Mountain View City Council
February 8, 2022

1. Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

2. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife (62 Cal.4th 204) confirmed that there are multiple potential pathways for evaluating GHG emissions and determining impact conclusions consistent with CEQA. Furthermore, several air quality management agencies throughout the state have drafted or adopted varying threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions and determining impact conclusions in CEQA documents. Common threshold approaches include (1) compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, (2) performance-based reductions, (3) numeric “bright-line” thresholds, (4) efficiency-based thresholds, and (5) compliance with regulatory programs.

Applicability of Available Thresholds
The following sections discuss the threshold approaches recommended by the courts and supported by CEQA. Their applicability to the Project is analyzed.

Compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy
OPR acknowledges that the legislature encourages lead agencies to tier or streamline their environmental documents whenever feasible and that GHG emissions may be best analyzed and mitigated at the programmatic level (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018). A qualified plan may be used in the cumulative impact analysis for later projects when the analysis “identifies those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project.” For a GHG reduction plan to be considered a qualified plan, it must meet certain criteria established under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183.5(b) and 15064.4. Consequently, if a project is consistent with a local Clean Air Plan (CAP) that was created to meet that area’s fair-share reductions toward the AB 32 GHG target for 2020 and meets the above-referenced criteria, then the project would be considered consistent with statewide GHG reduction goals for 2020. In addition, if a CAP was adopted that was consistent with the state’s overall goals for post-2020, including the downward trajectory, as clarified in SB 32 and EO S-03-05, and a project is consistent with that CAP, it would be considered consistent with the state’s post-2020 GHG emissions strategy. Section 15183.5 also specifies that the project’s CEQA analysis “must identify those requirements specified in the plan that apply to the project and, if those requirements are not otherwise binding and enforceable, incorporate those requirements as mitigation measures applicable to the project.” As discussed under Regulatory Setting, the City of Mountain View has adopted a qualified GHG emissions reduction strategy, the GGRP. Project consistency with applicable GHG reduction measures outlined in the GGRP was evaluated for Impact GHG-2, below. However, the Project would require a General Plan amendment as part of the City’s approval process. Because the GGRP relies on current General Plan land use assumptions, which would change because of the Project’s proposal to increase the density on the site, the GGRP cannot be solely relied on to make a significance determination for Impact GHG-1, below (Anderson pers. comm.). In addition, the GGRP outlines a plan to achieve a 30 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2030, which is not City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
consistent with SB 32’s 2030 reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. Therefore, the GGRP cannot be solely relied on to make significance determinations for projects with post-2020 buildout years, although the Project’s overall consistency with the GGRP remains relevant to the analysis.

Performance-Based Reductions
Performance-based thresholds are based on a percentage reduction from a projected future condition (e.g., reducing future business-as-usual [BAU] emissions by the AB 32 target of 29 percent [below 2020 BAU levels] through a combination of state measures; project design features, such as renewable energy requirements; or mitigation). BAAQMD recommends a 26 percent reduction from 2020 BAU levels to meet the AB 32 target (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a).

Based on the court’s reasoning in the Newhall Ranch decision, relating a given project to achievement of state reduction targets may require adjustments to CARB’s statewide BAU model to not only isolate new development emissions but also consider unique geographic conditions and operational characteristics that may affect the performance of reduction measures in certain locations. To date, this type of adjustment to the statewide BAU target has not been performed and, therefore, is not appropriate for the Project’s analysis. The primary value of a performance-based target, as indicated in the Newhall Ranch decision, is that it can provide a scenario for evaluating the effectiveness of a project’s reduction efficiency relative to an unmitigated condition. As such, futureyear targets can be used to benchmark performance, using either statewide or regional emissions targets, to determine a project’s fair share of mitigation.

Numerical Bright-Line Thresholds
Numerical bright-line thresholds identify the point at which additional analysis and mitigation of project-related GHG emission impacts are necessary. BAAQMD has not developed bright‐line thresholds for construction but has for the operation of land use development projects (i.e., 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year). The land use development threshold, which is based on a gap analysis,
3 ties back to the state’s AB 32 reduction target (i.e., 1990 level by 2020).4 Because the buildout year for the Project is 2028, use of BAAQMD’s numeric-bright line land use development threshold, which is tailored to 2020 reduction targets, would not be appropriate for the Project’s analysis.

Efficiency-Based Thresholds
Another type of quantitative threshold is an efficiency-based threshold, which represents the GHG efficiency needed for development to achieve California’s GHG emissions targets. Although the Newhall Ranch decision did not specifically recommend the efficiency-based approach, the ruling did note that numerical threshold approaches may be appropriate for determining the significance of GHG emissions and emphasizing the consideration of GHG efficiency. Efficiency-based thresholds allow lead agencies to compare projects of various types and sizes in different locations equally and determine whether they would be consistent with the state’s reduction goals. Efficiency-based thresholds can be expressed on a per capita basis for a residential project, on a per‐employee basis 3 The gap analysis demonstrates the reductions needed at the residential and commercial land use levels to achieve state targets. Capture is the process of estimating the portion of a project that would result in emissions that would exceed a significance threshold and be subject to mitigation. 4 The AB 32 scoping plan identifies specific measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
for an office project, or on a per-service-population (i.e., the sum of jobs and residents) basis for a mixed-use project.

BAAQMD has developed GHG efficiency thresholds for land use projects (i.e., 4.6 metric tons of carbon CO2e per service population) and plans with GHG emissions resulting from a mixture of building energy, transportation, solid waste, and other emissions (i.e., 6.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population). These threshold values are based on the required efficiency emissions that these sources must achieve per service population to meet the state’s 2020 reduction targets.

Because the buildout year for the Project is 2028, the use of BAAQMD’s performance-based thresholds, which are tailored to 2020 reduction targets, would not be appropriate for the Project’s analysis.

CARB recommends statewide efficiency targets of no more than 6 metric tons of CO2e per capita by 2030 and no more than 2 metric tons of CO2e per capita by 2050 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b). These targets were derived from total statewide emissions from all emission categories, including emissions from stationary and industrial sources, and the reductions needed to achieve California’s 2030 statewide target under SB 32 and the longer-term EO S-3-05 reduction goal of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Because CARB’s per capita efficiency targets are based on statewide emissions, they represent an average efficiency that does not specifically consider the unique geographic and Project-specific features that could influence emissions reductions achieved by the Project. The targets are also based on an inventory of GHG emissions from existing and future development through 2050 and therefore do not isolate the required emissions reductions resulting solely from new development needed to meet state goals. Tailoring CARB’s per capita targets to local conditions is not possible at this time with the available data published in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Accordingly, CARB’s efficiency targets are not appropriate thresholds for independently evaluating the significance of Project-generated GHG emissions.

Compliance with Regulatory Programs
A lead agency can properly rely on regulatory compliance to show a less-than-significant GHG impact if a project complies with or exceeds programs adopted by CARB or other state agencies.

However, such analysis is applicable only within the area governed by the regulations. For example, consistency with regulations for addressing issues concerning building efficiency would not suffice in determining whether a project would have significant GHG emissions from transportation.

The Newhall Ranch decision specifically mentions consistency with both the SCS (per SB 375) and AB 32 as a potential mechanism for evaluating significance. A lead agency can properly assess project-level consistency with AB 32 in whole or in part by evaluating whether a project complies with applicable policies in the AB 32 scoping plan. However, the AB 32 scoping plan does not consider the deeper reductions needed to meet the state’s 2030 target under SB 32. Accordingly, relying exclusively on consistency with the AB 32 scoping plan and related programs in evaluating emissions generated by land use development projects constructed after 2020 would not fully consider a project’s potential GHG impacts on the state’s long-term reduction trajectory.

More recent guidance on GHG reduction strategies and thresholds for operational emissions has been provided at the state level through the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, OPR, and CARB. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan outlines the GHG reduction strategies by emission sector (e.g., water, transportation, energy) required to meet the state’s 2030 target under SB 32. OPR (2018) guidance City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
specifies that a “land use development project that produces low VMT, achieves applicable building energy efficiency standards, uses no natural gas or other fossil fuels, and includes Energy Star appliances where available, may be able to demonstrate a less‐than-significant greenhouse gas impact associated with project operation.” Furthermore, CARB (2019b) guidance specifies the per capita VMT reduction targets that would be needed statewide to meet long-term (2050) mobile-source GHG reduction targets, considering increased vehicle efficiency and reduced carbon content in vehicle fuels.

To the extent that the Project’s applicable GHG policies comply with or exceed the regulations outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and adopted by CARB or other state agencies, the Project could appropriately rely on their use to show compliance with performance-based standards adopted to fulfill the statewide goals for reducing GHG emissions. The Project’s compliance with regulatory programs adopted by CARB and other state agencies is therefore used to evaluate the significance of the Project’s GHG emissions. Although the regulatory framework for achieving longterm (post-2030) emissions reductions is in its infancy, many of the programs outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan are likely to be carried forward or have already been adopted with post-2030 requirements (e.g., RPS). Accordingly, evaluating consistency with these programs and relevant guidance published by OPR and CARB for the reduction of long-term emissions is also considered in the analysis of the Project’s emissions.

Project Threshold Approach
As discussed above, BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emission threshold for construction-related emissions. Instead, BAAQMD recommends that GHG emissions from construction be quantified and disclosed and that a determination regarding the significance of such GHG emissions be made with respect to whether a project is consistent with emission reduction goals. BAAQMD further recommends incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as feasible and applicable. This approach is used to evaluate the Project’s construction-generated emissions.

Although BAAQMD has adopted GHG thresholds (numerical and efficiency) for operational emissions from land use development projects, the thresholds are based on the state’s 2020 target under AB 32 and do not consider the deeper reductions needed to meet the post-2020 target under SB 32. Accordingly, relying exclusively on BAAQMD’s adopted thresholds to evaluate emissions generated by land use development projects constructed after 2020 would not fully consider a project’s potential GHG impacts on the state’s long-term reduction trajectory. As discussed above, the City’s GGRP cannot be solely relied on to make a significance determination, and available statewide BAU and efficiency metrics do not meet the recommendations from the courts regarding appropriate project-level GHG thresholds.

Based on the available threshold concepts recommended by air districts and the courts, for purposes of this analysis, the City, in its discretion, has determined that GHG emissions from the Project are to be evaluated on a sector-by-sector (e.g., energy, water) basis, using the most applicable regulatory programs, policies, and thresholds recommended by BAAQMD, CARB, and OPR, as described below.

The state has a 2045 reduction goal concerning carbon neutrality, as set forth by EO B-55-18.

However, the state’s goal has not been codified in law, and neither the state nor the City has adopted a plan or framework for achieving the 2045 reduction goal. The state’s 2030 target has been codified in law through SB 32 and the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. With the Project buildout year being 2028, 2030 is the next statutory milestone that would be applicable to the Project. Therefore, City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
this analysis focuses on the 2030 target and the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for achieving 2030 reductions. Where applicable, guidance from CARB, OPR, and other agencies related to long-term emissions reduction requirements is incorporated into the analysis. • Mobile Sources: CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recognizes that, although vehicle technologies and low-carbon fuels will continue to reduce emissions from the transportation sector, VMT reductions are necessary to achieve California’s long-term GHG reduction target.

Recent CARB analysis demonstrates that a 14.3 percent reduction in VMT per service population by 2050 (compared to a 2015–2018 average) would be needed statewide to meet long-term climate change planning goals through 2050. This reduction target is consistent with recent OPR guidance issued on SB 743, as discussed in Section 3.7.3.2and Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation. The Project would be constructed after 2020 and have a buildout year of 2028. As described in Section 3.14 Transportation and Circulation, the City has adopted a VMT reduction goal that aligns with statewide goals to reduce VMT. Accordingly, use of the City’s VMT reduction goal for considering the significance of the Project’s mobile-source emissions is applicable to the Project. In addition to VMT reductions, a finding of the Project’s compliance with relevant regulatory programs (e.g., low-carbon fuel standard, AB 1493, SB 743, SB 375) would also be required to reduce the statewide mobile-source GHG emissions to a less-thansignificant impact. • Energy, Water, Waste, Area, and Land Sources. CARB’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which relies heavily on state programs (e.g., Title 24 and SB 100), outlines the strategies required to reduce statewide GHG emissions and achieve California’s SB 32 reduction target.

Projects that implement applicable strategies from the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan would be consistent with the state’s GHG reduction framework as well as requirements for the various sectors. Accordingly, a sector-by-sector review of the respective features and sustainability measures included in the Project is conducted to evaluate consistency with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. This assessment also considers recent OPR (2018) guidance related to long-term reductions in statewide emissions. Accordingly, the impact of emissions from energy, water, waste, area, and land use sources would be considered less than significant if the Project is consistent with all applicable 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan strategies as well as supporting regulations and guidance.

3.7.4.2 Methods
GHG and climate change impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project were assessed and quantified using standard accepted software tools, techniques, and emissions factors.

A summary of the methodology is provided below.

Construction Emissions
Construction activities would generate emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from mobile and stationary construction equipment, on-site water and electricity use, and employee vehicles and haul trucks.

Based on available information, it is expected that construction would occur over four phases between May 2023 and August 2028: Park Parcel Future Park Demolition & Grading, Block A Leasing & Amenity, Block B 111 Units, and Block C 218 Units.

GHG emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod was run with model default values for some construction parameters, such as equipment horsepower and load factors. The construction schedule (i.e., start and end dates), the City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
types of construction equipment, the number of pieces of equipment, the amount of material imported and exported, and the number of acres to be graded and paved at the Project site were provided by the applicant, based on reasonably available information. Total emissions for each year of activity were estimated. The construction modeling outputs and detailed assumptions are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Operational Emissions
GHG emissions from motor vehicles associated with development of the Project were evaluated using CalEEMod. Trip generation rates from the Project’s traffic impact analysis (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2021) for each land use type associated with the proposed development were used, as were CalEEMod default trip lengths by land use type. The transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the Project would reduce associated peak-hour and daily traffic trips by 6 percent. This trip reduction was incorporated into the CalEEMod modeling. Net emissions associated with the Project were estimated by subtracting emissions associated with existing land uses from emissions associated with proposed land uses for buildout-year conditions.

Area, energy, water, and waste emissions were estimated using CalEEMod. Area sources include gasand diesel-powered landscaping equipment. Energy sources are associated with the combustion of natural gas as well as the use of electricity. Water consumption results in indirect GHG emissions from the conveyance and treatment of water. Waste generation results in fugitive CH4 and N2O emissions from the decomposition of organic matter.

The operational modeling outputs and detailed assumptions are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

3.7.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.7.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.7.4.4, Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts.

Impact GHG-1a Generate greenhouse gas emissions during construction, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1
Implement BAAQMD’s best management practices to reduce GHG emissions from construction.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting approximately 64 months. Construction activities would generate emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from mobile and stationary construction equipment as well as employees’ vehicles and haul trucks. The emissions generated during construction of the Project were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2, as summarized in Table 3.7-4. As shown in Table 3.7-4, it is estimated that construction of the Project would generate approximately 4,042 metric tons of CO2e. This is equivalent to adding 873 typical passenger vehicles to the road during the City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
construction period. The emissions generated during construction of the Project would result primarily from the use of diesel-powered construction equipment (e.g., excavators). Construction emissions would cease once construction of the Project is complete; therefore, they are considered short term.

Table 3.7-4. Estimated GHG Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year) Year CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
2023 641 0.1 < 0.1 643
2024 621 0.1 < 0.1 624
2025 851 0.2 < 0.1 855
2026 882 0.1 < 0.1 885
2027 856 0.1 < 0.1 859
2028 175 < 0.1 < 0.1 176
Total 4,026 0.6 < 0.1 4,042
CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent, including the relative warming capacity (i.e., global warming potential) of each GHG BAAQMD identifies sources of information on potential thresholds of significance and mitigation strategies for operational GHG emissions from land use development projects in its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. As noted above, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines do not identify a GHG emissions threshold for construction-related emissions; however, they do recommend that GHG emissions from construction be quantified and disclosed and a determination regarding the significance of the GHG emissions be made with respect to whether the project in question is consistent with state goals regarding reductions in GHG emissions.

If a project does not implement feasible best management practices, it is anticipated that it would conflict with statewide emission goals and construction-related GHG emission impacts would be significant. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that GHG emissions during construction would be minimized, which would avoid any conflict with statewide emission reduction goals by and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

MM GHG-1: Implement BAAQMD’s best management practices to reduce GHG emissions from construction.
⚫ Use alternative-fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment (at least 15 percent of the Project’s construction fleet);
⚫ Use local (within 200 miles) building materials (at least 10 percent); and ⚫ Recycle at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

Impact GHG-1b Generate greenhouse gas emissions during operation, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Discussion
To assist lead agencies in determining whether operational GHG emissions may require further analysis and whether a project may exceed the BAAQMD GHG mass emissions or efficiency threshold, BAAQMD developed screening criteria in its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. However, BAAQMD’s screening criteria do not apply to the Project because they apply only to projects with buildout years prior to 2020. Buildout of the Project is anticipated to occur in 2028.

Because BAAQMD’s screening criteria do not apply, GHG emissions from motor vehicles were evaluated using CalEEMod and trip generation rates from the Project’s trip generation analysis.

Default trip lengths from CalEEMod were also used, as were area, energy, water, and waste emissions for the existing land uses. For the Project land uses, Project-specific energy, water, and waste data were used to calculate emissions for these sectors. Area sources include gasoline- and diesel-fired landscaping equipment. Energy sources include natural gas use and off-site electricity generation. Water consumption results in indirect GHG emissions from the conveyance and treatment of water. Waste generation results in fugitive CH4 and N2O emissions from the decomposition of organic matter.

Operational year 2018 GHG emissions associated with existing on-site residential and amenity building land uses are shown in Table 3.7-5.

Table 3.7-5. Existing On-Site Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) Emissions Category
Estimated Total Emissions (metric
tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Operational Activities (per year)
Area Sources 31 < 0.1 < 0.1 32
Energy Use 360 < 0.1 < 0.1 362
Mobile Sources 2,147 0.1 < 0.1 2,149
Solid Waste Generation 39 2.3 < 0.1 97
Water Use 28 0.9 < 0.1 57
Total Existing On-Site Operational Emissions (per year) 2,604 3.4 < 0.1 2,697 CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; N2O = nitrous oxide Total GHG emissions associated with Project year 2028 operations have been estimated, as presented in Table 3.7-6.

Table 3.7-6. Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) Emissions Category
Estimated Total Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Operational Activities (per year)
Existing Apartments to Remaina
Area Sources 31 < 0.1 < 0.1 32
Energy Use 319 < 0.1 < 0.1 322
Mobile Sources 1,958 0.1 < 0.1 1,960
Solid Waste Generation 38 2.2 < 0.1 93
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Emissions Category
Estimated Total Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Water Use 24 0.9 < 0.1 52
Total Existing Apartment GHG Emissions (per year) 2,370 3.2 < 0.1 2,459 New Apartments and Amenity Buildings
Area Sources 33 < 0.1 < 0.1 33
Energy Use 544 0.1 < 0.1 549
Mobile Sources 1,328 < 0.1 < 0.1 1,329
Solid Waste Generation 5 0.3 < 0.1 12
Water Use 18 0.7 < 0.1 42
Total New Building GHG Emissions (per year) 1,928 1.1 < 0.1 1,965 Total Project GHG Emissions (per year) 4,298 4.3 < 0.1 4,424 CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; N2O = nitrous oxide a Existing apartment GHG emissions would decrease from year 2018 to year 2028 for some source sectors due to various factors. Energy and water use GHG emissions would decrease due to the anticipation of PG&E’s carbon intensity factor decreasing over time; mobile source GHG emissions would decrease due to the anticipated increase of vehicle fuel efficiency over time and the implementation of the Project’s TDM plan; solid waste generation GHG emissions would decrease due to the removal of the existing amenity building.

As shown in Table 3.7-6, Project GHG emissions would amount to a total of approximately 4,424 metric tons of CO2e per year (gross emissions). Net emissions associated with the Project were estimated by subtracting emissions associated with existing land use types from emissions associated with proposed land use types for buildout conditions. The Project’s net estimated annual operational emissions are presented in Table 3.7-7.

Table 3.7-7. Net (Project minus Existing) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) Emissions Category
Estimated Total Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total Existing Operational Emissions (per year) 2,604 3.4 < 0.1 2,697 Total Project GHG Emissions (per year) 4,298 4.3 < 0.1 4,424 Net GHG Emissions (per year) 1,694 0.9 < 0.1 1,727
CH4 = methane; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; N2O = nitrous oxide As shown in Table 3.7-7, the Project’s net GHG emissions would amount to a total of approximately 1,727 metric tons of CO2e per year. This analysis evaluates operational GHG impacts, based on compliance with regulatory programs, which is recognized by the Supreme Court as an acceptable pathway for evaluating project-level GHG emissions under CEQA (Center for Biological Diversity et al. vs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Newhall Land and Farming Company). Where applicable, the analysis considers guidance issued by CARB and OPR. Because the Project would be in operation in 2028, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which outlines reduction targets through 2030, is the most relevant regulatory document for evaluating the Project.

Mobile-Source Emissions
Federal, state, and local regulatory efforts target three elements of emissions reduction: vehicle fuel efficiency, the carbon content of fuels, and VMT. Most adopted programs and regulations focus on City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-21 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
fuel efficiency (e.g., CAFE standards, Pavley standard) and the carbon intensity of transportation fuels (e.g., low-carbon fuel standard). Vehicle electrification is also rapidly becoming part of the state’s approach to reducing mobile-source emissions (e.g., Title 24). The Project would not include any features that would conflict with these programs. Rather, the Project would designate approximately 10 percent of the proposed parking spaces for electric vehicles (99 spaces). The Project would also implement a TDM plan which would reduce daily trips (and VMT) by 6%.

A recent CARB assessment makes clear that the state is “not on track to meet greenhouse gas reductions expected under SB 375.” SB 743 is intended to close the VMT and emissions reduction gap. There is therefore a nexus between SB 743 and state goals to reduce mobile-source GHG emissions. In response to SB 743, OPR released its technical advisory on evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA in December 2018. The advisory indicates that “achieving 15 percent lower per capita (residential) or per employee (office) VMT than existing development is both generally achievable and is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the state’s emissions goals.” This reduction goal is consistent with recent CARB (2019) analysis, which demonstrates that a 14.3 percent reduction in VMT per capita by 2050 (compared to a 2015–2018 average) would be needed statewide to meet the GHG planning goals.

As discussed in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation, the Project would meet the City’s VMT reduction target, which is designed to meet statewide VMT reduction goals. Therefore, it would not conflict with the state’s long-term emissions reduction trajectory for mobile sources. In addition, implementation of the Project would optimize public transit as well as bicyclist and pedestrian access to the site by locating additional residential uses near public transit and constructing a new pedestrian and bicycle path through the Project site. The Project would also be within 3 miles of two Caltrain stations, adjacent to local bus routes, and adjacent to routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Area Emissions
As shown in Table 3.7-6, emissions associated with area sources would amount to approximately 64 metric tons of CO2e per year in 2028, a net increase amounting to approximately 33 metric tons of CO2e compared with existing conditions. Area sources include gasoline-powered landscaping equipment (e.g., trimmers, mowers) and natural-gas hearths. Area-source emissions are based on CalEEMod’s default assumptions, which represent a conservative estimate of equipment usage as it corresponds to the square footage of new building space. Surfaces at the Project site would be used for residential buildings and related amenities, sidewalks and streets, landscaping and open space, and pervious pavement.

As described above, there are no relevant measures in the scoping plan for landscaping equipment.

Although an inevitable transition away from fossil-fuel equipment will be needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, the scoping plan did not assume all-electric landscaping equipment in its 2030 reduction analysis. The Project’s use of a mix of trees, shrubs, and lawns would reduce landscaping emissions compared with projects that plant only grass. This is consistent with the scoping plan’s overall goal of reducing emissions from fossil-fuel landscaping equipment.

Energy Emissions
As shown in Table 3.7-6, building energy emissions would amount to approximately 871 metric tons of CO2e per year, a net increase amounting to approximately 509 metric tons of CO2e compared with existing conditions. OPR’s 2018 Discussion Draft CEQA and Climate Change Advisory notes that a land City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
use development project that “achieves applicable building energy efficiency standards, uses no natural gas or other fossil fuels, and includes Energy Star appliances where available, may be able to demonstrate a less-than-significant greenhouse gas impact associated with project operation.” Although OPR recommends that fossil fuels not be used in new buildings, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan does not assume all-electric buildings in its 2030 reduction analysis. Rather, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan assumes that any new gas appliances will be high-efficiency units.

The applicant intends to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include Energy Star appliances and light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. The Project would install only electric appliances, consistent with OPR recommendations and exceeding the emissions reduction requirements of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan for 2030.

Land Use Emissions
The Project would remove approximately 135 trees, which would be replaced by 197 new trees.

Although there are no relevant measures in the scoping plan or explicit regulatory requirements related to tree planting, the net gain in trees is consistent with the scoping plan’s overall goal of avoiding losses in carbon sequestration.

Waste Emissions
As shown in Table 3.7-6, emissions associated with waste would amount to approximately 105 metric tons of CO2e per year, a net increase amounting to 8 metric tons of CO2e compared with existing conditions. The Project would install numerous trash/recyclable receptacles to meet the City’s Mandatory Recycling Ordinance. In addition, it is anticipated that “green” waste from the Project would be diverted as part of the Project’s landscaping contract. These features are consistent with the scoping plan’s overall goal of reducing waste emissions and its specific strategy to avoid landfill CH4 emissions by reducing the disposal of landfill waste and organics. In addition, these features would comply with AB 341’s mandatory recycling requirement and support the state’s recycling goal.

Water Emissions
As shown in Table 3.7-6, emissions associated with water use would amount to approximately 94 metric tons of CO2e per year, a net increase amounting to 37 metric tons of CO2e compared with existing conditions. The Project would include several water conservation features. The applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include low-flow plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, drought-tolerant landscaping, and low-flow irrigation systems. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable City and state water conservation measures (indoor and outdoor), including Title 24, Part 6, the California Energy Code baseline standards for energy efficiency, as based on the 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards, and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen. These features are consistent with the scoping plan’s overall goal of reducing water emissions and serve to support ongoing regulatory programs (e.g., SB X7-7, Title 24) that aim to reduce GHG emissions associated with conveying and distributing water.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-23 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Conclusion
The Project would gain approximately 62 net trees on-site and therefore would be consistent with the scoping plan’s overall goal of avoiding losses in carbon sequestration. Similarly, the Project’s sustainability measures represent a robust suite of strategies that would be consistent with applicable polices from the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan and other regulatory programs for the area, energy, water, waste, and land use sectors. With respect to mobile sources, the Project would achieve the City’s VMT reduction target, which would ensure that the Project would be consistent with relevant regulatory programs, such as SB 743, that expressly aim to reduce VMT, consistent with the state’s climate change goals. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant.

Impact GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
AB 32 and SB 32 are the state’s plans for reducing GHG emissions. At the local level, the City of Mountain View GGRP is the City’s plan for reducing GHG emissions. The Project’s consistency with AB 32 and SB 32 (including the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan) and the GGRP has been assessed to determine the significance of this impact. In addition, the Project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP, SB 375/Plan Bay Area 2040, and EO S-3-05 has also been reviewed.

Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 32
AB 32 codifies the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for 2020. CARB adopted the 2008 scoping plan and 2014 first update as a framework for achieving AB 32. The 2008 scoping plan and 2014 first update outlined a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2017 as a framework for achieving the 2030 GHG emissions reduction goal described in SB 32.

The 2008 and 2014 scoping plans indicate that some reductions would need to come in the form of changes pertaining to vehicle emissions and mileage standards. Some would come from changes pertaining to sources of electricity and increased energy efficiency at existing facilities. The remainder would need to come from the implementation of state and local plans, policies, or regulations to lower carbon emissions, relative to BAU conditions. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan carries forward GHG emissions reduction measures from the 2014 first update as well as new measures to help achieve the state’s 2030 target across all sectors of the California economy, including transportation, energy, and industry. Local governments will continue to play a vital role in reducing GHG emissions at the local level. Currently, 60 percent of cities and more than 70 percent of counties in California have completed a GHG inventory. In addition 42 percent of local governments have completed a climate, energy, or sustainability plan that addresses GHG emissions (California Air Resources Board 2017b).

Applicable transportation-related GHG emissions reduction strategies and policies outlined in the 2008, 2014, and 2017 scoping plans include the mobile-source strategy, which encourages a reduction in VMT through implementation of SB 375 and regional SCSs as well as other VMT reduction strategies. Energy efficiency measures, including implementation of green building City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-24 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
standards, the use of solar power, and the installation of electric-vehicle charging stations, are outlined in the scoping plans. The scoping plans also discuss existing and proposed water conservation measures, including drought-resistant landscaping. GHG emissions reduction strategies related to trees and vegetation are also described in the scoping plans.

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project would optimize public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the site by constructing a pedestrian and bike path through the Project site.

The Project would be adjacent to local transit lines and routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians, thereby reducing VMT. Specifically, the Project’s TDM features would reduce peak-hour and daily traffic by approximately 6 percent. The TDM plan, as described in Chapter 2, Project Description, is consistent with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval PL-164 (TDM Program) and PL-165 (TDM Monitoring) (see full conditions of approval below). Specifically, the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval PL-164 requires the property owner to maintain a TDM program for the life of the project which will achieve a minimum reduction in peak-hour vehicle trips to the site. Additionally, City’s Standard Conditions of Approval PL-165 requires the property owners, or their representative, to prepare an annual TDM report and submit it to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM program in achieving the goal of percent peak-hour vehicle trip reduction by employees and/or residents within the project.

In addition, the applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification for the Project and 10 percent of the proposed total vehicle parking spaces would be designated for electric vehicles, with power outlets for recharging.

The Project would increase the number of trees on the site by approximately 62 compared with current conditions. Many of the trees would be in the City’s “Low Water Use” category and many would be evergreens, providing year-round shade for the Project site. Furthermore, all planted areas would be watered with an approved automatic underground irrigation system to make efficient use of water. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable policies described in the scoping plans for AB 32 and SB 32.
2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan
In general, the Project would incorporate many sustainability features. This includes redeveloping an infill site without displacing any existing residential uses while increasing density at the Project site and incorporating green building principles, with an emphasis on energy efficiency and water conservation. The Project would be required to implement the City’s Standard Condition of Approval PL-127 (Green Building – Residential New Construction) (see full condition of approval below), ensuring that green building principles would be applied to the Project design. Specifically, the City’s Standard Condition of Approval PL-127 requires the project to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of GreenPoint Rated points. Although the measures included in the updated scoping plan are necessarily broad, the Project would be generally consistent with the goals and desired outcomes (e.g., increased energy efficiency, water conservation, waste diversion, transportation sustainability). The consistency of the Project with the policies in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan for achieving the 2030 GHG target is analyzed in Table 3.7-8.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-25 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.7-8. Consistency of the Project with 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Policiesa Policy Primary Objective Proposed Plan Consistency Analysis SB 350 Reduce GHG emissions in the
electricity sector by
implementing the 50% RPS,
doubling energy savings, and
taking other actions as
appropriate to achieve the
GHG emissions-reductions
planning targets in the
Integrated Resource Plan
process.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. Nonetheless, development of new land uses under the Project would be consistent with the energysaving objective of this measure. The applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification for the Project and would be required to adhere to all applicable CalGreen Code
provisions. The Project would also include vegetation and trees to shade buildings and limit direct solar gain and glare. These design guidelines and standards would reduce energy
demands.

Low-Carbon
Fuel
Standard
Transition to cleaner, lesspolluting fuels that have a lower carbon footprint.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. Nonetheless, implementation of the Project would help to optimize public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the site through construction of a pedestrian and bike path through the Project site. The Project would be infill in nature, involving the redevelopment of the site with additional residential uses near public transit and would be adjacent to local transit lines and routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians, thereby reducing VMT. The Project would also incorporate numerous TDM policies to further reduce VMT.

MobileSource
Strategy
(Cleaner
Technology
and Fuels
Scenario)
Reduce GHGs and other
pollutants from the
transportation sector by
transitioning to zeroemission and low-emission
vehicles, operating cleaner
transit systems, and
reducing VMT.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level. Nonetheless, implementation of the Project would help to optimize public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the site through construction of a pedestrian and bike path through the Project site. The Project would be infill in nature, involving the redevelopment of the site with additional residential uses near public transit and would be adjacent to local transit lines and routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians, thereby reducing VMT. The project would also incorporate numerous TDM policies to further reduce VMT. In addition, 10 percent of the proposed total vehicle parking spaces would be
designated for electric vehicles, with power outlets for recharging
SB 1383 Approve and implement
SLCP strategy to reduce
highly potent GHGs.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level and is not applicable to the Project.

California
Sustainable
Freight
Action Plan
Improve freight efficiency,
transition to zero-emission
technologies, and increase
the competitiveness of
California’s freight system.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level and is not applicable to the Project.

Post-2020
Cap-andTrade
Program
Reduce GHGs across the
largest GHG emissions
sources.

This policy is a state program that requires no action at the local or project level and is not applicable to the Project. a. The scoping plan policies included in this table are those representing the state strategy for meeting the 2030 GHG target of SB 32.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-26 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As shown, the Project would not conflict with or hinder implementation of the policies in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

City of Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
As discussed above, the City of Mountain View adopted a GGRP in 2012 to reduce community and municipal GHG emissions (City of Mountain View 2012). The City’s GGRP is a roadmap that outlines a path for the City to use to achieve its community-wide per-service-population GHG emissions reduction goal of 15 to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The GGRP features 20 recommended GHG emissions reduction measures within five sectors of community and municipal operations (i.e., energy efficiency, transportation, solid waste, water, carbon sequestration).

The consistency of the Project with the measures in the City’s GGRP is analyzed in Table 3.7-9.

Table 3.7-9. Consistency of the Project with GGRP Reduction Measures No. CAP Measure Applicable? Project Implementation Consistent? Energy Efficiency Measures
Energy-1.1 Residential
Energy Efficiency
Retrofit
No This measure applies to existing
residential development and
would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy 1.2 Non-residential
Energy Efficiency
Retrofit
No This measure applies to existing
non-residential development
and would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy-1.3 Non-residential
Lighting Retrofit
No This measure applies to existing
non-residential development
and would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy-1.4 Residential
Energy Star
Appliances
Yes The Project would include
energy-efficient appliances in all
dwelling units.

Yes
Energy-1.5 Smart Grid Yes The Project would include
“smart grid” and “smart grid–
compatible” appliances in all
dwelling units.

Yes
Energy-1.6 Exceed State
Energy Standards
in New
Residential
Development
Yes The Project would meet all
applicable City/CalGreen Code
building standard requirements.

The applicant intends to pursue
LEED for Homes certification for
the Project.

Yes
Energy-1.7 Exceed State
Energy Standards
in New Nonresidential
Development
No This measure applies to new
non-residential development
and would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-27 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
No. CAP Measure Applicable? Project Implementation Consistent? Energy-1.8 Shade Trees in
Residential
Development
Yes The Project would provide
approximately 62 additional
trees; many of the trees would
be evergreens, providing yearround shade for the Project site.

Yes
Energy-2.1 Residential Solar
Water Heaters
Yes The Project would explore
opportunities to feasibly provide
solar water heaters for all
dwelling units.

Yes
Energy-2.2 Non-residential
Solar Water
Heaters
No This measure applies to new
non-residential development
and would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy-2.3 Residential Solar
Photovoltaic
System
No This measure applies to existing
residential development and
would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy-2.4 Non-residential
Solar
Photovoltaic
System
No This measure applies to
existing non-residential
development and would not be
applicable to development of
the Project.

NA
Energy-2.5 Landfill Gas to
Energy
No This measure applies to
renewable energy generation
from landfills and would not be
applicable to development of
the Project.

NA
Energy-3.1 Energy Efficiency
in Municipal
Buildings
No This measure applies to
existing municipal
development and would not be
applicable to development of
the Project.

NA
Energy-4.1 Energy Efficiency
in Streetlights
and Traffic Lights
No This measure applies to
municipal light efficiency and
would not be applicable to
development of the Project.

NA
Energy-5.1 Renewable
Energy Systems
in Municipal
Buildings
No This measure applies to
municipal renewable energy
systems and would not be
applicable to development of
the Project.

NA
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-28 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
No. CAP Measure Applicable? Project Implementation Consistent? Transportation Measures
Transportation1.1Transportation
Demand
Management
Yes The Project would help to
optimize public transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle access
to the site through construction
of a pedestrian and bike path
through the Project site. The
Project would be infill in
nature, involving the
redevelopment of the site with
additional residential uses near
public transit and would be
adjacent to local transit lines
and routes that provide safe
and convenient access for
bicyclists and pedestrians,
thereby reducing VMT.

Specifically, the Project’s TDM
features would reduce peakhour and daily traffic by
approximately 6%.

Yes
Solid Waste Measures
Waste-1.1 Implementation
of a Zero-waste
Plan
Yes The Project would meet or
exceed the City’s Construction
and Demolition Ordinance for
recycling construction debris.

The Project would also
participate in the City’s
residential recycling programs.

Yes
Water Measures
Water-1.1 Urban Water
Management
Plan
Conservation
Strategies
Yes The Project would meet all
applicable City/CalGreen Code
water efficiency and
conservation requirements.

The majority of the new trees
associated with the Project
would be in the City’s “Low
Water Use” category. All
planted areas would be
watered with an approved
automatic underground
irrigation system to make
efficient use of water.

Yes
Carbon Sequestration Measures
Carbon
Sequestration1.1
Enhance the
Urban Forest
Yes The Project would increase the
number of trees on the site by
approximately 62.

Yes
Note:

NA = not applicable
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-29 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As shown in Table 3.7-9, the Project would be consistent with all applicable measures in the City’s GGRP. Eleven of the measures are not applicable to the Project; therefore, consistency with these measures does not apply. Because the Project is consistent with all applicable CAP measures, it would not conflict with the City’s GGRP.

Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan
The 2017 CAP includes performance objectives that are consistent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32 and SB 375, which are designed to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2035. The 2017 CAP identifies a range of transportation control measures, land use and local impact measures, and energy and climate measures. These make up the CAP’s control strategy for emissions, including GHGs.

As described above, the Project includes numerous objectives and measures to reduce operational GHG emissions. The Project is consistent with CAP measures, including Transportation Control Measures TR2 (Trip Reduction Programs) and TR9 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities).

The Project is also consistent with Building Control Measure BL1 (Green Buildings), Water Control Measure WR2 (Support Water Conservation), and Natural and Working Lands Control Measure NW2 (Urban Tree Planting).

Plan Bay Area 2040/California Senate Bill 375
Under the requirements of SB 375, MTC and ABAG have developed an SCS with the adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 for achieving the Bay Area’s regional GHG emissions reduction target. Targets for the San Francisco Bay Area, approved by CARB in March 2018, include a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions per capita from passenger vehicles by 2020 compared with 2005 emissions; the adopted target for 2035 is a 19 percent reduction. The emissions reduction targets are those associated with land use and transportation strategies only.

It is estimated that the Project would generate up to 1,551 net daily trips (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2021). As described Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project would help tooptimize public transit, pedestrian, and bicycle access to the site by constructing a pedestrian and bike path through the Project site. The Project would be infill in nature, involving the redevelopment of the site with additional residential units near public transit and would be adjacent to local transit lines and routes that provide safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, the Project would have relatively few net employees (10) and would not contribute to a substantial increase in passenger vehicle travel within the region. Overall, the Project’s TDM features are anticipated to reduce peak-hour and daily traffic by approximately six (6) percent.

These policies would support alternative transportation within the community, which could help reduce VMT and per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040.

Executive Order S-3-05
Achieving EO S-3-05 will require even more aggressive changes in all sectors of the economy and participation at all levels of government to reduce GHG emissions even further. Although many GHG emissions reduction measures outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan will most likely continue to be implemented and enhanced beyond 2030, no plan for meeting the 2050 GHG emissions reduction goal described in EO S-3-05 has been adopted. In addition, EO S-3-05 does not apply to GHG emissions from residential development, such as the Project.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-30 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommended in a 2016 white paper that CEQA analyses for multiple-phase projects with post-2020 development, such as the Project, should “not only consider consistency with the 2020/AB 32-based framework but also analyze the consequences of post‐2020 GHG emissions in terms of their impacts on the reduction trajectory from 2020 toward 2050” (Association of Environmental Professionals 2016).

AEP further recommended that “the significance determination…should be based on consistency with ‘substantial progress’ along a post‐2020 trajectory.” The 2016 AEP white paper is advisory only and not binding guidance or an adopted set of CEQA thresholds. However, the CEQA Guidelines do authorize a lead agency to consider the thresholds of significance recommended by experts, such as members of the AEP Climate Change Committee, which consists of leaders of climate action planning practices from consulting firms and agencies that have lead many of the local GHG emissions reduction planning efforts across California. The City, in its discretion, has considered the foregoing guidance as part of this analysis.

As explained above, the Project includes numerous measures to reduce operational and construction-related GHG emissions. It is also possible that future adopted state and federal actions will reduce the Project’s net emissions, as shown in Table 3.7-7, even further, however, for purposes of a conservative analysis, such reductions are not relied upon in making the impact conclusion.

Accordingly, the Project’s emissions levels would be consistent with the goals in EO S-3-05.

Other State Regulations
As discussed above in the analysis of consistency with SB 32 and EO S-3-05/B-55-18, systemic changes will be required at the state level to achieve statewide future GHG reduction goals.

Regulations such as the SB 100–mandated 100 percent carbon-free RPS by 2045; implementation of the state’s SLCP Reduction Strategy, including forthcoming regulations for composting and organics diversion; and future updates to the state’s Title 24 standards, including requirements for net-zero energy, will be necessary to attain the magnitude of reductions required by the state’s goals. The Project would be required to comply with these regulations in new construction (e.g., in the case of updated Title 24 standards) or be directly affected by the outcomes (e.g., energy consumption would be less carbon intensive with the increasingly stringent RPSs). Unlike the scoping plans, which explicitly call for additional emissions reductions from local governments and new projects, none of these state regulations identify specific requirements or commitments for new development beyond what is already required by existing regulations or will be required in forthcoming regulation.

Therefore, for the foreseeable future, the Project would not conflict with any state-level regulations pertaining to GHGs in the post-2020 era, and this impact would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The Project includes measures that would be consistent with state regulations to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., SB 100, SLCP Reduction Strategy) and the applicable policies described in the scoping plans for AB 32, SB 32, the GGRP, 2017 CAP, and Plan Bay Area 2040. Consequently, the Project would not conflict with achievement of AB 32 reduction goals for 2020, SB 32 reduction goals for 2030, or the RTP/SCS reduction goals for 2020 and 2035. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-31 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-127: Green Building – Residential New Construction. The project is required to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of GreenPoint Rated points. All mandatory prerequisite points and minimum point totals per category to attain GreenPoint Rated status must be achieved, unless specific point substitutions or exceptions are approved by the Community Development Department. Formal project registration and certification through Build It Green is not required for compliance with the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC). The project is also required to comply with Title 24, Part 6.
• PL-127: Green Building – Residential New Construction. The project is required to meet the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and meet the intent of GreenPoint Rated points. All mandatory prerequisite points and minimum point totals per category to attain GreenPoint Rated status must be achieved, unless specific point substitutions or exceptions are approved by the Community Development Department. Formal project registration and certification through Build It Green is not required for compliance with the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC). The project is also required to comply with Title 24, Part 6.
• PL-164: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The property owner, property manager(s), and homeowners association (HOA) or their representative(s) (collectively, “the owners”) are required to maintain a TDM program which provides commute and transportation alternatives to employees/residents of the project for the life of the project. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owners prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. The mandatory TDM measures for the project include:
a. Join and maintain ongoing membership in the MVTMA for the life of the project. b. Provide and maintain maximum vehicle parking and minimum bike parking as approved in the project. Also must provide and/or maintain access to shared bicycles for residents/employees, if a bike-share service is not nearby. c. There shall be conveniently located ride-share drop-off and waiting areas on-site. d. Provide and maintain shared, common, collaborative workspaces with WiFi for residents and their guests. This amenity can be offered in partnership with nearby residents and businesses.
e. Provide monetary incentives for alternative mode of travel, such as subsidized transit passes or bike-share for residents and/or unbundled parking. f. Provide and maintain accessible and secure storage spaces for package delivery on-site. g. The owners shall provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, and/or initial sale information. h. The owners shall support Safe Routes to Schools programs, including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking, school buses, and/or bike trains.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-32 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• PL-165: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Monitoring: The property owner(s), or their representative, shall prepare an annual TDM report and submit it to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM program in achieving the statewide reduction goalof peak-hour vehicle trips by residents within the project. The TDM report shall be prepared by an independent consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or their representative; the consultant shall work with the property’s TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical resident commute methods, which shall be informed by surveying all residents living on the project site and through driveway traffic counts. All nonresponses to the resident commute survey will be counted as a drive-alone trip. The driveway traffic counts shall be prepared and provided by an independent, licensed consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or tenant. The driveway counts and resulting data shall be included in the TDM report provided to the City.
a. TDM Reporting: The initial TDM report for the project will be submitted on December 1, or the following business day thereafter if a weekend, one year after the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for statewide reduction or more of the project. Subsequent reports will be collected annually on December 1.
b. Report Requirements: The TDM report shall either: (1) state that the project has achieved statewide goals for peak-hour vehicle trip reduction or higher, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the project has not achieved the statewide goals for peak-hour vehicle trip reduction, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in order to attain the TDM goal required for the project.

