ATT 1 - EIR Resolution — Mountain View City Council, February 8, 2022 (part 4 of 4)

The Project proposes an amendment to the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) to 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 up to 324 3231 new multi-family residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages.

Page 1 ends

Introduction, as follows:

Upon Project completion, the total amount of development at the site would have an area of approximately 713,161 722,750 square feet, including the approximately 310,263 square feet of existing uses to remain at the Project site and the approximately 402,898 412,487 square feet of new uses to be constructed under the Project.

Page 1 ends

The original development application for the Project reflected a maximum of 334 new residential units; subsequently, the Project’s design was further refined, which resulted in a nominal reduction in the number of units (from 334 to 329). As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, and Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, during preparation of this Draft EIR, but after completion of specified quantitative analysis and technical reports, the applicant reduced the proposed number of new residential units from 329 to 324 323 units based on input received during City Council study sessions. Chapter 2, Project Description, reflects the current proposal of up to 324 323 net new residential units, while Chapter 3 analyzes impacts associated with 329 net new residential units consistent with the quantitative analysis and technical reports that were already prepared, and thus, reflects a more conservative analysis of impacts than what is proposed. In addition, the total square footage identified for the new residential units throughout this Draft EIR is still based on 329 net new units, and will decrease very slightly when site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect the 324 323 net new units. The decrease of 5 6 residential units, and associated reduction in square footage, does not result in any substantive changes to the environmental impact analysis or conclusions, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Page 1 ends

This square footage will be slightly less based on the reduction from 329 units to 324 323 units. See Footnote 1.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-3 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 2 ends

Project Overview, as follows:

The Project proposes construction of up to 324 323 new residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages. Of these units, up to 49 units would be affordable. The original development application for the Project reflected a maximum of 334 new residential units, and this was reduced to 329 units. Based on input received during City Council study sessions, the applicant reduced the number of units from 329 to 324 323. This change occurred after completion of specified quantitative analysis and technical reports that were based on 329 units. As a result, Chapter 3 analyzes impacts associated with 329 net new residential units consistent with the quantitative analysis and technical reports that were already prepared. and thus reflects a more conservative analysis of impacts than what is proposed. In addition, the total square footage identified for the new residential units throughout this Draft EIR is still based on 329 units, and will decrease incrementally when site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect up to 324 323 units. The decrease of 5 6 residential units, and associated reduction in square footage, does not result in any substantive changes to the environmental impact analysis or conclusions, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.1, Project Overview, as follows:

The General Plan amendment would allow the Project to retain the existing 402 residential units, ensuring no tenant displacement, but allow for the demolition of surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa, and then development of up to 324 323 new multi-family residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages.

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.1, Project Overview, as follows:

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.5, Proposed Project, as follows:

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 up to 324 323 new multi-family residential units within two new buildings on the 14.5-acre Project site. Including the existing residential units that would be retained and the proposed residential units that would be constructed, there would be a total of up to 726 725 residential units at the Project site.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-4 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 2 ends

Section 2.5, Proposed Project, as follows:

Upon Project completion, development at the site would total approximately 713,161 722,750 square feet, including approximately 310,263 square feet within the existing uses that would remain at the Project site and approximately 402,898 412,487 square feet of new uses to be constructed under the Project.

Page 2 ends

The total square footage identified for the new residential units throughout this Draft EIR is still based on 329 units and will decrease incrementally when site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect up to 324 323 units. The decrease of 5 6 residential units, and associated reduction in square footage, does not result in any substantive changes to the environmental impact analysis or conclusions, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

Page 2 ends

Description, as follows:

The 324 323 new residential units are anticipated to consist of 9 studios, 153 150 onebedroom units, 136 130 two-bedroom units, and 26 34 three-bedroom units, based on currently available information, although the ultimate unit mix would be determined as part of the final design process.

