022:9).

The geotechnical investigation for the project identified the primary concern for the project is potential for up to 3 ¼- inch liquefaction induced settlement. The report identifies recommendations to account for this potential concern including: shallow foundations (either a mat or spread footings with a structural floor slab), supported ground improvement system, a ground improvement system to increase the allowable bearing pressures, drilled displacement sand-cement columns, and specific seismic design parameters in compliance with 2019 California Building Code (CBC) requirements.

The LSAP Draft 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. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 5

Page 69 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-32 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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. Therefore, findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact 3.7.2 of the LSAP Draft 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 2 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. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the 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 damage to infrastructure if located on expansive or unstable soils (LSAP Draft 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 geotechnical investigation prepared for the project identified potentially expansive and settlement-prone soils within the project site (Rockridge 2022). The report recommended design recommendations to reduce potential impacts of lateral spreading, see analyses under section a-iii. In addition to the design recommendations, 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.

Attachment 5

Page 70 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-33
For a discussion of impacts relating to landslides, see analyses under section a-IV) above.

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 this impact would remain 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 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 Holoceneage 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. No new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measure was 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 5

Page 71 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-34 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.8 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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant

4.8.1 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 MTCO2e. 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 3 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 Playbook 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. For references, updates to the regulatory setting are briefly summarized below. This updated regulatory setting is also included in the LSAP Update SEIR:
 EO B-55-18: EO B-55-18, signed September 10, 2018, sets a goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.”  Scoping Plan Update: EO B-30-15 and SB 32 require CARB to prepare another update 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.
 2017 Update to the SB 375 Targets: Under SB 375, CARB is required to update the emission reduction targets for the metropolitan planning organizations every 8 years. CARB adopted the updated targets and methodology in March 2018 and subsequent sustainable community strategies adopted after this date are subject to these new targets.

Attachment 5

Page 72 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-35
 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.
 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).

Each iteration of the CALGreen standards improves the energy efficiency and sustainability of new development from the prior iteration. CALGreen Tier 2 standards provide a set of more stringent energy efficient measures that individual jurisdictions or project can adopt. Specifically relevant to this project, CalGreen Tier 2 standards for new multi-development projects with 20 or more dwelling units, sleeping units, or guest rooms require that fifteen percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be equipped with Level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Where common use parking is provided, at least one EV charger shall be located in the common use parking area and shall be available for use by residents or guests.  Senate Bill 743: Requires transportation CEQA impacts to no longer consider congestion but instead focus on impacts of VMT. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) technical advisory explains that this criterion is consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21099, which states that the criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emission” (OPR 2017:18). This metric is intended to replace the use of delay and level of service to measure transportation-related impacts.  SAFE Rule: Part One of the SAFE Rule revokes a waiver granted by EPA to the State of California under Section 209 of the CAA to enforce more stringent emission standards for motor vehicles than those required by EPA for the explicit purpose of GHG emission reduction, and indirectly, criteria air pollutant and ozone precursor emission reduction. On March 31, 2020, Part Two of the SAFE Rule was published and would amend existing CAFE and tailpipe CO
2 emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards covering model years 2021 through 2026.
 2022 BAAQMD Justification Report: BAAQMD released its 2022 Justification Report: CEQA Thresholds for Evaluating the Significance of Climate Impacts from Land Use Projects and Plans (BAAQMD 2022c), which contains recommended thresholds of significance for use in determining whether a proposed project will have a significant impact on climate change. BAAQMD recommends that the thresholds of significance identified in the 2022 BAAQMD Justification Report be used by public agencies for CEQA compliance. In its analysis, BAAQMD found that a new land use development project being built today needs to incorporate design elements to do its “fair share” of implementing the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. If a project is designed and built to incorporate the design elements identified in the 2022 Justification Report, then the project will contribute its portion of what is necessary to achieve California’s long-term climate goals—its “fair share”— and an agency reviewing the project under CEQA can conclude that the project will not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. The thresholds for land use projects include two options, either option “A” or option “B.” Option “A” requires that projects incorporate building design elements (such as excluding natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing, in both residential and nonresidential development; and avoiding any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines) and transportation design elements (such as Attachment 5