Impact GHG-3 Expose property and persons to the physical effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, flooding, public health effects, wildfire risks, or other impacts resulting from climate change.

Level of Impact Not a CEQA impact
Discussion
The California Supreme Court concluded in its California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District decision that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents.” With this ruling, CEQA no longer considers the impact of the environment on a project (e.g., the impact of existing seismic hazards on new project receptors) to be an impact that requires consideration under CEQA, unless the project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard.

The Project would not affect existing climate change hazards. Therefore, it would not exacerbate an existing hazard. The discussion of climate change hazards below is provided for informational purposes only.

As discussed in Section 3.7.2.3, Climate Change, several impacts on the environment are expected throughout California as a result of global climate change. However, the extent of these effects will remain uncertain until climate modeling tools become more refined. Regardless of the uncertainty in precise predictions, it is widely understood that substantial climate change is expected to occur in the future. Potential climate change impacts in California and the Bay Area would be associated with City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-33 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
sea-level rise, extreme heat events, increased energy consumption, increases in infectious diseases and respiratory illnesses, reduced snowpacks and water supplies, increased water consumption, and a potential increase in the number of wildfires.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has developed a series of maps for identifying areas that would be vulnerable to sea-level rise by mid-century (16 inches) and the end of the century (55 inches).

According to the USGS (2012), sea-level rise from San Francisco Bay could inundate portions of the Bay Area as far south as the Bayshore Freeway (US 101), which is about 0.6 mile north of the Project site. However, given the location and other physical features of the site, future sea-level rise is not expected to intrude upon Project development.

In addition to sea-level rise, a range of other climate change impacts could affect the Project, including increased temperatures and heat stress. However, the Project would not exacerbate these issues; rather, Project strategies regarding energy efficiency and landscaping, among others, may reduce potential heat-related climate change impacts on the area’s population. Likewise, although regional water supplies could be subject to future climate change impacts, the Project would include water efficiency measures that would help alleviate the demand for scarce statewide water resources.

The Project would not increase the exposure of persons or property to the potential effects of climate change. As noted above, it is not anticipated that the Project site would be affected by future sea-level rise.

3.7.4.4 Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact GHG-1a: Generate greenhouse gas
emissions during construction, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.

Significant MM GHG-1:

Implement
BAAQMD’s best
management
practices to reduce
GHG emissions
from construction.

Less than
Significant
Impact GHG-1b: Generate greenhouse gas
emissions during operation, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing emissions of
greenhouse gases.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GHG-3: Expose property and
persons to the physical effects of climate
change, including, but not limited to,
flooding, public health effects, wildfire
risks, or other impacts resulting from
climate change.

Not a CEQA impact N/A —
City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.8.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for hazards and hazardous materials. It also describes impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.8.4.4, Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include general concerns regarding potentially present hazardous materials on the Project site and emergency access.

A hazardous material is any substance that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical properties, may pose a hazard to human health and the environment. Under California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, the term “hazardous substance” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties: (1) toxicity, (2) ignitability, (3) corrosiveness, and (4) reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, and Article 3). A hazardous material is defined in CCR Title 22 as:
[a] substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed (CCR Title 22 Section 66260.10).

Hazardous materials in various forms can result in death, serious injury, long-lasting health effects, or damage to buildings, homes, and other property. Hazards to human health and the environment can occur during the production, storage, transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Information regarding hazardous materials in this section is based partially on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Mountain View at Middlefield, 555 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California 94043 (Phase I ESA) report prepared by Cardno ATC dated January 31, 2013. The environmental database information in this section is based on the EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck (EDR Report) (inquiry number 6294401.2s) generated December 9, 2020 (Appendix 3.8-1).

3.8.2 Environmental Setting
The Project site currently has 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) as well as leasing/amenity space (approximately 7,493 square feet) and related improvements. In addition, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located on the site. The Project site was originally developed in 1968, and in addition to the features described above, it contains intermittent paving for parking and pedestrian uses, amenity areas, and landscaping throughout the site.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8.2.1 Hazardous Materials
Phase I Site Reconnaissance
During a reconnaissance survey conducted as part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, hydraulic fluid containers (used in elevators) were noted in several of the buildings. In addition, chlorine and commercial cleaning and maintenance products were found in designated areas (i.e., pool/spa mechanical room and in a maintenance and paint room). Materials appeared to be stored properly and were not identified as an environmental concern. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) were not confirmed to be present, however, based on the age of the existing buildings, there is some potential PCBs could be present in hydraulic fluid, transformers, and light ballasts. No evidence of spills or staining was observed at the time of the reconnaissance survey; thus, PCBs were not identified as an immediate environmental concern. Asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and leadbased paint (LBP) surveys were conducted prior to preparation of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The surveys concluded that ACMs and LBP exist on-site and both materials were maintained via an Operations & Maintenance (O&M) program. No underground storage tanks (USTs) or aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) were observed during the site reconnaissance.

3.8.2.2 Hazardous Materials Database Results
ICF conducted an up-to-date review of federal, state, and tribal environmental databases to identify potential recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the Project site or nearby properties.

On-site
The Project site was identified in various environmental databases and listed under multiple site names in the EDR Report. Table 3.8-1 summarizes the site names, databases, and site status summary for the Project site.

Table 3.8-1. Environmental Database Listings for the Project Site Site Databases Site Status Summary
Oakwood Mountain View Lessee
LLC/Archstone Apartments/ Eaves
Mountain View At Middlefield/Avalon
Bay Communities/Archstone
Mountain View At Middlefield/R & B
Realty Group/Avalon Bay
Communities/Oakwood Mountain
View/Archstone Mountain
View/Oakwood Apartments/
Oakwood Corporate Housing
Inc./Avalon Eaves Mountain View
Apartments/ Avalon Mountain View
At Middlefield/Avalon Eaves
Apartments/Avalon Middlefield Unit
#C-101/Trent Osborne/ ASN
Mountain View LLC/Eaves Middlefield

CA HAZNET, CA CERS, CA

HWTS, RCRA

NONGEN/NLR, ECHO,

FINDS, CA PEST LIC
Site listed as historically handling
hazardous materials including oil
containing waste (2004), aqueous
solutions (2007 and 2008)
organics, inorganic solid waste,
organic solids, pesticides and
pesticide waste (2012) and
asbestos containing waste (1998,
2010, 2012, 2013, 2014 and
2016). Due to handling of
hazardous materials, site is also
listed in the Hazardous Waste
Tracking System database over
multiple years. Classified as a
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act non generator in
2018. Also located in the
California Environmental
City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Site Databases Site Status Summary
Reporting System (CERS) Tanks
database. One violation listed in
CERS in June of 2017. The
violation was assessed due to
failure to electronically update
the site’s existing business plan.

The site returned to compliance
in October of 2017. No other
violations noted. The site listed in
the Pesticide Regulation Licenses
Listing database for a license
issued in January 2020.

Source: EDR 2020.

Notes: CA HAZNET (Facility and Manifest Data), CA CERS (California Environmental Reporting System), RCRA NonGen/NLR (RCRA Non-Generators), ECHO (Enforcement & Compliance History Information), FINDS (Facility Index System/Facility Registry System) CA HWTS (Hazardous Waste Tracking System), and CA PEST LIC (Pesticide Regulation Licenses Listing) database.

Off-site
Table 3.8-2 summarizes the site names, databases, and site status for properties within 0.25 mile of the Project site. Sites within 0.25 mile from the Project site are included in Table 3.8-2 because they have the highest likelihood of having a deleterious effect on the Project. The EDR Report (Appendix 3.8-1) includes a full list of off-site properties.

Table 3.8-2. Environmental Database Listings for Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site Site Address
Distance
from the
Project Databases Site Status Summary
Exxon Service
Station Ras
73528./Moffett
Boulevard/
Moffett Valero/
Mountain View
Valero
495
Moffett
Boulevard

0.017 mile
to the
northwest

RCRA-SQG, CA

LUST, CA HIST

LUST, CA CERS

HAZ WASTE,

CA SWEEPS

UST, CA HIST

UST, CA CERS

TANKS, CA FID

UST, FINDS,

ECHO, CA
CUPA

LISTINGS, CA

HAZNET, CA

HIST CORTESE,

CA CERS, CA

UST, EDR HIST

AUTO, RCRA

NONGEN/NLR
In August of 1991, a subsurface
investigation was conducted at the
site. Groundwater sampling
revealed concentrations of total
petroleum hydrocarbon-gasoline
(TPHg), benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX). In
August of 1992, four underground
storage tanks (USTs) were removed
from the site. TPHg and benezene
concentrations were detected in soil
samples collected during the UST
removal. Excavation of impacted
soil was conducted. Groundwater
monitoring was conducted from
1992 until 2009. On July 2, 2010,
the County of Santa Clara
Department of Environmental
Health (DEH) issued a case closure
letter for the site. The case closure
summary states that residual
City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project Databases Site Status Summary
contamination remains at the site
and the DEH should be notified if
redevelopment is to occur or
installation of water wells is
planned. The site is currently
operates as a Valero Service Station.

Groundwater flow direction in the
area was characterized as northnortheast flowing. The site is listed with violations under CERS, which
include; lack of proper training for
employees (2013), failure to test
dispenser and tank infrastructure
(2017), update business plan (2014
and 2017), failure to inspect alarm
history, failure to inspect for the
presence of liquid and debris in onsite equipment, failure to install a liquid-tight spill container (2019).

Site listed as handling hazardous
waste including; aqueous solutions
with organic residues and organic
solids.

Engelhard 333
Moffett
Boulevard

0.038 mile
to the
westsouthwest

CA CPS-SLIC,

CA DEED, CA

CORTESE, CA

ENF, CA HIST

CORTESE, CA
CERS, RCRASQG, FINDS,
ECHO
Site involved chlorinated hydrocarbon,
tetrachloroethylene and
trichloroethylene (TCE) impacted
groundwater. A Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) report was prepared, submitted
to and approved by the Regional
Board in 1998 to address impacts. The
RAP concluded that remediation of
solvent impacted soil and
groundwater could be remediated via
natural attenuation. The San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board provided closure to the site in
2011. A Cleanup Program Site under
CA CERS.

Gas & Shop Car
Wash
340
Moffett
Boulevard

0.078 mile
to the
westsouthwest

CA LUST, CA

HIST LUST, CA

HIST CORTESE,

CA CERS, CA

SWEEPS UST,

CA FID UST, CA

HIST UST
Site involved gasoline impacted
soils and groundwater. Case opened
in September of 1992 and the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board provided
closure in August of 1999.

Remediation included overexcavation of impacted soils.

Historical UST site with three
10,000 gallon gasoline USTs.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project Databases Site Status Summary
Innerconn Tech &
Union
Bk/Innerconn
Technologies/
Baywash
Corporation/
Moffett Photo
Express
327
Moffett
Boulevard

0.085 mile
to the
westsouthwest

CA RESPONSE,
CA

ENVIROSTOR,

CA CPS-SLIC,

CA DEED, CA
CUPA

LISTINGS, EDR

HIST CLEANER
State response site under purview
of the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board.

Contaminants include halogenated
solvents, hydrocarbon solvents,
metals, inorganic solid waste,
sludge waste, solvent mixtures, lead
and nickel. The site was listed as
Refer: RWQCB under EnviroStor in
1987. These are sites that, based on
limited information available to
DTSC, appear to be more
appropriately addressed by the
California Regional
Water Quality Control Boards.

According to information found in
the CPS-SLIC site, in 1992, the site
installed a pump and treat system
to address contaminants in
groundwater. The system was shutdown in 2001 and residual contaminant concentrations were to
be addressed via natural
attenuation. Residual contamination
was determined to not present an
immediate threat to human health
or the environment. The site was
granted closure in 2013.

MCZ-Central
Development
730
Central
Avenue

0.111 mile
to the
west,
southwest

CA CPS-SLIC,

CA CUPA

LISTINGS
Cleanup Program Site under the
Santa Clara County Local Oversight
Program. Listed as an open site and
undergoing site assessment.

According to a Phase II ESA
conducted on-site in May of 2020,
halogenated volatile organic
compounds were detected in
concentrations exceeding
Environmental Screening Levels
(ESLs) for commercial and
residential buildings. According to
the Phase II it is anticipated that the
contaminant plume is associated
with a plume originating at 327
Moffett Boulevard (described
above). The Phase II ESA suggested
vapor intrusion mitigation be
applied prior to redevelopment of
the site.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Site Address
Distance
from the
Project Databases Site Status Summary
Camellia Park
Development
333
Stierlin
Road

0.158 mile
to the
west
CA

ENVIROSTOR,
SEMSARCHIVE
Historical site under EnviroStor.

The site was listed as Refer: Other
Agency in 1988. These are sites that,
based on limited information
available to
DTSC, appear to be more
appropriately addressed by another
state or local environmental
regulatory agency. The site is listed
as having pesticide impacted soils
only.

Young S
Automotive
Service
890
Central
Avenue

0.165 mile
to the
west

CA LUST, CA

CERS HAZ

WASTE, CA
CUPA Listings,

CA HIST
Cortese, CA
CERS
The site was listed as of 1987 as
‘leak being confirmed’ under the
LUST database during tank closure
activities. Quantities and impacted
media not disclosed. No other
information made available in
regards to LUST status. Violations
under CER included: failure to
properly label hazardous waste
accumulation containers, failure to
determine if the waste generated is
a hazardous waste and failure to
obtain and/or maintain an Active
EPA ID (2016). Other violations
included failure to retain a legible
copy of each manifest or bill of
lading, failure to properly label
hazardous waste accumulation
containers and portable tanks,
failure to obtain an Identification
Number, etc. (2020). A review of
GeoTracker in 2020 did not provide
additional information related to
the site, as it was not listed in any
GeoTracker database, including
LUST. The site is located
hydraulically upgradient from the
site.

James Navarro 251
Orchard
Avenue

0.191 mile
to the
southsoutheast

CA LUST, CA

HIST LUST, CA

SWEEPS UST,

CA HIST
Cortese, CA

CERS, CA HIST

UST, CA FID
UST
Site involved diesel impacted soils.

Case opened in November 1987 and
the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board
provided closure in February of
1992. Remediation included overexcavation of impacted soils.

Historical UST site. Three USTs onsite; one diesel, two gasoline.

Source: EDR 2020.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8.2.3 Proximity to Schools
There is one existing school within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley is approximately 470 feet (0.09 mile) northeast of the Project site at 310 Easy Street.

3.8.2.4 Proximity to Airports and Airstrips
The closest airport to the Project site is Moffett Federal Airfield, located 1.2 miles northeast of the site. Moffett Federal Airfield is a private airport. Per the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Santa Clara County, Moffett Federal Airfield, the Project site is within an Airport Influence Area (AIA), a composite of areas surrounding an airport that are affected by noise, height, and safety issues (Walter B. Windus, PE 2016). The next closest airport is Palo Alto Airport, located approximately 4.3 miles to the northwest.

3.8.2.5 Wildland Fires
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE’s) Fire and Resource Assessment Program’s, the Project site is not within a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” because of its location within a densely developed portion of the City (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007).

3.8.3 Regulatory Setting

3.8.3.1 Federal
Federal Toxic Substances Control Act/Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency– (EPA-) administered program to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law (42 United States Code [USC] 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
established the National Priorities List. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) mission is to ensure the safety and health of American workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in 29 CFR 1910.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became law on October 11, 1976. The TSCA authorized EPA to secure information regarding new and existing chemical substances and control any substances that represented an unreasonable risk with respect to public health or the environment.

Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100–185) The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous materials regulations cover packaging, handling, and transporting such materials. The regulations include Parts 107 (Hazard Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), 173 (Packaging Requirements), 174 (Rail Transportation), 176 (Vessel Transportation), 177 (Highway Transportation), 178 (Packaging Specifications), and 180 (Packaging Maintenance).

Federal Aviation Administration
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates aviation at regional, public, private, and military airports, such as Moffett Federal Airfield and Palo Alto Airport. FAA also regulates objects that affect navigable airspace and structures taller than 200 feet according to Federal Aviation Regulation 49 CFR 77.13.

3.8.3.2 State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991. It unified California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and placed the California Air Resources Board, SWRCB, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, DTSC, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation under one agency. These agencies were placed under the CalEPA “umbrella” to protect human health and the environment and ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC, a department of CalEPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

USC 65962.5 (commonly referred to as the Cortese List) includes DTSC-listed hazardous waste facilities and sites, Department of Health Services lists of contaminated drinking water wells, sites listed by the SWRCB as having UST leaks or a discharge of hazardous wastes or materials into the water or groundwater, and lists from local regulatory agencies of sites with a known migration of hazardous waste/material.

Hazardous Waste Control Act (Section 25100 et seq.)
DTSC is responsible for enforcing the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), which creates the framework under which hazardous wastes are managed in California. The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA cradle-to-grave waste management system in California. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous waste and development of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404–25404.9) consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of environmental and emergency response programs (e.g., the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, UST Program, AST Program, Hazardous Waste Generator Program, Hazardous Waste Tiered-Permitting Program) and provides authority to the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). The CUPA for the City of Mountain View is the County of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (County of Santa Clara 2019).

California Code of Regulations, Title 8—Industrial Relations Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, known as Cal/OSHA, and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are the agencies responsible for ensuring safety in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. These standards would apply to both construction and operation of the Project.

California Labor Code (Division 5, Parts 1, 6, 7, and 7.5) The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations pertaining to appropriate training for using and handling hazardous materials as well as operating equipment and machines that use, store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials. Division 5, Part 1, Chapter 2.5, ensures that employees who are in charge of handling hazardous materials are properly trained and informed about the City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
materials they handle. Division 5, Part 7, ensures that employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted with appropriate safety gear and clothing.

State Water Resources Control Board Construction Stormwater Program Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil or whose projects disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs 1 or more acres are required to obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit), Order 2009- 0009-DWQ. Construction activities subject to this permit include clearing, grading, and grounddisturbing activities such as stockpiling or excavating. The Construction General Permit requires completion and implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

3.8.3.3 Local
Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division The Hazardous Materials Program of the Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) was established in 1983 with the adoption of the local Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance, which regulates the storage of hazardous materials both above and below the ground. In addition to enforcing Santa Clara County code requirements related to the storage and handling of hazardous materials, the HMCD is the CUPA responsible for enforcing specific laws and regulations governing the management of hazardous materials and wastes and overseeing the activities of Participating Agencies within the County's Unified Program.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
As part of General Plan policies regarding public safety, impacts on emergency response times are addressed by maintaining adequate staffing for fire protection, performance levels, and facilities for the communities. As part of the General Plan’s Transportation Element, the City-wide Emergency Evacuation Plan provides comprehensive detailed instructions and procedures regarding the responsibilities of City personnel and coordination with other agencies to ensure the safety of Mountain View citizens (City of Mountain View 2012).

The City does not have established emergency evacuation routes. However, the City recognizes that US 101, State Routes 85 and 237, and the Central Expressway are the primary routes that would be used for evacuation.

Emergency Response Plan
The Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) Office of Emergency Services (OES) is responsible for helping City employees, residents, businesses, and schools prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters. The OES prepares the City by maintaining Mountain View’s Emergency Operations Plan and Emergency Operations Center and training all City personnel on the Standardized Emergency Management System. OES training also includes personal preparedness as well as recruiting and training for the City Emergency Response Team.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Mountain View Fire Department
Under an agreement with the HMCD, the MVFD implements several hazardous materials programs for the City as a Participating Agency within the Unified Program. The MVFD also enforces storage, handling, and dispensing requirements for hazardous materials and other regulated materials, according to the City Hazardous Materials Permit Code Ordinance and Toxic Gases Ordinance.

3.8.4 Impact Analysis

3.8.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), identify significance criteria to be considered when determining whether a project could have significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would:

1. Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

2. Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

3. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

4. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard for the public or the environment.

5. For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area.

6. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

7. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

The following would result in no impacts and therefore are not evaluated in detail below:

Impacts Involving Wildland Fires. The Project site is not within a CAL FIRE Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007). The site is within a fully developed area of Mountain View, California, with no wildlands in the vicinity. Therefore, the Project would result in no impact associated with exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. This topic is not evaluated further.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8.4.2 Methods
The analysis of potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials was based, in part, on information presented in the following reports, which are on-file and available for review at the City of Mountain View Community Development Department:
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Mountain View at Middlefield, 555 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California 94043 report prepared by Cardno ATC dated January 31, 2013 • The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck (inquiry number 6294401.2s) dated December 9, 2020 (Appendix 3.8-1).

3.8.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.8.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.8.4.4, Summary of Hazardous Materials Impacts.

Impact HAZ-1 Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. The Project includes the retention of the 402 residential units, ensuring no tenant displacement, but demolition of surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa, followed by development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages along with related improvements and amenities. Project construction would involve the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. Such transport, use, and disposal must comply with applicable regulations, such as the RCRA, DOT hazardous materials regulations, and the local CUPA regulations. The Project would also be required to comply with Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 (Hazardous Materials) (effective January 30, 2017) (see full condition of approval below), which requires completion of an Environmental Compliance Plan if hazardous materials will be stored or used on-site (including paints, thinners, compressed gases, propane, diesel, gasoline, etc.). Although small amounts of solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used, and disposed of during Project construction, these materials are commonly used in construction projects and are not considered acutely hazardous; therefore, they would not result in exposure or release of acutely hazardous materials. Furthermore, construction activity disturbing 1 acre or more must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. Applicants for Construction General Permits are required to prepare a SWPPP and to implement and maintain best management practices (BMPs) to avoid adverse constructionrelated effects (including hazardous material releases) on the surrounding environment. Because compliance with existing applicable laws and regulations is mandatory, and with adherence to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02, Project construction is not expected to create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Operation. The Project is an infill project involving redevelopment of a portion of an approximately

14.5-acre site. The Project includes development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages along with related improvements and amenities. It is anticipated that the completed Project would use hazardous materials that are commonly found in connection with the operation and maintenance of residential units and related improvements and amenities (e.g., cleaning agents, paints, batteries, aerosol cans), but would not use acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Products for residential applications that contain hazardous materials are generally used in small, localized amounts. Furthermore, any spills would be cleaned up as soon as they occur, in accordance with existing requirements and standards.

The Project would also be required to comply with Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 (Hazardous Materials), which requires completion of an Environmental Compliance Plan. Although the proposed Project might account for an increase in common types of hazardous materials, routine use of these products would not result in a significant hazard for residents or the surrounding environment. Because compliance with existing applicable laws and regulations is mandatory and with adherence to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02, Project operation would not result in a significant hazard through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• HAZ-02: Hazardous Materials. If hazardous materials will be stored or used on-site (including paints, thinners, compressed gases, propane, diesel, gasoline, etc.), complete an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) application. Attach a copy of the completed ECP to your building plan submittal.

Impact HAZ-2 Create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Level of Impact a) Significant
Mitigation Measure
HAZ-2
b) Conduct a comprehensive building materials survey.

Level of Impact after
Mitigation
c) Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. As discussed under Impact HAZ-1, typical construction-related hazardous materials would be used during construction of the Project, including solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking, etc. It is possible that these substances could be released during construction activities.

However, compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, in combination with temporary construction BMPs (as part of Construction General Permit requirements) would ensure that all hazardous materials would be used, stored, and disposed of properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a hazardous materials release during construction of the Project. The Project would also be required to comply with Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 (Hazardous Materials) (see full condition of approval above), which requires completion of an Environmental Compliance Plan.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As shown in Table 3.8-1, the Project site was identified in several databases and listed as historically handling various hazardous materials. There was one violation listed under the CERS database for the Project site. However, the violation was administrative in nature and did not involve a release into the environment. No other violations were noted associated with the Project site.

As shown in Table 3.8-2, several off-site properties within 0.25 mile of the Project site are identified as hazardous materials sites. The EDR Report (Appendix 3.8-1) includes a full list of off-site properties. However, as shown in Table 3.8-2, none of the sites were identified as significant potential risks for the Project as all of the sites have been granted closure by the applicable oversight agency with the exception of two sites; the Young S Automotive Service site located at 890 Central Avenue and the MCZ-Central Development site located at 730 Central Avenue.

Site information associated with the Young S Automotive Service site revealed that an on-site leak was being confirmed as of 1987. Quantities and media impacted was not disclosed. Given the amount of time since the leak was detected, along with the lack of environmental oversight and enforcement (indicating a non-significant release), including sampling, monitoring or remediation, the likelihood of this site having an impact on the Project is low.

The MCZ-Central Development site was listed as an open site and undergoing a site assessment.

Halogenated volatile organic compounds were detected on-site in concentrations exceeding ESLs for commercial and residential buildings. According to the information reviewed, the contaminant plume was associated with a historic plume originating at 327 Moffett Boulevard (the two sites are immediately adjacent) and would present a vapor exposure risk at 730 Central Avenue. Previous investigations conducted at 327 Moffett Boulevard site determined that residual contamination would not present an immediate threat to human health or the environment (as the site was granted closure in 2013). Given the foregoing, the likelihood of this site having an impact on the Project is low.

PCBs were not confirmed to be present on-site. However, based on the age of the existing buildings (1968), the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined PCBs may be present in hydraulic fluid, transformers and light ballasts. ACMs and LBP may also exist on-site and are maintained via an O&M program. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment recommended that the O&M program be assessed prior to construction activities. Construction and demolition activities associated with the Project would have the potential to result in reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials; this impact could be significant. To detect additional hazardous materials such as electrical equipment containing PCBs and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce the potential for impacts on the public or the environment related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials during Project construction to a less-thansignificant level. Construction worker health and safety regulations, as well as material removal and disposal regulations, would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal and state standards, including Cal/OSHA and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations.

A portion of the western boundary of the Former Naval Air Station Moffett Field and MiddlefieldEllis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Site regional plume (Moffett-MEW Regional Plume) site is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project site. Although the Moffett-MEW Regional Plume is considered a large-scale groundwater remediation project in the area, the distance from the Project site along with groundwater flow direction in the area (to the north) make potential groundwater City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
impacts associated with this regional plume to the Project site (during construction activities, including dewatering) unlikely.

Operation. The Project is an infill project involving redevelopment of a portion of an approximately

14.5-acre site. The Project includes development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages, along with related amenities and other improvements as further described in Chapter 2, Project Description. Given the nature of the Project, no acutely hazardous materials are expected to be used or stored on the site during Project operation. Any hazardous materials handled would be typical household materials, which are generally used in small, localized amounts. The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 (Hazardous Materials) (see full condition of approval above), which requires completion of an Environmental Compliance Plan. Any spills of typical household materials would be required to be cleaned up as they occur in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

With adherence to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02, and through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, there would be a less-than-significant impact on the public or the environment related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials during Project operation. No mitigation is required.

MM HAZ-2: Conduct a comprehensive building materials survey.

Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, a comprehensive Hazardous Building Materials Assessment shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior to demolition activities associated with the project. Should this assessment verify that lead-based paint and/or asbestos or other hazardous building materials are present, the following actions shall be implemented:
⚫ A health and safety plan shall be developed by a certified industrial hygienist for potential lead-based paint, asbestos or other hazardous building materials risks present during demolition. The health and safety plan shall then be implemented by a licensed contractor.  Both the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulate worker exposure during construction activities that affect lead-based paint. The Interim Final Rule found in 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1926.62 covers construction work in which employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolition, removal, surface preparation for repainting, renovation, cleanup, and routine maintenance. ⚫ Prior to demolition of construction debris containing asbestos the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified ten days prior to initiating construction and demolition activities.
 Asbestos shall be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, adopted January 1, 1991, requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos.  The local office of the Cal/OSHA shall be notified of asbestos abatement activities.  Asbestos abatement contractors shall follow State regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR 341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
 Asbestos removal contractors shall be certified as such by the Contractors licensing Board of the State of California.

Impact HAZ-3 Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

Level of Impact d) Less than Significant
Discussion
There is one existing school within 0.25 mile of the Project site. The Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley is approximately 470 feet (0.09 mile) northeast of the Project site at 310 Easy Street.

Construction. The Project, which would involve the use of typical hazardous materials that are common on construction sites (as discussed above under Impact HAZ-1), would be required to comply with the applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations described under Section

3.8.3, Regulatory Setting. In addition, any construction-related release of hazardous materials would be commonly used materials, such as fossil fuels, solvents, and paints, and would not include substances listed in 40 CFR 355 Appendix A, Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities. Any such spills would be localized and immediately contained and cleaned up in accordance with the requirements of the Project-specific SWPPP.

The Project site was originally developed in 1968. The Project includes demolition of surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa. Thus, it is possible that construction activities associated with the proposed Project could expose construction personnel and the surrounding area to ACMs, LBP, electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors, during demolition activities.

However, as discussed under Impact HAZ-2, a comprehensive building materials survey would be required to be performed prior to demolition and construction. If any of the aforementioned hazardous building materials are found during the survey, all applicable health and safety regulations, as well as material removal and disposal regulations, will be followed and implemented.

Project construction would not involve acutely hazardous emissions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, within 0.25 miles of the Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The Project is an infill project involving redevelopment of a portion of an approximately

14.5-acre site. The Project includes development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages along with related amenities and other improvements as further described in Section 2.0 Project Description. Operational activities associated with the Project could involve the use of typical hazardous materials that are commonly found in residential units (e.g., cleaning agents, paints, batteries, aerosol cans). Products for residential applications that contain hazardous material are generally used in small amounts. The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 (Hazardous Materials) (see full condition of approval above), which requires completion of an Environmental Compliance Plan. Spills would be cleaned up as they occur. In addition, substances listed in 40 CFR 355 Appendix A, Extremely Hazardous Substances and Their Threshold Planning Quantities, are not City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
expected to be handled as part of residential uses at the Project site. With adherence to Standard Condition of Approval HAZ-02 and through compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, Project operation would not involve acutely hazardous emissions or the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, within 0.25 miles of the Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-4 Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard for the public or the environment.

Level of Impact e) Less than Significant
Discussion
Implementation of the Project would not create any significant impacts associated with being included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As shown in Table 3.8-1, the Project site was identified in several databases and listed as historically handling various hazardous materials, including the CA HAZNET (Facility and Manifest Data), CA CERS (California Environmental Reporting System), RCRA NonGen/NLR (RCRA NonGenerators), ECHO (Enforcement & Compliance History Information), FINDS (Facility Index System/Facility Registry System) CA HWTS (Hazardous Waste Tracking System), and CA PEST LIC (Pesticide Regulation Licenses Listing) databases. There was one violation listed under the CERS database for the Project site. However, the violation was administrative in nature and did not involve a release into the environment. No other violations were noted associated with the Project site. Therefore, the database listings would not represent a significant hazard for the public or the environment and this would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-5 For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area.

Level of Impact f) Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed in Section 3.8.2.4, Proximity to Airports and Airstrips, the Project site is within Moffett Federal Airfield’s AIA. The AIA is a feature-based boundary around an airport within which all actions, regulations, and permits must be evaluated by local agencies to determine how Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies may affect proposed development and to confirm the Project’s consistency with those policies. The evaluation would determine if the development meets the conditions specified with respect to height restrictions, noise, and safety protection for the public. As shown in the CLUP, the site is not within the airport safety zone for Moffett Federal Airfield and is outside the 65-decibel (dB), Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), noise contour. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 52 feet, which would be greater than the height of the existing buildings, but still well below the 182-foot height restriction for the Project site. For these reasons, the Project would be consistent with the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
General Plan and zoning changes, such as those proposed by the Project, within the AIA would require review by the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). For this reason, the Project would be referred to the Santa Clara County ALUC for a determination of consistency with the adopted Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP prior to consideration by the City Council. Because consultation with the ALUC would be required prior to construction, potential safety hazards associated with being located within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan would be less than significant, and the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. No mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-6 Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Emergency access to the Project site and vicinity could be affected by Project construction. Temporary lane closures and construction-related traffic could potentially delay or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles. The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Conditions of Approval FD-05 (Fire Protection During Construction) and PW-111 (Construction Management Plan) (see full conditions of approval below), which require standpipes for use during construction and a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans, respectively. Specifically, Standard Conditions of Approval FD-05 requires every building four stories or more in height to be provided with not less than one standpipe for use during construction and such standpipes shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 40 feet in height above the lowest level of Fire Department access. Additionally, Standard Conditions of Approval PW-111 requires the applicant to provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans showing truck routes; construction phasing, equipment, storage, and parking; and sidewalk closures or narrowing. Adherence to Standard Conditions of Approval FD-05 and PW-111 would ensure adequate fire protection infrastructure is available during construction and help manage the flow of construction traffic as well as vehicle ingress/egress in a manner that would minimize traffic delays and thereby help to ensure continued emergency access to the Project site and nearby properties. Furthermore, ongoing implementation of Mountain View’s Emergency Operations Plan, as well as relevant General Plan policies regarding public safety, and coordination with MVFD would further reduce potential interference with evacuation plans, ensure an adequate response to emergencies, and reduce the potential for construction-related traffic to interfere with emergency access. Therefore, Project construction would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. Given its nature, the Project would not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures, long-term blocking of road access points) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation along US 101, SR 85, or the Central Expressway, which are considered the primary evacuation routes in the Project area. Emergency access would be provided at West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Furthermore, the Project’s circulation and site plan would be required to adhere to all applicable standards and requirements including, those addressing fire protection infrastructure and access for emergency vehicles. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site at one location on West City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Middlefield Road, two locations on Moffett Boulevard, and seven locations on Cypress Point Drive.

One emergency vehicle access driveway has been added at the end of Cypress Point Drive to allow emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, which shows the proposed access points). Ongoing implementation of Mountain View’s Emergency Operations Plan, as well as relevant General Plan policies regarding public safety, and coordination with MVFD would further reduce potential interference with evacuation plans, ensure an adequate response to emergencies, and reduce the potential for operation-related traffic to interfere with emergency access. Therefore, Project operation would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• FD-05: Fire Protection During Construction. Every building four (4) stories or more in height shall be provided with not less than one (1) standpipe for use during construction. Such standpipe(s) shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 40’ in height above the lowest level of Fire Department access. Such standpipe(s) shall be provided with Fire Department hose connections at accessible locations adjacent to usable stairs, and the standpipe outlets shall be located adjacent to such usable stairs. Such standpipe systems shall be extended as construction progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. In each floor, there shall be provided a 2.5” valve outlet for Fire Department use. (California Fire Code, Chapter 33.)
• HAZ-02: Hazardous Materials. If hazardous materials will be stored or used on-site (including paints, thinners, compressed gases, propane, diesel, gasoline, etc.), complete an Environmental Compliance Plan (ECP) application. Attach a copy of the completed ECP to your building plan submittal.
• PW-111: Construction Management Plan. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and all subsequent building permit submittals, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans showing the following:

1. Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections 19.58 and 19.59 and which does not include neighborhood residential streets;

2. Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Show construction vehicles and equipment parking area, material storage and lay-down area, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles/equipment and trailer shall be located on-site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking) arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots. Construction contractors/workers are required to park on-site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage; and

3. Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on-site construction activities.

The construction traffic and parking management plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

City of Mountain View Section 3.8. Hazards Hazardous Materials 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.8-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8.4.4 Summary of Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
after Mitigation
Impact HAZ-1: Create a significant
hazard for the public or the
environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HAZ-2: Create a significant
hazard for the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment.

Significant MM HAZ-2: Conduct a
comprehensive
building materials
survey
Less than
Significant
Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous
emissions or involve handling
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HAZ-4: Be located on a site that
is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, create a significant hazard
for the public or the environment.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HAZ-5: For a project within an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the area.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HAZ-6: Impair implementation
of, or physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

3.9.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for hydrology and water quality. It also describes impacts on hydrology and water quality that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.9.4.4, Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts. Water supply and wastewater treatment are addressed in Section 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues include stormwater management and groundwater.

3.9.2 Environmental Setting

3.9.2.1 Surface Water Hydrology
The Project site is within the Permanente Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries subwatershed of the larger Saratoga Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed. The Project site is less than

0.25 mile west of Stevens Creek, approximately 1 mile east of Permanente Creek, and approximately 3 miles south of San Francisco Bay. There are no natural surface waters within the Project site.

Stevens Creek originates in the Santa Cruz Mountains, on the western flank of Black Mountain, and flows southeasterly through Stevens Creek County Park before turning northeast into Stevens Creek Reservoir. It continues north before draining into San Francisco Bay at Whisman Slough.

Permanente Creek is a 13.3-mile-long perennial stream, originating on the eastern flank of Black Mountain, that flows northward through residential areas in Los Altos and Mountain View.

Historically, the creek drained into southwest San Francisco Bay at Charleston Slough but is now diverted to Mountain View Slough (City of Cupertino 2020).

Stormwater in Mountain View is collected by a municipal storm drain system, consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels, and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View (City) Public Works Department. The Project site, which is partially impervious, includes an approximately 110,846-square-foot apartment complex, as well as carport and underground parking stalls, for a total of 267,816 square feet of impervious cover. However, green space, such as shrub land and landscaping, provides areas of pervious cover and allows groundwater infiltration.

Although the Project site is generally flat, the surface water hydrology allows overland flows.

Stormwater is conveyed by on-site pipes and drains to the western boundary of the site and the City’s 60-inch storm drain in Moffett Boulevard as well as an 18-inch storm drain in West Middlefield Road on the northern boundary (Langan 2020). Currently, there are no stormwater treatment features on the Project site.

3.9.2.2 Groundwater Hydrology
The Project site is in the Santa Clara Subbasin, part of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin.

The Santa Clara Subbasin is bounded on the west by the Diablo Range and on the east by the Santa City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Cruz Mountains. The subbasin extends from the northern border of Santa Clara County to a groundwater divide near the town of Morgan Hill, providing municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water. The Project area lies within the western edge of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, which drains to the north through tributaries to San Francisco Bay.

Natural recharge occurs as streambeds in the drainage basin infiltrate the land and precipitation falls on the basin floor, providing direct percolation. The Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) conducts an artificial groundwater recharge program by releasing locally conserved or imported water to in-stream and off-stream facilities. Historically, declining water levels resulting from groundwater pumping have induced subsidence in the Santa Clara Subbasin. Furthermore, saltwater intrusion has degraded the aquifer adjacent to San Francisco Bay. However, groundwater levels have generally increased since 1965 as a result of increases in recharge and decreases in pumping (California Department of Water Resources 2004).

In the Project area, the historic high groundwater level was approximately 10 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Groundwater levels on the site have ranged from approximately 11.5 to 22 feet bgs. However, the groundwater levels were measured while drilling was occurring and most likely do not represent a stabilized groundwater level (Langan 2020). Shallow groundwater flows are expected to follow the ground-level slope of surface elevations to the nearest open body of water or intermittent stream. The direction of such flows at the Project site is anticipated to be toward the north or northeast. Season fluctuations in rainfall, as well as underground drainage patterns, local usage demands, geology, underground structures, and dewatering operations, may also influence groundwater levels and cause variations in groundwater levels.

3.9.2.3 Water Quality
Surface Water
Water quality in a typical surface water body is influenced by processes and activities that take place within the watershed. The quality of stormwater runoff from the Project site and surrounding development is typical of urban watersheds where water quality is affected primarily by discharges from both point- and nonpoint sources. Point-source discharges are from known sources of pollutants, while nonpoint source discharges generally result from diffuse sources, such as runoff, precipitation, or seepage. Point and nonpoint sources include outfalls, winter storms, overland flows, exposed soil, roofs, parking lots, and streets. Water quality in the vicinity of the Project site is directly affected by stormwater runoff from adjacent streets and properties that deliver fertilizers, pesticides, automobile and traffic pollutants (e.g., oil, grease, metals), sediment with associated pollutants from soil erosion, trash, and other pollutants. The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff.

Constituents or pollutants in stormwater runoff vary with surrounding land uses, the amount of impervious surface area, and topography as well as with the intensity and frequency of rainfall or irrigation. The Project site is within a developed area of Mountain View where the majority of the ground surface is covered by pavement (roads and parking lots) and structures (office, commercial, and residential development). Street surfaces are the primary sources of pollutants in stormwater runoff in urban areas. Common sources of stormwater pollution in the Project vicinity include construction sites, parking lots, large landscaped areas, and household and industrial sites.

The San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) specifies the beneficial uses that apply to the Project area, as shown in Table 3.9-1. Once beneficial uses are designated, appropriate water quality objectives can be established, and programs that maintain or City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
enhance water quality can be implemented to ensure the protection of beneficial uses. The designated beneficial uses, together with water quality objectives, form water quality standards.

Table 3.9-1. Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters within the Project Vicinity Water Body Beneficial Uses
Stevens Creek Freshwater replenishment (FRSH), groundwater recharge (GWR), cold freshwater habitat (COLD), fish migration (MIGR), preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE), fish spawning (SPWN), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), wildlife habitat (WILD), water contact recreation (REC-1), noncontact water recreation (REC-2) Permanente Creek Groundwater recharge (GWR), cold freshwater habitat (COLD), preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE), fish spawning (SPWN), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), wildlife habitat (WILD), water contact recreation (REC-1), noncontact water recreation (REC-2) South San Francisco Bay Industrial service water supply (IND), commercial and sport fishing (COMM), shellfish harvesting (SHELL), estuarine habitat (EST), fish migration (MIGR), preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE), fish spawning (SPWN), wildlife habitat (WILD), water contact recreation (REC-1), noncontact water recreation (REC-2), navigation (NAV)
Source: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Last updated: May 4, 2017. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/basinplan/web/tab/tab_2-01.pdf. Accessed: February 25, 2019.

Diazinon, water temperature, toxicity, and trash are listed as 303(d) impairments in Stevens Creek.

Diazinon, selenium, toxicity, and trash are listed as 303(d) impairments in Permanente Creek. South San Francisco Bay is 303(d) listed for chlordane, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), dieldrin, dioxin compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD), furan compounds, invasive species, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), including dioxin-like PCBs, and selenium (State Water Resources Control Board 2019).

South San Francisco Bay is designated as impaired for mercury. Fish tissue collected from San Francisco Bay often contains relatively high mercury concentrations. Sources of mercury include runoff from historic mines, urban runoff, wastewater discharges, atmospheric deposition, and resuspension of historic deposits of mercury-laden sediment already in San Francisco Bay. Most of the historic mercury deposits date back to the Gold Rush of the 1800s, when mercury was mined throughout the Coastal Range and used in the Sierra Nevada to extract gold. The largest source of mercury is the Central Valley where rivers carry mercury from remote regions to San Francisco Bay.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a Basin Plan amendment that incorporated a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for mercury in San Francisco Bay as well as an implementation plan for achieving the TMDL. The amendment became effective on November 7, 2007.