Page 2 ends

The City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program requires that 15 percent of new residential units (324 323) be reserved as affordable units, which equates to a total of

48.6 48.5 units. The applicant would reserve and deed 49 of the 324 323 units as “affordable” as required by the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-5 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 2 ends

Feature Block B Block A
Areas
Containing
Existing
Units Block C
Park
Parcel
Total
(approx. )
Existing Uses to Remain
Residential Units 0 0 402 0 0 402
Residential Area
(square feet)
0 0 310,263 0 0 310,263
Common Open Space
(square feet)
0 0 56,914 0 0 56,914
Vehicle Parking Spaces 0 0 28 0 0 28
Existing Uses to Be Demolished
Leasing/Amenity Area
(square feet)
0 (7,493) 0 0 0 (7,493)
Common Open Space
(square feet)
Vehicle Parking Spaces
(8,926)
(197)
(2.2 acres)
(44,145)
(16)
(0.1 acre)
0 0
(22,958)
(305)
(3.5 acres)
(44,160)
(124)
(1.3 acres)
(120,189)
(642)
(7.1 acres)
Proposed Uses
Residential Units 111 0 0 213 212 0 324 323
Residential Area
(square feet)
145,091
153,805
0 0 236,452
237,327
0 381,543
391,132
Leasing/Amenity Area
(square feet)
8,714 9,250 0 3,391 0 21,355
Common Open Space
(square feet)
17,675 24,278 0 46,607 0 88,560
Private Open Space
(square feet)
6,364 0 0 12,499
12,154
0 18,863
18,518
Dedication for a future public
park (acres)
0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3
Vehicle Parking Spaces 171 167 363 0 425 412 0 959 942 Total Uses (Including Existing Uses to Remain plus Proposed Uses) Residential Units 111 0 402 213 212 0 726 725
Residential Area
(square feet)
145,091
153,805
0 310,263 236,452
237,327
0 691,806
701,395
Leasing/Amenity Area
(square feet)
8,714 9,250 0 3,391 0 21,355
Common Open Space
(square feet)
17,675 24,278 56,914 46,607 0 145,474
Private Open Space
(square feet)
6,364 0 0 12,499
12,154
0 18,863
18,518
Dedication for a future public
park (acres)
0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3
Vehicle Parking Spaces 171 167 363 28 425 412 0 987 970 Total Residential Area + Leasing/Amenity Area Uses (square feet) 713,161 722,750
Source: BDE Architecture, 2020 2021.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-6 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 2 ends

Proposed Development and Site Plan, as follows:

The proposed development on Block B would include a total of 111 new residential units within a four-story, 52 54-foot-tall building and one level of below-grade parking (Figure2-4). The proposed development on Block A would include a new one-story, 22-foot-tall leasing office and related amenity building and three levels of below-grade parking (Figure 2-5). The 15 existing 40-foot-tall residential buildings would be retained, with the applicant performing minor enhancements to the exteriors of the buildings (e.g., repainting, applying wood-like tiles) as part of the Project (Figure 2-6).

The proposed development on Block C would include a total of 218 212 residential units within a four-story, 52 54-foot-tall building and two levels of below-grade parking (Figure 2-7). Proposed site cross-sections, which show the Project components proposed for each level of the buildings on Blocks B, A, and C, are shown in Figures 2-8a, 2-8b, and 2.8c, respectively.

Page 2 ends

General Plan Amendment, as follows:

Furthermore, a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes and Development Review Permit to allow construction of 324 323 new residential units and related improvements would be pursued. Additional required approvals from the City and other agencies are identified in Table 2-2 in Section 2.7, Required Permits and Approvals.

Page 2 ends

The Project would include a total of approximately 987 970 vehicle parking spaces, consisting of approximately 159 spaces in the below-grade garage and approximately 12 8 surface parking spaces on Block B, approximately 341 spaces in the below-grade garage and approximately 22 surface parking spaces on Block A, approximately 425 412 spaces in the below-grade garage of Block C, and the approximately 28 existing spaces that would be retained. A total of approximately 43 spaces would be reserved for Americans with Disabilities Act– (ADA-) compliant accessible vehicles, in accordance with applicable statutory requirements. Within the below-grade parking garages of the new residential buildings, spaces would be reserved for personal storage areas in accordance with applicable Code requirements.