Page 73 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-36 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
achieving a reduction in project-generated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for residential projects at 15 percent below the existing VMT per capita; and achieving compliance with off-street electric vehicle requirements in the most recently adopted version of CALGreen Tier 2). Option “B” requires projects be consistent with a local GHG reduction strategy that meets the criteria under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b).  Nonresidential and Multifamily Reach Codes: The City of Sunnyvale Reach Codes are new building codes that exceed the State’s standard energy construction codes. The California Energy Commission sets standards (California Energy Code) for energy efficiency to reduce GHG emissions. The Reach Codes exceed the California Energy Code requirements to accelerate the reduction of GHG emissions. Reach Codes apply to new buildings.

The changes to the regulatory environment will act to reduce the project’s long term GHG emissions by reducing emissions from energy and automobiles and therefore do not constitute substantial new information that would cause a more severe adverse impact on climate change than discussed in the LSAP EIR or LSAP Update SEIR. 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 1,144.37 MTCO 2e. Construction emissions presented in Table

4.8-1 are for informational purposes only and are not considered in the project’s efficiency metric.

Table 4.8-1 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Year Project Emissions MTCO2e
2025 222.65
2026 724.26
2027 197.46
Total 1,144.37
Notes: MTCO2e = Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Source: Modeled by Ascent, 2022

Attachment 5

Page 74 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-37
Operational-related GHG emissions were estimated to be 676.99 MTCO2e/year from the proposed project and are presented in Table 4.8-2. Operational emissions are provided for informational purposes.

Table 4.8-2 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions
Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Area 2.80
Energy 217.46
Mobile 374.30
Waste 52.05
Water 30.40
Total 676.99
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 which are consistent with SB 32- 2030 and 2050 goals. Because this project’s land uses are a subset of the LSAP Update, the construction and operational 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 EIR) 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 bold 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 4.8-3 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 4.8-3 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 (capacity to be determined).

Attachment 5

Page 75 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-38 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Strategies and Play Project Consistency
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 from the southern site boundary to the platform is approximately 575 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 the parking garage would include EV charging stations, EV ready circuits, and CalGreen EV spaces. There would be a total of 269 EV parking spaces, and in accordance with the City’s Reach Codes, 65% (174 spaces) would be “Level 1” and 35% (95 spaces) would be “Level 2”. CalGreen EV spaces would be located on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building.

The latter promotes 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.

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.

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.

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 and the project is in a major transit corridor and adjacent to 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 contain a parking garage which would include EV charging stations, EV ready circuits, and CalGreen EV spaces. There would be a total of 269 EV parking spaces, and in accordance with the City’s Reach Code, 65% (174 spaces) would be “Level 1” and 35% (95 spaces) would be “Level 2”.

CalGreen EV spaces would be located on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the building. These project features would promote the adoption of zero-emission vehicles by providing infrastructure to facilitate their use.

Attachment 5

Page 76 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-39
Strategies and Play Project Consistency
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, in 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 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.

Consistent. The landscape design for this project would incorporate new trees and shrubs to support carbon sequestration and reduce urban heat island effect.

Source: Ascent 2022
In addition to the Playbook consistency analysis described in Table 4.8-3 above, the proposed project also considers the recently adopted 2022 BAAQMD Justification Report, which contains thresholds for land use projects in the form of design elements represented by option “A” and option “B” for which only one option is required to be met. The Playbook consistency analysis above meets option “B,” so this analysis is focused on option “A.” The proposed project is consistent with the building design elements identified under option “A” because the project would not include natural gas appliances or natural gas plumbing, nor would it result in any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy usage as determined by the analysis required under CEQA Section 21100(b)(3) and Section 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project is consistent with the transportation design elements identified under option “A” because it is located in a transportation-efficient location, near existing public transit.