Groundwater
In general, groundwater quality throughout most of the region is suitable for most urban and agricultural uses, with only local impairments. Groundwater in the basin is hard, with good to excellent mineral composition. Areas with elevated mineral levels, associated with historical City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
saltwater intrusion, have been observed in the northern basin, and elevated nitrate concentrations have been identified in wells in the southern portion of the basin (California Department of Water Resources 2004).

Groundwater contamination may have occurred at several known release sites in the general vicinity of the Project site. Four leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites are within approximately 0.5 mile, as are numerous other potential off-site sources of groundwater contamination. See Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for more information. In addition, the property adjacent to the Project site has experienced historical groundwater contamination related to petroleum hydrocarbons. However, based on the groundwater gradient, the limited extent of petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations, and the most recent groundwater monitoring results, which indicate non-detectable levels of petroleum, the adjacent property is not considered a threat to the Project site (Cardno 2013).

3.9.2.4 Flooding
The Project site is not in a Special Flood Hazard Zone (SFHA) or 100-year floodway, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Project site is within FEMA Zone X (shaded), in an area of moderate flood hazard (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2009).

FEMA Zone X (shaded) is usually the area between the limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. It designates base floodplains with lesser hazards (e.g., areas with a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding). These include areas of shallow flooding, with average depths of less than 1 foot; drainage areas covering less than 1 square mile; or areas with 100-year levee protection.

3.9.3 Regulatory Setting

3.9.3.1 Federal
Clean Water Act
Several sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) pertain to regulating waters of the United States. The term waters of the United States refers to all surface waters, such as all navigable waters and their tributaries; all interstate waters and their tributaries; all wetlands adjacent to these waters; and all impoundments of such waters. EPA is the overarching authority for protecting the quality of waters of the United States. However, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) administers CWA Sections 303, 401 and 402; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has jurisdiction over waters of the United States under CWA Section 404.

Section 303 – Impaired Waters
The State of California adopts water quality standards to protect beneficial uses of waters of the state, as required by Section 303(d) of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). Section 303(d) of the CWA established the TMDL process to guide the application of state water quality standards (refer to the discussion of state water quality standards below in Section 3.9.3.2, State). To identify candidate water bodies for TMDL analysis, a list of water quality–limited segments was generated by the State Water Board. These stream or river segments are impaired by the presence of pollutants such as sediment and are more sensitive to disturbance because of this impairment.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
In addition to the impaired water body list required by CWA Section 303(d), CWA Section 305(b) requires states to develop a report that assesses statewide surface water quality. Both CWA requirements are addressed through development of a 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report, which provides both an update to the 303(d) list and a 305(b) assessment of statewide water quality. The State Water Board’s statewide 2014/2016 California Integrated Report was based on the Integrated Reports from each of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). After approval of the 303(d) list portion of the California Integrated Report by the State Water Board, the complete 2014 and 2016 California Integrated Report was approved by EPA on April 6, 2018.

Section 401 – Water Quality Certification
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant who pursues a federal permit for conducting an activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant to obtain Water Quality Certification (or a waiver). Water Quality Certification requires the evaluation of water quality considerations associated with dredging or the placement of fill materials into waters of the United States. Water Quality Certifications are issued by one of the nine geographically separated RWQCBs in California.

Under the CWA, the RWQCB must issue Section 401 Water Quality Certification for a project to be permitted under CWA Section 404 by USACE. Construction of the Project would require CWA Section 401 certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB if CWA 404 is triggered or if long-term dewatering activities occur, resulting in discharges to waters of the United States.

Section 402 – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources. NPDES is the primary federal program that regulates point-source and nonpointsource discharges to waters of the United States. The 1987 amendments to the CWA created a new section that was devoted to stormwater permitting (Section 402). EPA has granted the State of California primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of the CWA and NPDES within state boundaries. NPDES permits are issued by one of the nine RWQCBs.

The Project would be required to comply with both construction and municipal NPDES stormwater requirements. More information is provided in Section 3.9.3.2, State, below.

Section 404 – Dredge/Fill Permitting
The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to permitting specified under Title IV (Permits and Licenses) of the CWA—specifically, Section 404 (Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material) of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the placement of fill materials in the waters of the United States. Section 404 permits are administered by USACE.

National Flood Insurance Program
In response to the increasing cost of disaster relief, Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIP) of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. FEMA administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations to limit development in floodplains. A Flood Insurance Rate Map is an official FEMA-prepared map of a community. It is used to delineate both the SFHAs and the flood-risk premium zones that are applicable to the community. As discussed above, the Project is not within a SFHA; therefore, the NFIP does not apply.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.9.3.2 State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act was established and implemented by the State Water Board. The State Water Board is the primary state agency with responsibility for protecting the quality of the state’s surface and groundwater supplies, or waters of the state. Waters of the state are defined more broadly than waters of the United States (i.e., any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state). This includes waters in both natural and artificial channels. It also includes all surface waters that are not waters of the United States or nonjurisdictional wetlands, which are essentially distinguished by whether they are navigable. If waters are not navigable, they are considered to be isolated and, therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of only the Porter-Cologne Act and not the CWA. The RWQCBs are responsible for implementing CWA Sections 303(d), 401, and 402.

The Porter-Cologne Act authorizes the State Water Board to draft state policies regarding water quality. The act requires projects that discharge or propose to discharge wastes that could affect the quality of waters of the state to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The Porter-Cologne Act also requires the State Water Board or a RWQCB to adopt basin plans for the protection of water quality.

San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan San Francisco Bay waters are under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which established regulatory standards and objectives for water quality in San Francisco Bay in its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin, commonly referred to as the Basin Plan. The board is required to develop, adopt (after public hearing), and implement a basin plan for the region.

Basin plans are updated and reviewed every 3 years. They provide the technical basis for determining waste discharge requirements (WDRs), taking enforcement actions, and evaluating clean water grant proposals. A basin plan must include (1) a statement of beneficial water uses that the RWQCB will protect, (2) the water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses, and (3) strategies to be implemented, with time schedules for achieving the water quality objectives. The San Francisco Bay Basin Plan was last updated in 2017 (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2017).

Through basin plans, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions, then set the criteria necessary to protect such uses. Consequently, the water quality objectives developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use. The objectives also vary, depending on such use. Each RWQCB, which has its own region-wide and water body– specific beneficial uses, sets numeric and narrative water quality objectives for several substances and parameters in numerous surface waters in its region. For water bodies that do not have specific beneficial uses or water quality objectives designated in the Basin Plan, the tributary rule applies.1 Specific objectives for concentrations of chemical constituents are applied to bodies of water according to their designated beneficial uses. In addition, the State Water Board identifies waters that fail to meet standards for specific pollutants, which are then state listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d), described previously. The Project site lies within the jurisdiction of the San 1 The “tributary rule” refers to any streams not specifically listed in the Basin Plan that are deemed to have the same beneficial uses and water quality objectives as the listed stream, river, or lake to which they are a tributary.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for protection of the beneficial uses of water resources in San Francisco Bay.

NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit
The NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit)(Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 2010- 0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) regulates stormwater discharges related to construction activities.

Dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that, in total, disturbs 1 or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must list best management practices (BMPs) that the discharger will use to reduce or eliminate pollutants associated with construction activities in stormwater runoff and document the placement and maintenance of those BMPs. In addition, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” pollutants, to be implemented in case of a BMP failure; and a monitoring plan for turbidity and pH for projects that meet defined risk criteria. The requirements of the SWPPP are based on the construction design specifications detailed in the final design plans of a project and the hydrology and geology of the site expected to be encountered during construction. The local or lead agency requires proof of coverage under the Construction General Permit prior to building permit issuance. The SWPPP is submitted to the State Water Board; a copy is kept at the jobsite where it is updated during different phases of construction. The SWPPP must be available for inspection and review upon request. The Project would involve more than 1 acre of land disturbance; therefore, a NPDES Construction General Permit would be required.

Municipal Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program – Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit
CWA Section 402 mandates permits for municipal stormwater discharges, which are regulated under the NPDES General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 Permit).

Phase I regulations cover municipalities with populations greater than 100,000, certain industrial processes, or construction activities disturbing an area of 5 acres or more. Phase II regulations require that stormwater management plans be developed by municipalities with populations smaller than 100,000. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB adopted Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order R2-2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (adopted November 19, 2015, and amended by Order No. R2-2019-0004, on February 13, 2019), known as the Bay Area Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The NPDES MRP was issued to the 77 agencies in the Bay Area region, including the City of Mountain View. The permits require controls to be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent possible, including management practices, control techniques, system design and engineering methods, and other measures as appropriate. As part of permit compliance, permit holders have created stormwater management plans for their respective locations. These plans outline the requirements for municipal operations, industrial and commercial businesses, construction sites, and planning and land development. The requirements may include multiple measures to control pollutants in stormwater discharges. During implementation of specific projects under the program, project applicants are required to follow the guidance contained in the stormwater management plans, as defined by the permit holder in that location.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Provision C.3 of the MRP requires cities to implement stormwater treatment controls in new development projects to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff and capture and treat such runoff.

Under Provision C.3, projects that create or replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface are required to design and construct on-site stormwater treatment controls to treat postconstruction stormwater runoff. The MRP requires post-construction runoff to be managed with low-impact development (LID) stormwater treatment controls, such as on-site harvesting or the use of infiltration and/or bioretention techniques to treat post-construction runoff.

Waste Discharge Requirements for Dewatering and Other Low-threat Discharges to Surface Waters
CWA Section 402 also includes WDRs for dewatering activities that discharge to navigable waters.

Although small amounts of construction-related dewatering are covered under the Construction General Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has regulations specific to dewatering activities, which typically involve reporting and monitoring requirements. If dewatering to storm drains that lead to San Francisco Bay occurs as part of a project, the contractor is required to comply with San Francisco Bay RWQCB dewatering requirements. If groundwater that has been contaminated with chlorinated volatile organic compounds is encountered during construction, the project sponsor is required to comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater Resulting from the Cleanup of Groundwater Polluted by Volatile Organic Compounds, Fuel Leaks, Fuel Additives, and Other Related Wastes (VOC and Fuel General Permit) (Order No. R2-2017-004,8 NPDES Permit No. CAG912002).

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) is a comprehensive three-bill package that Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law in September 2014. The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater water supply for California for years to come. The SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies, which are required to adopt groundwater sustainability plans to manage the sustainability of groundwater basins. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies for all high- and medium-priority basins, as identified by the Department of Water Resources, must adopt a groundwater sustainability plan or submit an alternative. The SGMA also requires local governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft occurrences and bring groundwater basins into balance with respect to pumping and recharge.

The Project site overlies the Santa Clara Valley – Santa Clara groundwater subbasin, which is designated as a high-priority basin. Groundwater in the basin is managed by Valley Water, which is the exclusive groundwater management agency within its statutory boundary. The 2016 Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins describes Valley Water’s groundwater sustainability goals as well as the strategies, programs, and activities to support those goals. The Groundwater Management Plan was adopted on November 22, 2016, and submitted to the Department of Water Resources as an alternative on December 21, 2016. Valley Water is currently working on updating the alternative for the Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.9.3.3 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies related to water quality in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal INC-8: An effective and innovative stormwater drainage system that protects properties from flooding and minimizes adverse environmental impacts from stormwater runoff.

Policy INC 8.1: Citywide Stormwater System. Maintain the stormwater system in good condition.

Policy INC 8.2: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.

Policy INC 8.3: Cost-effective Strategies. Encourage stormwater strategies that minimize additional City administrative and maintenance costs.

Policy INC 8.4: Runoff Pollution Prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels, and San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.

Policy INC 8.5: Site-specific Stormwater Treatment. Require post-construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.

Policy INC 8.6: Green Streets. Seek opportunities to develop green streets and sustainable streetscapes that minimize stormwater runoff, using techniques such as on-street swales, bioretention, permeable pavement, or other innovative approaches.

Policy INC 8.7: Stormwater Quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

Policy INC 8.8: Stormwater Infrastructure Funding. Develop permanent and ad hoc sources of funding to implement stormwater best practices in Mountain View.

Policy INC 4.1.2: Closely monitor groundwater quality as well as any changing rules and regulations regarding the City’s access to groundwater, revising plans as necessary to reflect any relevant changes to the groundwater supply.

Policy INC 16.1.2: Enable sufficient surface water replenishment and protect surface water quality to enable groundwater percolation and provide habitat for wildlife.

Policy INC 16.1.3: Support efforts of the Santa Clara Valley Water District to preserve water, habitat, and riparian quality in the creeks within Mountain View, including implementing the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.

Policy INC 16.1.4: Encourage volunteer creek cleanups.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program The MRP regulates 77 cities in the Bay Area region, including the City of Mountain View, and other agencies in Santa Clara Valley that make up the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP). Provision C.3, which concerns source controls for new development and redevelopment, site designs, and stormwater treatment measures, addresses City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
stormwater runoff. This is accomplished through LID techniques, including rainwater harvesting, infiltration, and biotreatment techniques. The MRP (under Provision C.3) requires that permanent water quality control devices treat all stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff from new impervious surfaces of 10,000 square feet or more must be sized according to the volume or rate criteria identified in the permit. After treatment devices are installed, owners must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to ensure the treatment devices are maintained, inspected, and reported on annually. The SCVURPPP requires operation and maintenance (O&M) programs for new development or redevelopment. The MRP requires each co-permittee to implement a stormwater treatment BMP O&M Verification Program to ensure that property owners are maintaining the BMPs on their sites. Participants in the SCVURPPP O&M Verification Program must report all results to the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

In addition to requiring post-construction treatment of runoff, hydromodification controls to reduce post-construction runoff flows would also be required because, as currently designed, the Project would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface area.

City of Mountain View Flood Hazard Ordinance
The City Flood Hazard Ordinance requires the lowest floor in residential and new construction to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. All new construction and substantial improvement with fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, and which are subject to flooding, must be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwater.

The applicable requirements of the City Municipal Code for construction in a flood zone are required of projects built in Mountain View as conditions of approval.

3.9.4 Impact Analysis

3.9.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) identifies the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing hydrology and water quality.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would result in any of the following:

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.

2. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river or the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
a. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; b. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site;
City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
c. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
d. Impede or redirect floodflows.

4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk a release of pollutants due to inundation.

5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The following would result in no impacts and therefore are not evaluated in detail below:

Impacts Related to Release of Pollutants Due to Inundation. The Project site is not within a planned tsunami inundation area, as depicted on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency and California Geological Survey. Therefore, the Project is not subject to inundation by a tsunami. San Francisco Bay is a large, open body of water with no immediate risk of damage from a seiche event in the Project vicinity.

There are no reservoirs adjacent to the Project site; therefore, the Project would not be prone to inundation by a seiche. Furthermore, the Project site is not within a FEMA 100-year floodplain; therefore the Project site would not be subject to inundation by a flood or result in impacts from release of pollutants due to inundation, and no impact would result.

During construction activities, stormwater BMPs would be implemented, as required by applicable federal, county, and local laws, regulations, and policies, to minimize degradation of water quality associated with stormwater runoff or construction-related pollutants. Other measures in the SWPPP include a range of stormwater control BMPs (e.g., silt fences, staked straw wattles, geofabric to prevent silt runoff to storm drains or waterways). In addition, construction and operation of the Project would be required to comply with local stormwater ordinances, stormwater requirements established by the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit, and regional waste discharge requirements.

Furthermore, operation would comply with stormwater requirements established by the SCVURPPP and as well as the Mountain View Flood Hazard Ordinance. Additional discussions and measures to reduce the risk of pollutants and floodflows are discussed under Impact HWQ-1 and Impact HWQ-3.

Therefore, there would be no impact related to a risk release of pollutants due to inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. This impact is not evaluated further.

3.9.4.2 Methods
The evaluation of hydrology and water quality impacts is based, in part, on professional standards and the conclusions of technical reports prepared for the Project, including the hydrology and water quality report, preliminary geotechnical investigation, and Phase I environmental site assessment.

The key construction-related impacts were identified and evaluated qualitatively, based on the physical characteristics of the Project site and the magnitude, intensity, location, and duration of activities. The key operational or buildout-related impacts were identified and evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, based on current available plans. It is assumed that the Project applicant would be required to conform to City and Santa Clara County building standards, grading permit requirements, erosion control requirements, and stormwater treatment controls.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the California Supreme Court concluded in its California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District decision that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
residents.” With this ruling, CEQA no longer considers the impact of the environment on a project (e.g., the impact of existing flooding hazards on new project receptors) to be an impact that requires consideration under CEQA, unless a project would exacerbate an existing environmental hazard.

3.9.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.9.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.9.4.4, Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts.

Impact HWQ-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Project construction activities, such as grading, stockpiling spoil materials, and other construction-related earth-disturbing activities, could result in short-term water quality impacts associated with soil erosion and subsequent sediment transport to adjacent properties, roadways, or watercourses, including Stevens Creek, via storm drains. Sediment transport to local drainage facilities such as drainage inlets, culverts, and storm drains could result in reduced stormflow capacity, resulting in localized ponding or flooding during storm events.

The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval FEP-03 (State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit) (effective September 02, 2019) (see full condition of approval below), which ensures all construction activities would comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the production of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which contains standards to ensure that water quality is not degraded. As part of this permit, standard erosion control measures and BMPs would be identified in a SWPPP and implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation in waterways and a loss of topsoil. As a performance standard, the selected BMPs would represent the best available and economically achievable technology and the best conventional pollutant control technology to reduce pollutants.

Other potential water quality impacts include chemical spills into storm drains or groundwater aquifers if proper minimization measures are not implemented. However, commonly practiced BMPs would be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff, as required by Standard Condition of Approval FEP-04 (Construction Best Management Practices) (see full condition of approval below). Standard Condition of Approval FEP-04 requires all construction projects to be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system. Measures range from source control to treatment of polluted runoff. BMPs can include watering active construction areas to control dust during earthmoving activities, using water sweepers to sweep streets and haul routes, and installing erosion control measures (e.g., silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes) to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, storm drains, or waterways. If appropriate for the development site, disturbed soil would be revegetated as soon as feasible with an appropriate selection of plants.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Excavation and grading would result in the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil. No disturbed surfaces would be left without erosion control measures in place during the rainy season, which generally occurs between October 15 and April 15. In addition to compliance with the Construction General Permit, the Project would also be required to comply with local stormwater and construction site runoff ordinances. These requirements involve development and implementation of a Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan specific to the Project site to minimize water quality impacts, as required under Standard Condition of Approval FEP-05 (Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan). The plan would be developed according to the guidance provided in documents such as the construction BMPs handbook.

Because the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and Standard Conditions of Approval, potential impacts on water quality from construction activities would be less than significant.

Construction Dewatering. The three proposed below-grade parking garages are expected to be below the groundwater table and would require dewatering as part of construction; the scope and length of anticipated dewatering would depend on a variety of factors, including the water table level at the time of excavation, the time of year, and the amount of precipitation received.

Construction dewatering could result in exposure to pollutants from spills or other activities and may contaminate groundwater. Although small amounts of construction-related dewatering are covered under the Construction General Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has regulations specific to dewatering activities; these typically involve reporting and monitoring requirements. In the event of dewatering to surface water via a storm drain during construction or before dewatering, the contractor would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit (City Standard Condition of Approval FEP-03) from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Coverage under the Construction General Permit typically includes dewatering activities authorized as non-stormwater discharges, provided that dischargers prove that the quality of the water is adequate and not likely to affect beneficial uses. All requirements of dewatering would be required to be met to ensure water quality is not affected.

There are requirements in addition to those outlined in the Construction General Permit, including discharge sampling and reporting requirements, as well as the VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2017-0048) if contaminated groundwater is encountered. In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering discharge methods include options for discharges to surface water via a storm drain, in compliance with WDRs, to ensure that such discharges would be within the capacity of existing facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of existing facilities. WDRs also include regulations specific to dewatering requirements. If it is found that the groundwater does not meet water quality standards, it must either be treated as necessary prior to discharge so that all applicable water quality objectives (as designated in the Basin Plan) are met or hauled off-site instead for treatment and disposal at an appropriate waste treatment facility that is permitted to receive such water. For water to be discharged to San Francisco Bay, the contractor would be required to notify the San Francisco Bay RWQCB and comply with the board’s requirements related to the quality of water and discharges.

Should dewatering occur, the Project would be required to comply with San Francisco Bay RWQCB dewatering requirements to prevent potential water quality impacts on surface waters or ensure proper treatment measures are implemented prior to discharge. Compliance with WDRs and other dewatering and groundwater laws and regulations would ensure that dewatering activities would be monitored as required and that no violations of water quality standards or WDRs would occur. In City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
addition, per Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report) (see full condition of approval below), the design-level geotechnical investigation would be finalized prior to the start of construction and demolition activities. Dewatering during excavation and construction at the Project site would be required to adhere to the measures described in the design-level geotechnical investigation for dewatering and the disposal of pumped groundwater. Once construction is complete, groundwater at the site would not be exposed. Compliance with Standard Condition of Approval PL-48, as well as compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, would ensure potential impacts on groundwater quality during Project construction remain less-than-significant.

Therefore, with implementation of the Standard Conditions of Approval and compliance with the regulatory controls described above, potential water quality impacts associated with construction activities and the degradation of stormwater runoff would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The Project would result in an approximately 12 percent decrease in impervious surface area on the site. The proposed impervious area would cover approximately 63 percent of the Project site, compared with approximately 75 percent under existing site conditions. The impervious area for the future 1.34-acre public park that the City would design and construct on the Park Parcel, which is to be dedicated to the City by the applicant as part of the Project, is assumed to be 10 percent (Schaaf & Wheeler 2021). This net reduction in impervious surfaces despite the intensification of uses on-site results from the removal of the surface parking areas and the increase in landscaping and open space on the site.

Decreases in impervious surfaces result in decreased runoff rates and volumes as well as associated pollutants. The Project would also be required to implement a variety of stormwater management measures to reduce water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff, pursuant to applicable provisions of the MS4 Permit. Stormwater runoff generated on each lot would be treated to the maximum extent feasible by implementing a mixture of LID BMPs as well as a media filtration system that complies with applicable SCVURPPP C.3 provisions. Runoff from roofs, surface parking areas, and the emergency vehicle access road would be directed to bioretention planters to meet the C.3 requirements prior to being discharged to the storm drain. Runoff from the podium level would be directed to an area with an emerging stormwater treatment technology2 to meet C.3 requirements prior to being discharged to the storm drain.

The Project-specific Stormwater Management Plan would include permanent control measures to reduce the long-term effects of the Project on water quality. The LID and non-LID strategies would reduce water quality impacts by preserving or re-creating natural landscape features as well as storing and detaining, through evapotranspiration and biotreatment, surface water runoff on-site.

The LID and non-LID measures would include site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment measures. These measures include minimizing runoff from impervious surfaces that are directly connected to the storm drain system by routing such runoff to landscaped areas, using landscaping as a drainage feature, covering trash enclosures, connecting areas used for washing equipment to the sanitary sewer, sweeping streets and parking lots, and regularly inspecting and cleaning storm drain inlets. Engineered treatment measures include bioretention areas, flow-through planters, and media filters. The landscape design, as required by Standard Conditions of Approval FEP-10 (Landscape Design) (see full condition of approval below), would 2 Stormwater treatment technologies are reviewed and certified by the Washington State Technology Assessment Protocol – Ecology, known as the TAPE program. TAPE is the Washington State Department of Ecology’s process for evaluating and approving emerging stormwater treatment BMPs.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. The Project would retain portions of the landscaping in the areas with the existing residential units and include new landscaping along the remaining perimeter of the Project site, between each of the buildings, and within each courtyard.

The Project would be required to comply with the MRP and SCVURPPP Provision C.3 stormwater technical guidance because it would involve a new or replaced impervious area greater than 10,000 square feet. However, the Project would reduce total runoff rates and implement biotreatment measures, as discussed above. Therefore, the Project would be in compliance with Provision C.3. The stormwater management measures proposed for the Project would reduce pollutant discharges from stormwater through filtration and infiltration. However, Provision C.3 also states that “all projects, regardless of size, should consider incorporating appropriate source control and site design measures that minimize stormwater pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable.” Regardless of a Project’s need to comply with Provision C.3, the “maximum extent practicable” standard would be applied, including stormwater-related Standard Conditions of Approval.

Standard Condition of Approval FEP-22 (Stormwater Treatment [C.3]) (see full condition of approval below) requires stormwater runoff to be directed to approved permanent treatment controls, as described in the City’s guidance document, Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects. The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select LID types of stormwater treatment controls. The Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that would be installed and how they would be in compliance with the City’s guidelines and the NPDES permit. In addition, as required by Standard Condition of Approval FEP-01 (Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Plan Check Sheet) (see full condition of approval below), all projects must complete a Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Plan Check Sheet for discharges and must be shown on the building plan submittal. Standard Condition of Approval FEP-19 (Outdoor Storage Areas [Including Garbage Enclosures]) (see full condition of approval below) would also be implemented during Project operation. This would require outdoor storage areas, such as garbage enclosures, to be designed to prevent spills and contaminated runoff.

The Project would be designed and maintained in accordance with applicable City, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco Bay RWQCB water quality requirements, such as the San Francisco Bay MRP, SCVURPPP, and the Standard Conditions of Approval. The Project would be required to comply with the General Construction Permit, San Francisco Bay MRP, Provision C.3, and SCVURPPP C.3 stormwater technical guidance and implement a SWPPP and other erosion control measures that incorporate stormwater treatment areas, such as bioretention areas. No surface water features are within the Project area; therefore, construction would not involve dredge or fill activities.

Consequently, potential surface water quality impacts from Project operation, with implementation of the City Standard Conditions of Approval and adherence to the various regulatory requirements described above, would not violate any waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Standard Conditions of Approval
• FEP-01: Storm Drainage/Sanitary Sewer Plan Check Sheet. Complete a “Storm Drain/Sanitary Sewer Discharges” check sheet. All applicable items in the check sheet should be completed and shown on the building plan submittal.
• FEP-03: State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit. A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans. • FEP-04: Construction Best Management Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system. Refer to the City of Mountain View document, “It’s In the Contract But Not In the Bay,” for the specific construction practices required at the job site.
• FEP-05: Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas.

The plan should also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning. • FEP-10: Landscape Design. Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) no steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; (b) using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices will be used in the building plan submittal. • FEP-19: Outdoor Storage Areas (Including Garbage Enclosures). Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak, or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following: (a) paving the area with concrete or other nonpermeable surface; (b) covering the area; and (c) sloping the area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter. There shall be no storm drains in the outdoor storage area.
• FEP-22: Stormwater Treatment (C.3). This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low-Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.

The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal. The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certification by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintenance Agreement with the City. • PL-48: Geotechnical Report. The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed.

Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below-grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures causes by seismic activity, and traffic loads; method for backdraining walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design.

Impact HWQ-2 Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. The three proposed below-grade parking garages are expected to be below the groundwater table and would require dewatering as part of construction (refer to Waste Discharge Requirements for Dewatering and Other Low-threat Discharges to Surface Waters under Section 3.9.3, Regulatory Setting, and Impact HWQ-1). As discussed previously, the depth to groundwater is between 11.5 and 22 feet bgs. The Project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 35 bgs. In the event that groundwater is encountered during construction, dewatering would be conducted on a one-time or temporary basis during the construction phase and would not result in a significant impact on groundwater recharge or result in the depletion of groundwater supplies.

Construction-related dewatering activities would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations, and other requirements related to dewatering activities and groundwater resources, as discussed above. Accordingly, impacts on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge during Project construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The Project would result in an approximately 12 percent decrease in impervious surface area on the site. In addition, proposed bioretention planters and landscaped areas would provide opportunities for groundwater infiltration and recharge. Natural groundwater recharge of the Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin occurs primarily from the infiltration of rainfall, landscape irrigation, and streambeds within the drainage basin. Reduced impervious areas can increase infiltration capacities so that less precipitation runs off into storm sewers or nearby surface waters and infiltrates and recharges the underlying aquifer. The Project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge because it would not increase groundwater demand or decrease the size of groundwater recharge areas. Landscaping along the perimeter of the Project site, between each of City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
the buildings, and within each courtyard, as well as within the approximately 1.3 acre Park Parcel to be reserved and dedicated to the to the City for future public park uses, would allow for an increase in groundwater recharge potential. New vegetation zones would slow water, allowing groundwater to percolate into the ground, thereby providing increased benefits for groundwater recharge. All planted areas would be watered with an approved automatic underground irrigation system to make efficient use of water through conservation techniques and would be required to comply with the City’s and state’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations and the Green Building Code.

Other sustainable design features would include drought-tolerant landscaping and low-flow irrigation systems, along with water conservation, treatment, and recharge features. In addition, the area for surface parking would be reduced because of the new underground parking facility. Section

3.16, Utilities and Service Systems, discusses the existing water supply and Project water demands.

Operation of the Project would not use groundwater supplies and therefore would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Project’s impact on groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact HWQ-3a Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through alteration of the course of a stream or river or the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site or impede or redirect floodflows.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. During construction, stormwater drainage patterns could be temporarily altered.

However, the Project would be required to implement BMPs, as mandated in the Project SWPPP and Standard Condition of Approval FEP-03 (State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit) (see full condition of approval above), to minimize the potential for erosion or siltation in nearby storm drains as well as temporary changes in drainage patterns during construction.

Construction BMPs would capture and then infiltrate small amounts of sheetflow into the ground such that off-site runoff from the construction site would not increase, thereby ensuring that drainage patterns would not be significantly altered.

Because the measures required by the Construction General Permit would limit site runoff during construction, and because the City requires storm drainage service to be maintained during construction, stormwater drainage patterns would not be altered. Therefore, impacts on stormwater drainage patterns during Project construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains intermittent paving for parking and pedestrian uses, buildings, amenity areas, and landscaping throughout the site. The Project would result in an approximately 12 percent decrease in impervious surface area on the site. As a result, the total amount of runoff conveyed to the City’s storm drain would be reduced compared to existing conditions.

The existing drainage patterns for the site are associated with the discharge of surface runoff to Stevens Creek through piped conveyance systems. The Project would alter existing on-site drainage patterns in the area of planned development by conveying runoff from the site to specific discharge City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
points at the City’s storm drain, which differs from the existing condition. New storm drains would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. The stormwater generated from Block B would drain to the existing 60-inch storm drain in Moffett Boulevard and the City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Stormwater from Block A would connect to the existing 18-inch City storm drain in West Middlefield Road by removing and replacing the storm drain lateral to West Middlefield Road. New storm drain laterals for Block C would connect to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Stormwater from the Park Parcel would connect to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive via a 15-inch storm lateral connected to an area drain at the low end of the Park Parcel frontage.

All existing storm drains to the site would be removed by phase and replaced per City standards and requirements. As required by Standard Condition of Approval PW-84 (Private Common Improvement Plans) (see full condition of approval below), on-site private common improvement plans consisting of the proposed demolition, fill, grading, retaining walls, drainage, private streets, common driveways, common utilities, public utilities, and other applicable improvements in accordance with Chapter 28 of the City Code, the Standard Design Criteria for Common Green and Townhouse-Type Condominiums, and the conditions of approval of the subdivision would be prepared. It is anticipated that the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would need to be increased in size to accommodate the Project and ensure that it is adequately sized to meet applicable City hydraulic design criteria. The ultimate size of the upgraded storm drain would be confirmed during the final design/improvement plan phase. The Project would be required to adhere to other Standard Conditions of Approval with drainage and drainage pattern requirements, including Conditions of Approval PW-85 (Drainage Plans), PW-86 (Drainage Requirements), PW-88 (Surface Water Release), and PW-90 (Storm Drain Hold Harmless Agreement) (see full conditions of approval below). Condition of Approval PW-85 requires on-site drainage plans to be included in the building plans. Condition of Approval PW-86 requires on-site parking lots and driveways (other than single-family residential) to not surface-drain across public sidewalks or driveway aprons.

Condition of Approval PW-88 requires a surface stormwater release for the lots, driveways, alleys, and private streets be provided that prevents the buildings from being flooded in the event the storm drainage system becomes blocked or obstructed. Condition of Approval PW-90 requires the owner to sign an agreement to hold the City harmless against storm surcharges or blockages that may result in on-site flooding or damage prior to approval of the building permit for portions of the site that are or will be lower than the adjacent public street or the surface grade over the City’s storm mains.

The Rational Method, as prescribed in the Santa Clara County Drainage Manual, was used to estimate preliminary on-site peak discharges to the City storm drain system under the 10-year and 100-year events, as shown in Table 3.9-2. Peak flows were estimated by assuming no on-site stormwater attenuation, not accounting for on-site stormwater management or treatment. The goal of the final stormwater management design would be to reduce proposed peak flows to, at, or below existing peak-flow levels through the incorporation of on-site sustainable stormwater design measures. Peak stormwater runoff under the Project condition would be approximately 1.1 cubic feet per second less than under existing conditions (Schaaf & Wheeler 2021). The final calculations would be included in the final hydrologic and hydraulic study and stormwater management report prepared for the Project. The overall peak flow generated from the planned development is expected to be reduced compared to existing conditions. The discharge connection points to the City storm drain are expected to change in the planned development, which would alter the amount of flow City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
draining to certain portions of City’s storm drain.3 Because the Project is not within a 100-year floodplain, there is no potential for the Project to impede or redirect floodflows.

Table 3.9-2. Peak Flow for the Project Site
Block
Size
(acres)
10-year Peak Flow 100-year Peak Flow
Existing (cfs) Proposed (cfs) Existing (cfs) Proposed (cfs) Aa 2.24 3.53 3.61 5.69 5.81
B 1.56 2.27 2.55 3.66 4.11
C 3.53 5.59 5.42 9.00 8.73
Parkb 1.34 2.28 1.20 3.68 1.93
Total 8.67 13.67 12.78 22.03 20.58
Source: Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 2020. Hydrology and Water Quality Report for Avalon Middlefield Mountain View, California. September 25. cfs = cubic feet per second
a. Area for Block A includes the area to be redeveloped as part of the Project. b. Programming for the park has not been identified at this time. It is assumed to be 10% impervious and 90% pervious.

The Project would be required to include stormwater management measures, in compliance with City and SCVURPPP C.3 guidelines. As described in Impact HWQ-1, the Project would include bioretention planters, which would treat stormwater runoff from roofs, surface parking, and emergency vehicle access roads. Drainage from the below-grade structures would be directed to sanitary sewer system. Storm runoff from the uncovered portion of the ramp to the garage would be pumped to the storm drain system. Protection from flood inundation due to local storm drains and Stevens Creek overflows may be considered in the design of underground parking. In addition, offsite storm drainage fees would be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits per Section

28.51(b), in compliance with Standard Condition of Approval SD-14 (Storm Drainage Fee) (see full condition of approval below). Because the proposed impervious area would smaller than the existing impervious area, SCVURPPP hydromodification controls, such as flow duration controls and volume controls, would not be required. The site would continue to discharge surface water runoff to existing waterways and storm drainage infrastructure; therefore, the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the surrounding area in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site or impede or redirect floodflows. Therefore, impacts on stormwater drainage patterns during Project operation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PW-84: Private Common Improvement Plans. Prepare on-site private common improvement plans consisting of the proposed demolition, fill, grading, retaining walls, drainage, private streets, common driveways, common utilities, public utilities, and other applicable improvements in accordance with Chapter 28 of the City Code, the Standard Design Criteria for Common Green and Townhouse-Type Condominiums, and the conditions of approval of the subdivision. The plans are to be drawn on 24”x36” sheets at a minimum scale of 1” = 20’. The improvement plans (10 sets), Improvement Plan Checklist, and items noted within the checklist 3 Langan Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. 2020. Hydrology and Water Quality Report for Avalon Middlefield, Mountain View, California. September 25.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-21 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
must be submitted together as a separate package concurrent with the first submittal of the building plans and parcel or final map. The improvement plans must be approved and signed by the Public Works Department. After the improvement plans have been signed by the Public Works Department, 10 full-size and 2 half-size black-line sets, 1 Xerox Mylar (4 mil) set of the plans, and CD with CAD file and PDF must be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the approval of the parcel or final map. CAD files shall meet the City’s Digital Data Submission Standards. Where both public and common improvement plans are required, the plans shall be combined into one set of plans.
• PW-85: Drainage Plans. On-site drainage plans shall be included in the building plans. • PW-86: Drainage Requirements. On-site parking lots and driveways (other than single-family residential) shall not surface-drain across public sidewalks or driveway aprons. A 2’x2’ inlet/cleanout box is required at or near the property line for connections to the City storm drains. For developments that do not require a subdivision map, a connection to the City’s storm main requires: (1) a written request to the Public Works Director; (2) payment of storm drainage fees; and (3) approval from the Public Works Department, unless the storm drainage fees were paid in the past for the property.
• PW-88: Surface Water Release. Provide a surface stormwater release for the lots, driveways, alleys, and private streets that prevents the buildings from being flooded in the event the storm drainage system becomes blocked or obstructed. Show and identify path of surface water release on the grading and drainage plans.
• PW-90: Storm Drain Hold Harmless Agreement. As portions of the site are or will be lower than the adjacent public street or the surface grade over the City’s storm mains, the owner shall sign an agreement to hold the City harmless against storm surcharges or blockages that may result in on-site flooding or damage prior to approval of the building permit or parcel or final map. • SD-14: Storm Drainage Fee. Prior to issuance of any building permits and prior to approval of the parcel or final map, the applicant shall pay the off-site storm drainage fee per Section

28.51(b) and with the rates in effect at time of payment.

Impact HWQ-3b Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. During construction, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Conditions of Approval, including FEP-05 (Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan) and FEP-22 (Stormwater Treatment [C.3]) (see full conditions of approval above). In addition, the Project would be required to implement BMPs to control construction site runoff, ensure proper stormwater control and treatment, reduce the discharge of pollution to the storm drain system, and ensure sufficient storm drain capacity for the Project. The Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems. The impact associated with Project construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Operation. All existing storm drains to the site would be removed and replaced. As discussed previously, stormwater runoff would be conveyed from the site to specific discharge points at the City’s storm drain. Runoff from the roofs, surface parking, and emergency vehicle access would be directed to bioretention planters prior to being discharged to the storm drain and treated on-site per Santa Clara County C.3 requirements. The post-development impervious area would be approximately 12 percent smaller compared with the pre-development condition. Therefore, the peak runoff rates and volumes would decrease compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, re-routing of the storm drain as part of the Project is expected to reduce flows to West Middlefield Road; no stormwater detention/attenuation is expected to be required for the Block A redevelopment. The expected peak discharge for the post-Project scenario is projected to be less than the existing peak discharge, and no detention/attenuation is expected for discharges to the City storm drain in Moffett Boulevard (Langan 2020).

A storm drain on the south side of Cypress Point Drive would handle runoff within Block B. An 18- inch storm drain in West Middlefield Road would handle runoff within Block A. Another storm drain on the south side of Cypress Point Drive would handle runoff from both Block C and the Park Parcel.

Runoff from the podium level would be directed to an emerging stormwater treatment technology to meet the C.3 requirements prior to being discharged to the City’s 60-inch storm drain in Moffett Boulevard, the 18-inch diameter storm drain in West Middlefield Road, or the replaced storm drain on the south side of Cypress Point Drive. Runoff from landscaped areas and the park that requires C.3 treatment prior to discharging is reasonably assumed to discharge to the storm drain on the south side of Cypress Point Drive.

Generally, as described above, the Project would reduce the amount of runoff discharging to the City storm drains in Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road. However, stormwater discharges to Cypress Point Drive would be introduced as a result of the Project. The proposed discharges would be directed to the replaced storm drain on the south side of Cypress Point Drive. The exact size of the replaced storm drain would be determined during the improvement plan phase as part of the final building design process. The replaced storm drain would be designed to convey peak 10-year stormflows, according to the City’s standard storm drain design criteria. The City requires the 10- year peak flow to be contained in the City drainage network, with the hydraulic grades below the street level (Langan 2020).

Based on a preliminary review of the City’s infrastructure planning documents, it is anticipated that the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would need to be increased in size to accommodate the Project and ensure that it is adequately sized to meet the applicable City hydraulic design criteria. The ultimate size of the upgraded storm drain would be confirmed during the final design/improvement plan phase and required to satisfy all applicable performance standards and criteria. If it is determined that the anticipated upgrades to the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would be necessary to accommodate existing flows to the storm drain from both the public right-of-way and the tributary private properties, as well as the Project site, then appropriate fee credit and/or reimbursement beyond the Project’s pro rata contribution may be appropriate, in accordance with applicable City procedures and requirements.

The Project would include LID and non-LID stormwater management techniques to ensure that post-development flows do not exceed the capacity of the existing storm drainage infrastructure. A variety of stormwater management measures would be implemented to reduce water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff, pursuant to applicable provisions of the MRP. Stormwater runoff would be treated to the maximum extent feasible by implementing a mixture of LID BMPs as City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-23 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
well as a media filtration system that complies with applicable provisions of Chapter 6 of the SCVURPPP C.3 handbook. The goal of LID would be to mimic the site’s predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that would filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall. LID includes specific techniques, tools, and materials to control the amount of impervious surface, increase infiltration, improve water quality by reducing runoff from developed sites, and reduce costly infrastructure. The LID and non-LID practices being considered for the Project are bioretention facilities or rain gardens (lined with underdrains as necessary), extended detention basins, media filters, lined grass swales and channels, and vegetated filter strips, the specifics of which would be confirmed as part of the final design process.

Stormwater runoff would be directed to approved permanent treatment controls, as described in the City’s guidance document, Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects, and as required by Standard Condition of Approval FEP-22 (Stormwater Treatment [C.3]) (see full condition of approval above). Stormwater would be treated on-site per Santa Clara County C.3 requirements, using the 4 percent rule for sizing treatment measures. The Project design would include stormwater management measures, such as bioretention areas and flow-through planters, all of which would reduce the volume of runoff entering the stormwater system. A Stormwater Management Plan would include information such as the type, location, and sizing requirements of the treatment controls that would be installed. Through compliance with the implementation of SCVURPPP, state NPDES Permit, and MRP stormwater runoff requirements, runoff water from the Project site would be treated prior to discharge.

The Final Stormwater Management Plan would certify that the proposed stormwater treatment controls would comply with the City’s guidelines and Provision C.3 of the MRP, as required by Standard Condition of Approval FEP-26 (Stormwater Management Plan—Third-Party Engineer’s Certification) (see full condition of approval below). Through implementation of stormwater management measures and compliance with Standard Conditions of Approval and other applicable regulatory requirements, runoff water from the Project site would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• FEP-26: Stormwater Management Plan – Third-Party Engineer’s Certification. The Final Stormwater Management Plan must be certified by a qualified third-party engineer that the proposed stormwater treatment controls comply with the City’s Guidelines and Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). A list of qualified.

Impact HWQ-4 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Project construction and operation would be required to comply with local, state, and federal regulations, including the NPDES Construction General Permit, Basin Plan, San Francisco Bay MRP, and the City’s Municipal Code. Commonly practiced BMPs, as required by these laws and regulations, would be implemented to control construction site runoff and reduce the discharge of pollutants to City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-24 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. As part of compliance with permit requirements during ground-disturbing or other construction activities, implementation of water quality control measures and BMPs would ensure that water quality standards would be achieved, including the water quality objectives that protect designated beneficial uses of surface and groundwater, as defined in the Basin Plan. Construction runoff would also have to be in compliance with the appropriate water quality objectives for the region. The NPDES Construction General Permit requires stormwater discharges to be free from pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objective or water quality standard, including designated beneficial uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

Groundwater dewatering is anticipated during Project construction. Dewatering would be conducted on a temporary basis (during the construction phase) and would not result in a significant impact on groundwater recharge or the depletion of groundwater supplies for the reasons described above. Groundwater would not be used during Project construction or operation.