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.5.4, Amenities, as follows:

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 18,518 square feet of private open space upon Project completion.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-7 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.5.4, Amenities, as follows:

In addition, the Project would include transit-related amenities (e.g., bicycle repair stations, delivery storage spaces, real-time transit information, on-site carshare spaces), as described further below and detailed in the Project’s proposed transportation demand management (TDM) program (Nygaard 20201).1

Page 2 ends

under Section 2.5.5, Landscaping and Heritage Trees, as follows:

There are 417 existing trees on the Project site. Of these, 255 meet the City’s criteria for Heritage Trees. It is anticipated that a total of approximately 246 trees would remain in their current location (including 158 Heritage Trees); 36 trees would be transplanted on-site (including 35 Heritage Trees); and 135 trees would be removed (including 62 Heritage Trees). None of the trees and shrubs within the Caltrans right-of-way along SR 85 adjacent to the Project site would be removed and any trees on the SR 85 side of the Caltrans sound wall would remain.

Page 2 ends

Landscaping and Heritage Trees, as follows:

The Project would retain portions of the existing landscaping in the areas containing 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. In addition to the approximately 282 trees that would remain on site, the Project would plant approximately 197 trees at the Project site. The City will require, as a Condition of Approval, that 75 percent of all new trees and plantings on the site will be native species. As required by the City, most new trees that would be planted on-site would be in the Low Water Use category, in accordance with the Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species (WUCOLS). Many of these new trees would be evergreen, allowing for year-round shade and screening of the Project site. All planted areas (both new and retained) would be watered with an approved automatic irrigation system to make efficient use of water through conservation techniques and comply with applicable provisions of the City’s and state’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, adopted in July 2010, and the Green Building Code, adopted in March 2011.

Page 3 ends

Measures, as follows:

As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the original development application for the Project reflected a maximum of 334 new residential units; subsequently, the Project’s design was further refined, which resulted in a nominal reduction in the number of units (from 334 to 329). During the preparation of this Draft EIR, and after specified quantitative analysis and technical reports were prepared, the applicant reduced the Project’s residential net new units by 5 6 units, from 329 to 324 323 based on input received during Environmental Planning Commission and City Council study 1 Please note that the 555 West Middlefield Road Transportation Demand Management Plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard was updated after the release of the Draft EIR. The amended July 2021 transportation demand management plan is attached to this Final EIR as Appendix FEIR-1.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-8 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
sessions. Thus, the proposed Project is up to 324 323 net new units, with up to 49 of those units as affordable units, as reflected in Chapter 2, Project Description. In addition, the total square footage identified for the new residential units throughout this Draft EIR is still based on 329 net new units and will decrease incrementally when site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect up to 324 323 net new units. Chapter 3 analyzes impacts associated with 329 net new residential units consistent with the quantitative analysis and technical reports that were already prepared, and thus, reflects a more conservative analysis of impacts than what is proposed. The decrease of 5 6 residential units, and associated reduction in square footage, does not result in any material changes to the environmental analysis, including impact conclusions and mitigation measures, primarily because the overall proposed duration of construction, construction schedule, construction intensity, and building footprint all remain the same. In addition, assumptions used in the analysis of operational-related topics for impacts resulting from population growth (e.g., Population and Housing, Public Services, and Utilities) present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 6 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.

Page 3 ends

Aesthetics, as follows:

The development on proposed Block B would include a four-story, 52 54-foot-tall building and one level of below-grade parking. The development on proposed Block A would include a new one-story, 22-foot-tall leasing office and related amenity building with three levels of below-grade parking as well as the 15 existing 40-foot-tall residential buildings. The new building on proposed Block C would be four stories tall (52 54 feet) and have two levels of below-grade parking. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 52 54 feet, which would be greater than the height of the existing buildings, and the new buildings would add density to the area.

Page 3 ends

follows:

The Project includes a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of existing trees and vegetation and enhance the overall aesthetic appearance of the proposed development. There are 417 trees on the Project site, 255 of which meet the City’s criteria for Heritage Trees. It is anticipated that approximately 246 trees would remain at their current locations, including 158 Heritage Trees; 36 trees would be transplanted on-site, including 35 Heritage Trees; and 135 trees would be removed, including 62 Heritage Trees. None of the trees and shrubs within the Caltrans right-of-way along SR 85 adjacent to the Project site would be removed and any trees on the SR 85 side of the Caltrans sound wall would remain. The Project would retain portions of the existing landscaping in areas containing 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.