Further, as described in Section 2, “Project Description,” the project would install EV-ready and EVSE parking spaces consistent with the City of Sunnyvale’s reach code. Specifically, 174 spaces would be equipped with level 1 electric ready circuit and 95 would include level 2 electric vehicle charging stations. The proposed project would have a total of 269 parking spaces, thus, 95 spaces with EVSE represents 35 percent of the total parking spaces. The BAAQMD’s 2022 threshold requirement for EV charging is that projects shall meet CalGreen Tier 2, which for the proposed project type, would be 15 percent of parking spaces to include EVSE. Thus, because the adopted reach code is more Attachment 5

Page 77 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-40 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
stringent (i.e., requiring more EV charging spaces) compared to the BAAQMD requirements, the project would be consistent with recently adopted BAQQMD guidance.

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, the City’s reach code, and the 2022 BAAQMD Justification Report. This impact would be less than significant and the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 5

Page 78 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-41

4.9 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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
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?
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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, No impact would
occur
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
No No Yes. Impacts would
remain less than
significant with
application of the
adopted mitigation
measures.
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
No No NA, no impact would
occur
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Draft EIR page 3.3-9
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No No, no impact would
occur
g) Expose people or structures, either directly
or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires?
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.3-1 to 3.3-8
Impacts 3.3.5 and

3.3.8 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No Yes. Impacts would
remain less than
significant with
application of the
adopted mitigation
measures.

Attachment 5

Page 79 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-42 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.9.1 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 (Tetra Tech 2021). The Phase I ESA identified agricultural land uses at the project since the 1930s, before an outbuilding/barn was constructed on the site. The commercial building to the north of the project site and associated surface parking lots were constructed in 1985. A Phase II ESA was prepared to assess potential hazardous subsurface impacts to soil, groundwater, and soil vapor on the project site (Tetra Tech 2022).
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 LSAP 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 federal 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, 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.

Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the 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.

Attachment 5

Page 80 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-43
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.

There is no potential for existing contamination at the project site from previous land uses as discussed in item 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 project would not result in 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. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Five schools or daycare facilities were identified by the LSAP EIR to be within ¼ mile of the entire LSAP planning area (City of Sunnyvale 2016); however, all of these institutions are located outside of a ¼ mile radius from the project site.

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 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. There is no potential for existing contamination at the project site from previous land uses as 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 site 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. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.

Attachment 5

Page 81 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-44 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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 was prepared for the project site (Tetra Tech 2021). The Phase I ESA identified land uses at the project since 1930s and found the site was used for agriculture. In 1948 agriculture ceased on the project site and the property supported a barn until the office buildings north of the site were constructed in 1985. The project site has served as a parking lot to support the office buildings since 1985. The Phase I ESA did not include any further project recommendations.

Five items of environmental interest were reported in the Phase I ESA. Items of environmental interest include a volatile organic compound release site to the north, abandoned well to the west, two underground storage tanks removed from the site and remediated in 1991, historic pesticide use on the site, and cleaning solvents from historic businesses in the project vicinity. A Phase II was prepared for the site to assess potential hazardous impacts to soil, groundwater, and soil vapor on the project site from the five items of interest. The Phase II ESA concluded:
 No indications of pesticide, arsenic, or lead in shallow soils.  No indications of significant soil, soil vapor, or groundwater impacts associated with the former waste oil underground storage tank.
 No volatile organic compounds.
 Low concentrations of tetrachloroethene (PCE), benzene, ethyl benzene, and chloroform were detected on the site exceeding residential environmental screening levels.  PCE was detected in groundwater slightly exceeding residential environmental screening levels.

The Phase I and Phase II site assessments did not find any Recognized Environmental Conditions and were prepared consistently with the requirements in adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.3.3. The Phase I and Phase II ESA did not include any further project recommendations.

No changes to the condition of the site or presence of hazardous materials had occurred since approval of the LSAP.

Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur, and the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid. This impact would remain less than significant with implementation of adopted LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-1, which requires remediation or effective site management controls appropriate for the use of the site to the satisfaction of the appropriate oversight agency prior to the initiation of construction activities.
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 of 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. No new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no impact would occur.