An increase in the pervious area as a result of the Project would increase stormwater infiltration for groundwater recharge. Bioretention planters for stormwater management and new landscaping along the perimeter of the Project site, between each of the buildings, and within each courtyard would allow for groundwater recharge. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan. In addition, implementing the appropriate General Plan policies would require the protection of groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.9.4.4 Summary of Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact HWQ-1: Violate any
water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
groundwater quality.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HWQ-2: Substantially
decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that the Project would impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.9. Hydrology Water Quality 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.9-25 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact HWQ-3a: Substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through alteration of
the course of a stream or river
or the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that
would result in substantial
erosion, siltation, or flooding
on- or off-site or impede or
redirect floodflows.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HWQ-3b: Create or
contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact HWQ-4: Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.10 Land Use and Planning

3.10.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for land use and planning. It also describes impacts on land use and planning that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.10.4.4, Summary of Land Use Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include concerns related to the potential impacts the general plan amendments required to construct the Project on the existing community and the potential for the Project to conflict with the surrounding neighborhood.

3.10.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to land use and planning on the Project site and in the surrounding area. Section 3.10.3, Regulatory Setting, provides a description of the Project site’s land use designation and zoning.

The approximately 14.5-acre Project site is located at 555 West Middlefield Road in a largely residential area of the central portion of the City (Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description). The Project site is located just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard, and is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, SR 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west.

Surrounding land uses consist of multi-family residential and commercial uses, including a gas station immediately to the north as shown in Figure 2-2. West of Moffett Boulevard is the Moffett Mobile Home Park and Moffett Plaza (a small shopping center); south of Cypress Point Drive are professional offices. The Project site is situated approximately 1.1 miles north of SR 82 (El Camino Real), 0.6 miles south of US 101, and immediately west of SR 85.

Existing public transit services in the Project area are provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA), and the City. VTA operates bus and light rail transit (LRT) services in Santa Clara County, TMA provides the free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and Whisman areas, and Google, partnering with the City, voluntarily provides a free community shuttle service in Mountain View.

The Project site is within easy biking distance (0.45 mile) of the Mountain View Caltrain and LRT stations at the Mountain View Transit Center, which is served by numerous buses. The VTA bus routes, MVgo shuttle routes, Mountain View community shuttle route, and Caltrain/LRT stations in the Project vicinity as well as the bus/shuttle stops near the Project site are shown in Figure 3.14-2 in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation.

City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Bicycle facilities within 1 mile of the Project site include a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bicycle lanes (Class II bikeway), and shared bicycle routes/boulevards (Class III bikeway). These facilities are shown in Figure 3.14-3 in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation.

The site currently has 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) as well as leasing/amenity space (approximately 7,493 square feet) and related improvements. In addition, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located on the site.

3.10.3 Regulatory Setting

3.10.3.1 State
All cities and counties within California are required by the state to adopt a general plan that establishes goals and policies for long-term development, protection from environmental hazards, and conservation of identified natural resources (California Government Code Section 65300, et seq). Local general plans lay out the pattern of existing and planned residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, open space, and recreational land uses within a community. To facilitate implementation of planned growth patterns, general plans typically include goals and policies for the coordination of land use patterns with the development and maintenance of infrastructure facilities and utilities. Government Code Section 65302 lists seven “elements,” or chapters, that cities and counties must include in their general plans (i.e., Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, Safety).

Local jurisdictions implement their general plans by adopting zoning, subdivision, grading, and other ordinances. Zoning identifies the specific types of land uses that may be allowed on a given site and establishes the standards that will be imposed on new development. Zoning regulations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, typical standards promulgated in zoning ordinances concern the siting of structures relative to parcel boundaries; architectural designs, including height limitations; and the percentage of building coverage allowed relative to the overall square footage of a parcel. In some jurisdictions, the zoning ordinance permits construction “by right” (i.e., without the need for a hearing). In others, a conditional use permit or similar discretionary action is needed.

3.10.3.2 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan (Land Use Designation)
The City of Mountain View is organized into several geographic areas, referred to as planning areas.

The Project site is within the Moffett/Whisman Planning Area, which includes a variety of housing intensities, parks, trails, and neighborhood commercial uses. The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) also defines several change areas. Change areas are areas within the City that could change significantly over the life of the General Plan. The General Plan identifies new land uses and intensities for change areas, primarily in industrial areas along transportation corridors and in commercial locations. The Project site is not within a change area.

The existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Medium-Density Residential (City of Mountain View 2012). This designation is defined in the General Plan as follows:
• Medium-Density Residential allows for a mix of single- and multi-family housing, with a residential character appropriate to a range of densities and a broad mix of housing types.

City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• Allowed Land Uses: Single-family detached and attached residential, duplex residential, multifamily residential units; parks; and open space. • Density: 13 to 25 dwelling units per acre, approximately 27 to 60 residents per acre. • Height Guideline: Up to three stories.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code (Zoning District)
Chapter 36 of the Mountain View Municipal Code provides information regarding several zoning districts. These districts are used to determine the range of permitted land uses. According to the City of Mountain View Zoning Map (City of Mountain View 2016), the Project site is currently zoned “P” (Planned Community/Precise Plan). This zoning district permits uses that are permitted in other zoning districts, either alone or in combination with other uses. There are no height, area, or yard requirements, except those that may be imposed by a Precise Plan.

3.10.4 Impact Analysis

3.10.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing land use and planning.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause any of the following:

1. Physically divide an established community.

2. 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 following would result in no impacts and therefore are not evaluated in detail below:

Impacts Related to Conflicts with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), Specific Plans, or Local Coastal Programs. The Project site is in a highly urbanized residential area of the City. No habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or natural community conservation plans (NCCPs) are applicable. The nearest HCP/NCCP is the Santa Clara Valley HCP/NCCP, which encompasses San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy but not the City of Mountain View. In addition, no specific plans or local coastal programs are in effect at the Project site.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with an HCP, NCCP, specific plan, or local coastal program, and these topics are not analyzed further.

3.10.4.2 Methods
The analysis of land use within the Project area involved a review of the General Plan Land Use and Design Element, the City’s Land Use Designation and Zoning Maps, and the City’s Municipal Code to determine whether there would be any significant impacts under the above-referenced thresholds.

City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.10.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.10.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.10.4.4, Summary of Land Use Impacts.

Impact LUP-1 Physically divide an established community.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Upon Project completion, the total amount of development at the site would have an area of approximately 713,161 square feet, including the approximately 310,263 square feet of existing uses to remain at the Project site and the approximately 402,898 square feet of new uses to be constructed under the Project. The proposed buildings would be 52-feet-tall.

Surrounding existing land uses include other medium density multi-family land uses, a gas station, the Moffett Mobile Home Park, and Moffett Plaza (a small shopping center), and professional offices.

The Project site is currently zoned “P” (Planned Community/Precise Plan). To implement the Project and maintain consistency with surrounding communities, the applicant proposes a General Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to High-Low Density Residential, a new designation. The High-Low Density Residential designation would be a new designation that allows for multi-family housing such as apartments and condominiums with shared open space provided for common use, close to transit, shopping and public facilities. The allowed land uses under the High-Low Density Residential designation would be multi-family residential, parks, and open space. The allowable density under the High-Low Density Residential designation would be 36–50 dwelling units/acre, approximately 75-105 residents/acre. The height guideline under the High-Low Density Residential would be is up to 5 stories. In addition, the existing High-Density Residential designation in the General Plan would be revised. The allowable density under the High-Density Residential designation would be revised from 35-80 dwelling units/acre, approximately 75-170 residents/acre, to 50-80 dwelling units/acre, approximately 105- 170 residents/acre. Furthermore, a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium purposes, Planned Community Permit, and Development Review Permit, allowing construction of 334 new residential units and related improvements at existing buildings, along with the offer of dedication to the City of the Park Parcel for future public park uses, would be pursued. Because of the changes requested by the Project, the established community would be maintained, and no physical division would occur.

In addition, the Project and the construction of new infrastructure on-site would not affect existing connections between properties.

The Project would be an infill development added on to an existing apartment complex. The existing bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the Project site would be retained. In addition, a new pedestrian and bicycle path, approximately 580 feet in length, would be constructed through the Project site between Block B and the Park Parcel that would connect West Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive. The path would improve connectivity between land uses along West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive. Although the proposed buildings would be taller than existing buildings on the site, the Project would incorporate a pedestrian-friendly design, with pathways and common open space areas throughout the site, thereby promoting pedestrian activity City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
and connectivity. The construction of higher-density residential uses on the Project site would not result in the division of a community and would not introduce changes to access for any adjacent properties. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact LUP-2 Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The Project site is in the City of Mountain View and subject to the City’s General Plan and related Mountain View planning documents. As described in Section 3.10.3, Regulatory Setting, the General Plan land use designation for the Project site is Medium-Density Residential, which allows a mix of single- and multi-family housing, with a residential character appropriate to a range of densities and a broad mix of housing types; a density of 13 to 25 dwelling units per acre; and a height limit of three stories. The Project would include development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings, including a four-story building on Block B and a four-story building on Block C, which would not be consistent with the existing Medium-Density Residential General Plan land use designation. To implement the Project, the applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to High-Low Density Residential. In addition, a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium purposes, Planned Community Permit, and Development Review Permit to allow construction of 329 new residential units and related improvements, along with the offer of dedication to the City of the Park Parcel for future public park uses, would be pursued. However, the Project would generally conform to the intent of the land use designation for the Project site and adhere to the applicable General Plan policies, as discussed in Table 3.10-1.

The Planning Commission and the City Council, as the City’s legislative body, in deciding whether to approve the Project, would ultimately decide whether the Project would be consistent with the General Plan. The ultimate finding of General Plan consistency does not require that a project be entirely consistent with each individual General Plan policy. A proposed project can be generally consistent with a general plan, even though the project may not promote every applicable goal and policy. 1 Because the Project is pursuing a General Plan amendment, zoning map amendment, approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium purposes, Planned Community Permit, and Development Review Permit approval, and is generally consistent with the applicable General Plan policies, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 1 To be consistent, a project need only be “in agreement or harmony” with the plan, meaning that considering all the plan’s aspects, the project will further the plan’s objectives and policies and not obstruct their attainment. (See Friends of Lagoon Valley, supra, 154 Call.App.4th at 817; City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, 25.Cal.App.868,879 (1994).) In making this consistency determination, the City Council will evaluate the Project against the City’s General Plan as a whole. A project “need not be in perfect conformity with each and every [general plan] policy” since “no project [can] completely satisfy every policy stated in [a general plan].” (See, e.g., Sequoya Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal.App.4th.704,718 (1993).) Instead, a project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and will not obstruct their attainment.” (See, e.g., Corona-Norco Unified School Dist. V. City of Corona, 17.Cal.App.4th.985,994 (1993).) City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.10-1. Consistency with Relevant General Plan Land Use Policies Goal/Policy
Number General Plan Policy Consistency Determination
Goal LUD-3 A diverse, balanced, and
flexible mix of land uses that
supports a strong economy,
complete neighborhoods,
transit use, and community
health.

Consistent. The Project would include mainly
residential uses; however, pathways and common
open space areas would extend throughout the
Project site and between the buildings, and a
bicycle path would extend from West Middlefield
Road to Cypress Point Drive through the Project
site. These design features would promote a
connected neighborhood and community health.

Policy LUD 3.1 Land Use and
Transportation. Focus higher
land use intensities and
densities within 0.5 mile of
public transit service and along
major commute corridors.

Consistent. The Project would focus its higher
land use intensity along the major commute
corridors of Moffett Boulevard and West
Middlefield Road and adjacent to VTA bus routes.

Policy LUD 3.2 Mix of Land Uses. Encourage a
mix of land uses, housing
types, retail and public
amenities, and public
neighborhood open spaces that
are accessible to the
community.

Consistent. The Project would include a mix of
housing types and public amenities, including
affordable dwelling units; approximately 145,474
square feet of common usable open space; 1.3
acres of land along Cypress Point Drive, which
would be offered for dedication to the City for
future public park uses; and a publicly accessible
pedestrian and bicyclist path that would connect
West Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive
through the Project site.

Policy LUD 3.4 Land Use Conflict. Minimize
conflicts between different
land uses.

Consistent. The Project site is in an area with
predominately residential land uses, compatible
with the proposed high-density residential land
use of the Project. The Project would not involve
the displacement of any existing residents.

Policy LUD 3.5 Diversity. Encourage
residential developments,
serving a range of diverse
households and incomes.

Consistent. The Project would include up to 275
new market-rate units and up to 49 affordable
units, which would service a diverse range of
households and incomes. In addition, the Project
would not involve the any displacement of existing
residents, which would help preserve existing
housing stock.

Goal LUD-6 Distinctive neighborhoods that
preserve and enhance the
quality of life for residents.

Consistent. The Project would be integrated into
the existing medium-density neighborhood by
incorporating top, middle, and base design
elements and stepping the massing down to four
stories. In addition, the Project involves upgrades
to various on-site amenities, as well as the
installing a new publicly accessible pedestrian and
bicycle path. The Project would also offer to
dedicate the Park Parcel to the City for future
public park uses.

Policy LUD 6.1 Neighborhood Character.

Ensure that new development
in or near residential
Consistent. The Project’s design and architectural
elements would be distinct and feature
contemporary materials but would not conflict
City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Goal/Policy
Number General Plan Policy Consistency Determination
neighborhoods is compatible
with neighborhood character.
with the character of the neighborhood. In
addition, the proposed buildings would be obscured
by proposed landscaping and setbacks and subject
to the City’s development review process, ensuring
compatibility with the existing neighborhood’s
character.

Policy LUD 6.3 Street Presence. Encourage
building façades and frontages
that create a presence at the
street and along interior
pedestrian paseos or
pathways.

Consistent. The Project would feature
contemporary materials and detailing, including
plaster, wood-like materials, accent walls,
ledgestone, railings, and trellises, which would
create a presence at the street level and along
interior pedestrian pathways and common open
space areas.

Policy LUD 6.5 Pedestrian and Bicycling
Improvements. Support
pedestrian and bicycling
improvements and
connections between
neighborhoods.

Consistent. The Project would support pedestrian
and bicycling improvements and connections
between neighborhoods through construction of
pathways throughout the Project site and
installation of a new public pedestrian and bicycle
path, which would extend from West Middlefield
Road to Cypress Point Drive through the Project
site.

Policy LUD 8.3 Enhanced Publicly
Accessible Bicycle and
Pedestrian Connections.

Encourage new and existing
developments to enhance
publicly accessible bicycle,
pedestrian, and transit
connections.

Consistent. The Project would be constructed on
an infill site near public transit opportunities and
would include construction of pathways
throughout the Project site and a new pedestrian
and bicycle path, which would extend from West
Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive through
the Project site and enhance publicly accessible
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connections.

Policy LUD 8.4 Pedestrian-oriented Civic
and Public Spaces. Create and
encourage new pedestrianoriented civic and public
spaces throughout the City.

Consistent. The Project would include common
open space areas throughout the Project site and
would install a new public pedestrian and bicycle
path that would connect West Middlefield Road to
Cypress Point Drive. In addition, 1.3 acres would
be offered for dedication to the City for a future
public park area along Cypress Point Drive.

Policy LUD 8.5 Pedestrian and Bicycle
Amenities. Encourage
attractive pedestrian and
bicycle amenities in new and
existing developments and
ensure that roadway
improvements address the
needs of pedestrians and
bicyclists.

Consistent. The Project would include a variety of
bicycle and pedestrian amenities, including 334
bicycle parking spaces, with 33 public short-term
bicycle parking spaces; common and private open
space areas; courtyards; pathways throughout the
Project site; and a new public pedestrian and
bicycle path. The path would extend from West
Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive through
the Project site.

City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Goal/Policy
Number General Plan Policy Consistency Determination
Goal LUD-9 Buildings that enhance the
public realm and integrate
with the surrounding
neighborhood.

Consistent. The Project would be integrated into
the existing medium-density neighborhood by
incorporating certain design elements and
stepping down the massing. Landscaping would
also help to obscure views of some of the buildings
and many of the existing trees would be preserved
on-site. The public realm would be enhanced with
proposed common open space areas, courtyards,
and pathways throughout the Project site.

Policy LUD 9.1 Height and Setback
Transitions. Ensure that new
development includes sensitive
height and setback transitions
to adjacent structures and
surrounding neighborhoods.

Consistent. The Project has been designed to
include sensitive height and setback transitions so
that it would blend into the fabric of the
neighborhood while still being distinctive.

Although the Project would result in a substantial
increase in building height and mass compared with
existing conditions, the building mass would be
terraced to create a stepped effect from the
building perimeter. This would allow the majority
of the building massing to be setback from public
views of the Project.

Policy LUD 9.3 Enhanced Public Space.

Ensure that development
enhances public spaces
through these measures:
⚫ Encourage strong
pedestrian-oriented designs
with visible, accessible
entrances and pathways
from the street.
⚫ Encourage pedestrianscaled design elements such
as stoops, canopies, and
porches.
⚫ Encourage connections to
pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
⚫ Locate buildings near the
edge of the sidewalk.
⚫ Encourage design
compatibility with
surrounding uses.
⚫ Locate parking lots to the
rear or side of buildings.
⚫ Encourage building
articulation and use of
special materials to provide
visual interest.
⚫ Promote and regulate highquality sign materials,
colors, and designs that are
Consistent. The Project would include a variety of
features to enhance the public space, including 334
bicycle parking spaces, with 33 public short-term
bicycle parking spaces; common open space areas;
courtyards; pathways throughout the Project site;
a new pedestrian and bicycle path, which would
extend from West Middlefield Road to Cypress
Point Drive through the Project site; and a
distinctive architectural design. To provide visual
interest, the proposed buildings would feature
contemporary materials, detailing, and decorative
elements.

City of Mountain View Section 3.10. Land Use Planning
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.10-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Goal/Policy
Number General Plan Policy Consistency Determination
compatible with site and
building design.
⚫ Encourage attractive waterefficient landscaping on the ground level.

Policy LUD 9.5 View Preservation. Preserve
significant views throughout
the community.

Consistent. Given the location of sensitive viewers
and existing intervening development, the proposed
buildings and related improvements would not
block or adversely impact views of the Santa Cruz
Mountains or other significant views for any
sensitive viewers.

Policy LUD 9.6 Light and Glare. Minimize
light and glare from new
development
Consistent. The proposed buildings would create
an additional source of light and glare at the
Project site. However, the Project would be subject
to the City’s development approval process. These
reviews would ensure that the proposed design,
construction materials, and lighting would be
consistent with the City’s community standards for
residential development and would not adversely
affect the visual quality of the area or create a
substantial new source of light or glare.

Goal LUD-10 High-quality, sustainable, and
healthful building designs and
development.

Consistent. The Project would be built to exceed
CALGreen standards, achieve Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) for homes
certification, which would involve incorporating
many energy-efficiency measures, including
Energy Star appliances, electric vehicle charging
stations, and drought-resistant landscaping and
low-flow irrigation systems.

Policy LUD

10.5 Building Energy Efficiency.

Incorporate energy-efficient
design features and materials
into new and remodeled
buildings.

Consistent. The Project would be built to meet
CALGreen standards, achieve LEED certification for
homes, which would involve incorporating many
energy-efficiency measures.

Source: City of Mountain View 2012.

3.10.4.4 Summary of Land Use Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact LUP-1: Physically divide an
established community.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact LUP-2: Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict
with any plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.11 Noise
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for noise. It also describes impacts associated with noise that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.11.4.4, Summary of Noise Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include general noise concerns and requests for sound walls to reduce impacts associated with existing conditions.

3.11.1 Introduction

3.11.1.1 Overview of Noise and Sound
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, an evaluation of noise is necessary when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project.

Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies over the entire spectrum; therefore, noise measurements are weighted more heavily toward frequencies to which humans are sensitive through a process referred to as A-weighting. Table 3.11-1 summarizes typical A-weighted sound levels for different noise sources.

The effects of noise on people generally fit within three categories:
⚫ Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; ⚫ Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and ⚫ Physiological effects such as hearing loss.

Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants generally experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation exists in the individual thresholds of annoyance, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop, based on an individual’s past experiences with noise. Therefore, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted, the so-called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 1 dB cannot typically be perceived by the human ear, a change in City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-1. Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Sound Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
100
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
90 Diesel truck at 50 mph at 50 feet Food blender at 3 feet 80 Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 feet 70 Vacuum cleaner at 3 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Large business office
Quiet urban area, daytime 50 Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban area, nighttime 40 Theater, large conference room (background)
Quiet suburban area, nighttime
30 Library
Quiet rural area, nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) Rustling of leaves 20
Broadcast/recording studio
10 Lowest threshold of human hearing 0 Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/ documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed: September 2, 2020. dBA = A-weighted decibel
sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise; in practice, for example, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway would typically need to double to result in a noticeable increase in noise (California Department of Transportation 2013). To summarize:
⚫ Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dB cannot generally be perceived;
⚫ Outside the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered just perceivable or barely noticeable; ⚫ A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
⚫ A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system.

The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion, which is the reason the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion but, instead, combine logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 A-weighted decibels (dBA), the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.

If the difference between two noise sources is 10 dBA or more, the higher noise source will dominate, and the resultant noise level will be equal to the noise level of the higher noise source. In general, if the difference between two noise sources is 0 to 1 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 3 dBA higher than the higher noise source, or both sources if the sources are equal. If the difference between two noise sources is 2 to 3 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 2 dBA above the higher noise source. If the difference between two noise sources is 4 to 10 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 1 dBA higher than the higher noise source. Specifically, when adding sound levels, the relationships presented in Table 3.11-2 may be used to approximate combined overall sound levels.

Table 3.11-2. Rules for Combining Sound Levels by Decibel Addition When two decibel values differ by…
…add the following amount
to the higher decibel value Example
0 to 1 dB 3 dB 60 dB + 61 dB = 64 dB
2 to 3 dB 2 dB 60 dB + 63 dB = 65 dB
4 to 9 dB 1 dB 60 dB + 69 dB = 70 dB
10 dB or more 0 dB 60 dB + 75 dB = 75 dB
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/ documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed: September 2, 2020.

Notes: dB = decibel
The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of that sound increases. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface, such as grass, attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface, such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound typically attenuates at a rate of 6 dB to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance, depending on the intervening surface (e.g. vegetative surface or concrete, etc.).

For a line source, such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound typically attenuates at a rate of 3 dB to 4.5 dB per doubling of distance, depending on the intervening surface. Atmospheric conditions, including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance and affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Barriers, such as buildings and topography, which block the line of sight between a source and receiver, also increase the attenuation of sound over distance.

Solid walls, buildings and berms can result in noise attenuation in the form of shielding if the line of sight between the source and receiver is blocked. Trees and foliage do to not generally result in perceptible reductions in noise levels unless the foliage is sufficiently dense to completely block the view along the propagation path (Federal Highway Administration 2019). In general, if foliage is less City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
than 10 meters in width, no attenuation occurs. If the foliage is close to 20 meters in thickness and the complete line of sight is blocked between the source and the receiver, attenuation of approximately 1 dB or less would be expected to occur (Federal Highway Administration 2019).

Community noise environments are generally perceived as quiet when the 24-hour average noise level is below 45 dBA, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and loud above 60 dBA. Very noisy urban residential areas are around 70 dBA day-night level (Ldn) or the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically between 65 and 75 dBA Ldn or CNEL. Incremental increases of 3 to 5 dB to the existing 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) or the Ldn/CNEL are common thresholds for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. However, there is evidence that incremental thresholds in this range may not be sufficiently protective in areas where noise-sensitive uses are located and the Ldn or CNEL is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA).

In these areas, limiting noise increases to 3 dB or less is recommended (Federal Transit Administration 2006). Noise intrusions that cause short-term interior noise levels to rise above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA for 8 continuous hours or longer can cause permanent hearing damage.

3.11.1.2 Overview of Ground-borne Vibration
The operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile-driving equipment and other impact devices (e.g., pavement breakers), creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of the ground and downward. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of this type of equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people to damage for structures.

Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is referred to as peak particle velocity (PPV), the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude.

Vibration amplitude attenuates (or decreases) over distance. This attenuation is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground as well as the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling (variations in geology can result in different vibration levels).

The following equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions (Federal Transit Administration 2006). PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet:

PPV = PPVref x (25/distance)1.5
Table 3.11-3 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at a reference distance of 25 feet as well as other distances, as determined with use of the attenuation equation above.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-3. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV at
25 Feet
PPV at
50 Feet
PPV at
75 Feet
PPV at
100 Feet
PPV at
175 Feet
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0146 0.0095 0.0041
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0067 0.0044 0.0019
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2020.

Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity

3.11.1.3 Terminology
A brief summary of the noise and vibration concepts and terminology used in this assessment is provided below.
⚫ Sound. A vibratory disturbance transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air or water that is capable of being detected by a receiving mechanism such as the human ear or a microphone.
⚫ Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. ⚫ Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of the sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion; rather, they combine logarithmically. For instance, if two identical noise sources each produce noise levels of 50 dBA (see definition immediately following), the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.
⚫ A-Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. The dBA scale is the most widely used for environmental noise assessments.
⚫ Maximum Sound Levels (Lmax). The maximum sound level measured during a given measurement period.
⚫ Minimum Sound Levels (Lmin). The minimum sound level measured during a given measurement period.
⚫ Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The equivalent steady-state sound level that, in a stated period of time, would contain the same acoustical energy. The 1-hour A-weighted equivalent sound level (Leq 1h) is the energy average of A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 1-hour period. ⚫ Day-Night Level (Ldn). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with a 10 dB penalty added to sound levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ⚫ Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Ldn and CNEL are typically within 1 dBA of each other and, for all intents and purposes, interchangeable.
⚫ Vibration Velocity Level (or Vibration Decibel Level, VdB). The root-mean-square velocity amplitude for measured ground motion, expressed in dB.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
⚫ Peak Particle Velocity (PPV). A measurement of ground vibration, defined as the maximum speed at which a particle in the ground is moving, expressed in inches per second (in/sec). ⚫ Noise-Sensitive Land Uses. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect use of the land. Noisesensitive land uses typically include single- and multi-family residential areas, health care facilities, lodging facilities, and schools. Recreational areas where quiet is an important part of the environment can also be considered sensitive to noise. Some commercial areas may be considered noise sensitive as well, such as outdoor restaurant seating areas.

3.11.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to noise on the Project site and in the vicinity of the Project site.

3.11.2.1 Existing Land Uses
The approximately 14.5-acre Project site is an already-developed, urban, infill site that is located at 555 West Middlefield Road in a largely residential area of the central portion of the City (Figures 2-1 and 2-2 in Chapter 2, Project Description). The Project site has existing residential uses and related improvements and is located just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard. It is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, SR 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west. Immediately surrounding properties consist of multi-family residential and commercial uses, including a gas station to the north as shown in Figure 2-2. The Project site is situated approximately 1.1 miles north of SR 82 (El Camino Real), 0.6 miles south of US 101, and immediately west of SR 85.

3.11.2.2 Existing Noise Levels
Noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project site include neighborhoods with predominantly multi-family residences, commercial and office uses, hotel uses, the German International School of Silicon Valley, and the Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley. The closest sensitive land uses to the Project site are the existing on-site residences adjacent to proposed buildings on the site (approximately 15 feet from future Project construction areas/buildings). The closest off-site sensitive receptors are located across Cypress Point Drive, approximately 60 feet south of the Project site. Other nearby sensitive uses are located across West Middlefield Road, north of the Project site, approximately 100 feet from the Project site. The Moffett Mobile Home Park is located across Moffett Boulevard, west of the Project site, approximately 100 feet from the Project site.

The existing ambient noise environment in the Project vicinity is characteristic of an urban environment (e.g., local street traffic, freeway traffic, aircraft overflights, residential and commercial noise sources). Noise from vehicle traffic on Moffett Boulevard, West Middlefield Road, and SR 85 is the dominant noise source at the Project site. A noise measurement survey, consisting of long-term (24-hour) and short-term (15-minute) ambient noise measurements, was conducted to characterize existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The locations of the noise measurement sites are shown in Figure 3.11-1. Tables 3.11-4 and 3.11-5 summarize the results of the noise measurement survey. The complete dataset of measured noise levels is included in Appendix 3.11-1.

W Middleeld Rd
E Middleeld Rd
W Valley Fwy
Central Ave
Mo
ett Blvd
Cypress Point Dr
85 INTERSTATE
ST–1
ST–2
ST–3
LT–2
LT–1
Figure 3.11-1
Noise Measurement Locations
555 West Middlefield Road
Long-term noise
measurement locations
Short-term noise
measurement locations
Project Site
Legend
Source: Google Earth Pro, 2020
0 Feet
200 400
ST
LT
ICF Graphics…00214.20 (11-30-20) JC
City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-4. Long-term Noise Level Measurements in and around the Project Site Measurement
No. Measurement Location Date and Time
Measured Ldn
February 7 to
8, 2018
LT-1 Located near the northeast corner of the
Project site, in a tree just north of the existing
multi-family residential building. Located
about 125 feet from the centerline of
Middlefield Road but at a lower elevation.

Start: Wednesday
2/7/2018 at 12:15 p.m.

End: Thursday
2/8/2018 at 12:15 p.m.

69.4 LT-2 Located along the western perimeter of the
Project site south of the Valero gas station, in a
tree in the existing parking lot. Located about
70 feet from the centerline of Moffett
Boulevard.

Start: Wednesday
2/7/2018 at 11:55 p.m.

End: Thursday
2/8/2018 at 1:55 p.m.

68.9 Source: ICF 2018. The complete dataset of measured noise levels is included in Appendix 3.11-1.

Notes: LT = long-term (24-hour/multi-day) ambient noise measurement.

Although these measurements were taken in 2018, they are expected to be more realistic of typical noise conditions in the Project area than measurements taken in 2021 because the State of California and Bay Area counties have been under COVID-19 pandemic-related shelter-in-place orders. The pandemic has generally resulted in diminished vehicle traffic throughout the Bay Area and therefore reduced noise levels.

Table 3.11-5. Short-term Noise Levels Measurements in and around the Project Site Measurement
No.

Measurement
Location
Date and
Time
Primary Observed
Noise Sources
Measured Noise
Level (dBA)
Leq Lmax Lmin
ST-1 Along the northern
perimeter of Project
site, approximately 60
feet from the centerline
of West Middlefield
Road
02/07/201
8 at 1:21
p.m.

Traffic along West
Middlefield Road

65.7 79.0 50.3
ST-2 Near southeast corner
of Project site, just
north of Cypress Point
Drive and SR 85
02/07/201
8 at 12:39
p.m.

Predominantly traffic on
SR 85 and Cypress Point
Drive

61.5 71.0 55.1
ST-3 Along the southern
perimeter of Project
site, approximately 80
feet north of the
centerline of Cypress
Point Drive
02/07/201
8 at 12:45
p.m.

Some wildlife noise, such
as birds chirping; some
very minor vehicle noise
from a nearby parking lot;
and minor traffic along
Cypress Point Drive.

49.4 67.7 39.9
Source: ICF 2018. The complete dataset of measured noise levels is included in Appendix 3.11-1.

Notes: ST = short-term (~15-minute) ambient noise measurement.

Although these measurements were taken in 2018, they are expected to be more realistic of typical noise conditions in the Project area than measurements taken in 2021 because the State of California and Bay Area counties have been under COVID-19 pandemic-related shelter-in-place orders. The pandemic has generally resulted in diminished vehicle traffic throughout the Bay Area and therefore reduced noise levels.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As shown in Table 3.11-4, the existing long-term noise level along the northwest side of the Project site, near Moffett Boulevard, was measured to be 69.4 dBA Ldn (refer to Measurement No. LT-1). As shown in Table 3.11-5, the short-term noise measurement taken closest to this location (along the northern perimeter of the Project site, Measurement ST-1) was 65.7 dBA Leq, with an Lmax of 79.0 and an Lmin of 50.3 during the 15-minute measurement.

The measured existing long-term noise level along the eastern side of the Project site, near the area where East Middlefield Road crosses over SR 85, was 68.9 dBA Leq (refer to Measurement No. LT-2).

As shown in Table 3.11-5, the nearest short-term noise measurement was taken near the southeast corner of the Project site (Measurement No. ST-2) and recorded a 15-minute Leq noise level of approximately 61.5 dBA Leq during the early afternoon. The short-term average noise level along the southern perimeter of the Project site (Measurement No. ST-3), which was not close to either West Middlefield Road or Moffett Boulevard, was noticeably quieter than the noise levels in areas of the Project site located near roadways. Noise at this location was measured to be approximately 49.4 dBA Leq during the 15-minute measurement taken in the early afternoon.

Although some parking lot noise or wildlife noises (e.g., birds chirping) may have been captured by these measurements, the predominant noise source for all measurements was traffic from the nearby roadways (Moffett Boulevard, West Middlefield Road, and SR 85) adjacent to the Project site.

In addition, because traffic noise is the primary source contributing to ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity (and in most urban areas), existing traffic noise levels in the Project area were based on traffic data provided by Hexagon to estimate existing ambient noise levels at and around the Project site. Refer to Table 3.11-6 for modeled existing traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the Project vicinity.

3.11.3 Regulatory Setting

3.11.3.1 Federal
Federal Transit Administration
Noise
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed general assessment criteria for analyzing construction noise. This assessment is based on the simultaneous operation of the two noisiest pieces of equipment in accordance with FTA guidance. The general assessment criteria for construction noise limits are summarized in Table 3.11-7.

To address the issue of combined noise levels, a reasonable worst-case scenario is evaluated. The evaluation assesses combined noise levels from the two loudest pieces of equipment that would operate simultaneously, conservatively assumed to be located adjacent to one another. In addition, the FTA construction noise criteria include an assessment of whether or not an increase in the ambient noise level greater than 10 dBA would occur with operation of the combined noise from the two noisiest pieces of equipment. A 10 dBA increase in the ambient noise level would represent a doubling of loudness.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-6. Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels along Roadway Segments in the Project Vicinity
Roadway Segment Location Existing Ldn
Moffett Boulevard between US 101 ramps 69.3
Moffett Boulevard between US 101 southbound ramps and Leong Drive 68.2 Moffett Boulevard between Leong Drive and SR 85 northbound ramps 68.5 Moffett Boulevard between SR 85 ramps 68.1
Moffett Boulevard between SR 85 SB ramps and Middlefield 66.3 Moffett Boulevard between Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive 67.0 Moffett Boulevard between Cypress Point Drive and Central Expressway 55.1 Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard 67.7
Middlefield Road between Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard 69.0 Middlefield Road between Moffett Boulevard and Easy Street 68.7 Middlefield Road between Easy Street and Tyrella Avenue 68.2 Middlefield Road between Tyrella Avenue and North Whisman Road 66.5 Middlefield Road between Whisman Road and Ellis Street 56.0 Easy Street south of Middlefield Road 57.0
Easy Street north of Middlefield Road 71.7
Central Expressway east of Moffett Boulevard 72.3
Central Expressway west of Moffett Boulevard 69.2
Shoreline Boulevard south of Middlefield Road 68.9
Shoreline Boulevard north of Middlefield Road 68.7
Source: ICF 2018. The complete dataset of measured noise levels is included in Appendix 3.11-1.

Notes:

All traffic noise levels estimated at a distance of 35 feet from the roadway centerline.

Actual ambient noise levels may be louder because these levels include traffic noise only from vehicles.

Table 3.11-7. FTA General Assessment Criteria for Construction Noise Land Use
One-hour Leq (dBA)
Day Night
Residential 90 80
Commercial 100 100
Industrial 100 100
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: July 30, 2020.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Vibration
FTA has also developed guidelines for the assessment of vibration impacts. Table 3.11-8 provides the FTA recommended vibration damage criteria for buildings (see also the California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] guidelines for assessment of potential damage to buildings due to groundborne vibration provided in Table 3.11-11).

Table 3.11-8. Federal Transit Administration General Assessment Criteria for Vibration Damage Building Category
PPV
(in/sec)
Approximate
VdB (microinch/second)
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber buildings (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry buildings (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/ transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed:

August 14, 2020.

In addition to building damage, sensitive receptors may experience annoyance with noise generated by ground-borne vibration. As indicated in Table 3.11-9, FTA’s general assessment criteria for evaluating potential construction-generated vibration impacts parses annoyance related to interference with interior operations, sleep, and institutional daytime use as a function of the frequency of the vibration event, according to three land use categories.

Except for long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep.

People may tolerate infrequent, short-duration vibration levels, but human annoyance to vibration becomes more pronounced if the vibration is continuous or occurs frequently.

3.11.3.2 State
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Sound Transmission, establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is either the Ldn or CNEL, consistent with the Environmental Protection Element of the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) (discussed below).

Confirming compliance with Title 24 interior noise standards occurs during the permit review process and generally protects a proposed project’s users from existing ambient outdoor noise levels. If determined necessary, a detailed acoustical analysis of exterior wall and window assemblies may be required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-9. Federal Transit Administration Ground-borne Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category
GVB Impact Levels
(VdB re 1 micro-inch/sec)
Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Eventsc
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations
65 VdBd 65 VdB 65 VdB
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep
72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use
75 VdB 78 VdB 80 VdB
Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2018.

GVB = ground-borne vibration; VdB = vibration decibels. a. “Frequent events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events from the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category.
b. “Occasional events” are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events from the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have operations in that range.
c. “Infrequent events” are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines.
d. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes.

California Department of Transportation
Caltrans provides guidelines regarding vibration associated with construction and operation of transportation infrastructure. Table 3.11-10 provides Caltrans’ vibration guidelines for potential damage to different types of structures.

Table 3.11-10. Caltrans Vibration Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures Structure Type and Condition
Maximum Peak Particle Velocity (PPV, in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings 0.12 0.08
Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: August 30, 2020.

Note: Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or the use of drop balls).

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Ground-borne vibration and noise can also disturb people who are generally more sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours when sleeping than during daytime waking hours. Numerous City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. Table 3.11-11 provides Caltrans’ guidelines regarding vibration annoyance potential (expressed here as PPV).

Table 3.11-11. Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential Human Response
Maximum PPV (in/sec)
Transient Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: August 30, 2020.

Note: Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or the use of drop balls).

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

3.11.3.3 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Noise Element of the General Plan, adopted in 2012, includes land use compatibility standards that outline acceptable outdoor noise environment standards for various land use categories. In general, the purpose behind land use compatibility standards is to help jurisdictions determine if the existing ambient noise level in a given area would be compatible with a particular developed use.

However, it can also be used to determine if a new use would result in ambient noise levels greater than what would be considered “acceptable” for certain land use types. The following summarizes the compatibility standards for single-family residential buildings included in the General Plan:
• Normally Acceptable: up to 55 dBA Ldn
• Conditionally Unacceptable: 55–70 dBA Ldn
• Normally Unacceptable: 70–75 dBA Ldn
• Clearly Unacceptable: 75+ dBA Ldn
The following summarizes the compatibility standards for multi-family residential buildings included in the General Plan:
• Normally Acceptable: up to 60 dBA Ldn
• Conditionally Unacceptable: 60–70 dBA Ldn
• Normally Unacceptable: 70–75 dBA Ldn
• Clearly Unacceptable: 75+ dBA Ldn
Refer to Table 3.11-12 for the General Plan land use compatibility guidelines for all land uses in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012).

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-12. City of Mountain View Land Use Compatibility Guidelines City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As described in the General Plan, "normally acceptable" noise levels are considered satisfactory for residential uses, assuming that “any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.” In areas where the noise level is "conditionally unacceptable" for residential uses, “new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” In areas where the noise level is "normally unacceptable," new construction or development “should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.” In areas where noise levels are clearly unacceptable, “new construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.” The General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to noise in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Policy NOI 1.1: Land Use Compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Environmental Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions (Table 7.1 of the General Plan, reproduced as Table 3.11-12, above).

Policy NOI 1.2: Noise-sensitive Land Uses. Require new development of noise-sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
⚫ New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas.
⚫ New multi-family residential developments (and hotels, per Table 3.11-12, above) shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas.

Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments.
⚫ Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn in all new single-family and multi-family residential units.
⚫ Where new single-family and multi-family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transportation sources, such as train or airport operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA (Lmax) through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transportation noise events, such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

Policy NOI 1.3: Exceeding Acceptable Noise Thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City of Mountain View (City) shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction requirements to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels and meet acceptable thresholds or, for uses with no active outdoor use areas, ensure acceptable interior noise levels.

Policy NOI 1.4: Site Planning. Use site planning and project design strategies to achieve the noise level standards in NOI 1.1 (land use compatibility) and in NOI 1.2 (noise-sensitive land uses). The use of noise barriers shall be considered after all practical design-related noise measures have been integrated into the project design.

Policy NOI 1.5: Major Roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Policy NOI 1.6: Sensitive Uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals, and child-care facilities.

Policy NOI 1.7: Stationary Sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.

Policy NOI 1.8: Moffett Federal Airfield. Support efforts to minimize noise impacts from Moffett Federal Airfield in coordination with Santa Clara County’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code contains noise regulations to protect the community from excessive noise. The code specifies how noise will be measured and regulated. Specifically, the City Municipal Code addresses noise issues and protects the community from substantial noise sources such as construction activity, animals, amplified sound. and stationary equipment.

Regarding noise from construction and demolition activities, Section 8.70.1 of the City Municipal Code restricts the hours of construction activity to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. During these exempt hours, the City Municipal Code does not include numerical thresholds that apply to construction noise. Authorized land uses and construction activity established through the City’s discretionary land use permit process may be subject to specific noise conditions of approval that may be more restrictive.

Section 21.26 of the City Municipal Code identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning [HVAC] systems), idling delivery trucks, loading/unloading activities, recreational activities, and parking lot operations. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night, unless it has been demonstrated that such operations will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort, or general welfare of residents who are subjected to such noise and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.

3.11.4 Impact Analysis

3.11.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on the existing noise environment.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would result in any of the following:

1. Generate 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.

2. Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
CEQA does not explicitly define what noise level increase would be considered substantial. The Methods section below explains the applicable criteria applied to various noise and vibration sources to determine if significant Project impacts would occur.

3.11.4.2 Methods
The noise impact analysis evaluates temporary noise and vibration levels resulting from Project construction activities, operational noise generated by sound-generating equipment and on-site activities, traffic noise associated with Project-related changes in traffic patterns, and exposure of sensitive receptors at the Project site and in the vicinity to traffic and other noise sources generated by the Project, as applicable. The methodology used for the analysis of each noise or vibration source is included below, and a summary of the applicable criteria is included in Table

3.11-13.

Table 3.11-13. Applicable Criteria Used as Significance Thresholds for Noise and Vibration Analyses Topic Applicable Criteria
Construction Noise • Construction would result in a significant noise impact if not conducted in accordance with applicable local regulations (e.g., timing restrictions in Section 8.70.1 of the City Municipal Code).

Construction Vibration –
Sleep Disturbance
• Vibration would result in a significant vibration impact related to sleep disturbance if calculated vibration levels from nighttime construction would exceed the Caltrans strongly perceptible PPV of 0.1 in/sec at nearby residences during nighttime hours (refer to Table 3.11-11).

Construction Vibration –
Damage
• Vibration would result in a significant vibration impact related to potential damage if calculated vibration levels would exceed the applicable Caltrans vibration structural damage criteria for nearby structures (contained in Table 3.11-10).

Operational Traffic
Noise
• Project-related traffic would result in a significant impact if:
o A Project-related increase of 3 dB or more would occur where the existing and/or resulting noise levels are in any category other than “acceptable”a or
o A 5 dBA or more increase would occur where the existing and/or resulting noise levels are “acceptable.”a
Heating, Cooling, and
Ventilation Equipment
During Operation
• Equipment noise would result in a significant operational noise impact if it would exceed the City of Mountain View Municipal Code maximum allowable noise level for stationary equipment of 55 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at nearby sensitive uses.
a. According to the City of Mountain View General Plan Land Use Compatibility Guidelines.

Construction Noise
The analysis of construction noise considers the equipment that would be required for Project demolition and construction, as identified by the applicant based on reasonably available information. Noise from construction varies, depending on the type of equipment in use, how many pieces of equipment are operating at any one time, the proximity of the equipment to a noise receptor, and the duration of equipment use.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Estimates of combined construction and demolition noise levels were based on reference noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) roadway construction noise model (Federal Highway Administration 2006) and the FTA general assessment construction noise analysis method (Federal Transit Administration 2018), which recommends combining noise levels from the two loudest pieces of equipment expected to operate simultaneously in roughly the same location. The noise data include the A-weighted Lmax noise levels measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction equipment as well as the utilization factors for the equipment. The utilization factor is the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is typically operating at full power over the specified time period and used to estimate Leq values from Lmax values. For example, the Leq value for a piece of equipment that operates at full power over 50 percent of the time is 3 dB less than the Lmax value (Federal Highway Administration 2006).