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-9 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 3 ends

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as follows:

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. Given the regional nature of GHG emissions and dispersal, along with the physical location of land uses near the Project site as well as the presence of trees within the vicinity of the Project site, the removal and temporary loss of trees on the Project site and along the SR 85 site frontage as a result of the Project is not anticipated to result in a quantifiable and material change in GHG emissions in the overall site area. 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.

Page 3 ends

Biological Resources, as follows:

There are approximately 417 trees on the Project site, including approximately 255 on-site Heritage Trees regulated by the City of Mountain View (HortScience 2016, 2018, 2019). It is anticipated that a total of approximately 246 trees would remain in their current location (including 158 Heritage Trees); 36 trees would be transplanted on-site (including 35 Heritage Trees); and 135 trees would be removed (including 62 Heritage Trees). None of the trees and shrubs within the Caltrans right-of-way along SR 85 adjacent to the Project site would be removed and any trees on the SR 85 side of the Caltrans sound wall would remain. The trees that would be removed as part of the Project and an indication of whether each tree species is considered native or nonnative, are presented in Table 3.3-3.

Page 3 ends

Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous materials, as follows:

The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 52 54 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.

Page 3 ends

Use and Planning, as follows:

The proposed buildings would be 52 54-feet-tall.

Page 3 ends

as follows:

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. None of the City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-10 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
trees and shrubs within the Caltrans right-of-way along SR 85 adjacent to the Project site would be removed and any trees on the SR 85 side of the Caltrans sound wall would remain. 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.

Page 3 ends

follows:

The decrease of 5 6 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 present a conservative approach because they analyze 5 6 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.

Page 3 ends

Recreation, as follows:

The decrease of 5 6 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 6 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 Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-11 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 3 ends

Recreation, as follows:

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 6, from 329 to 324 323 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 6 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 6 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.

Page 3 ends

Circulation, as follows:

The decrease of 5 6 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 6 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.

Page 3 ends

as follows:

The decrease of 5 6 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, City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-12 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
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 6 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.

Page 3 ends

Mitigation Measures, as follows:

Migratory bird and raptor species, such as American crow, could use the trees in and adjacent to the Project site for nesting. Active migratory bird nests are regulated by the MBTA and Sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. If construction were to begin during the nesting season (January 1 February 1 to August 31), construction activities could disturb active nests of migratory birds at and/or adjacent to the Project site, which would be a significant impact. The Project would also be required to adhere Standard Condition of Approval PL-206 (Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey) (effective December 15, 2020) (see full condition of approval below), which requires, to the extent practicable, that vegetation removal and construction activities be performed from September 1 through January December 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds.

Otherwise, preconstruction surveys are required to be performed. Adherence to Standard Condition of Approval PL-206 would ensure that the Project would not disturb any active nests during construction. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Page 3 ends

Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, as follows:

Standard Conditions of Approval
l PL-206: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January December 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys will be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:

City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-13 October 2021
ICF 00214.20

Page 3 ends

Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, as follows:

As discussed above, the Project would be required to adhere to the Standard Conditions of Approval (effective December 15, 2021). The following standard conditions apply to trees: PL-133 (Trees and Landscaping), PL-134 (Landscaping), PL136 (Certification), PL-137 (Street Tree), PL-138 (Arborist Report), PL-139 (Arborist Inspections), PL-140 (Monthly Arborist Inspections), PL-143 (Implementation), PL-144 (Replacement), PL-147 (Tree Protection Measures), PL-148 (Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan), PL-149 (Security Bond), PL-150 (Security Deposit), PL-151 (Irrevocable Damage to Heritage Trees), PL-152 (Relocation), PL-153 (Off-Site Mitigation), and PL-154 (Replacement Fee) (see full conditions of approval below). In addition, the City will require, as a Condition of Approval, that 75 percent of all new trees and plantings on the site will be native species.

Page 3 ends

Impacts and Mitigation Measures, as follows:

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. For this Project analysis, it was conservatively assumed that no onsite photovoltaic solar panels would be installed to offset off-site electricity demand.