Attachment 5

Page 82 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-45
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 improvements), 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 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. 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 this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation. 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. No new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

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 ESA and, if deemed necessary by the Phase I ESA, the preparation of a Phase II ESA. As noted above, a Phase I and Phase II ESA has been completed for the project. There were no Recognized Environmental Conditions identified on the project site and a Phase II ESA did not include any further recommendations. However, since PCE, benzene, ethyl benzene, and chloroform are present in soil vapor at concentrations above respective residential screening levels for potential vapor intrusion, the City will require remediation or effective site management controls appropriate for the use of the site to the satisfaction of the appropriate oversight agency prior to the initiation of construction activities as required under adopted LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 (see below). 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.

LSAP Update SEIR Mitigation Measure MM 3.8-1
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).

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.

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 Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (as appropriate) before initiation of construction activities. Deed restrictions, if Attachment 5

Page 83 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-46 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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 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 5

Page 84 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-47

4.10 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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No NA, impact remains
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:

Draft EIR page 3.8-15
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.3 and 3.8.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA, impacts would
remain 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 page 3.8-15
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.8-1 to 3.8-13
Impact 3.8.3 and 3.8.6
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA, impacts would
remain less than
significant
Attachment 5

Page 85 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-48 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
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?
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
No No NA
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Draft EIR page 3.8-15
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change in
impact conclusion
No No NA

4.10.1 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 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 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 LID. Common LID strategies that would be appropriate for the LSAP 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.

Attachment 5

Page 86 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-49
The project completed a preliminary stormwater management plan to document NDPES provision C.3 and identify BMPs to be incorporated into project design. The project site is paved with an existing parking lot. The project would not result in an increase in impervious surface area over existing conditions at the project site. However, the project would still implement the following storm water control measures to reduce run off, and to decrease pollutant concentrations from site runoff: site design measures such as a greenery on floors four and eight and self-retaining areas to reduce storm water; source controls such as labeling storm drains and covering dumpster areas; and other site design measures would include bioretention through landscaping (see design plan sheet 43 in Appendix A).

Compliance with existing requirements of Chapter 12.60 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code, 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. 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.
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 surfaces; 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 surfaces. 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.

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. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid.
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 stormwater drainage to a level that is less than significant.

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 43 in Appendix A). The project Attachment 5

Page 87 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-50 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
would have 60,931 square feet of impervious surface and 26,225 square feet of pervious surface. Existing conditions with the paved parking lot is mostly impervious. Therefore, the project would not significantly reduce pervious surfaces on the site.

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 page 43 in Appendix A).

Implementation of proposed water control and drainage features would ensure that drainage flows would not increase offsite. 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. i) R esult 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 43 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 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 43 in Appendix A). 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.
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.

Attachment 5

Page 88 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-51
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 alter these conditions. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. e) C onflict 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 that 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 project is located outside of these areas and would not be subject to this mitigation measure.

Attachment 5

Page 89 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-52 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.11 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
No No NA, no impact would
occur
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
No No Yes, this impact would
remain less than
significant.

4.11.1 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.

Implementation of LSAP policies would ensure that new land uses in the LSAP Plan 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 LSAP EIR Impacts 3.1.1 and 3.1.4).

Existing land use on the project site consists of a parking lot that serves two office buildings to the north. The project would result in construction of a residential 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 Kifer Road along the north side of the project site and San Attachment 5

Page 90 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-53
Zeno Way along the east side. 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 Kifer Road entrance, and along San Zero Way, near the Lawrence Caltrain Station.

The project would not result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts. Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. 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?
The City of Sunnyvale General Plan provides the united vision meant to guide comprehensive development in the City. 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 changed land use designations throughout the Plan Area to accommodate future growth and to realize the City’s vision. This impact for the LSAP was less than significant. The LSAP Update SEIR concluded that implementation of LSAP modifications would ensure integration and compatibility of new development with the City’s sustainable growth vision and associated General Plan and LSAP policy provisions.

The City's General Plan designates the site as Transit Mixed-Use, and the site is zoned MXD- I – Flexible Mixed-Use I. This designation in the Transit Core West subarea of the LSAP permits high-density residential ( 45 dwelling units per acre [du/ac] with up to 35 du/ac density incentive points available through the LSAP Development Incentives Program). The project would have a residential density of 113 du/ac, which is achieved through participation in the LSAP Development Incentives Program and the California State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915).