An initial screening analysis was conducted to determine which subphases of Project construction would require the use of the loudest equipment. It was determined that demolition and grading subphases would use the loudest equipment. Combined Leq noise levels from the two loudest pieces of equipment for the demolition subphase (e.g., a concrete saw and a dozer) would be approximately the same as the combined Leq noise level from the two loudest pieces of equipment for the grading subphase (e.g., a grader and a tractor), but Lmax noise levels during demolition would be slightly higher. Therefore, the demolition subphase is assessed to estimate reasonable worst-case noise levels from daytime Project construction activities. No nighttime construction is proposed for the Project.

Construction haul truck noise was also considered in the analysis. The Project proposes soil export due to the need to excavate for the below-grade parking garages. Based on the estimated reasonable worst-case daily construction haul truck trips, construction haul truck noise was analyzed as part of the construction noise analysis.

According to the Project construction details, up to 288 total haul truck trips to and from the Project site would occur on a reasonable worst-case construction day. Specifically, this is the number of oneway haul truck trips that could occur on a single day during construction of Block C (Phase 4 of construction). There would most likely be four haul routes used for the Project, depending on what specific materials are being hauled, generally going to the Dumbarton Quarry, the Stevens Creek Quarry, the Zanker Recycling Facility and the Republic Services Newby Island Landfill. However, to provide a conservative analysis for this EIR, an initial screening analysis was conducting assuming that all haul trucks would use all main roadway segments in the immediate Project vicinity that provide access to nearby freeways (e.g., Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard from Cypress Point Drive to West Middlefield Road). Detailed segment-specific analysis was then conducted based on the results from the screening analysis and based on more detailed assumptions regarding the percentage of haul trucks expected to use given segments in the project vicinity.

Overall construction noise is analyzed below to determine if it would result in substantial temporary increases in noise that are not in compliance with applicable local regulations (e.g., timing restrictions in the City Municipal Code).

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Construction Vibration
Building/Structure Damage
The operation of heavy-duty construction equipment can generate localized ground-borne vibration and noise at buildings adjacent to the construction areas. Ground-borne vibration rarely causes damage to normal buildings. However, a structure’s susceptibility to vibration-induced damage depends on its age, condition, distance from the vibration source, and the vibration level.

To determine if construction activities have the potential to damage nearby buildings, vibration levels at nearby receptors are calculated using the source vibration levels and attenuation equation of PPV = PPVref x (25/distance)1.5 from the FTA guidance.1 The calculated values are then compared to the structural damage criteria, which vary according to structure type. Typical vibration levels associated with heavy-duty construction equipment are shown in Table 3.11-3 at a reference distance of 25 feet and other distances. Vibration levels from Project construction are calculated using the source vibration levels in Table 3.11-3 and the attenuation equation described above. The calculated vibration levels are then compared to the appropriate Caltrans vibration guidelines for structural damage (Table 3.11-10), which correspond to the type of building being affected. If vibration levels at a given structure would exceed the applicable criteria from Table 3.11-10, vibration related damage impacts would be potentially significant.

Annoyance/Sleep Disturbance
Regarding the potential for annoyance-related vibration impacts, residential land uses are considered to be most sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours when people generally sleep.

Should strongly perceptible vibration levels (PPV of 0.1 inch per second, per the Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential) occur during nighttime hours, sleep disturbance could occur. As shown in Table 3.11-11, vibration generated by continuous or frequent intermittent sources, such as construction activities, is considered to be strongly perceptible if the PPV is in excess of 0.1 inch per second.

Traffic Noise
Traffic noise levels were modeled for the following scenarios to determine if direct and cumulative noise impacts associated with Project-related increases in traffic would occur. ⚫ Existing conditions,
⚫ Existing plus-Project conditions,
⚫ Cumulative no-Project conditions, and
⚫ Cumulative plus-Project condition.

Traffic noise modeling was conducted using a spreadsheet based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5. This spreadsheet calculates the traffic noise level at a fixed distance from the centerline of a roadway, based on the traffic volume, roadway speed, and vehicle mix for each roadway segment. Average daily traffic volumes, roadway speeds, and vehicle mix percentages (i.e., the proportion of automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles) provided by Hexagon (Kai-ling Kuo pers. comm.) were used to model traffic noise levels with and without Project implementation along 1 Ibid.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
the roadways in the vicinity of the Project site. Traffic noise was evaluated in terms of how Projectrelated traffic noise increases could affect existing noise-sensitive land uses in the Project vicinity.

Operational Noise
The evaluation of operational noise impacts associated with proposed on-site activities and stationary sources was based on the proposed site plan and the expected types of noise-generating equipment and noise-generating activities, as provided by the applicant based on reasonably available information. Noise from point sources (e.g., stationary operational equipment) was estimated using a point-source attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Estimated noise levels were compared to the City Municipal Code maximum allowable noise level for stationary equipment of 55 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

3.11.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.11.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.11.4.4, Summary of Noise Impacts.

Impact NOI-1a Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project from construction, in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies.

Level of Impact Less than Significant for construction noise.

Discussion
Construction Equipment Noise
Construction of the Project would generate noise and temporarily increase noise levels at adjacent uses both from the operation of heavy equipment and from Project-related haul truck activity. The noise levels generated during construction would depend on what construction equipment is used, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors.

Table 3.11-14 provides a list of equipment expected to be used for Project construction. The Lmax sound levels at 50 feet are shown along with the typical acoustical use factors (used to calculate the Leq value).

Table 3.11-14. Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels Construction Equipment
Lmax at 50 feet
(dBA)a
Acoustical Usage/Utilization
Factor (percent usage) Leq at 50 feet
Air compressor 78 40 74
Backhoe/loader 78 40 74
Concrete mixer truck 79 40 75
Concrete pump truck 81 20 74
Concrete saw 90 20 83
City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-21 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Construction Equipment
Lmax at 50 feet
(dBA)a
Acoustical Usage/Utilization
Factor (percent usage) Leq at 50 feet
Crane 81 16 73
Forkliftb 84 40 80
Dozer 82 40 78
Excavator 81 40 77
Generator 81 50 78
Paver 77 50 74
Rollers 80 20 73
Tractor 84 40 80
Water truckc 76 40 72
Welders 74 40 70
Source: Federal Highway Administration, 2006.

Notes:
a. These values represent the loudest noise levels generated by each equipment type at a distance of 50 feet.
b. Represented by “tractor” from the FHWA User’s Guide. c. Represented by “dump truck” from the FHWA User’s Guide.

Leq value, or the equivalent sound level value, is calculated from Lmax values using estimated utilization factors (the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is typically operating at full power over the specified time period).

To analyze reasonable worst-case combined noise from construction activity, modeling assumes that the two loudest pieces of equipment expected to be used for a single subphase of Project construction would operate simultaneously and close to one another on the Project site, consistent with the FTA guidelines for analyzing construction noise. Noise from these construction activities is then analyzed at a reasonable worst-case closest distance to nearby noise-sensitive receptors.

Although all construction phases would involve the use of noise-generating construction equipment, the loudest subphases of Project construction are expected to be demolition and grading for all Project construction phases according to a preliminary screening analysis. Combined Leq noise levels from the two loudest pieces of equipment for the demolition subphase would be approximately the same as the combined Leq noise level from the two loudest pieces of equipment for the grading subphase (e.g., a grader and a tractor), but Lmax noise levels during demolition would be slightly higher. Therefore, the demolition subphase is assessed to estimate reasonable worst-case noise levels from daytime Project construction activities.

During the demolition phase, a concrete saw and a dozer could be operating at the same time and in proximity to one another. The combined noise level (both Lmax and Leq) from operation of the two loudest pieces of equipment was calculated. Leq values were calculated from Lmax values using estimated utilization factors. Anticipated average (Leq) construction noise levels at various distances from the Project site are shown in Table 3.11-15.

The closest sensitive land use to the Project site are the on-site residences located approximately 15 feet from the perimeter of proposed new buildings (and from Project construction activities). Other nearby sensitive receptors are located farther away from the proposed construction areas (i.e., across Cypress Point Drive, south of the Project site, at a worst-case distance of approximately 60 feet from construction areas, and across West Middlefield Road, north of the Project site, at a distance of City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
approximately 100 feet from construction areas. The Moffett Mobile Home Park is located across Moffett Boulevard, west of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 100 feet from construction areas.

As shown in Table 3.11-15, reasonable worst-case demolition and construction noise (based on the assumptions described above) at a distance of 15 feet (the distance to the nearest on-site residences), could be up to 95 dBA Leq (based on the noise attenuation equation, which assumes 6 dBA reduction in noise per doubling of distance). With regard to off-site residences located south of Cypress Point Drive, during times when Project construction equipment operates at the southern perimeter of the Project site (approximately 60 feet from existing residences south of Cypress Point Drive), daytime construction noise levels could be up to 83 dBA Leq.

Table 3.11-15. Reasonable Worst-case Project Demolition/Construction Noise Levels (Leq) Source Data:

Maximum
Sound
Level (dBA)
Utilization
Factor
Leq Sound
Level
(dBA)
Expected Loudest Construction Condition: Demolition
Source 1: Concrete Saw – Sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 90 20% 83.0 Source 3: Dozer – Sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 82 40% 78.0 Calculated Data:

All Sources Combined – Lmax sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 91 Lmax All Sources Combined – Leq sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 84 Leq Distance Between
Source and Receiver
(feet)
Geometric
Attenuation (dB)
Calculated Lmax Sound
Level (dBA)
Calculated Leq Sound
Level (dBA)
15 10 101 95
50 0 91 84
60 -2 89 83
100 -6 85 78
200 -12 79 72
300 -16 75 69
400 -18 73 66
500 -20 71 64
600 -22 69 63
700 -23 68 61
800 -24 67 60
900 -25 66 59
1000 -26 65 58
Note: Geometric attenuation is based on 6 dB per doubling of distance. This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding from walls, topography, or other barriers, which may reduce sound levels further.

During most of the Project construction period, equipment would operate farther away from nearby noise-sensitive receptors than the aforementioned distances. In addition, even if equipment were operating this close to a noise-sensitive receptor, it is expected that it would be operating intermittently and for a relatively short period of time in that specific location. Therefore, actual City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-23 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
noise from construction activities would typically be lower than the reasonable worst-case noise level presented in this analysis.

As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, the Project has an extended phasing schedule in order to avoid existing tenant displacement and to ensure sufficient on-site parking throughout construction. With regards to construction haul truck noise, the Project proposes soil export due to the need to excavate for the below-grade parking garages. The haul trucks used during Project construction would take different haul routes, depending on what material is being hauled and from what portion of the site. Numerous noise-sensitive land uses, mostly multi-family residential land uses, are located along the potential haul routes (e.g., along West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive, among others). Per the provided Project construction data, a worst-case construction day would involve a total of approximately 288 one-way (i.e., to or from the Project site) haul truck trips, or 144 round trips.

Note that no specific threshold in the City Municipal Code pertains to construction haul truck noise.

However, a change in noise of 3 dB is generally considered to be just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. The City is using these parameters to evaluate construction haul truck noise.

Average daily noise levels (Ldn) along proposed haul routes were estimated assuming construction haul trucks would be spread out over the construction day. As mentioned above in Section 3.11.4.2 Methods, initial modeling conservatively assumed all haul trucks would use all vicinity roadway segments that provide access to nearby highways or freeways. However, haul trucks would be traveling to multiple different recycling or waste-processing facilities depending on the type of material being hauled, and there would be at least four different haul routes to these facilities. Not all segments would be used by all haul trucks and the extent of hauling activities would vary during the construction period.

According to a haul truck screening analysis (which conservatively assumed that all trucks would use all of the possible haul routes), all modeled roadway segments would have a less than 0.7 dB increase in noise from Project hauling activity except for Easy Street south of West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard. A more detailed analysis was conducted to approximate the percentage of haul trucks that would use these two routes. Only two of the four proposed haul truck routes, to Dumbarton Quarry Reclamation and to Stevens Creek Quarry, would use a portion of Easy Street south of Middlefield Road for hauling, and up to half of the maximum daily haul truck trips would use this portion of Easy Street. In addition, during construction of Block C (which would occur during the last phase of construction), all daily haul trucks would be required to use Cypress Point Drive, east of Moffett Boulevard, because that roadway segment provides the only access to that portion of the site. The soil excavation and off-haul for the Block C area is anticipated to last for approximately 40 days, as shown in the construction modeling assumptions in Appendix 3.2-1. Therefore, more detailed modeling includes half of all proposed haul trucks using Easy Street south of Middlefield Road and all proposed worst-case daily haul trucks using Cypress Point Drive, east of Moffett Boulevard, for a period of approximately 40 days.

As shown in Table 3.11-16, the results of the detailed haul truck analysis demonstrate that reasonable worst-case hauling activities along the portion of Easy Street south of Middlefield Road would be anticipated to result in a less than 3 dB (or less than barely perceptible) noise increase over existing traffic conditions. For Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard, a 4.7 dB increase resulting from hauling activity would be expected to occur.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-24 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.11-16. Reasonable Worst-case Haul Truck Noise Levels (Leq) Detailed Analysis Roadway Segment Location Existing Ldn
Existing
plus Haul
Truck Ldn
Change
(dB)
Cypress Point Drive East of Moffett Boulevard 55.1 59.9 4.8 Easy Street South of West Middlefield Road 56.0 58.7 2.7 Note: This screening analysis assumed all haul truck trips would use every roadway segment in the Project vicinity.

As discussed in detail below, construction activities on the Project site would not result in a substantial temporary increase in noise in excess of applicable thresholds as long as construction complies with the allowable hours outlined in the City Municipal Code, and as long as the Project would adhere to Standard City Conditions related to construction noise. Hauling activity along the segment of Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard would be expected to result in a temporary perceptible increase in noise at sensitive land uses (for a period of approximately 40 days) in addition to noise from construction activities at the Project site.

Project construction would be required to comply with Section 8.70.1 of the City Municipal Code, which includes regulations related to noise generated by construction. The code stipulates that no construction activity is permitted to commence prior to 7:00 a.m. or continue later than 6:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. In addition, no noise-generating work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays, unless prior written approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. For construction work that occurs within the allowable daytime hours, the City Municipal Code does not include numerical thresholds that apply to construction noise. Therefore, for this analysis, construction noise would not be determined to result in a substantial temporary increase in noise in excess of applicable thresholds as long as it complies with the allowable hours outlined in the code.

The Project would also be required to adhere to the Standard City Conditions (effective January 30, 2017). Standard Condition of Approval PL-158 (Construction Noise Reduction) requires noise reduction measures to be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties. Specifically, PL158 requires that all equipment comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements, that all equipment be turned off when not in use, that stationary equipment be located as far as practical from receiving properties, that temporary sound barriers be placed around stationary equipment, and that electric-powered equipment be used rather than diesel-powered equipment when possible.

Because noise from a point source is reduced by 6 dB per doubling of distance, the farther away stationary equipment is located from receivers the lower the construction noise would be at the receiver. In addition, PL-158 states that temporary sound barriers or sound curtains shall be used around loud stationary equipment if the other prescribed noise reduction methods are not effective or possible to implement. A temporary sound wall, such as those described in PL-158, can reduce noise from construction by approximately 5 to 10 dB, depending on the height of the noise source, the barrier, and the receiver.

The Project would also adhere to Standard Condition PL-195 (Notice of Construction) which requires notification of all neighbors within 300 feet of the Project site prior to construction, and Standard Condition of Approval PL-196 (Disturbance Coordinator) requires a designated “disturbance coordinator” to be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-25 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
construction noise. Additionally, the coordinator would be responsible for determining the cause of the complaint and require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. The Project would therefore designate a disturbance coordinator to respond to local complaints related to Project construction noise. This would ensure that noise issues or complaints would be addressed promptly because PL-196 also requires that additional reasonable measures (such as extra shielding or staggering of equipment usage) to correct the problem be implemented should complaints be received. According to PL-196, the telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. Signage must also list an emergency after-hours contact number for emergency personnel.

In addition, the following would be included as project design features and would help reduce noise from haul truck activity: haul truck speeds along Cypress Point Drive would be limited to 15 mph; haul truck parking would be prohibited on Cypress Point Drive and other local streets; idling times on and near the Project would be limited to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, Title 13, Section 2485 of the CCR).

As previously discussed, the worst-case daily haul truck noise would occur along Cypress Point Drive for a period of 40 days, which would be the only period of temporary overlap between Project construction noise and Project haul truck noise along the segment of Cypress Point Drive east of Moffett Boulevard. With adherence to Standard Conditions of Approval PL-158, PL-195, and PL-196 and because construction would be required to comply with applicable local regulations (Section

8.70.1 of the City Municipal Code) and be limited to the allowable daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, impacts from Project construction noise would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-158: Construction Noise Reduction. The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: (a) comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment.
• PL-195: Notice of Construction. The applicant shall notify neighbors within 300 feet of the project site of the construction schedule in writing, prior to construction. For multi-phased construction, separate notices may be required for each phase of construction. A copy of the notice and the mailing list shall be submitted for review prior to issuance of building permits. • PL-196: Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise.

The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) will determine the cause of the complaint and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-26 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after-hours contact number for emergency personnel.

Impact NOI-1b Generate 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 from Project operations.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Operational Traffic Noise
Operational Traffic Noise Effects on Existing Off-site Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Once operational, the Project would lead to an increase in traffic in the vicinity of the Project site, as detailed in Section 3.14, Transportation and Circulation. Project-specific traffic data, including average daily traffic volumes, roadway speeds, and vehicle mix percentages (i.e., the proportion of automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles) were provided by Hexagon. Modeling was conducted for existing and existing plus-Project conditions to estimate traffic noise increases resulting from Project implementation along roadway segments in the Project vicinity.

When assessing traffic noise impacts, the following thresholds are applied to determine the significance of Project-related traffic noise increases:

1. An increase of more than 5 dBA is considered a significant traffic noise increase, regardless of the existing ambient noise level; and

2. In places where the existing or resulting noise environment is “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” or “clearly unacceptable,” based on the City Land Use Compatibility Guidelines, any noise increase greater than 3 dBA is considered a significant traffic noise increase.

According to the General Plan Noise Element, a noise level of up to 60 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable for multi-family residential land uses, and 55 dBA Ldn is considered normally acceptable for single-family residential land uses.

As discussed in the Methods section, a 10 percent increase in traffic equates to less than a 1 dB (approximately 0.4 dB) increase in noise. A change in sound level of 1 dB is not typically perceived by the human ear and is below the substantial increase criteria for traffic noise impacts. Therefore, roadway segments with a less than 10 percent change would not result in a substantial increase in noise (either a 3 or 5 dB increase, depending on existing noise levels) or significant traffic noise impacts. Because no roadway segments analyzed in the traffic analysis would experience a 10 percent or more increase in traffic with Project implementation, only roadway segments relatively close to the Project site were quantitatively modeled.

Traffic noise modeling was conducted using a spreadsheet based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5. This spreadsheet calculates the traffic noise level at a fixed distance from the centerline of a roadway, based on the traffic volume, roadway speed, and vehicle mix that is predicted to occur under each condition. Traffic noise was evaluated in terms of how Project-related traffic noise City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-27 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
increases could affect existing noise-sensitive land uses as well as proposed on-site sensitive land uses in the Project area. Refer to Table 3.11-17 for the traffic noise modeling results.

Table 3.11-17. Traffic Noise Levels along Roadway Segments adjacent to the Project Site Roadway Segment Location
Existing
Ldn
Existing
plus
Project Ldn
Change
(dB)
Moffett Boulevard Between US 101 ramps 68.7 68.7 0.1
Moffett Boulevard Between US 101 southbound ramps and
Leong Drive 69.3 69.4 0.1
Moffett Boulevard Between Leong Drive and SR 85 northbound ramps 68.2 68.3 0.1
Moffett Boulevard Between SR 85 ramps 68.5 68.6 0.1
Moffett Boulevard Between SR 85 SB ramps and Middlefield 68.1 68.3 0.1 Moffett Boulevard Between West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive 66.3 66.4 0.1
Moffett Boulevard Between Cypress Point Drive and Central Expressway 67.0 67.0 0.1
Cypress Point Drive East of Moffett Boulevard 55.1 55.5 0.4 W. Middlefield Road
Between Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett
Boulevard 67.7 67.8 0.1
W. Middlefield Road Between Moffett Boulevard and Easy Street 69.0 69.2 0.2 W. Middlefield Road Between Easy Street and Tyrella Avenue 68.7 68.8 0.1 W. Middlefield Road
Between Tyrella Avenue and North Whisman
Road 68.2 68.3 0.1
W. Middlefield Road Between Whisman Road and Ellis Street 66.5 66.6 0.1 Easy Street South of West Middlefield Road 56.0 56.3 0.3 Easy Street North of West Middlefield Road 57.0 57.0 0.0 Central Expressway East of Moffett Boulevard 71.7 71.7 0.0 Central Expressway West of Moffett Boulevard 72.3 72.3 0.0 Shoreline Boulevard South of West Middlefield Road 69.2 69.2 0.0 Shoreline Boulevard North of West Middlefield Road 68.9 68.9 0.0 Source: ICF 2020. The complete dataset of measured noise levels is included in Appendix 3.11-1.

As shown in Table 3.11-17, modeling demonstrated that noise levels along the adjacent segments would increase by a maximum of 0.4 dB as a result of Project implementation. As described previously, a 3 dB increase is considered barely noticeable and would not constitute a significant increase in noise. An increase of 0.4 dB would not be considered substantial. Therefore, impacts related to Project increases in traffic to off-site noise-sensitive land uses would be less than significant.

Regarding the potential for Project changes to landscaping near SR 85 to result in increased noise, as explained above, trees and foliage do to not generally result in perceptible reductions in noise levels, unless the foliage is sufficiently dense to completely block the view along the propagation path City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-28 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
(Federal Highway Administration 2019). In general, if foliage is less than 10 meters in width, no attenuation would occur. If the foliage is close to 20 meters in thickness and the complete line of sight is blocked between the source and the receiver, a minimal amount of attenuation of approximately 1 dB or less would be expected to occur (Federal Highway Administration 2019). As indicated in the Project landscape plan, (Figure 2-9), only certain trees currently located between the Project site and SR 85 would be removed, with other trees remaining in this area and new trees being planted on the Project site. In addition, new structures constructed by the Project would provide additional shielding and noise reduction at residences located both on the Project site and to the south of the Project site. Given these circumstances, the removal of certain existing trees is not expected to perceptibly increase noise at these locations from SR 85.

Because Project traffic increases and Project-related landscaping changes would not result in substantial temporary increases in noise at existing receptors, Project traffic noise impacts on offsite noise-sensitive land uses would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Traffic Noise Effects on Proposed On-site Sensitive Land Uses In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (decided in 2015), the California Supreme Court held that CEQA does not generally require lead agencies to consider how existing environmental conditions might affect a project’s users or residents, except when the project would significantly exacerbate an existing environmental condition. Because traffic volumes in the Project area would increase slightly as a result of Project implementation, potential traffic noise effects on future residents at the Project site were evaluated to ensure a conservative analysis.

As shown in Table 3.11-18, noise levels at a distance of 35 feet from roadway centerlines near the Project site (e.g., Moffett Boulevard between West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive and West Middlefield Road between Moffett Boulevard and Easy Street) could be in excess of 60 dBA Ldn, which is the compatibility standard for the proposed multi-family residential land uses. Note that most future residential units would be developed more than 35 feet from the centerline of adjacent roadways. However, exact distances are not known at this time; therefore, 35 feet was used to provide a conservative analysis. Although noise levels from roadway traffic were modeled to be in excess of the applicable City compatibility standard at 35 feet, Project development would have to comply with City Standard Conditions of Approval PL-157 (Interior Noise Levels) and PL-159 (SiteSpecific Building Acoustical Analysis). These require measures to be taken to ensure an interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn at new developments and a site-specific building acoustical analysis to confirm which treatments are necessary to ensure acceptable interior noise levels. Specifically, Standard Conditions of Approval PL-157 requires construction drawings to confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB(A) Ldn, and these drawing would be reviewed and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.

Additionally, Standard Conditions of Approval PL-159 requires a qualified acoustical consultant to review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations.

The development of new multi-family residential land uses is conditionally acceptable, with a noise level of 70 dBA Ldn, when a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Per Standard Conditions of Approval PL157 and PL-159, Project development would include such an analysis, and all needed insulation would be included in the design to ensure that interior noise levels would be below 45 dBA Ldn.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-29 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Therefore, the new development would be considered compatible with traffic noise levels of up to 70 dBA Ldn. Noise levels at future Project land uses would be within the allowable levels and impacts from traffic noise on future on-site residences would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Noise from Mechanical Equipment
The only noise-generating mechanical equipment proposed for use at the Project site is the residential heating and cooling equipment; no other mechanical equipment, such as an emergency generator, is proposed. According to the City Municipal Code, the maximum allowable noise level for stationary equipment is 55 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

The residential heating and air-conditioning units would be provided in the form of split-system heat pumps, with fan coils located in ceilings and outdoor condensers located on the roof. Generally, split systems have the condenser and compressor installed externally and the evaporator coil and air handler installed internally to send the cool air through the duct system. Although the exact make and model of the equipment has not yet been selected, a typical HVAC unit, which includes condensing units and fans, produces sound levels in the range of 70 to 75 dBA at 50 feet (Hoover and Keith, 2000). To ensure a conservative analysis, it is assumed that the external condensers for the Project could generate noise similar to the higher noise level for a typical HVAC unit described above.

Regarding the potential for HVAC noise from the new equipment to affect existing nearby noisesensitive uses, the nearest noise-sensitive uses to new Project buildings are the on-site residences as close as 15 to 20 feet from existing residential buildings on the site. Although the equipment would be located on the roof, and actual distances between equipment and residences may be greater; therefore, a 15-foot distance is used to provide a conservative assessment. At a distance of 15 feet, noise from a single HVAC unit could up to 86 dBA Leq. In addition, should multiple units or condensers be located near one another, noise from these units could combine to increase overall noise levels. For example, noise from three units that each generate 86 dBA at 15 feet could combine to result in an overall noise level from these units of approximately 90 dBA Leq. Therefore, noise levels from external HVAC equipment for the Project would have the potential to result in noise levels in excess of the maximum allowable noise level for stationary equipment at on-site land uses (of 55 dBA during the daytime and 50 dBA during the night).

With regard to noise effects to nearby off-site sensitive uses, the external rooftop equipment could be located as close as 100 feet from the nearest off-site residences (located south of Block C, south of Cypress Point Drive). At a distance of 100 feet, noise from a single unit could be up to 69 dBA Leq.

Combined noise from multiple units located close to one another could result in even greater noise levels. For example, noise from three units that each generate 69 dBA at 100 feet could combine to result in an overall noise level of approximately 74 dBA Leq. Therefore, as shown above, noise levels from external HVAC equipment for the Project would have the potential to result in noise levels in excess of the maximum allowable noise level for stationary equipment of 55 dBA during the day (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) at on- and off-site noise-sensitive uses. However, Project HVAC would be required to comply with the City Standard Condition of Approval PL-155 (Mechanical Equipment), which requires that noise emitted by any mechanical equipment not exceed a level of 55 dBA during the day or 50 dBA during the night when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property. Specifically, Condition of City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-30 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Approval PL-155 requires the noise emitted by any mechanical equipment not exceed a level of 55 dBA during the day or 50 dB) during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property. Therefore, the proposed HVAC equipment would include design features such as enclosures or shielding around noise-generating equipment.

Furthermore, relatively quiet HVAC models or mufflers or silencers on exhaust fans would be required to ensure compliance with this standard condition of approval. Both of the foregoing are considered reasonable measures to incorporate and would be expected to sufficiently reduce mechanical noise below the applicable standards. Adherence to Standard Condition of Approval PL155 would ensure that noise from Project HVAC equipment would not exceed the applicable thresholds at nearby on- and off-site sensitive uses. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Noise from Gathering Areas
The Project does not propose formal gatherings (e.g., events) at the Project’s outdoor park, common open space, pool area, or other open space areas, although residents and/or guests may informally gather in these areas. Although some outdoor amenities such as barbeque areas and a pool would be developed under the Project, the Project site is already developed as an apartment complex with recreational uses (such as the existing tennis courts). Any noise from these new Project gathering areas would be similar to noise that already occurs on the site and would not be considered substantial. In addition, Standard Condition of Approval PL-69 (Common Area Operations) would ensure that noise from gatherings at outdoor areas on the Project site would be within allowable levels and limited to reasonable hours. Specifically, Standard Condition of Approval PL-69 would require the approved hours of operation for the common area to be limited to daylight hours, seven days per week, which includes amplified sound. In the event any problems arise with the hours of operation or noise, the Zoning Administrator may hold a public hearing to review common-area operations and impose new or modified conditions of approval in response to public comment received. The public hearing shall be conducted and noticed in accordance with Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 6 of the City Code. Because noise from gatherings at the Project site would not be expected to increase as compared to the existing conditions at the Project site, and because PL-69 would ensure that noise-generating gatherings in common areas would be limited to reasonable hours, noise impacts related to Project gathering areas would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-69: Common Area Operations. The approved hours of operation for the common area shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days per week, which includes amplified sound. In the event any problems arise with the hours of operation or noise, the Zoning Administrator may hold a public hearing to review common-area operations and impose new or modified conditions of approval in response to public comment received. The public hearing shall be conducted and noticed in accordance with Chapter 36, Article XVI, Division 6 of the City Code. • PL-155: Mechanical Equipment (Noise). The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB(A) during the day or 50 dB(A) during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property. • PL-157: Interior Noise Levels. Construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB(A)Ldn that shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified acoustical consultant prior to building permit submittal.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-31 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• PL-159: Site-Specific Building Acoustical Analysis. A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations. Project-specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A)Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary will be completed on a unit-by-unit basis. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise.

Special building techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, but are not limited to, soundrated windows and doors, sound-rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.

Impact NOI-2 Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Operations-related vibration results primarily from the passing of trains, buses, and heavy trucks.

Project operations would not involve the use of trains, buses, or heavy trucks and are not anticipated to generate perceptible levels of vibration at receptors; therefore, operational vibration effects are not quantitatively assessed. However, potential vibration effects from construction activities related to structural damage and sleep disturbance would have the potential to occur, depending on the proximity of construction activities to sensitive uses and, therefore, are the focus of the Project vibration analysis.

Damage-related Vibration Effects
The operation of heavy-duty construction equipment can generate localized ground-borne vibration and noise at buildings adjacent to the construction areas. Ground-borne vibration rarely causes damage to normal buildings, with the occasional exception of blasting or pile-driving during construction. Given the nature of the Project, construction would not require the use of any piles and would therefore not require the use of a pile driver or drill rig to install piles. Table 3.11-3 summarizes typical vibration velocity levels at a distance of 25 feet for the various types of construction equipment that may be used for the Project.

As discussed previously, general construction activity could occur as close as 15 feet from the nearest on-site residences. Vibration effects at this distance are analyzed to provide a reasonable worst-case assessment. In addition, vibration levels are presented for all equipment at a 60-foot distance, the closest Project construction equipment would come to the nearby residential land uses located south of the Project site. The most vibration-intensive piece of equipment proposed for Project construction is a dozer. As shown in Table 3.11-18, the PPV level for a large dozer could be up to 0.19 inch per second at a distance of 15 feet. At a distance of 60 feet, the distance to the nearest City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-32 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
off-site receptors, the vibration level from operation of a large bulldozer would be approximately

0.024 inch per second.

Table 3.11-18. Construction Vibration Levels at Nearby Sensitive Uses Equipment PPV at 15 Feet PPV at 60 Feet
Large bulldozer 0.191 0.024
Loaded trucks 0.164 0.020
Jackhammer 0.075 0.007
Small bulldozer 0.006 0.001
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2020.

Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity
Construction vibration levels are compared to the criteria shown in Table 3.11-10. As shown in this table, continuous or frequent intermittent sources of vibration, such as vibration from construction activities, could result in damage to newer residential structures if the PPV is in excess of 0.5 inch per second or could result in damage to older residential structures if the PPV is in excess of 0.3 inch per second. Although it is expected that the on- and off-site residences would be similar to newer residential structures, the modeled PPV levels of 0.19 inch per second at the nearest on-site residences and 0.024 inch per second at the nearest off-site residences are lower than the damage criteria for both older and newer residential structures. Vibration levels at greater distances, including at off-site land uses more than 60 feet away, would be even lower. Therefore, vibration impacts related to damage at nearby structures would be less than significant.

Annoyance-related Vibration Effects
With regard to annoyance-related vibration impacts, residential land uses are considered to be most sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours, when people generally sleep. Should strongly perceptible vibration levels (per the Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential) occur during nighttime hours, sleep disturbance could occur. As shown in Table 3.11-11, vibration generated by continuous or frequent intermittent sources, such as vibration from construction activities, is considered to be strongly perceptible if the PPV is in excess of 0.1 inch per second. No nighttime construction is proposed for the Project. Therefore, excessive vibration during nighttime hours when people typically sleep would not occur as a result of the Project. In addition, as described above, the estimated daytime PPV level from a large bulldozer at the nearest off-site receptor (the residences south of Cyprus Point Drive) would be approximately 0.024 inch per second, which is well below the strongly perceptible level of 0.1 inch per second. Therefore, even during daytime hours, vibration levels at nearby off-site residences would be below the strongly perceptible criterion. Although the reasonable worst-case PPV level at on-site uses during daytime hours was estimated to be 0.19 inch per second (which is above the strongly perceptible level of 0.1 inch per second), no construction would occur during nighttime hours. Because all construction would occur daytime nighttime hours, sensitive receptors located on the Project site would not be exposed to strongly perceptible ground-borne vibration during nighttime hours, and sleep disturbance during nighttime hours would not occur. Vibration impacts related to sleep disturbance and annoyance would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.11. Noise
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.11-33 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact NOI-3 For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels.

Level of Impact No Impact
Discussion
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site, and occupants at the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise from any private airstrip activities. The closest airport to the Project site is Moffett Federal Airfield, located 1.2 miles northeast of the Project site. The Project site is outside the 65 CNEL contour for Moffett Federal Airfield (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2016). As such, aircraft activity at the airfield would not be expected to expose persons to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact related to excessive aircraft noise from public airports or private airstrips. No mitigation is required.

3.11.4.4 Summary of Noise Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact NOI-1a: Expose adjacent
residential uses to excessive noise
levels during Project construction.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact NOI-1b: Expose adjacent
residential uses to excessive noise
levels from Project operation.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact NOI-2: Expose residential uses
to ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels during construction.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact NOI-3: For a project located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip
or airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the area to excessive noise
levels.

No Impact None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.12 Population and Housing

3.12.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for population and housing. It also describes impacts on population and housing that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.12.4.4, Summary of Population and Housing Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues include the population increase at the Project site and the rate of population growth in the City.

3.12.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to population and housing within the Project site, within the jurisdictional boundary of the City of Mountain View, and within the jurisdictional boundary of Santa Clara County.

3.12.2.1 Project Site
The Project site currently contains 402 multi-family residential rental units. Approximately 600 residents currently reside at the Project site. In addition, approximately 10 individuals are currently employed on the site full time.

3.12.2.2 Population
As of January 2020, population of the City of Mountain View was approximately 82,272, and the population of Santa Clara County was 1,961,969 (California Department of Finance 2020). Between 2020 and 2040, Mountain View’s population is expected to increase by approximately 70 percent to 138,980, with an average growth rate of 12 percent every 5 years. Table 3.12-1 presents anticipated growth for the City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County.

Table 3.12-1. City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Population Growth Projections, 2020– 2040
Year
City of
Mountain
View
Population
Percent Change Santa Clara
County
Population
Percent Change
Incremental Cumulative Incremental Cumulative
2020 82,272 — — 1,961,969 — —
2025 112,875 37.2 37.2 2,098,695 6.7 6.7
2030 119,445 5.8 45.7 2,217,750 5.7 13.1
2035 128,085 7.2 56.2 2,387,165 7.6 21.7
2040 138,980 8.5 68.9 2,538,320 6.3 29.4
Sources: California Department of Finance 2020; Association of Bay Area Governments 2019.

City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.12.2.3 Housing
The section describes the existing housing units in the City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County as well as household characteristics.

Housing Units
In 2020, there were 36,727 housing units in the City of Mountain View (Table 3.12-2), an increase of 2,846 compared with 2010. In 2020, 93.8 percent of the housing units were occupied, compared with 94.3 percent in 2010. In Santa Clara County, there were 674,558 housing units in 2020, up from 631,920 in 2010. In 2020, 95.7 percent of the housing units in Santa Clara County were occupied (California Department of Finance 2020).

Table 3.12-2. City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Housing Units (2010 and 2020) 2010 2020
City of Mountain View
Total Housing Units 33,881 36,727
Increase in Housing Units — 2,846
Occupied Housing Units 31,957 34,445
Change in Occupied Housing Units 2,488
Percent Occupied 94.3 93.8
Percent Vacant 5.7 6.2
Santa Clara County
Total Housing Units 631,920 674,558
Increase in Housing Units — 42,638
Occupied Housing Units 604,204 645,764
Change in Occupied Housing Units 341,560
Percent Occupied 95.6 95.7
Percent Vacant 4.4 4.3
Sources: California Department of Finance 2020.

Households
In 2020, there were 33,707 households1 in the City of Mountain View (U.S. Census Bureau 2020a).

As shown in Table 3.12-3, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the number of households in City will increase by approximately 73.1 percent between 2020 and 2040, with an average increase of approximately 14.6 percent every 5 years. 1 Household numbers based on number of occupied housing units.

City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.12-3. City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Household Growth Projections (2020– 2040)
Year
City of
Mountain
View
Households
Percent Change Santa Clara
County
Households
Percent Change
Incremental Cumulative Incremental Cumulative
2020 33,707 — — 635,525 — —
2025 48,315 43.3 43.3 718,565 13.1 13.1
2030 50,930 5.4 51.1 757,690 5.4 19.2
2035 54,260 6.5 61.0 815,980 7.7 28.4
2040 58,330 7.5 73.1 860,810 5.5 35.4
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020a; Association of Bay Area Governments 2019.

Average Household Size
The average household size in the City of Mountain View was 2.39 people in 2019 (City of Mountain View 2019). The average household size is expected to be approximately 2.38 people per household in 2040 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2019).

3.12.2.4 Employment
ABAG estimates that there will be an approximately 15.1 percent increase in the number of jobs in Santa Clara County between 2020 and 2040, increasing from 1,120,420 to 1,289,870. The number of jobs in the City of Mountain View is projected to increase by approximately 10.2 percent between 2020 and 2040 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2019). In December 2018, the unemployment rate was 2.4 percent in Santa Clara County and 1.7 percent in the City of Mountain View (California Employment Development Department 2018). Table 3.12-4 summarizes the projected 5-year incremental increases in the number of jobs in the City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County between 2020 and 2040.

Table 3.12-4. City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Employment Projections (2020–2040) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
City of Mountain View 62,965 66,485 68,350 69,830 73,265 Santa Clara County 1,120,420 1,159,110 1,198,370 1,231,000 1,289,870 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2019.

Approximately 5.5 percent of the jobs in Santa Clara County area located in Mountain View. This trend is projected to continue until 2040. Since 2010, Mountain View has had more jobs than employed residents. In 2019, the Mountain View had 101,965 jobs and 49,567 employed residents, a ratio of 2.05 jobs for every employed resident (U.S. Census Bureau 2020b, 2020c). This means that some employees who work in Mountain View live elsewhere and are commuting to the City. Santa Clara County also has more jobs than employed residents. This trend is expected to continue through 2040.

City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.12.3 Regulatory Setting

3.12.3.1 State
There are no relevant state regulations for population and housing, other than the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD’s) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), which is discussed in Section 3.12.2.2, Local.

3.12.3.2 Local
ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The RHNA process addresses the need for housing in communities throughout the state. To ensure that adequate housing is available for all income groups, HCD determines the regional need in coordination with ABAG, which is required to distribute the region’s share of statewide need to cities and counties within its jurisdiction. The purpose of the RHNA is to allocate a “fair share” of the Bay Area’s projected housing need to cities and counties according to household income; the income groups are categorized as very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. According to the 2015– 2023 RHNA, ABAG determined that 2,926 units was Mountain View’s fair share of the regional housing need for the current period. Approximately 1,833 of these units are to be considered affordable housing (Association of Bay Area Governments 2013).

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element includes the following policy related to population and housing in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Policy LUD 3.2: Mix of Land Uses. Encourage a mix of land uses, housing types, retail and public amenities, and public neighborhood open spaces accessible to the community.

For a comprehensive consistency analysis with relevant General Plan goals and policies, refer to Table 3.10-1 in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning.

City of Mountain View Housing Element
The 2005–2023 City of Mountain View Housing Element (City of Mountain View 2014) includes the following plans and policies to address the housing needs of Mountain View:

Policy 1.3: Encourage a mix of housing types at a range of densities that serves a diverse population, including units serving both young and mature families, singles, young professionals, single-parent households, seniors, and both first-time and move-up buyers.

Policy 1.4: Provide higher-density housing near transit, in downtown, near employment centers, and within walking distance of services.

Policy 1.5: Support the development of both rental and ownership housing, serving a broad range of incomes, particularly extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

Policy 1.6: Ensure new residential development integrates with and improves the character of existing neighborhoods.

City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Policy 3.1: Maintain and improve housing in Mountain View to meet health, safety, fire, and other applicable codes and standards.

Policy 3.2: Continue and/or create programs to maintain or improve the character and quality of existing housing and neighborhood environments.

Policy 4.1: Periodically review and revise the City’s development standards, if necessary, to facilitate quality housing for all income levels.

Policy 4.2: Provide incentives, such as reduced parking standards and/or flexibility in other development standards, to facilitate the development of housing that is affordable to lower and moderate-income households.

City of Mountain View Below-Market-Rate Housing Program The City of Mountain View Municipal Code (City of Mountain View 2020) includes a Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program (Chapter 36, Article XIV, Division 2). The Below Market Rate Housing Program requires developers of residential projects with three or more ownership units or five or more rental units, or mixed projects with six or more residential units, to make at least 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units or parcels within the development below market rate units or pay a fee in lieu thereof.

3.12.4 Impact Analysis

3.12.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on the existing population and housing.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would result in any of the following:

1. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through an extension of roads or other infrastructure).

2. Displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

3.12.4.2 Methods
Identifying a project’s impacts on population and housing involves a review of ABAG’s Projections 2019 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2019) and the General Plan, then measuring that project’s population-growth impact against the data. Key operational or buildout-related impacts were identified and evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, based on current plans.2 2 As described in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, subsequent to the preparation of this Draft EIR, based on input received during City Council study sessions, the number of new residential units associated with Project would decrease by 5, from 329 to 324 units. This chapter analyzes 329 net new residential units despite Chapter 2 reflecting the current proposal of 324 net new residential units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.12.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.12.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized below in Section 3.12.4.4, Summary of Population and Housing Impacts.

Impact POP-1a Develop new residential units that directly induce population growth.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The Project proposes to retain the 402 existing residential units to ensure no displacement of existing tenants; demolish most of the surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa; and construct 329 new multi-family residential units within two new buildings, along with related improvements and amenities, on the 14.5-acre Project site. The 329 new residential units are anticipated to consist of 17 studios, 151 one-bedroom units, 135 two-bedroom units, and 26 three-bedroom units, based on currently available information, although the ultimate unit mix would be determined as part of the final design process. Given the City of Mountain View’s average household size, occupancy of the new residential units would result in up to 787 new residents.3,4The existing buildings at the Project site include 402 residential units with approximately 600 residents. Therefore, the Project would result in a net increase of 329 new units and 787 new residents compared to existing conditions.