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.

Page 3 ends

and Mitigation Measures, as follows:

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. However, per the Mountain View Green Building Code, the Project would be required to install photovoltaic solar panels on 50 percent of Project roof area and this will be a City Condition of Approval.

Page 3 ends

and Mitigation Measures, as follows:

Standard Conditions of Approval
l 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 City of Mountain View Draft EIR Text Revisions
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 5-14 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
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. In addition, the Project would be required to install photovoltaic solar panels on 50 percent of Project roof area.

A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 07.16.2021 A 3 . 0 5

B L O C K B - B U IL D I N G S E C TI O N S
2 1
PL
SECTION 2

LEASING LOUNGE
/ AMENITIES

STORAGE PARKING
STAIR

UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

ROOF DECK AMENITY UNIT
FLOOR B1
-8'-4"
T.O. CURB
+0'-0" (+56.31')
FLOOR 2
+15'-6"
FLOOR 3
+25'-10"
FLOOR 4
+36'-2"
ROOF
+43'-11"
FLOOR 1
+5'-2"
T.O. WALL
+48'-2"
T.O. RIDGE
+54'-2"
GRADE
+2'-2"
PL PL
SECTION 1
FLOOR B1
-8'-4"
T.O. CURB
+0'-0" (+56.31')
FLOOR 2
+15'-6"
FLOOR 3
+25'-10"
FLOOR 4
+36'-2"
ROOF
+43'-11"
FLOOR 1
+5'-2"
T.O. WALL
+48'-2"
T.O. RIDGE
+54'-2"
GRADE
+2'-2" UNIT COR. UNIT
UNIT COR. UNIT
UNIT COR. UNIT
UNIT COR. UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
COR. UNIT
COR.

COR.

PARKING
Figure 2-8a
Revised Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block B)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2021.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (8/31/21) AB
A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 07.16.2021 A 3 . 0 6

B L O C K A - B U IL D I N G S E C TI O N
1 PL PL
SECTION 1
BOH

PARKING

CO-WORKING

SPACE FITNESS
FLOOR B1
-10'-6"
T.O. CURB
0'-0" (+58.49')
FLOOR B2
-20'-6"
FLOOR B3
-30'-6"
ROOF
+18'-9"

UPPER ROOF
+26'-6"
GRADE
+4'-6"
Figure 2-8b
Revised Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block A)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2021.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (8/31/21) AB
A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 07.16.2021 A 3 . 0 7

B L O C K C - B U IL D I N G S E C TI O N

LEASING LOUNGE
/ AMENITIES

PARKING

STORAGE
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

PARKING

PARKING
UNIT

ROOF DECK
ELEV.

LOBBY
LOBBY

BIKE STORAGE

PARKING
FLOOR B1
-8'-4"
T.O. CURB
+0'-0" (+62.6')
FLOOR 2
+15'-10"
FLOOR 3
+26'-2"
FLOOR 4
+36'-6"
FLOOR 1
+5'-6"
T.O. WALL
+48'-6"
T.O. RIDGE
+54'-6"
GRADE
+2'-10"
SECTION 1
1 Figure 2-8c
Revised Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block C)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2021.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (8/31/21) AB
Cypress Point Dr
0 25 50 100

07.21.2021
L.005

SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN
F u t u r e P u b l i c
Park
Middlefield Rd
M o f f e t t B l v d
H W Y 8 5
Bldg H
Bldg G
Bldg K
Bldg L
Bldg S
Bldg R
Bldg M
Bldg N
Bldg P
Bldg F
Bldg E
Bldg D
Bldg C
Bldg B
Bldg A
Existing Landscape to be
Protected in Place
New Proposed
Landscape
Existing Trees o be Protected
in Place
Relocated Trees
New Poposed Trees
Tr e e a n d L a n d s c a p e L e g e n d
B l o c k
B
B l o c k
A
Park
Parcel
B l o c k
C
Cypress Point Dr
0 25 50 100
West
N.A.P.