Therefore, the proposed density of 113 du/ac is deemed to be consistent with the LSAP . The LSAP’s adopted buildout, as updated in 202 1, is 5,935 new residential units and 1,200,000 net new square feet of Office/R&D uses .

As of September 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. The proposed project would build 225 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 requested waivers to LSAP design guidelines will be considered as part of the Special Development Permit review.

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

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.

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 5

Page 91 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-54 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist

4.12 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
No No NA
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
No No NA

4.12.1 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 Plan Area, and because the area is already developed with urban land uses. The project site is developed with office and commercial use and would be redeveloped with residential 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.

Attachment 5

Page 92 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-55

4.13 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) 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, or a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in noise
levels above existing ambient levels that
could result in an adverse effect on humans?
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
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
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Draft EIR p 3.6-16
No Impact
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No NA, no impact
would occur.

4.13.1 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 Assessment prepared for the proposed project (Salter 2023).

Since preparation of the 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 5

Page 93 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-56 1150-1170 Kifer Road 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, or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans?
Operational Noise
Residential and mixed-use residential land uses in the LSAP area are located along major roadways including Lawrence Expressway, which runs north-south through the LSAP area. 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 (Ldn) 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 Ldn 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. The LSAP Update SEIR identified that vehicle trips generated by development under the LSAP Update would not result in traffic noise increases that exceed the City’s incremental noise increase criteria for transportation noise sources, or expose receptors to perceptible increases in traffic noise.

To evaluate the project’s impact on applicable standards, a noise analysis was conducted by Salter, Inc. (2023). Noise from outdoor mechanical units would be the main source of noise from the project site. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units would be placed on the roof surrounded by a 3.5-foot tall parapet. Assuming condensers, exhaust fans, and rooftop units would be operating simultaneously noise at the nearest sensitive receiver would be 36 dBA L eq.

Combined noise levels would not exceed standards included in Section 19.42.030 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code and would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise conditions that could adversely impact sensitive receptors.

Noise levels at the project’s planned outdoor courtyard pool area were modeled. Exterior noise levels from at the pool area would be below the normally acceptable standard of 60 dBA Ldn with the proposed 42-inch tall solid parapet wall along the southern edge of the courtyard. Therefore, noise levels at exterior use areas of the project would not exceed the City’s 60 dBA Ldn normally acceptable exterior noise standard and would not conflict with the City General Plan.

Standard construction techniques for wood-frame construction buildings required under the California Building Code typically achieve a minimum 25-dBA reduction from exterior sources at interior locations when the windows are in a closed position. Therefore, if project’s building façade noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn, interior noise levels for the project would potentially exceed the City’s interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn. Noise levels along Kifer Road were measured at 73 dBA Ldn and noise levels along San Zeno Way were measured at 70 dBA Ldn (Salter 2023). 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.

Where exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA L
dn, 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 L dn, 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 noise by keeping the windows closed. In all areas exceeding 70 dBA Ldn, the inclusion of windows and doors with high Sound Attachment 5

Page 94 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-57
Transmission Class (STC) ratings, and the incorporation of forced-air mechanical ventilation systems would most likely be necessary to meet 45 dBA.”
Therefore, to avoid conflicting 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. Figures 2 through 7 of the Noise Study prepared for the project provide recommended sound transmission class (STC) ratings for the building materials on floors one through eight to reduce interior noise levels. The project would be consistent with the City’s interior noise level standards by implementing the minimum required STC ratings. Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

Construction Noise
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.

Project construction would occur over approximately 29 months. Construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading, and building construction. Project construction would occur on average 75 feet from nearby sensitive receivers, including adjacent residences to the west. Table 4.13-1 shows typical noise levels associated with construction equipment at a distance of 75 feet.

Table 4.13-1 Construction Equipment Noise Levels
Equipment Noise Level at 75 feet (dBA Leq)
Air Compressor 78
Cement and Mortar Mixer 83
Concrete/Industrial Saw 74
Concrete Pump 82
Crane 83
Generator 80
Grader 83
Paving Equipment 83
Roller 83
Dozer 83
Tractor/Backhoe 78
Source: Federal Transit Administration 2018.