From the years 2020 to 2040, it is anticipated that there will be a population increase of 56,708 in the City of Mountain View and a population increase of 576,351 in Santa Clara County (California Department of Finance 2020; Association of Bay Area Governments 2019). Therefore, ABAG’s Projections 2019 reflects this trend toward continued development in Mountain View and Santa Clara County. The Project would be well within population projections through 2040. The net population generated by the Project (787 net new residents) represents approximately 1.4 percent of the projected growth in the City of Mountain View and 0.1 percent of the projected growth in Santa Clara County. As discussed above, according to the 2015–2023 RHNA, ABAG determined that 2,926 units was the City of Mountain View’s fair share of the regional housing need for the current period. The Project’s 329 net new residential units would satisfy 11.2 percent of the City of Mountain View’s current fair share of the regional housing need. The number of housing units and estimated direct population increase associated with the Project would be within ABAG population mitigation measures, primarily because the overall duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint all would remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 more units than what is currently proposed under the Project. Thus, the minor reduction in the number of units and residents that would be generated by the Project does not substantively alter the environmental impact analysis or conclusions set forth herein. 3 Estimated population was obtained by assuming 2.39 persons per household (329 units × 2.39 persons per households = 787 persons).
4 Note that the potential 787 new residents as a result of the Project is a conservative estimate. The citywide average is 2.39 persons per household, which includes single-family residences, multi-family residences, and mobile homes. Because the Project is a multi-family use, with studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and threebedroom units, it is expected that singles and couples will live in these units rather than large families.

Therefore, the household size will most likely be smaller than the City average, resulting in a reduced on-site residential population. Regardless, the citywide average is used for a conservative analysis.

City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
forecasts. Based on the above, the Project would contribute significantly to the City of Mountain View’s achievement of its RHNA obligations. Therefore, for these reasons, direct impacts from population and housing growth would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact POP-1b Indirect population growth due to jobs created by Project construction and operation.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Construction of the Project would result in a temporary increase in the number of construction-related job opportunities in the local area. However, the opportunities provided by Project construction would most likely not result in construction workers relocating their households to the Project vicinity because the jobs would be temporary. Given the nature of Project construction, it is expected that construction workers would be drawn from the construction labor force already residing in Mountain View and surrounding communities. However, the construction jobs would be new jobs and would slightly alter the balance of jobs to employed residents in Mountain View. This effect would not be permanent and would not be expected to change the current ratio of 2.05 jobs per employed resident. Accordingly, employment opportunities provided by construction would not generate substantial unplanned population growth.

Operation. Approximately 10 individuals are currently employed on the Project site full time each day. With implementation of the Project, a total of approximately 20 full-time employees would work at the Project site. This would result in a net increase in employment amounting to 10 full-time employees, which would not represent a substantial increase in the number of jobs in Mountain View. Because the Project would be consistent with employment projections in the General Plan, it would not contribute to a worsening of the jobs/housing ratio beyond that of the General Plan.

The Project would require the extension of certain utilities, which could indirectly induce growth in adjacent areas. However, the Project is an infill project, and the Project site and surrounding areas are already developed with residential, commercial, and office uses as well as associated infrastructure to serve these uses. Furthermore, the Project would not require the construction of any new roads. Therefore, impacts related to indirect population growth would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact POP-2 Displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Level of Impact No Impact
Discussion
The Project would allow retention of the 402 residential units, ensuring no tenant displacement, but demolition of surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa, followed by development of 329 new multi-family residential units in two buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages and related improvements and amenities. The Project proposes only minor exterior upgrades to existing buildings. The proposed renovations to the City of Mountain View Section 3.12. Population and Housing 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.12-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
exteriors of the buildings and the proposed demolition work would not displace existing residents or existing housing units. In addition, with the existing residential units that would be retained and the proposed residential units that would be constructed under the Project, there would be 731 residential units on the site, a net increase of 329. The Project would not result in the loss of any housing units. Therefore, there would be no impact related to the displacement of people or housing units. In addition, the Project is not expected to result in the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No mitigation is required.

3.12.4.4 Summary of Population and Housing Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact POP-1a: Develop new residential
units that directly induce population
growth.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact POP-1b: Indirect population growth
due to jobs created by Project construction
and operation.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact POP-2: Displace substantial
numbers of people or existing housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.

No Impact None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.13 Public Services and Recreation

3.13.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for public services and recreation, including schools, fire protection and emergency medical services, police protection, and parks. It also describes impacts on public services as well as parks and recreation that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate.

A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.13.4.4, Summary of Public Services and Recreation Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues include the location of the proposed public pedestrian and bicycle path, public school capacity, and impacts related to the Mountain View-Los Altos Adult School.

3.13.2 Environmental Setting
Unless otherwise noted, the following regional setting information for public services and recreation was obtained from the City of Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2019b).

3.13.2.1 Public Services
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) provides fire protection, rescue response, hazard prevention, and emergency medical services in Mountain View. MVFD also participates in an automatic aid program with the cities of Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and the NASA Ames Fire Department at Moffett Field, in addition to statewide programs and mutual aid programs. MVFD has an established response time goal of 4 minutes (from dispatch) for “Medical Code Three” calls (i.e., those requiring expedited transport). During the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year (July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019), the most recent fiscal year for which information is available, the MVFD regularly met or exceeded this goal. During the 2018 calendar year (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018), the most recent calendar year for which information is available, the MVFD received 5,910 calls and was dispatched 9,431 times (Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.).

During 2018, the MVFD had 87 personnel, including 30 paramedics; no deficiencies were identified in staffing or resources. MVFD staff members are organized into multiple divisions: Administrative, Suppression/Hazmat Response, Fire and Environmental Protection, Office of Emergency Services, and Training. The Administration Division is located at 1000 Villa Street, and the Fire and Environmental Protection Division is located in City Hall at 500 Castro Street.

The MVFD operates five fire stations, which are staffed daily by 21 personnel, a MVFD standard.

Each station staffs at least one fire engine (Mountain View Fire Department 2016; Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.). There are currently no plans for either immediate or near-future expansion of facilities or equipment. However, MVFD has plans to hire two additional fire prevention City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
inspectors to meet increasing fire prevention inspection needs for multi-family housing (Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.).

The two closest fire stations to the Project site are Fire Station 1, located approximately 0.6 mile west of the site at 251 South Shoreline Boulevard, and Fire Station 4, located 0.6 mile east of the site at 229 North Whisman Road. Fire Station 4, which would serve as the first responder to incidents at the Project site, staffs one engine (Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.). Fire Station 3 (at 301 North Rengstorff Avenue) and Fire Station 1 would provide supplemental fire protection and emergency medical response services at the Project site; both are 2 miles or less from the Project site. Fire Station 1 staffs one engine, one truck, one rescue vehicle, and one battalion chief/command unit. Fire Station 3 staffs one engine. The estimated response time from all stations to the Project site is 6 minutes or less.

The various types of emergency responses at Fire Stations 1, 3, and 4 in 2018 are presented in Table 3.13-1.

Police Protection Services
The Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) provides police services in Mountain View. MVPD operates out of one police station at 1000 Villa Street. MVPD has a staff of 96 sworn and 48.5 nonsworn personnel. In addition, the MVPD conducts an active volunteer program, which involves approximately 14 non-sworn volunteers. MVPD is currently experiencing staffing shortages in its police officer and dispatcher ranks; MVPD is undertaking a staffing study to determine the department’s staffing needs (Hsiung pers. comm 2019 and 2021.). MVPD is budgeted for 147.55 personnel during the 2019–2020 fiscal year, the most recent fiscal year for which information is available.

Table 3.13-1. Mountain View Fire Department Responses by Station Serving the Project Site (2018) Fire Station 1 (supplemental fire protection to Project site) Fire Unit Responses 103
Emergency Medical Services Unit Responses 1,713
Total Responses 2,513
Average Response Time 3 minutes, 55 seconds
Fire Station 3 (supplemental fire protection to Project site) Fire Unit Responses 82
Emergency Medical Services Unit Responses 1,537
Total Responses 2,391
Average Response Time 4 minutes, 34 seconds
Fire Station 4 (primary station serving Project site)
Fire Unit Responses 216
Emergency Medical Services Unit Responses 4,011
Total Responses 6,059
Average Response Time 4 minutes, 22 seconds
Source: Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.

MVPD separates Mountain View into four beats. The Project site is in Beat 4, which had a population of approximately 14,650 in 2017. Within Beat 4, depending on the time of day and day of the week, City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
there are typically one or two beat officers, a “rover” officer who patrols all over the City, and one or two non-sworn community service officers who assist with calls for service (Hsiung pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). During 2018, there were 8,012 calls for service in Beat 4 and 42,116 calls for service citywide; therefore, Beat 4 accounted for 19 percent of service calls citywide in 2018. In February 2019, there were 573 service calls in Beat 4 and 3,302 service calls citywide (Hsiung pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). In 2018, the total population of Mountain View was 80,800 and MVPD received 42,116 calls for service, resulting in a service call rate of 0.52 citywide for all priority-level service requests.

MVPD’s goal is to respond to emergency and Priority 1 calls, which warrant emergency dispatch and are the highest priority, in less than 4 minutes at least 55 percent of the time. During 2018, the MVPD had an average response time of 4 minutes and 20 seconds or less for emergency and Priority 0 and Priority 1 calls combined; of the 281 Priority 0 and Priority 1 events, 158 events (56.2 percent) had response times that were under 4 minutes. However, the department’s 2018 annual report found that the average citywide response time for all priority-level events combined within Beats 1 through 4 was 16.2 minutes. A review shows a consistent increase in overall response times between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., suggesting that traffic and drive time are the most likely reasons for the increase (Mountain View Police Department 2016). Table 3.13-2 shows the number of calls and average response times (i.e., from dispatch to on scene) for combined Priority 0 through 3 events in each beat; lower-priority events, which have slower response times, are not included in this data.

Table 3.13-2. Mountain View Police Department Calls and Response Times by Beat Beat Number of Calls Average Response Time
Beat 1 625 5 minutes, 3 seconds
Beat 2 289 6 minutes, 3 seconds
Beat 3 274 4 minutes, 50 seconds
Beat 4 299 5 minutes, 51 seconds
Source: Hsiung pers. comm. 2019 and 2021.

Schools
Mountain View is served by three public school districts, the Mountain View Whisman School District (MVWSD), Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (MVLA UHSD), and Los Altos Elementary School District. The Project area is served by elementary and middle schools in the MVWSD and by high schools in the MVLA UHSD.

According to the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District Review and Update of the Development Impact Fee Justification Study prepared by Schoolhouse Services (2014), younger families are being attracted to the area. This can be seen in the increase in enrollment of just over 10 percent from fall 2007 to fall 2012 in the district’s two elementary feeder districts. Therefore, it is expected that more students will attend the elementary feeder districts and enrollment will increase across both the MVWSD and MVLA UHSD.

Mountain View Whisman School District
The MVWSD provides school services in Mountain View. The district operates nine elementary schools (kindergarten to fifth grade) and two middle schools (grades six through eight) (Mountain View Whisman School District 2020a). The Project site is within the Theuerkauf Elementary School City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
and Crittenden Middle School attendance boundaries (Mountain View Whisman School District 2020b; Wheelehan and Ghysels pers. comm.).

MVWSD’s combined enrollment during the 2017–2018 school year was 5,132. Theuerkauf Elementary School has the capacity to accommodate 450 students; enrollment during the 2017– 2018 school year was 369. Crittenden Middle School has the capacity to accommodate 985 students; enrollment during the 2017–2018 school year was 678 (Wheelehan and Ghysels pers. comm.).

MVWSD has four schools that are over capacity: Benjamin Bubb Elementary School, Edith Landels Elementary School, Frank L. Huff Elementary School, and Isaac N. Graham Middle School. These schools do not serve the Project site.

The MVWSD recently opened one new elementary school, José Antonio Vargas Elementary School, located at 220 North Whisman Road, which was operational for the 2019–2020 school year (Mountain View Voice 2019). MVWSD also has plans to expand capacity at its existing schools because of increasing enrollment. In 2020, conservative estimates anticipate district-wide enrollment was 5,251 and moderate estimates anticipate enrollment was 5,502.

To accommodate increased enrollment, the MVWSD plans to upgrade district facilities to support educational programs and meet the needs of students, staff, parents, and the school community.

Proposed improvements include classroom replacement or renovation, construction of multi-use rooms, building renovation, vehicular and pedestrian improvements, and utility upgrades (Wheelehan and Ghysels pers. comm.).

Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District
MVLA UHSD provides school services to the communities of Mountain View, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills. The high school district operates three high schools and one adult school. The three high schools are Los Altos High School, Mountain View High School, and Alta Vista High School. The Project site is within the Mountain View High School’s attendance boundaries (Aguilar pers. comm. 2019 and 2021).

MVLA UHSD’s enrollment during the 2017–2018 school year was 4,304. Mountain View High School’s enrollment for the 2018–2019 school year was 2,062, which exceeded the state’s school facility capacity standard (i.e., 1,479 students) (Aguilar pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). Significant increases in student enrollment are anticipated through 2025, with 5,256 students projected for the 2025–2026 school year. Increased staffing needs are also anticipated.

MVLA UHSD has plans to open a new comprehensive high school and expand capacity at its existing schools to accommodate anticipated population growth. For example, the MVLA UHSD plans to construct additional facilities and classrooms. At Los Altos High School, this could include constructing a new student services building, classrooms, and an auxiliary gym, along with an improved campus entry, an enlarged library, and an enlarged and improved cafeteria. At Mountain View High School, improvements could include a new student services building, classrooms, and an auxiliary gym, along with repurposing the cafeteria to provide performing arts classrooms, modernizing Packer Hall, and repurposing the current gym. These expansions would accommodate the growing enrollment projections (Aguilar pers. comm. 2019 and 2021).

The Mountain View-Los Altos Adult School, located at 333 Moffett Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the Project site, is also part of the MVLA UHSD. The Mountain View-Los Altos Adult School provides more than 4,500 adult students annually with specialized adult learning services, including standardized testing, occupational learning courses, technological skill City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
development, and English language courses (Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District 2019).

Other Public Services and Community Facilities
There is one library in Mountain View, the Mountain View Public Library at 585 Franklin Street.

The library was remodeled and expanded in 2018 to meet the needs of Mountain View’s growing population. No libraries are currently planned for future construction in Mountain View (Gray pers. comm. 2019 and 2021).

Hospitals and medical facilities in Mountain View include El Camino Hospital, at 2500 Grant Road; Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, at 555 Castro Street; Palo Alto Medical Foundation—Mountain View Center, at 710 East El Camino Real; and Sutter Health, at 701 East El Camino Real.

Mountain View also offers the following community facilities: the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, located on Castro Street in downtown Mountain View; the Mountain View Senior Center, at 266 Escuela Avenue; the Mountain View Community Center, at 201 South Rengstorff Avenue in Rengstorff Park; the Mountain View Teen Center, at 298 Escuela Avenue; Rengstorff House,1 at 3070 North Shoreline Boulevard in Shoreline Park; and the Adobe Building,2 at 157 Moffett Boulevard (City of Mountain View 2012). Of these other public services and community facilities, only the Adobe Building is within 0.5 mile of the Project site (0.3 mile to the south).

3.13.2.2 Parks and Recreation
Mountain View has nearly 1,000 acres of parks and open space as well as an interconnected system of trails that links neighborhoods to parks and other community facilities, including recreational facilities (City of Mountain View 2012). The City had 13.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents in 2010, substantially better than the City standard of 3 acres per 1,000 residents. Two large regional open spaces, Shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park, within the North Bayshore Planning Area, and Stevens Creek Trail, account for 80 percent of Mountain View’s park and open space area.

Recreational and community facilities in the City include two athletic complexes, the Mountain View Sports Pavilion and the Whisman Sports Center, as well as 15 ball fields, 14 soccer/football fields of varying sizes, and 32 tennis courts. The City also owns and operates two outdoor aquatic facilities, the Eagle Pool and the Rengstorff Pool, and has an extensive and growing multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail network, including the Stevens Creek Trail, Hetch-Hetchy Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, Light Rail Trail, and portions of the Bay Trail. The City also has a public golf facility, Shoreline Golf Link, which is within Shoreline Regional Park. In addition, the City has two community gardens that are open to Mountain View residents and current City employees for an annual rental fee. Mountain View residents also have access to parks and recreation services in the adjacent cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto (City of Mountain View 2012).

There are six parks within 0.5 mile of the Project site as well as a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian trail:
⚫ Whisman Park - The closest park to the Project site is the approximately 10-acre Whisman Park, which is associated with the Yew Chung International School of the Silicon Valley, 1 Rengstorff House offers educational programs that focus on the area’s early history. The facility is available for special events and meetings.
2 The Adobe Building is available for a variety of events, ranging from weddings to corporate meetings.

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
approximately 0.13 mile northeast of the Project site at East Street and Middlefield Road.

Amenities include picnic facilities, a basketball court, children's playground, soccer/football field, tennis courts, a softball field, trail access, passive areas, a picnic area, and outdoor volleyball court.
⚫ Whisman Sports Center - Operated by the City, the Whisman Sports Center is located on the Crittenden Middle School campus and utilized by the school during the day and rented to youth and adult leagues at night and on weekends. The City has a joint-use agreement with the MVWSD, under which the City maintains district fields in exchange for use of the facilities for youth and adult sports after school and on weekends. These fields are not available to the general public during school hours (City of Mountain View 2012). ⚫ Jackson Park - The 0.9-acre Jackson Park is approximately 0.22 mile southwest of the Project site. It includes a children's playground, passive recreational areas, and a picnic area. ⚫ San Veron Park - The 2-acre San Veron Park is approximately 0.3 mile northwest of the Project site. Its amenities include a basketball court, children’s playground, passive recreational areas, a picnic area, and an outdoor volleyball court.
⚫ Creekside Park - The 0.5-acre Creekside Park is 0.16 mile southeast of the Project site. It includes a children’s playground, passive areas, and trail access (City of Mountain View 2020b). ⚫ Willowgate Community Gardens – The Willowgate Community Gardens, approximately 0.3 mile south of the Project site, contains 105 individual community garden plots for residents. ⚫ Stevens Creek Trail - The nearest trail to the Project site is Stevens Creek Trail, approximately

0.2 mile to the east; Stevens Creek Trail is on the border of Creekside Park.

The City established a standard of 3 acres of park space per 1,000 residents in its Parkland Dedication Ordinance, as described below in the Regulatory Setting section. The ordinance requires developers of either single-lot residential development projects or subdivisions to dedicate new parkland or pay an in-lieu fee, which is used to provide nearby parkland or recreational facilities. An in-lieu fee can be substituted for parkland dedication under the following circumstances: (1) the development or subdivision site is not identified as a location for future parkland in the General Plan, Precise Plan, or Park and Open Space Plan; (2) the City determines that parkland dedication is infeasible or undesirable; or (3) the proposed development or subdivision includes fewer than 50 residential units. A combination of parkland dedication and payment of in-lieu fees is acceptable for certain developments or subdivisions in excess of 50 residential units.

For park and open space planning purposes, the Project site is within the Moffett/Whisman Planning Area, which is between the Central Expressway and US 101, an area identified in the General Plan as requiring a more equitable distribution of park facilities (City of Mountain View 2012 and 2014). As of 2014, the Moffett/Whisman Planning Area had 1.79 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which is below the goal of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents (City of Mountain View 2014).

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.13.3 Regulatory Setting

3.13.3.1 State
Quimby Act of 1975
The Quimby Act of 1975 (State of California 2015), and amended several times since then, authorizes jurisdictions to pass ordinances that require developers of residential subdivisions to dedicate land or impose a requirement for in-lieu fees for park or recreational purposes as a condition of parcel map approval.

California Government Code Section 65996
California Government Code Section 65996 (State of California 1998) describes methods for considering and mitigating impacts on school facilities that could result from any state or local agency action, including the development of real property, as described in greater detail below.

Section 65996 states that the payment of school impact fees, as required by a state or local agency, is deemed full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development.

Education Code Section 17620
Education Code Section 17620 (State of California 2010) authorizes school districts to levy a fee or impose a charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project involving the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, provided the district can show justification for levying the fee.

3.13.3.2 Local
City of Mountain View
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies to ensure that public safety service levels remain adequate in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal PSA-1: A high level of community safety, with police, fire, and emergency response services that meet or exceed industry-accepted service standards.

PSA 1.1: Adequate staffing. Maintain adequate police and fire staffing, performance levels, and facilities to serve the needs of the community.

PSA 1.2: Support and promote crime prevention and fire safety strategies in the design of new developments.

Goal PSA-2: A total commitment to reducing criminal activity and instilling a feeling of safety and security in the community.

PSA 2.7: Police service levels and facilities. Ensure Mountain View Police Department service levels and facilities meet demands from new growth and development.

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Goal PSA-3: A community protected from fire, hazardous materials, and environmental contamination.

PSA 3.1: Minimized losses. Minimize property damage, injuries, and loss of life from fire.

Goal INC-2: Infrastructure systems planned and designed to function during interruptions, emergencies, or disasters.

INC 2.2: Emergency service providers. Ensure long-term reliability from service providers and suppliers, especially in the case of an emergency or natural disaster.

The Parks, Open Space, and Community Facilities Element of the General Plan (City of Mountain View 2012) includes goals related to parks, open space, and park facilities. The following goals and policies are relevant to this analysis:

Goal POS-1: An expanded and enhanced park and open space system.

Policy POS 1.1: Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open space acreage and population in each neighborhood.

Policy POS 1.2: Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreational facilities.

Goal POS-2: Parks and public facilities equitably distributed throughout the community and accessible to residents and employees.

Policy POS 2.1: Distribution of parks. Give priority for park acquisition to the planning areas identified in the Parks and Open Space Plan.

Policy POS 2.3: Pedestrian and bicycle access. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, and create new connections to parks to minimize pedestrian and bicycle travel distances.

Goal POS-6: An integrated system of multi-use trails, connecting to key local and regional destinations and amenities.

City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan
The City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan (Parks and Open Space Plan) (City of Mountain View 2014) was updated in 2014 to provide a comprehensive review of the park and open space needs of Mountain View. The Parks and Open Space Plan serves as a tool to help implement the park and open space goals in the General Plan. To achieve these goals, the Parks and Open Space Plan offers a long-range vision to guide decisions made to advance park and open space resources as well as environmental conservation efforts that enhance the quality of life for all who live and work in Mountain View. The Parks and Open Space Plan includes recommendations to increase, improve, preserve, and provide access to parks and open space and develop trail systems. These recommendations are intended to ensure that parks and open space, as well as access to these resources, are equitably distributed throughout the town.

A main focus of the Parks and Open Space Plan is to provide access to existing parks and open space that is safe and convenient. According to the Parks and Open Space Plan, improved access could reduce the need for the acquisition of additional park land and open space. The Parks and Open Space Plan has adopted a standard of 3 acres of park land and open space per 1,000 persons living City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
in Mountain View. Currently, Mountain View has 13.35 acres of park land and open space per 1,000 residents, including regional open space and school parks.

The Parks and Open Space Plan includes the following citywide recommendations that are relevant to this analysis:
• Acquire open space throughout Mountain View for neighborhood parks and mini-parks, especially in neighborhoods deemed most deficient in open space. • Develop open space as parks for community use, especially in neighborhoods deemed deficient in open space. Encourage maximum community input in all stages of development. • Preserve and enhance Mountain View’s urban forest and canopy. • Look for opportunities to add garden space to existing open space. • Work cooperatively with the City and with other governmental agencies to ensure that access to open space resources is enhanced (e.g., traffic safety, attractiveness to users). Evaluate all City parks to ensure safe crossings.
• Work cooperatively within the City to build mini-trails that facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to trails from neighborhoods, especially from neighborhoods that are undeserved in open space.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code, Chapter 41: Park Land Dedication or Fees in Lieu Thereof Chapter 41 of the City of Mountain View Municipal Code (City of Mountain View 2020a) requires new development involving residential subdivisions, including multi-unit residential dwellings and apartment buildings, to be accompanied by either the direct dedication of land to the City for use as public parkland or payment of a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The fee option is permitted only when direct parkland dedication is impossible, impractical, or undesirable or when the proposed residential development contains 50 or fewer dwelling units. For medium-high-density and highdensity residential developments (26 or more dwelling units per acre), Section 41 of the City of Mountain View Municipal Code requires dedication of at least 0.006 acre of parkland per dwelling unit.

3.13.4 Impact Analysis

3.13.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing public services and recreation.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause any of the following:

1. 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 City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
a. Fire protection,
b. Police protection,
c. Schools,
d. Parks, or
e. Other public facilities

2. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

3. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

3.13.4.2 Methods
The potential impacts associated with public services are evaluated on a quantitative and qualitative basis through coordination with respective service agencies. Significant impacts would occur if the Project would adversely affect the ability of service agencies to provide adequate service to the Project area or other existing service areas according to applicable service ratios, response time goals, or other performance objectives, resulting in the need for new or expanded facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Identifying the Project area’s public services involved a review of the following documents and sources of information:
• City of Mountain View web site.
• City of Mountain View planning documents:
 Review of the General Plan.
• Service providers’ web sites.
• Direct communication with service providers.

Key operational or buildout-related impacts were identified and evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, based on current plans.3
3 As described in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, subsequent to the preparation of this Draft EIR, based on input received during City Council study sessions, the number of new residential units associated with Project would decrease by 5, from 329 to 324 units. This chapter analyzes 329 net new residential units despite Chapter 2 reflecting the current proposal of 324 net new residential units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and mitigation measures, primarily because the overall duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint all would remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth (e.g., increase in service calls, student generation, increase in park and library usage) present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 more units than what is currently proposed under the Project. Thus, the minor reduction in the number of units and residents that would be generated by the Project does not substantively alter the environmental impact analysis or conclusions set forth herein.

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.13.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.13.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.13.4.4, Summary of Public Services and Recreation Impacts.

Impact PSR-1 Reduced service ratios and response times for fire protection and emergency medical services during construction or operation, resulting in the construction or expansion of existing facilities.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Based on currently available information, construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting a total of approximately 64 months. Project construction would be temporary, and all building plans would be subject to City and MVFD review prior to building permit issuance. The Project would also be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval FD-05 (Fire Protection during Construction) (effective January 30, 2017) (see full condition of approval below) to ensure the buildings of four stories or more be connected to a temporary standpipe system during construction to which fire hoses can connect. In addition, the Project would be required by the City to adhere to all applicable fire protection requirements and standards (i.e., fire flow requirements, etc.). Thus, Project construction is unlikely to materially or permanently increase the need for emergency fire protection services.

Similarly, construction activities generally present elevated risks to workers and could increase the number of emergency medical calls at the Project site compared with current conditions and, subsequently, decrease response times elsewhere in Mountain View. However, because the Project sponsor and contractors would be required to comply with all applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations, risks of injury would be minimized to the extent feasible and would not be expected to affect citywide emergency medical service response times substantially.

Emergency access to the Project area could be affected by Project construction. Temporary lane closures and construction-related traffic could delay or obstruct the movement of emergency vehicles. The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PW-111 (Construction Management Plans) (see full condition of approval below), which requires a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans. Adherence to Standard Conditions of Approval FD-05 and PW-111 would ensure adequate fire protection infrastructure is available during construction and help manage the flow of construction traffic as well as vehicle ingress/egress in a manner that would minimize traffic delays and thereby reduce any potential traffic-related fire or emergency medical service impacts. Therefore, existing fire protection and emergency medical service facilities would not need to be expanded, nor would new facilities need to be constructed to support Project construction, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. During Project operations, emergency access would be provided at West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site at one location on West Middlefield Road, two locations on Moffett Boulevard, and seven City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
locations on Cypress Point Drive. One emergency vehicle access driveway has been added at the end of Cypress Point Drive to allow emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, which shows the proposed access points). Additional fire hydrants would be installed at the Project site. The Project’s circulation elements would be required to comply with applicable fire protection standards and requirements, and compliance would be confirmed as part of the building permit process by the MVFD.

The Project site is in the service area of Fire Station 4. The response time goal for MVFD is 6 minutes or less. Given the City of Mountain View’s average household size, occupancy of the new residential units would result in up to 787 new residents, as discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing.

The Project would include a total of 731 residential units on-site, 329 of which would be new residential units. MVFD estimates that the 329 new residential units would generate an additional 58 fire protection and emergency medical services calls per year, a 5 percent increase in the call volume for the Fire Station 4 service area (Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.). Given this and other considerations, MVFD anticipates that the estimated increase in population due to the Project would not reduce response times. In addition, MVFD anticipates existing fire suppression and equipment would be adequate and capable of ensuring safety during operation of the Project (Jones pers. comm. and Diaz pers. comm.). Two additional fire prevention inspectors may be required to meet the demands of fire prevention inspection generally throughout the City, including the Project site; it is anticipated that the additional inspectors would be accommodated within MVFD’s existing facilities and would not require the construction or expansion of new facilities.

In addition, the Project would be required to adhere to the Standard Conditions of Approval, which require fire protection systems within all proposed buildings and throughout the entire Project site, including FD-03 (Residential Fire Sprinkler System), FD-04 (Standpipe System), FD-06 (Fire Hydrants), FD-08 (Fire Extinguishers), FD-11 (Automatic/Manual Fire Alarm System), and FD-12 (Smoke Alarms) (see full conditions of approval below). In addition, the Project site would be designed to facilitate access for emergency vehicles. It would also incorporate fire safety features, pursuant to Standard Conditions of Approval FD-13 through FD-22 and FD-30 (see full conditions of approval below). Adherence to the Standard Conditions of Approval FD-03, FD-04, FD-06, FD-08, FD-11, FD-13 through FD-22, and FD-30 would reduce the number of fire-related emergencies and calls for service. Therefore, existing fire protection and emergency medical service facilities would not need to be expanded, nor would new facilities need to be constructed to support Project operations, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• FD-03: Residential Fire Sprinkler System. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system designed in accordance with NFPA 13D (2016 Edition) and Mountain View Fire Department specifications. Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for a copy of specifications and submittal requirements or visit online at www.mountainview.gov/firerequirements. (California Residential Code Section R313.) • FD-04: Standpipe System. Provide a Class I standpipe system. (City Code Sections 14.10.29,

14.10.30, 14.10.31, and 14.10.32 and California Fire Code Section 905.) • FD-05: Fire Protection During Construction. Every building four (4) stories or more in height shall be provided with not less than one (1) standpipe for use during construction. Such standpipe(s) shall be installed when the progress of construction is not more than 40’ in height above the lowest level of Fire Department access. Such standpipe(s) shall be provided with Fire City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Department hose connections at accessible locations adjacent to usable stairs, and the standpipe outlets shall be located adjacent to such usable stairs. Such standpipe systems shall be extended as construction progresses to within one floor of the highest point of construction having secured decking or flooring. In each floor, there shall be provided a 2.5” valve outlet for Fire Department use. (California Fire Code, Chapter 33.)
• FD-06: Fire Hydrants. Hydrants in accordance with the Department of Public Works Standard Provisions shall be located every 300’ (apart) and within 150’ of all exterior walls. Installation shall be complete and the system shall be tested prior to combustible construction. • FD-08: Fire Extinguishers. Install one 2-A:10-B:C fire extinguisher for every 50’/75’ of travel or every 3,000 square feet. Fire extinguisher locations shall be indicated on the architectural floor plans. (California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Chapter 3 and California Fire Code, Section 906.) • FD-11: Automatic/Manual Fire Alarm System. Provide an approved automatic/manual fire alarm system in accordance with California Fire Code and Mountain View Fire Department specifications. Three (3) complete sets of fire alarm system shop-quality drawings shall be submitted for review and approval. Prior to occupancy, the system shall be field-tested, approved, and in service. Provisions shall be made for monthly testing, maintenance, and service. Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for a copy of specifications and submittal requirements or visit online at www.mountainview.gov/firerequirements. (California Fire Code, Section 907 and City Code, Section 14.10.33.) • FD-12: Smoke Alarms. All residential occupancies shall be provided with California State Fire Marshal-listed smoke alarms. Smoke alarms shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code and the approved manufacturer’s instructions. (California Fire Code, Section 907.2.10.)
• FD-13: Carbon Monoxide Alarms. All residential occupancies shall be provided with carbon monoxide alarms. Carbon monoxide alarms shall be installed in accordance with the California Building Code and the approved manufacturer’s instructions. (California Fire Code, Section 915.) • FD-14: Lockbox. Install an approved key lockbox per the Fire Protection Engineer’s directions.

Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for instructions or visit online at www.mountainview.gov/firerequirements. (California Fire Code, Section 506.) • FD-15: Keyswitch. Install an approved keyswitch per the Fire Protection Engineer’s directions.

Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for instructions. • FD-16: Fire Apparatus Access Road. Access roads shall have 13’6” unobstructed vertical clearance, 20’ of unobstructed width (26’ where building occupied floors exceed 30’ height), and minimum turning radii of 21’ (inside turning radius). Unobstructed width shall mean a clear travelway, excluding parking width, and designed for an emergency vehicle weight of 70,000 pounds. Unobstructed width shall not include the width of rolled curbs, sidewalks, or nondrivable surfaces. (California Fire Code, Section 503, and City Code, Sections 14.10.14,

14.10.15, and 14.10.16.)
• FD-17: Fir Apparatus Turnarounds. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150’ in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of apparatus. “Approved provisions” shall mean that turnarounds, in accordance with Mountain View Fire Department specifications, are provided in locations such that fire apparatus shall never be City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
more than 150’ away from the closest turnaround. Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for specifications. (California Fire Code, Section 503.) • FD-18: Fire Lane Marking. “NO PARKING—FIRE LANE” signs shall be posted along fire lanes and curbs shall be painted red with the words: NO PARKING—FIRE LANE stenciled in white on the top and side of the curb. Contact the Building Inspection Division at 650-903-6313 for specifications and application or visit online at www.mountainview.gov/firerequirements. (California Fire Code, Section 503.)
• FD-19: All-Weather Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Prior to combustible construction, an allweather access road capable of supporting emergency vehicles (70,000 pounds) shall be constructed to allow access within 150’ of every portion of the project. Access roads shall have 13’6” overhead clearance, 20’ of unobstructed width, and 21’ inside turning radius. (California Fire Code, Section 503.)
• FD-20: Stretcher Requirements. In all structures four (4) or more stories in height, at least one elevator shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and door, excluding return panels, of not less than 80”x54”, and a minimum distance from wall to return panel of not less than 51” with a 42” side slide door, unless otherwise designed to accommodate an ambulance-type stretcher 84”x24” in the horizontal position. (California Building Code, Section 3002.)
• FD-21: Exist Illumination. Exit paths shall be illuminated any time the building is occupied with a light having an intensity of not less than one footcandle at floor level. Power shall normally be by the premises wiring with battery backup. Exit illumination shall be indicated on the Electrical Plans. (California Building Code, Section 1008.)
• FD-22: Exist Signs. Exit signs shall be internally or externally illuminated and provided with battery backup per Uniform Building Code Chapter 10. Exit signs shall be posted above each required exit doorway and wherever otherwise required to clearly indicate the direction of egress. (California Building Code, Section 1013.)
• FD-30: On-Site Drawings. Submit CAD (.dwg) drawing files according to Fire Department specifications prior to final Certificate of Occupancy. • PW-111: Construction Management Plans. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and all subsequent building permit submittals, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans showing the following:

1. Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections 19.58 and 19.59 and which does not include neighborhood residential streets;

2. Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Show construction vehicles and equipment parking area, material storage and lay-down area, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles/equipment and trailer shall be located on-site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking) arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots. Construction contractors/workers are required to park on-site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage; and City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3. Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on-site construction activities.

The construction traffic and parking management plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Impact PSR-2 Reduced service ratios and response times for police protection during construction or operation, resulting in the construction or expansion of new facilities.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Based on currently available information, construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting a total of approximately 64 months. Project construction would be temporary, and the existing Project site is adequately served by the MVPD.

Thus, Project construction is unlikely to materially or permanently increase the need for police protection services.

Emergency access to the Project area could be affected by Project construction. Temporary lane closures and construction-related traffic could delay or obstruct the movement of police vehicles.

The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PW-111 (Construction Management Plans), which requires a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans. Adherence to Standard Conditions of Approval FD-05 and PW-111 (see full conditions of approval above) would ensure adequate fire protection infrastructure is available during construction and help manage the flow of construction traffic as well as vehicle ingress/egress in a manner that would minimize traffic delays and thereby reduce any potential traffic-related police protection service impacts. Therefore, existing police protection facilities would not need to be expanded, nor would new facilities need to be constructed to support Project construction, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. Emergency access would be provided at West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site at one location on West Middlefield Road, two locations on Moffett Boulevard, and seven locations on Cypress Point Drive. One emergency vehicle access driveway has been added at the end of Cypress Point Drive to allow emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, which shows the proposed access points).

The Project site is in Beat 4 of the MVPD. MVPD’s goal is to respond to emergency and Priority 1 calls, which warrant emergency dispatch and are the highest priority, in less than 4 minutes at least 55 percent of the time. The Project would include a total of 731 residential units on-site, 329 of which would be new residential units. Given the City of Mountain View’s average household size, occupancy of the new residential units would result in up to 787 new residents, as discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing. Based on a citywide rate of 0.52 calls per person, the 783 new residents could generate up to 410 calls for police services annually. Despite staffing shortages, which are evaluated on an annual basis, the MVPD currently has the capacity to serve the additional 787 residents that would occupy the site during Project operation (Hsiung pers. comm. 2019 and 2021).

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
In addition, the Project would be required to adhere to the Standard Conditions of Approval PD-05 (Security Plan) and PD-06 (Security Camera Systems) (see full conditions of approval below) to improve onsite security. Adherence to the Standard Conditions of Approval PD-05 and PD-06 would reduce the number of police-related emergencies and calls for service. Therefore, existing police protection facilities would not need to be expanded, nor would new facilities need to be constructed to support Project operations, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PD-05: Security Plan. The applicant/operator shall maintain a detailed security plan which can be amended from time to time, that is approved by the Police Chief. • PD-06: Security Camera System(s). The applicant/operator shall maintain an operational security camera system, at a minimum, focusing on the entrance doors. The camera system shall record continuously during the live entertainment, music, and dancing operations; and security tapes shall be kept for a period of at least 30 days.

Impact PSR-3 Substantial increase in student enrollment, resulting in adverse physical impacts.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The Project would include a total of 731 residential units on-site, 329 of which would be new residential units. An estimate of the number students the Project could generate within MVWSD and MVLA UHSD is provided in Table 3.13-3.

It is anticipated that Theuerkauf Elementary School and Crittenden Middle School in MVWSD have capacity to accommodate the students that would be generated by the Project. Nonetheless, MVWSD could hire additional personnel to accommodate the 62 students that would be generated by the Project (Ghysels pers. comm.). MVWSD recently opened one new elementary school, José Antonio Vargas Elementary School, and has plans to expand capacity at its existing schools because of increasing enrollment as a result of overall growth within the MVWSD boundaries. Therefore, any potential need for additional MVWSD personnel would most likely be accommodated within the new and expanded facilities. Any future school facility would be subject to separate CEQA review as part of that review and approval process.

It is anticipated that Mountain View High School in MVLA UHSD does not have capacity to accommodate additional students, including the students that would be generated by the Project.

MVLA UHSD has plans to open a new comprehensive high school and expand capacity at its existing schools to accommodate the 29 students that would be generated by the Project and the overall anticipated enrollment increase within the district (Aguilar pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). As discussed above, at Mountain View High School, improvements could include a new student services building, classrooms, and an auxiliary gym, along with repurposing the cafeteria to provide performing arts classrooms, modernizing Packer Hall, and repurposing the current gym. These expansions would accommodate the growing enrollment projections (Aguilar pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). Therefore, any potential need for additional MVLA UHSD personnel would be accommodated within the new and expanded facilities. Any future school facility would be subject to separate CEQA City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
review as part of that review and approval process. In addition, it is not anticipated that the Project would generate a substantial number of students at the Mountain View-Los Altos Adult School.

School districts are authorized under California Government Code Section 65996 and Education Code Section 17620 to levy a development fee on new residential and commercial projects to offset costs associated with new students in districts as a result of new development. The Project would be required to comply with these codes under Standard Condition of Approval BID-44 (School Impact Fee). Section 65996 states that the payment of school impact fees, as required by a state or local agency, is deemed full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. Because the Project would pay the applicable development impact fee, which could be used to help offset the cost of expanding or constructing new school facilities and hiring new personnel, including teachers, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 3.13-3. Estimated Number of Students Generated by the Project4 District
Housing
Units
Student Generation Rate per Multifamily Residential Dwelling Unit Maximum Estimated
Project-generated
Students
Mountain
View
Whisman
School
District
280 market
rate

0.124 (market rate) 35
49 below
market rate 0.555 (below market rate) 27
Total 62
Mountain
View-Los
Altos Union
High School
District
280 market
rate

0.047 (market rate [high]) 13
49 below
market rate 0.312 (below market rate [high]) 16
Total 29
Source: City of Mountain View. 2019b. CEQA Data Table.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• BID-44: School Impact Fee. Project will be subject to School Impact fees. To obtain information, fee estimates, and procedures, please contact the following local school districts: Mountain View Los Altos High School District; and Mountain View Whisman School District or Los Altos Elementary School District.
4 As described in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, subsequent to the preparation of this Draft EIR, based on input received during City Council study sessions, the number of new residential units associated with the Project would decrease by 5, from 329 to 324 units. This chapter analyzes 315 net new residential units despite Chapter 2 reflecting the current proposal of 315 net new residential units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and mitigation measures, primarily because the overall duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint would all remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth (e.g., service ratios or response times) present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 more units than what is currently proposed under the Project. Thus, the minor reduction in the number of units and residents that would be generated by the Project does not substantially alter the environmental impact analysis or conclusions set forth herein.

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact PSR-4 Reduced level of service at parks, resulting in adverse physical impacts during construction or operation.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Based on currently available information, construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting approximately 64 months. Project construction would be temporary, and it is not anticipated that a substantial number of construction workers on the site would use nearby park and recreational facilities during their break times. The increase in park and recreational users would not cause physical deterioration at nearby parks, in open spaces, or on trails or create a need for new or expanded park and recreational facilities. In addition, increased construction traffic in the vicinity of nearby parks and other recreational facilities would not significantly disrupt use or public enjoyment of these facilities because the facilities are primarily urban and suburban community and neighborhood parks rather than open space preserves. Therefore, the impact of Project construction on nearby park and recreational facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. As discussed above, the City exceeds its goal of 3 acres of parkland and open space per 1,000 residents. Given the City of Mountain View’s average household size, occupancy of the new residential units would result in up to 787 new residents, as discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing. With implementation of the Project, a total of approximately 20 full-time employees would work at the Project site. This would result in a net increase in employment amounting to 10 fulltime employees. The increase in residents and employees at the Project site would increase the demand on parks and recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Project site. However, the Project proposes a number of amenities, both for new and existing residents and the general public (in the form of future City-owned park space and a new pedestrian and bicycle path5), as shown in Figure 2- 9 in Chapter 2, Project Description. In terms of on-site open space, including the existing 56,914 square feet of common open space that would remain in the areas containing the existing residential units, there would be a total of approximately 145,474 square feet of common usable open space and a total of approximately 18,863 square feet of private open space upon Project completion.

Therefore, new Project residents and employees would likely use the onsite recreational facilities and not substantially degrade the existing parks ratio and/or existing park and recreational facilities located nearby.

In addition, the Project would involve payment of an in-lieu fee for development of public parks in the Project planning area, in compliance with the City of Mountain View Parkland Dedication Ordinance and Standard Condition of Approval PW-19 (Park Land Dedication Fee) (see full condition of approval below). Any increased use of park facilities as a result of Project 5 Approximately 1.3 acres of land along Cypress Point Drive on the Park Parcel would be offered for dedication to the City for use as a future public park space. The specific park uses and facilities are not known at this time, and would be determined in the future by the City, in its discretion, with input from the public as part of a separate planning process. The future public park space would be available for use by the general public as well as residents and guests of the Project as a public improvement. Prior to offering the Park Parcel for dedication, the Project developer would grade the land in a manner suitable for the future public park uses, which would then be designed, approved, and implemented by the City in its discretion. This draft EIR has evaluated the potential environmental impacts associated with the future use of the Park Parcel as a public park to the extent reasonably known at this time, as discussed throughout this document.

City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
implementation that could cause physical deterioration of recreational resources would be offset by the in-lieu fee, which could be combined with other funds, in the City’s discretion, to construct new or expanded park and recreational facilities when determined appropriate and desirable. Any such future park or recreational facility development would be subject to separate CEQA review.

The Project site is also well served by existing park and recreational facilities in the vicinity, Whisman Sports Center, Whisman Park, Jackson Park, San Veron Park, Creekside Park, Willowgate Community Gardens, and Stevens Creek Trail. The Project could increase demand on parks and recreational facilities within the vicinity of the Project site and in the City. However, compliance with the City of Mountain View Parkland Dedication Ordinance and Standard Condition of Approval PW19 would ensure that the number of new residents and employees generated by the Project would not substantially diminish the overall ratio of Mountain View residents to City parkland, cause physical deterioration of existing facilities, or create a need for new or expanded facilities.

Therefore, the impact resulting from Project implementation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PW-19: Park Land Dedication Fee. Prior to issuance of any building permits and prior to approval of the parcel or final map, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication Fee (approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per unit) for each new residential unit in accordance with Chapter 41 of the City Code prior to the issuance of the building permit. No credit against the Park Land Dedication Fee will be allowed for private open space and recreational facilities.

Provide the most current appraisal or escrow closing statement of the property with the following information to assist the City in determining the current market value of the land: (1) a brief description of the existing use of the property; (2) square footage of the lot; and (3) size and type of each building located on the property at the time the property was acquired.

Impact PSR-5 Reduced use or level of service at other public service and community facilities during construction or operation, resulting in the construction or expansion of new facilities.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. No other public services or community facilities are in the vicinity of the Project site; the closest such facility is the Adobe House, approximately 0.4 mile south of the Project site. Because of the distance from the Project site, Project construction activities and associated traffic delays would not affect other public services or community facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. Given the City of Mountain View’s average household size, occupancy of the new residential units would result in up to 787 new residents, as discussed in Section 3.12, Population and Housing. With implementation of the Project, a total of approximately 20 full-time employees would work at the site, which would result in a new increase of approximately 10 full-time employees. This population increase would be consistent with the population growth anticipated in the General Plan (City of Mountain View 2012). Therefore, although the increase in population as a result of Project implementation could increase use at community facilities, including libraries, it is City of Mountain View Section 3.13. Public Services and Recreation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.13-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
consistent with planned growth. Other community facilities, including the Mountain View Public Library, have the capacity to meet additional demand (Gray pers. comm. 2019 and 2021). It is not anticipated that implementation of the Project would result in substantial degradation at the facilities, resulting in a need for the expansion of existing facilities or construction of new facilities.

Therefore, operational Project impacts related to other public facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.13.4.4 Summary of Public Services and Recreation Impacts Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact PSR-1: Reduced service ratios
and response times for fire protection
and emergency medical services during
construction or operation, resulting in
the construction or expansion of new
facilities.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact PSR-2: Reduced service ratios
and response times for police
protection during construction or
operation, resulting in the construction
or expansion of new facilities.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact PSR-3: Substantial increase in
student enrollment, resulting in
adverse physical impacts.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact PSR-4: Reduced use or level of
service at parks, resulting in adverse
physical impacts during construction or
operation.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact PSR-5: Reduced use or level of
service at other public service and
community facilities during
construction or operation, resulting in
construction or expansion of new
facilities.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14 Transportation and Circulation

3.14.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for transportation and circulation.

It also describes impacts on transportation and circulation that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. This section is based on the Transportation Analysis (TA) prepared for the Project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. The TA is included as Appendix 3.14-1. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.14.4.4, Summary of Transportation and Circulation Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include concerns regarding traffic on Cypress Point Drive and suggestions regarding the approach to the analysis.

3.14.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of existing conditions related to transportation and circulation on the Project site and in the surrounding area. The study area for transportation and circulation impacts is defined as the surrounding street network as well as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the Project site that could be affected by implementation of the Project.

3.14.2.1 Study Area
The Project site is located at 555 West Middlefield Road, just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard. The site is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, State Route (SR) 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west.

In the Project vicinity, the Central Expressway, SR 237, SR 85, and US 101 are part of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system of Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the CMP roadway system in Santa Clara County.

Study Intersections
Study intersections were selected in accordance with VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (October 2014) and in consultation with City of Mountain View (City) personnel. The study includes those intersections that provide primary access to the Project site as well as intersections that would experience an increase in traffic amounting to 10 or more peak-hour trips per lane. The study intersections are listed below and shown in Figure 3.14-1. One study intersection is designated as a CMP intersection.
• North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road
• Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road
• Easy Street and East Middlefield Road
555 W. Middlefield Road Residential Development
Figure 1
Site Location and Study Intersections
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Cypress
Point Dr
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
Cypress
Point Dr
X = Study Intersection
= Site Location
LEGEND
85 82
237
1 7
8 9
10 11
2 3 4
5 6
12 13
Mountain View
Source: Hexagon, 2020.

ICF Graphics … 00214.20 (12-17-20) JC
Figure 3.14-1
Site Location and Study Intersections
555 West Middlefield Road
City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• Tyrella Avenue and East Middlefield Road (unsignalized) • North Whisman Road and East Middlefield Road
• Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road
• Moffett Boulevard and US 101 northbound ramps
• Moffett Boulevard and US 101 southbound ramps
• Moffett Boulevard and Leong Drive
• Moffett Boulevard and SR 85 northbound off-ramp
• Moffett Boulevard and SR 85 southbound on-ramp (unsignalized) • Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive
• Moffett Boulevard and Central Expressway (designated CMP intersection)

3.14.2.2 Roadway Network
Regional access to the Project site is provided by US 101 and SR 85. Local access to the Project site is provided by Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Figure 3.14-1 shows the locations of these facilities in relation to the Project site. Descriptions of the access roadways are as follows.
• US 101 is a north–south freeway that extends through and beyond the Bay Area, connecting San Francisco to San José. US 101 is eight lanes wide, with three mixed-flow lanes and one highoccupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the Project site. US 101 provides access to the Project site via full interchanges at North Shoreline Boulevard and Moffett Boulevard.
• SR 85 is a north–south freeway that begins at US 101, east of North Shoreline Boulevard; extends south toward San José; and terminates at US 101 east of the Silicon Valley Boulevard/Bernal Road interchange. SR 85 is six lanes wide (two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the Project site. SR 85 provides access to the Project site via an interchange at Moffett Boulevard.
• Shoreline Boulevard is a north–south arterial that extends northward from El Camino Real (SR 82) and across US 101 to Shoreline Park on the San Francisco Bay side. The four-lane roadway has landscaped medians along most of the street with left-turn pockets at intersections and has bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the boulevard. In the Project vicinity, North Shoreline Boulevard has a two-way left-turn lane between Terra Bella Avenue and the existing southern driveway of the site. On-street parking is prohibited on North Shoreline Boulevard in the Project vicinity. The speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Project site access is via the existing southern driveway on North Shoreline Boulevard. • Middlefield Road is an east–west four-lane arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses westward through Redwood City. West Middlefield Road has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at intersections and bicycle lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. On-street parking is prohibited on West Middlefield Road in the Project vicinity. The speed limit is 35 mph.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14.2.3 Existing Traffic Conditions
Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
The Mountain View Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA. Projects that meet the screening criteria are not required to prepare further VMT analyses. Development of the “proximity to transit” screening criterion was based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states that lead agencies should presume that certain projects within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency-of-service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the City developed a transit proximity map, which shows areas in Mountain View where this screening criterion applies. The presumption does not apply if any of the following characteristics are met:
• A proposed project’s floor area ratio (FAR) is less than 0.75, • A proposed project provides more than the maximum parking required by the City, • A proposed project is inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, or • A proposed project replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units.

The Project site is within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop.

3.14.2.4 Transit Service
Existing public transit services in the study area are provided by VTA, the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA), and the City. VTA operates bus and light rail transit (LRT) services in Santa Clara County, TMA provides the free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and Whisman areas, and Google, partnering with the City, voluntarily provides a free community shuttle service in Mountain View.

The Project site is within easy biking distance (0.45 mile) of the Mountain View Caltrain and LRT stations at the Mountain View Transit Center, which is served by numerous buses. The VTA bus routes, MVgo shuttle routes, Mountain View community shuttle route, and Caltrain/LRT stations in the Project vicinity as well as the bus/shuttle stops near the Project site are shown in Figure 3.14-2.

3.14.2.5 Nonmotorized Transportation Facilities
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities, consisting of sidewalks and crosswalks, are present along all study area roadways and at signalized intersections. Pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are installed at all signalized study intersections. In addition, crosswalks are provided at the unsignalized study intersection of Tyrella Avenue and East Middlefield Road. There are no sidewalks on the south side of the Middlefield
555 W. Middlefield Road Residential Development
Figure 3
Existing Transit Services
85 237
82 = Site Location
LEGEND
= Local Bus Route
= Express Bus Route
= MVGO Shuttle Shoreline Route
= MVGO Shuttle Whisman Route
= MV Community Shuttle
= Bus Stop
= MVGO Shuttle Charleston Route
= MVGO Shuttle San Antonio Route
XXX
104
= Light Rail: Mountain View-Alum Rock
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
Mary Ave
Dana St
Cypress
Point Dr
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
Mary Ave
Dana St
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Cypress
Point Dr
XX
40 40
40 40
51 51
51 51
21 21
21 21
21 Mountain View
Transit Center
21 40
XX
21, MVCS
21, 51
21, 51
MVCS
MVCS
MVGO Shuttles:

San Antonio, Charleston,
Shoreline, Whisman
Mountain View
Caltrain Station
Mountain View
Source: Hexagon, 2020.

ICF Graphics … 00214.20 (12-17-20) JC
Figure 3.14-2
Existing Transit Services
555 West Middlefield Road
City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Road overpass at SR 85, between the Project’s eastern driveway and the Stevens Creek Trail access point, but sidewalks are provided on the north side of the street. In addition, there are no sidewalks on the west side of Moffett Boulevard between the SR 85 southbound on-ramp and Leong Drive, but sidewalks are provided on the east side of the street. At the Moffett Boulevard/Cypress Point Drive intersection, there is no sidewalk on the north leg, but sidewalks are provided on the south and east legs. Therefore, continuous pedestrian facilities are provided between the site and surrounding land uses, including restaurants, retail stores, bus stops, and transit stations.

Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities within 1 mile of the Project site include a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bicycle lanes (Class II bikeway), and shared bicycle routes/boulevards (Class III bikeway). These facilities are shown in Figure 3.14-3. Bike paths, or multi-use trails, are shared by pedestrians and bicyclists and separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are designated on roadways with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bicycle routes in areas where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists. Bike boulevards are modified bicycle routes, with additional treatments that offer convenient and efficient through routes for bicyclists of all skill levels.

Stevens Creek Trail extends from San Francisco Bay, under US 101 and Middlefield Road, to Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Avenue. The trail can be accessed from eastbound East Middlefield Road between SR 85 and Easy Street and Moffett Boulevard at the SR 85 northbound off-ramp intersection, about 1,000 and 1,800 feet from the Project site, respectively.

Striped bicycle lanes are present along the following street segments:
• Shoreline Boulevard between El Camino Real and Charleston Road • Middlefield Road between Old Middlefield Way and Bernardo Avenue • Moffett Boulevard north of SR 85
• Moffett Boulevard between Jackson Street and the Central Expressway on the southbound side • Whisman Road (the entire street)
• Evelyn Avenue east of View Street
• California Street between San Antonio Road and Del Medio Avenue Some of these streets, although having bicycle lanes, are more suitable for experienced riders because of traffic speeds. The bicycle lanes on Middlefield Road between Thaddeus Drive and Logue Avenue are part-time bicycle facilities from 2 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays; the lanes are used for onstreet parking the remaining hours (7 p.m. to 2 a.m.) and on weekends. Because the bicycle lanes are available only on weekdays, they are suited primarily for bicycle commuters and not casual riders.

Bike routes are provided along the following street segments:
• Stierlin Road between Moffett Boulevard and North Shoreline Boulevard • Central Avenue between Stevens Creek Trail and Stierlin Road • Sierra Vista Avenue north of Montecito Avenue
555 W. Middlefield Road Residential Development
Figure 4
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Fi 4
Stevens Creek Trail
Permanente Creek Trail
85 237
82 = Site Location
LEGEND
= Class IV Protected Bike Lane
= Class I Bike Path
= Class II Bike Lane
= Class III Bike Route
= Class III Bicycle Boulevard
= Part-Time Bike Lane
(2AM-7PM Weekdays)
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
Mary Ave
Dana St
Evelyn Ave
Cypress
Point Dr
Central Expy
Central Expy
W El Camino Real
Castro St
Easy St
W Maude Ave
California St
Church St
Rock St
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Sierra Vista Ave
Tyrella Ave
N Whisman Rd
Calderon Ave
N Rengstorff Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
Central Ave
Old Middlefield Way
Wright Ave
Stierlin Rd
Leong Dr
Farley St
N Bernardo Ave
Mary Ave
Dana St
Evelyn Ave
La Avenida St
Moffett
Blvd
W Middlefield
Rd
Montecito
Ave
Terra Bella
Ave
San Pierre
Way
Moffett
Blvd
Cypress
Point Dr
Mountain View
Caltrain Station
Mountain View
Source: Hexagon, 2020.

ICF Graphics … 00214.20 (12-17-20 JC
Figure 3.14-3
Existing Bicycle Facilities
555 West Middlefield Road
City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• Leong Drive
• Evelyn Avenue between Castro Street and View Street
• View Street between California Street and Evelyn Avenue Bike routes are typically designated with sharrows (i.e., shared-lane pavement markings), allowing bicyclists to use the travel lane. Bike routes are appropriate for low-volume streets with slow travel speeds, especially those where motorist volumes are low enough to allow passing maneuvers that use the full width of the street; roadways with bicycle demand but without an adequate space for bicycle lanes; and where there are short breaks in the bicycle lanes because of right-of-way constraints (i.e., “gap fillers”).

Montecito Avenue, Stierlin Road, and Central Avenue are designated bicycle boulevards. Bicycle boulevards prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic-calming strategies, wayfinding signage, and other measures. One key feature involves stop signs, which are “flipped” (i.e., removed from the boulevard and placed on cross streets) to favor the bicyclists’ direction of travel. This change improves bicyclists’ average speed by minimizing unneeded stops. Bicycle boulevard improvements are coupled with traffic-calming features to discourage motor vehicle speeding.

3.14.3 Regulatory Setting

3.14.3.1 State
On September 27, 2013, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743. Among other things, SB 743 created a process for changing the analysis of transportation impacts under CEQA, with the analysis focusing on a project’s VMT rather than impacts on intersection level of service (LOS). On December 30, 2013, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released a preliminary evaluation of alternative methods for transportation analysis. The original guidance documentation was geared toward projects in areas that are designated as transit priority areas, followed by other areas of the state. OPR issued another draft discussion document in March 2015, suggesting some new revisions to the formal CEQA Guidelines. In January 2016, OPR issued another guidance document and requested additional input. In 2018, the CEQA Guidelines were revised to reflect the process set forth in SB 743 and became effective later that year, and the VMT provisions of the updated CEQA Guidelines commenced on July 1, 2020 (although lead agencies had the right to elect to be governed by these provisions earlier than July 1, 2020).

The CEQA Guidelines now identify VMT as the most appropriate metric for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay and congestion, as measured by LOS and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21099, subdivision [b][3]). It should be noted that LOS is used outside of the CEQA document to evaluate other non-CEQA transportation impacts of development projects, such as congestion, circulation, and safety issues and concerns.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14.3.2 Local
Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program
VTA is responsible for maintaining the standards of the CMP roadway system in Santa Clara County (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2017). VTA strives to maintain LOS E on all CMPmonitored facilities. Based on VTA’s Guidelines, a CMP intersection shall be included in a transportation analysis if a proposed development project would add 10 or more peak-hour vehicles per lane to any intersection movement; a CMP freeway segment shall be included in a TIA if a proposed development project would add traffic equal to at least 1 percent of the freeway segment’s capacity (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2014).

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies related to transportation and circulation in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal MOB-1: Streets that safely accommodate all transportation modes and persons of all abilities.

Policy MOB 1.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Placemaking. Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between neighborhoods, provide opportunities for distinctive neighborhood features, and foster a greater sense of community.

Goal MOB-3: A safe and comfortable pedestrian network for people of all ages and abilities at all times.

Policy MOB 3.1: Pedestrian Network. Provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian network.

Policy MOB 3.2: Pedestrian Connections. Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers, and other destinations throughout the city.

Policy MOB 3.3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers.

Policy MOB 3.4: Avoiding Street Widening. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian connectivity by limiting street widening as a means of improving traffic flow.

Goal MOB-4: A comprehensive and well-used bicycle network that comfortably accommodates bicyclists of all ages and skill levels.

Policy MOB 4.1: Bicycle Network. Improve facilities and eliminate gaps along the bicycle network to connect destinations across the city.

Policy MOB 4.4: Bicycle Parking Standards. Maintain bicycle parking standards and guidelines for bicycle parking and storage in convenient places in private development to enhance the bicycle network.

Goal MOB-7: Innovative strategies to provide efficient and adequate vehicle parking.

Policy MOB 7.1: Parking Codes. Maintain efficient parking standards that consider reduced demand due to development conditions such as transit accessibility.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Policy MOB 7.2: Off-street Parking. Ensure new off-street parking is properly designed and efficiently used.

Mountain View Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy
The City of Mountain View City Council adopted a citywide VMT policy in June 2020. The policy contains screening criteria to use to identify projects that can be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Screening criteria in the Mountain View VMT policy include criteria for small projects (projects consisting of 12 or less single-family housing units, 20 or less multi-family housing units, and office developments of 10,000 square feet or less), projects located in areas with low VMT (defined by VMT that is 15 percent or greater below the regional average), and projects that are located within one-half mile of a major transit stop. The policy also contains land use-specific thresholds for evaluating transportation impacts of project types that do not meet the screening criteria.

Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update
The Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update provides a vision for improving and encouraging bicycle travel in and through Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2015). It contains an analysis of existing bicycle facilities and provides recommendations for specific areas where facilities could be improved or expanded. The plan includes objectives, strategies, and performance measures to guide improvements to the City’s bicycle facilities, using the following categories:
bicycle network; ridership; bicycle community; education, encouragement, and enforcement; and maintenance.

3.14.4 Impact Analysis

3.14.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing transportation and circulation.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause any of the following:

1. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

1. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), which describes considerations for evaluating transportation impacts of specific types of projects.

2. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment).

3. Result in inadequate emergency access.

Signalized Intersections
According to City and CMP LOS standards, a development creates an adverse impact on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if, during the AM or PM peak hour, either of the following conditions occurs:

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

1. LOS at the intersection drops below its respective LOS standard when project traffic is added (the LOS standard for local intersections is LOS D; the LOS standard for CMP intersections is LOS E); or

2. An intersection that operates below its LOS standard under no-project conditions experiences an increase in critical movement delay of 4 seconds or more and an increase in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio of 1 percent or more when project traffic is added.

The exception to this threshold is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average control delay for critical movements (i.e., the change in average control delay for critical movements is negative). In this case, the threshold is when a project increases the critical volume-to-capacity ratio value by 0.01 or more.

An impact is said to be satisfactorily mitigated when measures are implemented that restore intersection conditions to an acceptable LOS or average delay is better than under no-project conditions.

As VMT is now the preferred methodology for assessing traffic impacts under CEQA, policies related to LOS are not considered as part of the impact analysis for the Project. However, LOS standards are still present in the City’s General Plan and the applicable CMP. These standards are still relevant outside of the CEQA process to evaluate other non-CEQA transportation impacts of development projects, such as congestion, circulation, and safety issues and concerns and are included in this section to provide additional background information.

Transit Services
Significant impacts on transit service would occur if the Project:
• Creates demand for public transit services that exceeds the provided or planned capacity, • Disrupts existing transit services or facilities,
• Conflicts with an existing or planned transit facility, or • Conflicts with transit policies adopted by the City, VTA, or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for their respective facilities in the study area.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The General Plan (2012) and Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update (2015) describe the policies necessary to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle facilities are safe and effective for Mountain View residents. Based on the General Plan and Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, significant impacts on pedestrian and bicycle facilities would occur if a project or an element of a project:
• Creates a hazardous condition that does not currently exist for pedestrians and bicyclists or otherwise interferes with pedestrian accessibility to the site and adjoining areas, • Conflicts with an existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility, or • Conflicts with policies related to bicycle and pedestrian activity adopted by the City, VTA, or Caltrans for their respective facilities in the study area.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14.4.2 Methods
A description of the methodology for studying Project impacts, including the application of the screening criteria for VMT, is included in the TA. As explained more fully in this section and the TA, the Project site is located within a transit priority area and thus, is not required to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

In addition, as explained above, the LOS criteria is no longer used for the purposes of evaluating CEQA impacts. However, because it is considered by the City as relevant for planning purposes, trip generation, information on trip distribution, and trip assignment, on study area roadway facilities is included in the TA and is provided for informational purposes. In addition, for the reasons described in the TA, an analysis of freeway segment LOS was not required and was not performed.

Traffic Analysis Scenarios
Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
• Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from turning-movement counts from May 20191. The study intersections were evaluated with an LOS analysis, using TRAFFIX software, in accordance with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology.
• Existing Plus-Project Conditions. Existing plus-Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the Project to existing conditions. • Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding the projected volumes from approved but not-yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the Project to existing traffic volumes. A list of approved but not-yet constructed developments was provided by the City. The roadway network under background conditions is assumed to include the Shoreline Boulevard bus lane improvement project.
• Background Plus-Project Conditions. Background plus-Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the Project. Background plus-Project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions to determine potential Project impacts. • Cumulative No-Project Conditions. Cumulative no-Project traffic volumes were estimated by applying a compound growth factor of 2 percent per year for 5 years to existing traffic volumes and adding trips generated by the approved but not-yet constructed projects. • Cumulative Plus-Project Conditions. Cumulative plus-Project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the new traffic generated by the Project. Cumulative plus-Project conditions were evaluated relative to cumulative conditions to determine potential Project impacts.

Project Trip Generation
The Project would generate additional vehicle traffic in the area surrounding the Project site. In compliance with City Standard Conditions of Approval PL-164 (Transportation Demand Management Program) and PL-165 (Transportation Demand Management Monitoring) (see full conditions of approval below), the Project would implement a transportation demand management 1 These traffic counts were taken before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and were determined to provide a more accurate baseline for traffic counts than a more recent traffic survey taken during the pandemic.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
(TDM) plan to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project. With implementation of the TDM plan, Project trip generation would amount to a net increase of 102 AM peak-hour trips and 126 PM peak-hour trips. Table 3.14-1 shows the Project’s estimated trip generation.2 Table 3.14-1. Project Trip Generation Estimates
a) Land Use
Size
(units)
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip
Rate Trips
PeakHour
Rate In Out Total
PeakHour
Rate In Out Total
Proposed
Residential Unitsa
329 5.44 1,790 0.36 31 87 118 0.44 88 57 145
Existing Residential
Units to Remaina
402 5.44 2,187 0.36 38 107 145 0.44 108 69 177
TDM Trip
Reduction (6%)b
-239 -4 -12 -16 -12 -7 -19
Gross Project Trips 731 3,378 65 182 247 184 119 303
Net Project Tripsc 1,551 27 75 102 76 50 126
b) Source: Hexagon 2021; Institute of Transportation Engineers 2017. c) Notes:
a. Average Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for mid-rise multifamily housing (Land Use 221) used. b. TDM trip reduction of 6% is applied to both existing and proposed units. c. Net project trips = gross project trips − existing apartment trips (without TDM reduction).

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-164: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. The property owner, property manager(s), and homeowners association (HOA) or their representative(s) (collectively, “the owners”) are required to maintain a TDM program which provides commute and transportation alternatives to employees/residents of the project for the life of the project. The TDM program measures shall be formally accepted by the property owners prior to building permit issuance through a legal agreement or recorded document, as determined by the City Attorney, with contents to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. The mandatory TDM measures for the project include:
a. Join and maintain ongoing membership in the MVTMA for the life of the project. 2 As described in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, subsequent to the preparation of this Draft EIR, based on input received during City Council study sessions, the number of new residential units associated with Project would decrease by 5, from 329 to 324 units. This chapter analyzes 329 net new residential units despite Chapter 2 reflecting the current proposal of 324 net new residential units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and mitigation measures, primarily because the overall duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint all would remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth (e.g., trip generation) present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 more units than what is currently proposed under the Project. Thus, the minor reduction in the number of units and residents that would be generated by the Project does not substantively alter the environmental impact analysis or conclusions set forth herein.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
b. Provide and maintain maximum vehicle parking and minimum bike parking as approved in the project. Also must provide and/or maintain access to shared bicycles for residents/employees, if a bike-share service is not nearby. c. There shall be conveniently located ride-share drop-off and waiting areas on-site. d. Provide and maintain shared, common, collaborative workspaces with WiFi for residents and their guests. This amenity can be offered in partnership with nearby residents and businesses.
e. Provide monetary incentives for alternative mode of travel, such as subsidized transit passes or bike-share for residents and/or unbundled parking. f. Provide and maintain accessible and secure storage spaces for package delivery on-site. g. The owners shall provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, and/or initial sale information. h. The owners shall support Safe Routes to Schools programs, including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking, school buses, and/or bike trains. • PL-165: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Monitoring: The property owner(s), or their representative, shall prepare an annual TDM report and submit it to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM program in achieving the statewide reduction goalof peak-hour vehicle trips by residents within the project. The TDM report shall be prepared by an independent consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or their representative; the consultant shall work with the property’s TDM coordinator. The TDM report will include a determination of historical resident commute methods, which shall be informed by surveying all residents living on the project site and through driveway traffic counts. All nonresponses to the resident commute survey will be counted as a drive-alone trip. The driveway traffic counts shall be prepared and provided by an independent, licensed consultant and paid for by the property owner(s) or tenant. The driveway counts and resulting data shall be included in the TDM report provided to the City.
a. TDM Reporting: The initial TDM report for the project will be submitted on December 1, or the following business day thereafter if a weekend, one year after the granting of the Certificate of Occupancy for statewide reduction or more of the project. Subsequent reports will be collected annually on December 1.
b. Report Requirements: The TDM report shall either: (1) state that the project has achieved statewide goals for peak-hour vehicle trip reduction or higher, providing supporting statistics and analysis to establish attainment of the goal; or (2) state that the project has not achieved the statewide goals for peak-hour vehicle trip reduction, providing an explanation of how and why the goal has not been reached and a description of additional measures that will be adopted in order to attain the TDM goal required for the project.

3.14.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.14.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.14.4.4, Summary of Transportation and Circulation Impacts.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact TRA-1 Conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Transit
Transit facilities serving the Project site include VTA Routes 21 and 51, which have bus stops along the Project frontage on Moffett Boulevard. The Project site is also within 0.5 mile of the Mountain View Transit Center, which includes Caltrain and VTA stations as well as VTA buses. According to California Public Resources Code Section 21155, a major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. Therefore, the Project is located in a transit proximity area because it is within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop.

It is expected that the Project would generate some transit trips to the North Bayshore area or other destinations. According to the 2015 Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, approximately 5.1 percent of Mountain View residents use public transit to get to work. A transit mode share of 5.1 percent equates to five to seven new transit riders during the AM and PM peak hours. This new ridership generated by the Project could be accommodated by existing services.

Finally, the small number of new vehicle trips generated by the Project would result in a minimal increase in vehicle delay at study intersections and would not cause a noticeable change in transit travel time or vehicle delay for the bus routes in the study area. No mitigation is required.

Roadway
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (b) and CEQA Statute Section 21099 (b) (2), LOS is not used as a CEQA impact criterion in this environmental impact report but is still used for planning purposes and is relevant outside of the CEQA process to evaluate other non-CEQA transportation impacts of development projects, such as congestion, circulation, and safety issues and concerns. An intersection LOS and delay assessment was completed as a part of the TA; however, for the reason cited above, the results were not evaluated in this environmental impact report for CEQA purposes, and policies related to LOS were not considered as part of the policy consistency evaluation. However, because the City considers this information relevant for planning purposes, summary results are included in Appendix 3.14-1 for informational purposes.

The Project would not interfere with existing or planned roadway facilities. Furthermore, it would not conflict with currently adopted goals or policies (see Section 3.14.3, Regulatory Setting). Therefore, the Project’s impact on roadway facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Bicycles
The Project would not disrupt existing bicycle facilities. Bicycle access to the Project site is currently provided via West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and surrounding streets. The bicycle lanes on Middlefield Road and the bicycle route on Moffett Boulevard would connect cyclists from the Project site to surrounding areas. In addition, the Project would provide a new public City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
pedestrian/bicycle path through the center of the Project site that would connect West Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive.

In the immediate Project vicinity, there are bicycle lanes on Middlefield Road and bicycle routes on Moffett Boulevard. The bicycle lanes on Middlefield Road between Thaddeus Drive and Logue Avenue are part-time bicycle facilities (i.e., used as bicycle lanes from 2 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and used for on-street parking the remaining hours [7 p.m. to 2 a.m.] and on weekends). It is recommended that the Project provide red curb markings or signage to prohibit on-street parking along its frontage so the segment with the part-time bicycle lanes could be used full time.

The 2015 Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update evaluates the quality of the bicycle network in Mountain View in terms of connectivity gaps and low-stress gaps. The plan identified spot gaps and quality gaps along Middlefield Road. Spot gaps are point-specific locations that lack dedicated bicycle facilities or other treatments that accommodate safe and comfortable bicycle travel; quality gaps are links within an existing bikeway that are deficient or have operational shortcomings. The plan also identified a low-stress bicycle network. Low-stress segments include Class I separated paths and streets with low traffic volumes, low traffic speeds, and bicycle facilities such as protected bicycle lanes or bicycle boulevards. These are facilities where people feel comfortable biking because they typically have less interaction with motor vehicles. Stevens Creek Trail, Moffett Boulevard, and Central Avenue are classified as low-stress bicycle facilities; Middlefield Road is not classified as a low-stress bicycle facility. Therefore, based on the discussion above, the Project site can be considered a location that is accessible to both experienced and recreational cyclists, and the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle facilities. No mitigation is required.

Pedestrians
The Project would not disrupt existing pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian access to the Project site is currently provided via sidewalks on Cypress Point Drive, Moffett Boulevard, West Middlefield Road, and surrounding streets. Pedestrian walkways would be provided through the site, providing access from Cypress Point Drive, Moffett Boulevard, and West Middlefield Road to elevators and stairways at each residential building, amenities, and courtyards within the site. In addition, the Project would provide a new public pedestrian/bicycle path through the center of the Project site that would connect West Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive. Another pedestrian/bicycle path would be provided at the eastern edge of the site parallel to SR 85.

According to the General Plan, a neighborhood is walkable when people can travel comfortably and safely to many destinations. Convenient walking distance is considered to be 0.5 to 1 mile, a distance that takes 10 to 20 minutes to cover. Within 0.5 mile of the Project site are restaurants and retail stores on Moffett Boulevard, bus stops on Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard, and the Mountain View Transit Center, with VTA and Caltrain stations, at the southeast corner of the Moffett Boulevard/Central Expressway intersection. There are six parks/recreational facilities within 0.5 mile of the Project site (including Whisman Park, Whisman Sports Center, Jackson Park, San Veron Park, Creekside Park, Willowgate Community Gardens) as well as a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian trail (Stevens Creek Trail). Finally, the Project would offer to dedicate an approximately 1.3-acre area (Park Parcel) along Cypress Point Drive to the City for development as a park sometime in the future. With the Project, the aforementioned destinations would remain accessible from existing pedestrian facilities, and the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian facilities. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact TRA-2 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
In June 2020, the Mountain View City Council endorsed an approach for conducting VMT analysis for development projects that require transportation analysis citywide, in combination with requirements for a local-level analysis of multi-modal transportation impacts. As discussed in more detail in the TA (refer to Appendix 3.14-1), the City’s VMT Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that qualify as transit supportive projects and are expected to result in a less-thansignificant transportation impact under CEQA. Such projects are not required to prepare further VMT analyses. The City’s screening criteria are consistent with the guidance provided in OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

The “proximity to transit” screening criterion applies to the proposed project. The City of Mountain View defines this consistently with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states that lead agencies should presume that certain projects within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

The Project site is in a transit proximity area because it is within 0.5 miles of the Mountain View Transit Center, which includes a Caltrain station, VTA light rail service, and VTA bus service and is considered a major transit stop. For projects that are located within 0.5 miles of an existing major transit stop but meet certain exceptions, more detailed analysis of impacts to VMT is recommended.

These exceptions include projects with a floor area ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75, projects that provide more than the maximum parking required by the City, projects that are inconsistent with Plan Bay Area, or projects that replace affordable residential units with a smaller fewer number of moderate- or high-income residential units. The Project has distinct FAR values for different components. Block B would have a FAR of 1.58. Blocks A, C, and the existing residential uses would have a FAR of 1.17. Thus, the development densities exceed the minimum requirement (0.75) to be considered a transit supportive project. The Project would provide fewer parking spaces than the parking required by the City Zoning Code. The Project is consistent with Plan Bay Area because it would provide more housing within the existing urbanized area within walking distance of the Mountain View Transit Center, with bicycle facilities adjacent to the site, and near employment centers in the Bayshore, Downtown, and East Whisman areas. The Project would also implement transportation demand management (TDM) programs to promote alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips and GHG emissions. The Project would add units to the existing development, and the existing units would not change. Therefore, the Project would not result in a loss of affordable units. The Project qualifies as a transit supportive project and is consistent with Section 15064.3 (b). Therefore, the Project is expected to have a less-thansignificant impact on VMT. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact TRA-3 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction of the Project would temporarily introduce construction equipment and vehicles to the Project site and nearby street network. However, the Project would be required to follow Standard Condition of Approval PW-111 (Construction Management Plans) (see full condition of approval below), which requires submission of a construction traffic and parking management plan that establishes truck routes. Standard Condition of Approval PW-111 also ensures that sidewalks would remain accessible during construction. In addition, the Project would be required to follow Standard Condition of Approval PW-28 (Traffic Control Plans) (see full condition of approval below), which requires preparation of traffic control plans for any improvements that require lane, shoulder, bicycle lane, and/or sidewalk closures. Adherence to these Standard Conditions of Approval would minimize potential traffic hazards during construction.

The Project would not alter existing intersection lane configurations. The only proposed changes to the roadway network in the vicinity of the Project site are four new driveways, which would provide access to the Project site. Specifically, a right-turn-only driveway would be provided on East Middlefield Road for Block A, and three full-access driveways would be provided on Cypress Point Drive for Blocks B and C. The proposed driveways would be in proximity to three driveways that provide access to the existing on-site apartments. Driveways that provide access to and from the Project site would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PW-36 (Driveway or Side Street Sight Triangle) (see full condition of approval below), which requires vertical clearance at driveway locations to reduce hazards. Overall, construction and operation of the Project would not create any hazards due to a Project design feature, and the impact would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PW-28: Traffic Control Plans. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and improvement plans, the applicant shall submit traffic control plans for any off-site and on-site improvements or any work that requires temporary lane closure, shoulder closure, bike lane closure, and/or sidewalk closure for review and approval. Sidewalk closures are not allowed unless reconstruction of sidewalk necessitates temporary sidewalk closure. In these instances, sidewalk detour should be shown on the Traffic Control plans. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
• PW-36: Driveway or Side Street Sight Triangle. Within the pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic safety sight triangle(s), signs, fences, shrubs, bushes or hedges shall not exceed 3’ in height while tree canopies shall maintain a minimum 6’ vertical clearance at the driveway location. • PW-111: Construction Management Plans. Upon submittal of the initial building permit and all subsequent building permit submittals, the applicant shall provide a construction traffic and parking management plan with the building plans showing the following:

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

1. Truck Route: Truck route (to and from project site) for construction and delivery trucks pursuant to City Code Sections 19.58 and 19.59 and which does not include neighborhood residential streets;

2. Construction Phasing, Equipment, Storage, and Parking: Show construction vehicles and equipment parking area, material storage and lay-down area, and construction trailer location for each phase of construction. All construction vehicles/equipment and trailer shall be located on-site or at a site nearby (not on a public street or public parking) arranged by the permittee/contractor. Construction equipment, materials, or vehicles shall not be stored or parked on public streets or public parking lots. Construction contractors/workers are required to park on-site or at a private property arranged by the permittee/contractor and shall not be allowed to use neighboring streets for parking/storage; and

3. Sidewalk closure or narrowing is not allowed during any on-site construction activities.

The construction traffic and parking management plan must be approved prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

Impact TRA-4 Result in inadequate emergency access.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Emergency access would be provided at West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site at one location on West Middlefield Road, two locations on Moffett Boulevard, and seven locations on Cypress Point Drive.

One emergency vehicle access driveway has been added at the end of Cypress Point Drive to allow emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see Figure 2-3 in Chapter 2, Project Description, which shows the proposed access points). The driveway would be 26 feet wide, and the Project design will be required to adhere to all applicable emergency access requirements and standards.

These emergency access points would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.14. Transportation and Circulation 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.14-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14.4.4 Summary of Transportation and Circulation Impacts Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact TRA-1: Conflict with a program
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact TRA-2: Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Less than Significant None required —
Impact TRA-3: Substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g., farm
equipment).

Less than Significant None required —
Impact TRA-4: Result in inadequate
emergency access.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.15 Tribal Cultural Resources

3.15.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for tribal cultural resources. It also describes impacts on tribal cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented in Section 3.15.4.4, Summary of Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.

3.15.2 Environmental Setting
Information about ethnographic lifeways and the post-contact history of Native Americans who traditionally inhabited the immediate vicinity of the Project site is provided in Section 3.4.2.2.

Prehistory, Ethnography, and History.

3.15.3 Regulatory Setting

3.15.3.1 State
Historical resources are considered under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as well as California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, which established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned resources that meet the listing criteria of the National Register of Historic Place (NRHP). It further specifically requires the California Department of Transportation to inventory state-owned structures in its rights-of-way. Sections 5024(f) and 5024.5 require state agencies to provide notice to and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before altering, transferring, relocating, or demolishing state-owned historical resources that are listed on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or registered or eligible for registration as California Historical Landmarks.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts (new PRC Section 21084.2).

3.15.3.2 Local
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View (City) Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the City Code) includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources at Section A36.78, Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources (City of Mountain View 2011). Section A36.78 established the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Mountain View Register) as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, sites, or other improvements that are considered during the permit review process. The Mountain View Register has criteria for listing similar to the criteria City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
of the CRHR. For a historical resource to be included in the register, it must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization that, significantly contributed to the culture, history, or development of the City of Mountain View;

2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the City in terms of a type, period, region, or method of construction; is representative of the work of a master; or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the City’s prehistory or history.

Under Section A36.78.080 of the City Zoning Ordinance, persons are prohibited from making significant alterations, redeveloping, or relocating a property listed in the Mountain View Register without first obtaining a Historic Preservation Permit (HP Permit) from the City’s zoning administrator. An HP Permit is granted if the City finds that (1) the proposed significant alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource and (2) the proposed significant alteration maintains and enhances the appearance of the community. The provisions of Section A36.78.080 also apply to properties that are eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR, with the added requirements of City Council approval for an HP Permit and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for alterations made to NRHP and CRHR properties. None of the buildings at the Project site are listed on the Mountain View Register or eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following goal and policies related to the protection of historic and cultural resources (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal LUD-11: Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources.

Policy LUD 11.1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historical Resources, or National Register of Historic Places.

Policy LUD 11.2: Adaptive re-use. Encourage the adaptive re-use of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character-defining features.

Policy LUD 11.3: Incentives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.

Policy LUD 11.5: Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

Policy LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.15.4 Impact Analysis

3.15.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.) identify significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing tribal cultural resources.

An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause either of the following:

Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and:
a. Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR or a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k), or
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

3.15.4.2 Methods
Native American Consultation
ICF contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on March 11, 2019, and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of Native American individuals who are affiliated with the geographic region. The NAHC responded on March 13, 2019, stating that a search of the SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources on the Project site. The NAHC provided a list of six individuals who may have knowledge of resources in the area. On March 15, 2019, letters containing a description of the Project and the location of the Project site were sent to the following individuals:
• Andrew Galvan – The Ohlone Indian Tribe
• Valentin Lopez, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band • Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson – Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area • Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson – North Valley Yokuts Tribe • Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson – Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan • Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista On March 15, 2019, Mr. Galvan requested a Phase I report, which is a cultural resources technical report that typically includes the results of a records search and/or survey. That same date, ICF informed Mr. Galvan that a Phase I report would not be prepared for the Project, but a copy of the draft EIR would be provided. On December 16, 2020, ICF followed-up with Mr. Galvan regarding his original request; ICF left a voicemail message with a brief description of the reason for the call and a City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
request for a return phone call. On December 17, 2020, ICF followed up with Mr. Galvan to provide a summary of the literature review and a description of the policies and mitigation measures put in place for the protection of cultural resources. Mr. Galvan stated that, given the mitigation measures, he had no additional concerns but would still like to receive a digital copy of the draft EIR. On March 18, 2019, Ms. Nijmeh requested consultation. On December 21, 2020, ICF followed up with Ms.

Nijmeh via email. This email acknowledged her request and requested a meeting to discuss consultation. On January 5, 2021, ICF followed up with Ms. Nijmeh via phone call after no response was received to ICF’s email. Ms. Nijmeh was unavailable and a voicemail message was left with reason for the call and a request for a call back. On May 9, 2020, Mr. Lopez stated that the Project site is not within his jurisdiction; the tribe had no comment. On May 9, 2020, Ms. Zwierlein stated that construction crews who are involved with Project excavation should receive archaeological sensitivity training. In response to Ms. Zwierlein’s request, Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Conduct Preconstruction Archaeological Sensitivity Training was included as a mitigation measure for the Project. On April 22, 2021, a letter acknowledging Ms. Zwierlein’s request and explaining that her recommendation was incorporated as a mitigation measure was sent via email. To date, no other responses have been received. The Native American consultation materials are included in Appendix

3.4-2.

Records Search
A review of existing literature at the NWIC on February 6, 2018, identified two cultural resources studies from areas adjacent to the Project site:
• David Chavez & Associates. 1981. Cultural Resources Evaluations for the Proposed Navy Housing Locations at Moffett Field, Santa Clara County, California (S-8371). • N. Sikes, et al. 2006. Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California (S-33061).

Neither study identified resources within or adjacent to the Project site. A total of 17 studies have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the Project site. These studies consist of reconnaissance and evaluation studies for transportation, telecommunication, restoration, and development projects.

No archaeological resources were identified on the Project site or within 0.5 mile of the Project site.

No built-environment resources were identified on the Project site; however, 27 built resources were identified within 0.5 mile of the Project site. One built-environment resource is listed on the NRHP. Mountain View Adobe (P-43-000708) was listed on the NRHP in 2002; the site is 0.5 mile south of the Project site. The NWIC results are included in Appendix 3.4-3.

3.15.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.15.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.15.4.4, Summary of Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts.

City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact TCR-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and:
a. Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR or a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) OR
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure
TCR-1
Stop work within 100 feet of the find if tribal cultural properties are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-2
Conduct preconstruction archaeological sensitivity training.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
A search of the SLF did not identify any tribal cultural resources at the Project site. In addition, no tribal cultural resources were identified during consultation with the Native Americans listed by the NAHC as having affiliation with the geographic region. However, given the proposed excavation and redevelopment of portions of the property, the Project has the potential to encounter previously undocumented prehistoric archaeological resources. These resources, in turn, have the potential to be tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources (as defined in Section 3.15.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance) to be encountered during demolition or construction activities (including excavation) associated with the Project. Buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. This impact could be significant.