Attachment 5

Page 95 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-58 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Noise levels would be as high as 83 dBA Leq at adjacent receivers. In compliance with Chapter 16.08.030 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code project construction would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction would not occur on Sundays or federal holidays. The City does not provide any quantitative threshold for construction noise. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment criteria if 85 dBA Leq for residential development is used (FTA 2018).

Noise levels at the adjacent residences would not exceed 85 dBA Leq (Table 13.1-1). In addition, the project would implement adopted LSAP Mitigation Measure 3.6.4, which includes construction noise measures. Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

Project Traffic 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. The LSAP Draft EIR Tables 3.6-7 and 3.6-8 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.

The project would introduce sources of operational noise to the site, including mechanical equipment (condensers, rooftop unit, and exhaust fans). The nearest residential use to the project site is located adjacent to the west.

Mechanical equipment nose levels would attribute to approximately 36 dBA noise equivalent level (L eq), which
would not exceed 50 dBA during nighttime or 60 dBA during daytime hours at any point on the adjacent residentially zoned property.

The project would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways, particularly on Kifer Road. Lawrence Expressway would have an average daily traffic volume of 53,824 vehicles per day and the project would generate up to 1,224 daily trips (Appendix B). This increase of Lawrence Expressway average daily traffic volumes would result in approximately 2 percent increase over existing average daily traffic volume s. The project would result in traffic noise level increase of approximately 0.1 dBA on Lawrence Expressway. Therefore, the project’s traffic noise increases would not exceed 3 dBA, the threshold for a noticeable noise increase. Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. b) G eneration 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 may be used within 50 feet of the nearest off-site residential use to the west, when accounting for setbacks. A roller would create approximately 0.21 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) at 25 feet (Caltrans 2020). The modeled vibration level created by a roller at 50 feet would generate a level of

0.098. This would be lower than what is considered a distinctly perceptible impact for humans of 0.24 in/sec PPV, and the structural damage impact of 0.04 in/sec PPV. Therefore, a roller would not be perceptible to nearby human receptors; temporary impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than Attachment 5

Page 96 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-59
significant. Operation of the project would not include any substantial vibration sources. Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
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.

No changes to the Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan have occurred and 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.

Therefore, there are no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts that would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

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 Attachment 5

Page 97 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-60 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
consist of blocks of material placed atop a piling during installation to minimize noise 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 5

Page 98 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-61

4.14 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.

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
No No NA, impact remains
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
No No Na, impact remains
less than significant

4.14.1 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 September 2023, the 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. 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 LSAP 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, 520 have been approved as part of the Greystar project at 1120-1130 Kifer Road, 741 have been approved as part of the Aster Avenue project at 1155–1175 Aster Avenue, and 176 units have been approved as part of the 1178 Sonora Court project. The 2021 LSAP Update included an additional 3,612 new residential units, for a total LSAP development potential of 5,935 units. The 225 units proposed as part of the project would be within the projected net increase evaluated in the LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR. The physical environmental effects of this growth are addressed in the LSAP EIR and LSAP Update SEIR.

The project is consistent with the land use designations and anticipated residential and employment growth set forth in the LSAP. 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.

Attachment 5

Page 99 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-62 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, 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 occur. 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 225 residential units, 44 of which would be affordable units, on a parcel that currently supports parking for an office. Therefore, the project would not displace any residences or persons. The project would have a residential density of 113 du/ac, which is achieved through the LSAP Development Incentives Program and State Density Bonus Law. The density is therefore deemed to be consistent with the LSAP. Additionally, the project would not result in the removal of existing housing. No new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur. The findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR remain valid, and no further analysis is required.

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 5

Page 100 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist 4-63

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue Area
Where Impact Was
Analyzed in the LSAP
Draft and Final EIR or
the LSAP Update
Draft and Final SEIR.

15. Public Services
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for
any public services:

i) Fire protection? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.11-1 to 3.11-3
Impacts 3.11.1.1 and

3.11.1.2 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
ii) Police protection? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.11-5 to 3.11-6
Impacts 3.11.2.1 and

3.11.2.2 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
iii) Schools? Draft EIR Setting pp.