However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would reduce the potential for damaging tribal cultural resources, should they be discovered, to a less-than-significant level by assisting in early identification of resources during Project-related ground disturbance and stopping work if tribal cultural resources are encountered during Project-related ground disturbance.

MM TCR-1: Stop work within 100 feet of the find if tribal cultural properties are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.

If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the find shall halt until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, shall develop a treatment plan, which could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. The City of Mountain View or the appropriate agency shall be responsible for ensuring that recommendations regarding treatment and reporting are implemented.

City of Mountain View Section 3.15. Tribal Cultural Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.15-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.15.4.4 Summary of Tribal Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
after Mitigation
Impact TCR-1: Cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC
Section 21074 as a site, feature, place,
or cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe and:

Significant MM TCR-1: Stop work if
tribal cultural properties
are encountered during
ground-disturbing
activities.

MM CUL-2: Conduct
preconstruction
archaeological sensitivity
training.

Less than
Significant
a. Listed in, or eligible for listing
in, the CRHR or a local register
of historical resources, as
defined in PRC Section
5020.1(k)
OR
b. A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion
and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of
PRC Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American
tribe.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems

3.16.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm drainage, solid waste, and energy. It also describes impacts on utilities and service systems that would result from implementing the Project and mitigation for significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. This section is based, in part, on a utility impact study (Appendix 3.16-1) prepared for the Project by Schaaf & Wheeler. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.16.4.4, Summary of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts. Impacts related to stormwater are addressed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

3.16.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to utilities and service systems on the Project site and in the surrounding area. The study area for this analysis is the Project site and the jurisdiction of each of the utility service providers.

3.16.2.1 Water
The City of Mountain View (City) municipal water system serves 98 percent of Mountain View, including the Project site. The Mountain View water system is divided into three pressure zones.

Pressure Zone 1 is north of the Central Expressway, continuing to San Francisco Bay (Bay); Pressure Zone 2 is between Cuesta Drive and the Central Expressway; and Pressure Zone 3 is south of Cuesta Drive. The Project site is in Pressure Zone 1, which is supplied with treated water obtained by the City from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). This supply can be supplemented with water from City-operated groundwater wells (City of Mountain View 2020). The remainder of Mountain View is served by the California Water Service Company. The City purchases water from both the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the SFPUC. In addition, water from seven potable groundwater wells, which are owned and operated by the City, supplements these sources.

Commencing in 2009, Mountain View began receiving non-potable recycled water from the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). Water supplies obtained by the City were approximately 87 percent SFPUC water, 10 percent SCVWD water, and approximately 3 percent groundwater, with a small amount of recycled water from the Palo Alto RWQCP for non-potable uses in North Bayshore.

Water demand represents an estimated daily average of water use patterns, which vary by season and customer type. Existing (baseline) water demand on the Project site totals approximately 53,424 gallons per day (gpd). The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level demand, as adopted from the City’s InfoWater model and calibrated against water billing records from 2005 and 2006 (Schaaf & Wheeler 2021).

Water at the Project site is supplied from 12-inch water mains in Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road and an 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.16.2.2 Wastewater
Municipal wastewater contains sewage and greywater (i.e., wastewater generated from sinks and showers). The wastewater collection system is operated and maintained by the City. The sanitary sewer system in Mountain View is operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the City Public Works Department. Mountain View pumps its wastewater to the RWQCP for treatment, which is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto. The RWQCP serves the communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and East Palo Alto as well as Stanford University.

Wastewater from these communities is treated by the RWQCP prior to discharge to the Bay. The average annual treatment capacity of the RWQCP is 40 million gallons per day (mgd). Mountain View has an annual wastewater capacity allotment of 15.1 mgd at the plant. As of 2015, approximately 6.4 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was treated at the RWQCP (City of Mountain View 2016). The City’s agreement with the City of Palo Alto states that, when Mountain View reaches 80 percent of the 15.1 mgd allowed by contract (approximately 12.08 mgd), the City may be asked to assist in future plant expansions.

Mountain View’s sanitary sewer system is a gravity system, consisting of gravity pipelines, pressure pipelines, and pump stations. The majority of the sanitary sewer flow generated within Mountain View is conveyed to the RWQCP by the Shoreline Sewage Wastewater Lift Station, which is in the North Bayshore area. The remaining flow is conveyed to the RWQCP through City of Los Altos sewer infrastructure, with the largest portion conveyed through a meter on Alma Road. The City’s sanitary sewer system also receives flows from six groundwater pumping stations within Mountain View as well as sanitary sewer flows from neighboring municipalities. As part of a 1970 sewer agreement, the City of Los Altos agreed to receive 2 mgd of the maximum peak flow of sanitary sewage from Mountain View at Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor Sewer, located between the Central Expressway and the joint system meeting station.

Eight-inch sanitary sewer mains are located on the perimeter of the Project site along Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive. Additional sewer mains are located along North Shoreline Boulevard, downstream from the Project site.

Some capital improvement projects (CIPs) for the sewer system identified in the Mountain View 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (2030 GPUUIS) have already been constructed.

These include upsizing the sewer mains along West Middlefield Road, downstream from the Project site, and abandoning sewer mains along Moffett Boulevard and State Route (SR) 85.

Under existing conditions, the sewer system has adequate capacity for both pre- and post-Project flows. However, as part of the General Plan Update (GPU) analysis that was conducted in connection with the contemplated building under the GPU, the 2030 GPUUIS identified capacity issues along the Central Trunk. To address such issues, new sewer main alignments will divert flows from the Central Trunk to the East Trunk. Flows along Moffett Boulevard will be diverted to West Middlefield Road. In addition, sewer mains along West Middlefield Road, as well as part of North Shoreline Boulevard, were upsized, and sewer mains along Moffett Boulevard and SR 85 were abandoned. The existing system meets pre- and post-Project deficiency performance criteria for all pipes downstream from the Project site.

3.16.2.3 Storm Drainage
The City Public Works Department owns and maintains the storm drain system that serves Mountain View. Stormwater runoff in Mountain View is collected by a municipal storm drain system, City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
consisting of storm drain inlets, stormwater pump stations, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels, and retention basins. Stormwater runoff is conveyed along public streets and collected and discharged to local creeks, which flow to the Bay. The City’s storm drainage system consists of an underground gravity pipe network, cross culverts, drywells, a detention pond, and five pump stations. Runoff is collected at inlets that connect to small-diameter pipes. Flows are eventually conveyed by 24-inch, and larger, mains. Generally, the system flows from south to north. More than 80 percent of the storm drainage system discharges to Stevens Creek or Permanente Creek; the remainder discharges to the Permanente Diversion Channel, Adobe Creek, or the various sloughs that drain to the Bay.

Although the Project site is generally flat, stormwater flows to either the western boundary of the site and the City’s 60-inch storm drain on Moffett Boulevard or an 18-inch storm drain on West Middlefield Road on the northern boundary. Currently, approximately 75 percent of Project site is impervious (approximately 267,816 square feet). Landscaped areas and shrub land provide pervious cover and allow groundwater infiltration (Langan 2020).

3.16.2.4 Solid Waste
Recology Mountain View (formerly known as Foothill Disposal) provides solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) station for sorting. Small quantities of waste may be transported to other landfills in the area by private contractors. Nonrecyclable waste from the SMART station is transported to the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José. The Kirby Canyon Landfill has a permitted capacity of 36.4 million cubic yards, a remaining capacity of approximately 16.2 million cubic yards, and an anticipated closing date of December 31, 2059. The landfill receives a maximum of 2,600 tons of garbage per day (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2019; LSA Associates 2012). The estimated capacity accounts for all planned development through 2035 (i.e., with Mountain View 2030 General Plan [General Plan] buildout). The existing capacity of the Newby Island Landfill is

50.8 million cubic yards but will increase to 65.9 million cubic yards, extending the current closure date from 2025 to 2041 (Milpitas Odor Info n.d.). Zanker Disposal and Recycling diverts construction and demolition debris from landfills and recycles materials through comprehensive recycling efforts.

The City is working to maintain the waste diversion goal of 50 percent set by state law in 1995 (see Assembly Bill [AB] 939, Senate Bill [SB] 1016, and the City of Mountain View Zero Waste Resolution and Zero Waste Strategic Plan discussion in Section 3.16.3, Regulatory Setting). In June 2018, the City Council adopted a zero-waste policy, establishing a goal that would divert 90 percent of waste from the landfill by 2030. The current diversion rate is 78 percent (City of Mountain View n.d.).

Mountain View’s per capita disposal rate in 2010 was 3.8 pounds per person per day (LSA Associates 2012). Successful implementation of the zero-waste plan will reduce the per capita disposal rate for both residential and commercial sources.

3.16.3 Regulatory Setting

3.16.3.1 Federal
Drinking water is regulated by federal, as well as state, laws. The federal government sets minimum standards for water quality, including standards for drinking water and bodies of water. The Safe City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 and subsequent amendments gave the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to establish standards for contaminants in drinking water supplies. The National Primary Drinking Water Standards established the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) allowed in public distribution systems. The National Secondary Drinking Water Standards established the MCLs that apply to potable water supplies at the point of delivery to the customer. EPA administers the SDWA at the federal level and establishes MCLs for bacteriological, inorganic, organic, and radiological contaminants. Laws and regulations relevant to surface and groundwater quality are described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

3.16.3.2 State
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), which administers and enforces drinking water standards, has adopted its own SDWA, which incorporates federal SDWA requirements and includes some requirements specific only to California (California Health and Safety Code, Section 116350 and related sections). Laws and regulations relevant to surface and groundwater quality are described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Pursuant to State Water Code requirements, water suppliers that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supply more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every 5 years. The State Water Code requires water agencies to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20-year planning horizon and address a number of related subjects, including water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events.

Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221
SB 610 amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 requires local water providers to conduct a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for projects proposing more than 500 housing units, 250,000 square feet of commercial office space (or more than 1,000 employees), a shopping center or business with more than 500,000 square feet (or more than 1,000 employees), or equivalent usage.

SB 221 requires a water supply verification, which is a letter of assurance for water from a water purveyor. A water supply verification is prepared to support approval of a tentative map. A water supply verification is required for the Project because the Project would require an approval of a tentative tract map.

Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes a target that calls for a 50 percent reduction in the level of statewide disposal of organic waste from 2014 levels by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. In addition, the bill establishes a target that calls for no less than 20 percent of edible food that is currently discarded to be recovered for human consumption by 2025.

Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939 (Sher), established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required implementation of integrated waste management City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and at least 75 percent by 2010. In 2006, SB 1016 updated the requirements. The new per capita disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from an estimated diversion measurement number to an actual disposal measurement number, along with an evaluation of program implementation efforts. These two factors will help determine each jurisdiction's progress toward achieving its AB 939 diversion goals. The 50 percent diversion requirement is now measured in terms of per capita disposal, expressed as pounds per person per day. Under the SB 1016 measurement system, a city is required to dispose of an amount equal to or less than its "50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target," as calculated by CalRecycle, annually.

Renewable Energy Standards
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010. In 2006, California's 20 percent by 2010 RPS goal was codified under SB 107. Under the provisions of SB 107, investor‐owned utilities were required to generate 20 percent of their retail electricity from qualified renewable energy technologies by the end of 2010. In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity to supply 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020.

Building Codes
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every 3 years; the 2016 Title 24 updates went into effect on January 1, 2017.

Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments. In January 2010, the state adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which established mandatory green building standards for buildings in California.

Updates to CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2017. The code covers five categories, planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

3.16.3.3 Local
City of Mountain View
The City promotes sustainable use of its water resources through outreach and education programs, financial incentive programs, and the implementation of water conservation measures at City properties. Many of the City’s water conservation measures are implemented in partnership with the SCVWD and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, in coordination with the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The City is committed to implementing foundational and programmatic best management practices (BMPs) identified by the CUWCC. Some of the BMPs include incorporating water waste prohibitions into the City Code, monitoring water losses, implementing public information and outreach programs, and offering plumbing rebate and retrofit programs for residential and business customers.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
City of Mountain View Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations and Green Building Code
To comply with state law, the City adopted the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations and the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC), which promote the efficient use of water. The landscaping regulations, adopted in July 2010 and updated in 2016, generally apply to new and rehabilitated landscapes of 1,000 square feet or greater. These are intended to reduce the amount of wasted water from landscaping by establishing standards for irrigation efficiency and promoting the use of region-appropriate plants that require minimal supplemental irrigation. The MVGBC, approved by the City Council in March 2011, sets standards for improved energy efficiency, water conservation, indoor environmental quality, and waste reductions.

City of Mountain View Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance The City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance (Chapter 16, Article III) requires at least 50 percent of debris from construction, renovation and/or demolition projects of 5,000 square feet or more to be diverted from landfills through salvage and recycling.

City of Mountain View Zero-Waste Resolution and Zero-Waste Strategic Plan The City Council adopted an Environmental Sustainability Action Plan on March 24, 2009, that includes the creation of a Zero-Waste Plan, one of 89 recommendations presented to the City Council in the September 2008 final report from the Mountain View Sustainability Task Force. The City completed a waste characterization study and found that, for 2009, Mountain View’s disposal rate was

4.0 pounds per capita per day, which is 3.8 pounds less than the target rate of 7.8 pounds per capita per day, as measured using CalRecycle’s methodology. Implementation of the Zero-Waste Plan is expected to reduce the per capita disposal rate further with respect to both residential and commercial waste.

City of Mountain View 2010 Water System Master Plan
The City adopted the 2015 UWMP in May 2016, followed by an addendum in September 2017. The City’s 2010 Water System Master Plan includes recommendations for hydraulic improvements to maintain service for existing and future development, based on growth assumptions, design criteria, and hydraulic modeling data.

City of Mountain View 2018 Sewer System Management Plan The goal of City ’s Sewer System Management Plan is to provide a plan and schedule that will enable the City to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of its wastewater collection system. This will either prevent sanitary sewer overflows or reduce their extent. It will also mitigate any sanitary sewer overflows that do occur.

3.16.4 Impact Analysis

3.16.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered when determining whether a project would have significant impacts on existing utilities and service systems.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause any of the following:

1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

2. Result in a determination by the water provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has insufficient water supplies available for the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during dry and multiple dry years.

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity for the Project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments.

4. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

5. Result in noncompliance with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

3.16.4.2 Methods
The evaluation of utilities and service system impacts is based on professional standards and the conclusions of technical reports prepared for the Project, including the utility impact study (Appendix 3.14-1). Key operational or buildout-related impacts were identified and evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively, based on current plans.1 The review of planning documents for population projections and information about utilities and service systems included the General Plan (City of Mountain View 2012), City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (LSA Associates 2012), City of Mountain View 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Mountain View 2016), City of Mountain View Water Master Plan, and the City of Mountain View Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (City of Mountain View 2018).

3.16.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.16.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.16.4.4, Summary of Utilities and Service Systems Impacts.
1 As described in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, subsequent to the preparation of this Draft EIR, based on input received during City Council study sessions, the number of new residential units associated with Project would decrease by 5, from 329 to 324 units. This chapter analyzes 329 net new residential units despite Chapter 2 reflecting the current proposal of 324 net new residential units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and mitigation measures, primarily because the overall duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint all would remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth (e.g., water usage, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation) present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 more units than what is currently proposed under the Project. Thus, the minor reduction in the number of units and residents that would be generated by the Project does not substantively alter the environmental impact analysis or conclusions set forth herein.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact UTL-1 Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure
UTL-1
Fair-share contribution toward sanitary sewer improvements.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. During construction, the Project would use existing utility systems and infrastructure. It is reasonably expected that construction activities requiring electricity (e.g., for lighting) would be serviced by existing electric infrastructure on the site and that no expansion of related facilities would be necessary to serve Project construction. In addition, it is expected that construction equipment would use gasoline or diesel motors rather than electric motors; therefore, connections to utility services would not be required. Stormwater runoff during Project construction would be directed toward existing stormwater drainage systems; there are no stormwater treatment features in place on the Project site. Construction-related stormwater runoff would be managed through implementation of the legally required Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and any water from dewatering activities would be appropriately tested and treated prior to disposal into the storm drain system, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.

It is not expected that water from dewatering activities would exceed storm drain capacity.

Furthermore, no wastewater treatment systems or telecommunications systems would be expanded to serve Project construction.

Construction activities, such as the drilling and excavation required to install new water, sanitary sewer, or electric power facilities or construct the below-grade parking garages and their foundations, can cause significant environmental impacts, such as erosion, water quality degradation from stormwater runoff, and fugitive dust. However, because the Project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, a Project-specific SWPPP would be implemented. The SWPPP would contain feasible Project-specific erosion, sediment, and stormwater runoff control measures to minimize the potential environmental impacts on soil and water resources that could occur during the trenching and excavation activities that would be required to install new water, sanitary sewer, and electric power facilities. In addition, in accordance with Standard Condition of Approval FEP-04 (Construction Best Management Practices) (see full condition of approval below), BMPs would be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff from dust-generating construction activities. Therefore, Project construction would have a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility facilities at the Project site.

Operation. The applicant intends to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include Energy Star appliances, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, and a highly efficient building envelope that would mitigate solar heat gain.

Each proposed block would be connected to the primary on-site electrical system and equipped with dedicated sub-surface and/or pad-mounted transformers. All new transformers along public streets City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
or frontages would be placed in sub-surface vaults. The existing overhead electrical system along Moffett Boulevard would be relocated to underground joint trenches with aerial connections at the riser poles at both ends of the overhead conversion. The Project would include three dedicated gas connections, including one at Moffett Boulevard for Lot B, one at West Middlefield Road for Lot A, and one at Cypress Point Drive for Lot C. Therefore, utility impacts associated with electric utility service would be less than significant, and there would be no impacts associated with installation of natural gas infrastructure.

Because of the developed, urbanized nature of the Project site, the Project would connect to existing City utilities, as described further below. All existing water, sewer, and storm drain services to the site would be abandoned, by phase, per applicable City standards, except for the existing 4-inch water lateral from Cypress Point Drive, which would remain.

New stormwater drains would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. Stormwater generated from Block B would drain to the existing 60-inch storm drain on Moffett Boulevard and the City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Based on preliminary review of the City’s infrastructure planning documents, it is anticipated that the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would need to be increased in size to accommodate the Project, thereby ensuring that it would be adequately sized to meet applicable City hydraulic design criteria. The ultimate size of the upgraded storm drain would be confirmed during the final design/improvement plan phase and required to satisfy all applicable performance standards and criteria. If it is determined that the anticipated upgrades to the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would be necessary to accommodate existing flows to the storm drain from both the public right-of-way and tributary private properties, as well as the Project site, then an appropriate fee credit and/or reimbursement, beyond the Project’s pro rata contribution, may be appropriate, in accordance with applicable City procedures and requirements.

Proposed Block A would connect to the existing 18-inch City storm drain in West Middlefield Road by removing and replacing the existing storm drain lateral to West Middlefield Road. New storm drain laterals for Block C would connect to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Stormwater from the Park Parcel would connect to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive from a 15-inch storm lateral connected to an area drain at the low end of the Park Parcel frontage.

The Project would implement a variety of stormwater management measures to reduce water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff, pursuant to applicable provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Stormwater runoff generated on each proposed lot would be treated to the maximum extent feasible by implementing a mixture of lowimpact development (LID) BMPs as well as a media filtration system. LEED certification may involve landscape bio-filtration planters to capture and treat stormwater runoff.

There are several deficient pipes within the existing system downstream of the Project site.

However, the Project would not contribute additional flows or result in additional deficiencies. To address existing system deficiencies, the 2019 Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP) recommends one moderate-priority CIP downstream from the Project site. However, the Project is not anticipated to contribute additional flows compared to the assumed flow in the 2019 SDMP or result in additional deficiencies. It is therefore anticipated that, through design features and compliance with the NPDES permit, the Project would have a less-than-significant operational impact on stormwater drainage infrastructure.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
New water utilities would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site and throughout the site. A new water service line for proposed Block B would be provided that would connect to the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. In addition, the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive would be upsized into a 12-inch water main to meet the requirements of the Project. The existing and new residential uses for proposed Block A would continue to be served by an on-site water distribution system. The on-site water distribution system would be supplied by the existing 4-inch water service that connects to the 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive; existing water service lines would be replaced. New lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in West Middlefield Road. A new water service line for proposed Block A would connect to the 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. In addition, a new 1-inch water service line and meter for both domestic water and irrigation at the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the park property line and connect to the 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. Therefore, utility impacts associated with expanded water facilities would be less than significant.

A new sanitary sewer would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. The new sanitary sewer lines for proposed Block B would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer mains in Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive. The sewer laterals for servicing existing residential uses would be removed and relocated to facilitate construction of Blocks B and A, with the exception of the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral to West Middlefield Road, which would remain. New sanitary sewer lines for proposed Block C would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Cypress Point Drive. Furthermore, a new 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral for the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the park property line and connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Cypress Point Drive.

The sewer system has sufficient capacity for Project flows. However, under the Future Cumulative Condition, the sewer system would not have sufficient capacity for either pre- or post-Project flows.

Sewer pipes along Moffett Boulevard where they cross SR 85 and along Stevens Creek do not meet the performance criteria. Therefore, the Project’s contribution of flow to this infrastructure would exacerbate an existing deficiency. This would be a significant impact. Therefore, it is recommended that the sewer pipes be upsized to meet performance criteria under the Future Cumulative Condition. However, under the Moffett-Middlefield Condition described in the site-specific analysis prepared for the Project,
2 the sewer system would have sufficient capacity for both pre- and postProject flows. However, to ensure sufficient sewer capacity, the applicant would be required to pay a fair share toward CIPs identified by the City, based on the Project’s determined contribution. Project impacts on wastewater capacity are discussed further under Impact UTL-3. With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL-1, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities at the Project site.

MM UTL-1: Fair-share contribution toward sanitary sewer improvements.

The City of Mountain View Public Works Department determined and assigned responsibility for the applicant’s fair share contribution for upgrades and improvements to the City’s wastewater infrastructure in the utility impact study (Appendix 3.16-1) prepared for the Project (see Table 5-7 in the utility impact study). The applicant shall contribute the identified fair share 2 The Moffett-Middlefield (2030) condition analyzed in the utility impact study prepared for the Project was created from the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study model. It includes the sewer system CIPs from the GPUUIS but also includes the recommended CIPs from the Moffett-Middlefield Sewer Diversion Feasibility memorandum (Schaaf & Wheeler, January 2017).

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
amount to fund capital improvements to the sanitary sewer system prior to issuance of a grading and/or building permit.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• FEP-04: Construction and Management Best Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system. Refer to the City of Mountain View document, “It’s In the Contract But Not In the Bay,” for the specific construction practices required at the job site.

Impact UTL-2 Result in a determination by the water provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has insufficient water supplies available for the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during dry and multiple dry years.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Water Supply. Water is likely to be used during Project construction to prevent dust from becoming airborne. It is also likely to be used for the routine cleaning of construction equipment and mixing concrete. Given the anticipated nature of the Project construction, water demand during the construction phase would be typical of such activity and would not require additional water treatment facilities, supplies, or entitlements. Water use during operations on the site would be related primarily to the use of bathrooms and kitchens within residential buildings, watering landscaped areas, and routine cleaning. Therefore, the Project’s water use can be closely approximated by the amount of wastewater generated.

Project water demand is estimated from the number of dwelling units and the building square footage figures provided in the Project plan as well as the water unit duty factors developed for the City. Water unit duty factors, which are representative of the proposed residential buildings and leasing office, were developed as part of North Bayshore Precise Plan Phase II from water meter records for recent developments throughout Mountain View. Table 3.16-1 provides the estimated demand for the existing Project site and the total post-Project demand.

Table 3.16-1. Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand Building
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Building Area
(square feet) Land Use Type
Water
Demand (gpd)
Project
Block B 111 8,714 Multi-family
residential/Office
11,884
Block A — 9,250 Office 833
Block C 218 3,391 Multi-family
residential/Office
22,105
Project Subtotal 329 21,355 34,822
City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Building
Number of
Dwelling
Units
Building Area
(square feet) Land Use Type
Water
Demand (gpd)
Existing Uses to Remain
Block A 402 -- Multi-family
residential
40,200
Post-Project Total 731 21,355 75,022
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler 2021.

The City’s InfoWater model was used to determine the parcel-level demand compared to the preProject (baseline) condition. The incremental increase in demand under the existing plus project condition is shown in Table 3.16-2. Future cumulative demand for the Project was determined from the City’s InfoWater model, developed as part of the 2030 GPUUIS. In the 2030 GPUUIS, water demand is based on land uses from the 2030 General Plan update, which includes recent Cityapproved projects as well as projects that are under review. The incremental increase in demand under the Future Cumulative Condition is shown in Table 3.16-2.

Table 3.16-2. Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand Water Demand (gpd)
Incremental Project Demand for Existing Condition
Pre-Project (Baseline) Demand 53,424
Total Post-Project Demand 75,022
Incremental Increase in Demand 21,598
Incremental Project Demand for Future Cumulative Condition Pre-Project (Baseline) Demand 56,880
Total Post-Project Demand 75,022
Incremental Increase in Demand 18,142
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler 2021.

To ensure that water demand can be met, the increased water demand from Project development under the Future Cumulative Condition was compared to the capacity of the City's supply turnouts and groundwater wells. The Project site is in Pressure Zone 1, which is supplied by only one SFPUC turnout (Turnout #5).

Water demand versus supply capacity by pressure zone is shown in Table 3.16-3. Total capacity for Pressure Zone 1 includes peak-hour turnout capacity from SFPUC Turnout #5 as well as additional supplies from Wells #22 and #23. Under the current supply operation, demand in Pressure Zone 1 cannot be sufficiently supplied. However, surplus supply in Pressure Zone 2 could be routed to Pressure Zone 1 to supplement the deficit. A pressure reducing valve, moving water from Pressure Zone 2 to Pressure Zone 1, is included in North Bayshore Precise Plan Phase II. A sufficient water supply to serve the Project assumes this CIP has been constructed. Water demand for the Project would not interfere with the City's ability to meet total system demand.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.16-3. Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand Pressure Zone
2030 Future Cumulative Demand (gpd) Total
Capacity
(mgd)
Pre-Project Post-Project
ADD (mgd) PHD (mgd) PHD (mgd)
1 7.98 22.26 22.32 16.56
2 8.41 23.46 23.46 30.53
3 1.62 4.52 4.52 5.10
Total 18.01 50.25 50.31 52.19
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler 2021.

Notes: PHD = Peak-Hour Demand; ADD = Average-Day Demand The applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include low-flow plumbing fixtures, drought-tolerant landscaping, and low-flow irrigation systems. Furthermore, the Project would be required to operate in compliance with Standard Condition of Approval PL-134 (Landscaping) (see full condition of approval below) as well as the City’s Landscape Guidelines, including the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations.

During a single dry year,3 there may be a deficit between potable supply and demand. However, temporary demand reduction measures, as provided in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan, and a potential increase in groundwater supply are expected to alleviate the shortage. The 2015 UWMP estimates the maximum amount of available groundwater to be 1,525 acre-feet per year, based on historical use. Available groundwater could be used to offset some of the deficiency during dry years. Recycled water supplies, as well as demand, is not anticipated to change during drought years and therefore is considered a reliable water source during drought years.

In response to anticipated future dry-year shortfalls, the City has developed a water shortage contingency plan that systematically identifies ways for the City to reduce water demand and augment supplies during dry years. The 2015 UWMP describes the City’s staged Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which includes a mix of voluntary and mandatory rationing actions. The contingency plan can mitigate deficits of up to 50 percent. Therefore, Project demand shortfalls should be offset by the conservation and water use restrictions described in the contingency plan. In addition, if Mountain View exceeds the growth of its neighboring cities, it could receive an additional drought allocation from the SFPUC in future dry years, beyond the amount modeled in the 2015 UWMP. It is expected that, even without the Project, the City would have to rely on implementing its contingency plan during some dry years to reduce demand. Given the impact of the Project on shortage projections, it is not expected that the City would have to change its operations or implementation of its contingency plan in response to a drought, even after the Project is completed.

Estimated water demand from the Project would not adversely affect the City's ability to meet total system demand. Mountain View has sufficient water supplies available to meet the Project’s demand. Impacts on water supply would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Water System Infrastructure. Project construction includes the installation of water infrastructure on-site to serve development. All existing water, sewer, and storm drain services to the site would 3 The driest single year on record.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
be abandoned, by phase, per applicable City standards, except for the existing 4-inch water lateral from Cypress Point Drive, which would remain. New water utilities would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site as well as throughout the site. A new water service for proposed Block B would be provided, connecting to the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. The existing and new residential uses for proposed Block A would be served by an on-site water distribution system. The on-site water distribution system would be supplied by the existing 4-inch water service that connects to the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive; existing water service lines would be replaced. New lines would connect to the existing 12-inch water main in West Middlefield Road. A new water service line for proposed Block C would connect to the existing 8- inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. In addition, as mentioned previously, the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive would be upsized into a 12-inch water main to meet the fire flow requirements of the Project. Further, a new 1-inch water service line and meter for both domestic water and irrigation at the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the park property line and connect to the 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. The size and location of all new and existing water meters, water services, fire services, sewer laterals, sewer cleanouts, gate valves, and utility mains would be shown on plans, as required by Standard Condition of Approval PW-63 (Utility Services) (see full condition of approval below). The construction-related impacts of installing this infrastructure (e.g., excavation, vegetation removal, dust, noise, traffic) are addressed in the respective resource sections.

The anticipated Project-specific fire-flow requirement at the site is based on the 2016 California Fire Code. The fire-flow rate for the existing buildings was compared to the reduced fire-flow rates for the proposed buildings. The controlling fire-flow rate at the site is considered the highest fire-flow rate. A fire sprinkler system is not currently installed in the existing buildings and is not scheduled to be installed as part of the Project. Therefore, the required fire flow for the existing buildings would not be reduced. A 50 percent reduction is applied to the required fire-flow rates because the proposed buildings would have fire sprinklers. This is a conservative assumption because a 75 percent reduction is allowed upon approval on an automatic sprinkler system, according to the California Fire Code. The actual fire requirement may change as the planning process continues and Project-specific requirements are determined by the City Fire Marshal.

Generally, domestic water and fire services would have separate lines that would connect to the City’s water main, as required by Standard Condition of Approval PW-59 (Separate Fire Service) (see full condition of approval below). Existing system deficiencies identified in the 2030 GPUUIS are independent of the Project. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact on system capacity and infrastructure. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-134: Landscaping. Detailed landscape plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the street curb must be included in building permit drawings. Minimum plant sizes are flats or 1-gallon containers for ground cover, 5-gallon for shrubs, and 24” box for trees. The drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance and implemented prior to occupancy. All plans should be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and should comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines, including the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations (forms are available online at www.mountainview.gov/planningforms). Additional landscaping materials or modifications may be required by the Planning Division at final inspection to ensure adequate planting coverage and/or screening.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• PW-59: Separate Fire Service. Domestic water and fire services shall have separate lines connected to the City’s water main, except when supplying NFPA 13D fire sprinkler systems, as approved by the City Fire Protection Engineer. On-site fire lines, post indicator valves, Fire Department connections, and detector checks also require approval from the City’s Fire Protection Engineer.
• PW-63: Utility Services. The size and location of all existing and new water meters, backflow preventers, water services, fire services, sewer laterals, sewer cleanouts, storm drain laterals, storm cleanouts/inlets, gate valves, manholes, and utility mains shall be shown on the plans.

Sewer laterals, water services, and fire services shall have a minimum 5’ horizontal separation from each other. Existing water services shall be shown to be disconnected and plugged at the main, unless they are satisfactory for reuse, as determined by the Public Services Division.

Water services 4” or larger that are not reused shall be plugged at the main by removing the gate valve and installing a blind flange and thrust block at the tee. Existing sanitary sewer laterals and storm connections that are not reused shall be abandoned, and existing face-of-curb drains that are not reused shall be removed.

Impact UTL-3 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity for the Project’s projected demand in addition to existing commitments.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure
UTL-1
Fair-share contribution toward sanitary sewer improvements.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
The Project site is currently designated as Medium-Density Residential. The Project is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to change the existing designation to High-Low Density Residential. As a result, the Project would increase the wastewater generated at the Project site. The General Plan environmental impact report found that the Palo Alto RWQCP has adequate capacity to serve the growth anticipated under the General Plan. According to the City of Palo Alto’s 2010 UWMP, the Palo Alto RWQCP’s capacity is sufficient for current dry- and wet-weather loads as well as future load projections. In addition, to conserve water use further and improve water efficiency on-site, the applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification. Through LEED sustainability design strategies, overall on-site water use would be reduced, and a reduction in generated wastewater would result.

The City entered into a joint agreement, referred to as the Basic Agreement, with the cities of Palo Alto and Los Altos in 1968 for the construction and maintenance of a joint sewer system, thereby addressing a need for the conveyance, treatment, and disposal of wastewater, in accord with Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. Under the Basic Agreement, Palo Alto owns the RWQCP and administers the Basic Agreement with the partnering agencies. It purchases individual capacity rights in terms of an average annual flow that can be discharged to the RWQCP.

Because the Project is an addition to existing development at 555 West Middlefield Road, the Project impact is evaluated by estimating the total sewer flow at the Project site post-Project and comparing City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
it to the pre-Project baseline sewer flow. The total flow includes Project-specific flows and flows associated with existing buildings that would be retained as part of the Project. Table 3.16-4 provides the estimated sewer flow for each building.

Table 3.16-4. Existing and Project Estimated Sewer Flow Building
Number of
Dwellings Land Use Type
Sewer Flow
(gpd)
Project
Block B 111 Multi-Family Residential/Office 10,539
Block A — Office 583
Block C 218 Multi-Family Residential/ Office 19,834
Project Subtotal 329 30,956
Existing Uses to Remain
Block A 402 Multi-Family Residential 36,180
Post-Project Total 731 67,136
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler 2021.

The pre-Project (baseline) condition includes parcel-level sewer flows adopted from the City’s InfoSWMM4 model. For the Project impact analysis, total post-Project sewer flow was added to the pre-Project flow as an additional increase in sewer flow. The Future Cumulative Condition (baseline) flow for the Project was adopted from the City’s InfoSWMM model, developed as part of the 2030 GPUUIS. In the 2030 GPUUIS model, sewer flows are based on land uses from the 2030 General Plan update. These flows have since been updated to include recent City-approved projects and projects that are under review. Total post-Project flow was added to the Future Cumulative Condition model as an additional increase in sewer flow from pre-Project flow. The incremental increase in Project flow under existing and future cumulative conditions is shown in Table 3.16-5.

Table 3.16-5. Existing and Future Cumulative Project Wastewater Flow Sewer Flow (gpd)
Incremental Project Wastewater Flow for Existing Condition Pre-Project (Baseline) Flow 36,959
Total Post-Project Flow 67,136
Incremental Increase in Flow 30,177
Incremental Project Flow for Future Cumulative Condition Pre-Project (Baseline) Flow 39,820
Total Post-Project Flow 67,136
Incremental Increase in Flow 27,316
Source: Schaaf & Wheeler 2021.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Wastewater treatment capacity is analyzed under peak wet-weather flow and average dry-weather flow conditions. Peak wet-weather flow is used to determine hydraulic deficiencies, according to 4 Storm Water Management Model.

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
performance criteria. The General Plan environmental impact report, which includes planned growth under the GPU, projected that the City’s wastewater flow in 2030 would be 13.78 mgd, or 91 percent of the City’s current capacity. Therefore, wastewater generated by the Project could be accommodated by the Palo Alto RWQCP.

System Infrastructure
A new sanitary sewer would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. The new sanitary sewer lines for proposed Block B would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer mains in Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive. The sewer laterals for servicing existing residential uses would be removed and relocated to facilitate the construction of Blocks B and A, with the exception of the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral to West Middlefield Road, which would remain. New sanitary sewer lines for proposed Block C would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Cypress Point Drive. Furthermore, a new 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral for the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the Park Parcel property line and connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Cypress Point Drive.

Two recommended CIPs, or portions thereof, in the 2030 GPUUIS are downstream of the Project, CIPs #100 and #108. CIP #100 includes upsizing 4,419 feet of existing 18-inch pipe to a 21-inch pipe along North Shoreline Boulevard between Terra Bella Avenue and Charleston Road. For this analysis, CIP #100 conforms to City-provided plans from January 2018 for crossing US 101, with approximately 5,792 feet of pipe upsized to 21-inch pipe. CIP #108 recommends upsizing 241 feet of existing 21-inch pipe to 24-inch pipe along North Shoreline Boulevard north of Crittenden Lane.

Both recommended CIPs would address capacity issues identified along the wastewater Central Trunk.

The total system-wide contractual capacity for Mountain View at the RWQCP in Palo Alto is evaluated in the existing and future cumulative conditions with increased Project flows. When their respective service area reaches 80 percent of their contractual capacity rights, partnering agencies will agree to conduct an engineering study. The Future Cumulative Condition estimates that the projected demand pre-Project and post-Project would exceed the 80 percent capacity threshold. The required engineering study when the City reaches 80 percent of its capacity shall redefine the anticipated future needs of the treatment plant.

The sewer system has sufficient capacity downstream from the Project site with both pre-Project and post-Project flows under existing conditions. The system meets performance criteria in all pipes downstream from the Project site. However, the system does not meet performance criteria downstream from the Project under the Future Cumulative Condition pre-Project or post-Project. An additional CIP is recommended for six pipes east of SR 85 in Stevens Creek to alleviate system deficiencies under both the pre-Project and post-Project Future Cumulative Condition.

In addition to the CIPs recommended in the GPUUIS along the sewer conveyance path, upsizing approximately 1,700 feet of pipe along West Middlefield Road downstream from the Project site is also recommended. Approximately 170 feet of pipe along North Shoreline Boulevard, north of the intersection of North Shoreline Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, is also recommended.

In the Moffett-Middlefield Condition evaluated in the site-specific analysis conducted for the Project, approximately 4,660 feet of sewer mains along North Shoreline Boulevard downstream from the Project site was identified as deficient in the 2030 GPUUIS. The 2030 GPUUIS recommends upsizing these pipes from 18-inch to 21-inch and from 21-inch to 24-inch, respectively. The approximately City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
3,230 feet of sewer main along Stevens Creek and along Terra Bella Ave recommended in the 2030 GPUUIS are not included in the Project contribution for recommended pipe improvement projects because they are no longer needed to be upsized under the Moffett-Middlefield Condition.

Based on that contribution, the applicant would be required to pay a fair share toward CIPs identified by the City. With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL-1, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the increased generation of wastewater at the Project site.

Impact UTL-4 Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Project construction would generate construction waste material from demolished structures. The waste would include concrete, asphalt, vegetation, soil, rebar, and other similar materials. Construction of the below-grade parking garages and their foundations would require excavation of soils. The Project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet below the ground surface. Excavation would result in the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil. Demolition activities would generate approximately 30,513 cubic yards of demolished materials, trees, concrete, and asphalt. Of the demolished materials, approximately 79 percent would be recycled. Demolition debris and removed trees would be transported to Zanker Disposal and Recycling in San José. Demolished concrete and asphalt would be transported to Stevens Creek Quarry in Cupertino. Demolished materials from grading and paving activities would be transported to the Newby Island Landfill in Milpitas, and materials from garage excavation and miscellaneous grading activities would be transported to either the Newby Island Landfill or Dumbarton Quarry.

The amount of solid waste transported to the landfill during the construction phase would be in accordance with requirements that call for construction waste to be diverted for recycling or salvage. Because City-certified construction and demolition waste processors recycle a significant portion their loads, the amount of solid waste that reaches the landfill would be less than what initially leaves the site.

The Project would be required to be in compliance with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance, as required by Standard Condition of Approval PW-104 (Mountain View Green Building Code/Construction and Demolition Ordinance) (see full condition of approval below). In addition, Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to solid waste. By meeting all applicable standards and regulations, impacts related to solid waste generated by construction of the Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The Project would increase the square footage of residential space in Mountain View. As a result, the Project would contribute to the total solid waste generated by residential uses in Mountain View. Garbage and recycling is collected from apartments and other high-density complexes in Mountain View that use shared garbage dumpsters and group recycling carts. As discussed in Section 3.16.3.3, Local, Mountain View’s disposal rate is 4.0 pounds per capita, 3.8 pounds less than CalRecycle’s per capita per day target rate. The Project would be subject to the City’s Zero Waste Plan, which would further reduce the per capita disposal rate for City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
residential waste. In addition, multi-family residential complexes, businesses, and schools are required to recycle under the state's mandatory recycling law (AB 341). As described in Section

3.16.2.4, Solid Waste, the Kirby Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the solid waste.

The Project would increase the number of residential units at the Project site by 329. Using Mountain View’s waste generation rate of approximately 4.0 pounds per person per day, the Project would result in an increase of 1,316 to 2,622 pounds per day of solid waste, or 240 to 480 tons per year.
5 The Project would result in a negligible increase in solid waste per day at the existing Kirby Canyon Landfill, which has a remaining estimated capacity of approximately 16.2 million cubic yards. These solid waste generation factors are estimates prior to recycling, composting, or other waste diversion programs. Furthermore, actual disposal rates could be less because the Project would ensure that sufficient solid waste facilities are available for use, in compliance with Standard Condition of Approval PL-03 (Findings of Approval), and provisions would be made for mandatory cardboard box recycling. Given the relatively high recycling rate of Mountain View and the ZeroWaste Plan goals, operation of the Project would not lead to a substantial burden on the existing Kirby Canyon Landfill. As described above, remaining capacity estimates at the Kirby Canyon Landfill account for all planned development, including the Project.

Project operation would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to solid waste. Refer to Impact HAZ-1 in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information on hazardous materials handling during operation of the Project as well as applicable hazardous waste laws and mandatory compliance with these laws. Accordingly, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure or otherwise impair attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Impacts related to solid waste generated by operation of the Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PW-104: Mountain View Green Building Code/Construction and Demolition Ordinance. If this project is subject to the requirements of the Mountain View Green Building Code, a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan shall be submitted with the building permit application and approved by the Solid Waste and Recycling Section prior to issuance of a building permit. A Final Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to final inspection.

Impact UTL-5 Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
5 Assuming one person per unit, 329 units, and 4 pounds of waste per person per day (329 × 4 pounds/day = 1,316 pounds/day; assuming two people per unit, the total is 2,632 pounds/day). Assuming 1 pound = 0.0005 ton, 1,316 pounds/day × 365 days/year × 0.0005 ton = 240 tons/year for one person per unit (480 tons/year for two people per unit).

City of Mountain View Section 3.16. Utilities and Service Systems 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.16-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Discussion
Construction. Demolition activities generate solid waste made up of steel, concrete, asphalt, and lumber, all of which requires disposal. However, CALGreen requires that at least 65 percent of all debris from demolition of any residential or commercial building be diverted from landfills through recycling, salvage, or other similar programs. Demolition debris would be recycled in compliance with state law and City Code (Chapter 16, Article III). Transported demolition debris and waste is discussed under Impact UTL-4.

As previous discussed, the Project would be required to be in compliance with the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance, as required by Standard Condition of Approval PW-104 (Mountain View Green Building Code/Construction and Demolition Ordinance) (see full condition of approval above), and Project construction would be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to solid waste. Refer to Impact HAZ-1 in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for additional information on hazardous materials handling during construction of the Project as well as applicable hazardous waste laws and mandatory compliance with these laws. Therefore, the Project would be in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, and impacts related to solid waste generated by construction of the Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. AB 341 requires commercial establishments, including residential properties, to recycle.

This law was extended by AB 1826 to require organics diversion for all residential properties with more than five units, although units are not required to divert food waste. State law also requires equal access to waste and recycling disposal locations. To comply with City ordinances and AB 1826, the Project’s residential trash would be collected in three different streams: Waste, Mixed Paper Recyclables (paper, cardboard) and Mixed Container Recyclables (food and beverage). AB 1826 requires businesses and mixed-use residential developments that generate more than 4 cubic yards of solid waste per week to incorporate organic recycling programs, such as composting. Because of sanitation, odor, and pest problems, compost collection would not be provided in the residential portion of the Project. However, compost collection would be provided in the retail portion of the Project to meet the requirements of AB 1826 (American Trash Management 2018).