3.11-7 to 3.11-9
Impacts 3.11.3.1 and

3.11.3.2 Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
No No NA, impact remains
less than significant
iv) Parks? See below in Section

3.15, Recreation
Draft and Final SEIR
identified no change
in impact conclusion
See below in Section

3.15, Recreation
See below in
Section 3.15,
Recreation
See below in Section

3.15, Recreation

4.15.1 Discussion
Since release of the 2016 LSAP Final EIR, state voters approved Proposition 51 (Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities, Initiative Statutory Amendment) in November 2016 that will provide nine billion dollars in general obligation bonds for educational facilities (seven billion dollars would be available to K-12 public school facilities). This would provide an additional funding source for school facility needs for the Sunnyvale School District, Attachment 5

Page 101 of 600 ends

Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Sunnyvale
4-64 1150-1170 Kifer Road Environmental Checklist
Santa Clara Unified School District, and the Fremont Union High School District. This change in funding opportunities would not alter the environmental impact conclusions provided in the certified LSAP EIR. a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection?
As identified in Impact 3.11.1.1 and 3.11.1.2 of the LSAP EIR, additional residents and retail, commercial, and office/research and development (R&D) uses in the LSAP would increase the need for fire protection services, including equipment, additional inspectors, permit issuance staff, etc., to serve the City under 2035 conditions.

However, it is currently expected that implementation of the LSAP would not necessitate construction of a fire station or emergency medical facility. The Fire Bureau does not maintain a staffing ratio goal based directly on population or employment; staffing levels are instead identified based on service demand and other factors. There are two City of Sunnyvale Fire Department stations within approximately half a mile west and southwest of the Plan Area boundary, and the City of Santa Clara has a fire station on Corvin Drive, just north of the Plan Area boundary along Kifer Road.

The LSAP recognizes that a variety of public facilities would be needed to serve the area as development proceeds.

Some of these would be provided through mandatory fees and assessments consistent with existing City of Sunnyvale policy. Sunnyvale’s Fire Code, Section 16.52 of the City’s Municipal Code, prescribes regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion through adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code.

The LSAP does not contain any policies regarding the provision of fire protection services, but public uses such as a fire station or emergency medical facility would be a permitted use in all land use classifications, subject to review and City approval. The LSAP EIR programmatically evaluated the construction impacts of such a potential facility in regard to air quality, noise, and water quality (see Sections 3.5, 3.6, and 3.8, of the LSAP Draft EIR, respectively). As subsequent development projects are proposed in the LSAP area, the City would ensure that equipment and facilities (e.g., fire trucks and new or modified fire stations) are provided and maintained to meet reasonable standards of safety, dependability, and compatibility with fire service operations and that rapid emergency response times are met.

Therefore, fire protection and emergency medical services impacts would be less than significant for the LSAP under project and cumulative conditions.

A Comprehensive Risk Assessment of the City’s fire response services found that the City’s average response times were consistent with or exceeded national best practices and recommended test response times of 7 minutes and 30 seconds (Citygate 2018: 86) for four out of five stations serving the City and the Plan Area. The project would be served by existing fire protection facilities and would not require construction of additional facilities. City of Santa Clara Fire Department Station 9 is located approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project site, at 3011 Corvin Drive.

The City’s Station 2 is located at 795 Arques Avenue, approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site. The project would be required to meet all City requirements regarding fire protection, including fire access (see project design plans – sheet 44), and provision of City services through mandatory applicable fees and assessments. Therefore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur.

Therefore, the findings of the certified LSAP EIR and the LSAP Update SEIR would remain less than significant, and less than cumulatively considerable, respectively.

Police protection?
Additional residents and retail, commercial, and office/R&D uses in the LSAP would increase the need for law enforcement protection services (Impact 3.11.2.1 and 3.11.2.2). The LSAP recognizes that a variety of public facilities such as law enforcement would be needed to serve the area as development proceeds. Some of these would be provided through mandatory fees and assessments consistent with existing City policy. Sunnyvale General Plan Policy SN-3.1 directs that rapid and timely response to all emergencies be provided, and Policy SN-5.1 requires that Attachment 5

Page 102 of 600 ends

Sunnyvale City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Sunnyvale City Council
December 5, 2023