PROJECT SITE EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO BE
N.A.P. Not a part of the project

PROTECTED IN PLACE

NEW PROPOSED LANDSCAPE

EXISTING TREES TO BE

PROTECTED IN PLACE

RELOCATED TREES

NEW PROPOSED TREES
Figure 2-9
Revised Proposed Landscape Plan
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2021.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (8/24/21) AB
555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-1 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 6
Copies of the Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR The original comment letters received regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report are provided on the following pages:

City of Mountain View Copies of the Comment Letters Received on the Draft EIR 555 West Middlefield Road Project
Final Environmental Impact Report 6-2 October 2021
ICF 00214.20
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
1 From: Ayon, Llisel@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 9:36 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: OPR State Clearinghouse <[email protected]> Subject: 555 West Middlefield ‐ Caltrans Comments
Hello Diana,
Thank you for including Caltrans in the review process for the 555 West Middlefield Project. Please see the attached letter for our comments on the DEIR. If you need any additional information or clarification on any of these comments, please feel free to email me at this address or call me at the phone number listed below.

Thank you,
Llisel Ayon
Associate Transportation Planner
Local Development ‐ Intergovernmental Review
California Department of Transportation – District 4
Cell: (510) 506‐6184
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
August 12, 2021 SCH #: 2019070252
GTS #: 04-SCL-2019-00920
GTS ID: 16357
Co/Rt/Pm: SCL/85/23.244
Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94039
Re: 555 West Middlefield Road Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Dear Diana Pancholi:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project. We are committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following comments are based on our review of the June 2021 DEIR.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would demolish existing parking and facilities on site to construct an additional 324 multi-family residential units with two below-grade parking garages.

This approximately 14.5-acre project site is located west of State Route (SR)-85 at the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard in the City of Mountain View.

Travel Demand Analysis
Caltrans commends the City’s effort to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce resident-based Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

The project VMT analysis and significance determination are undertaken in a manner consistent with the Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Technical Advisory. Per the DEIR and TRA-2, this project is found to have Less than Significant impacts, therefore working towards meeting the State’s VMT reduction goals. Caltrans acknowledges the mitigation and TDM strategies incorporated into the DEIR and supports the implementation and monitoring of these strategies.

Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
August 12, 2021

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Aesthetics
As requested in Caltrans previous letter dated August 9, 2019, please evaluate the visual impacts of project tree removal and replacement with regards to highway travelers along SR-85. Any trees within state right of way damaged due to construction activities would require replacement per Caltrans Replacement Highway Planting Policy. See the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 29 (link).

Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the City of Mountain View is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to the State Transportation Network (STN). The project’s fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.

Equitable Access
If any Caltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe, sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.

Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the State Right of Way (ROW) requires a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit. As part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating the State ROW, digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), approved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD), approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement. Your application package may be emailed to [email protected].

To download the permit application and to obtain more information on all required documentation, visit https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep/applications.

Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
August 12, 2021

Page 3 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon at [email protected]. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please email [email protected].

Sincerely,

MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S.Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
County of Santa Clara
Parks and Recreation Department
298 Garden Hill Drive
Los Gatos, California 95032-7669
(408) 355-2200 FAX (408) 355-2290
Reservations (408) 355-2201
www.parkhere.org
July 26, 2021

City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Attn: Diana Pancholi
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94041

SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project Dear Diana Pancholi,

The Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department (County Parks Department) has received the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project (Project).

The County Parks Department functions to provide a sustainable system of diverse regional parks, trails, and open spaces that connects people with the natural environment and supports healthy lifestyles while balancing recreation opportunities with natural, cultural, historic, and scenic resource protection. The County Parks Department is also charged with the planning and implementation of the Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master Plan Update (Countywide Trails Plan), an element of the Parks and Recreation Section of the County General Plan (adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 14, 1995). The Countywide Trails Plan indicates the following regional trail route located in the Project vicinity:

Stevens Creek Sub-Regional Trail (S2): a hiking and off-road bicycle route along Stevens Creek, from Stevens Creek County Park to the San Francisco Bay.

The City of Mountain View’s segment of the trail in the Project vicinity is complete and located approximately 270 feet east of the Project site, across Highway 85. The County Parks Department recommends that the Final EIR evaluate and address any potential impacts related to the Stevens Creek Trail, including the following:

Air Quality
The Draft EIR states that the Stevens Creek Trail is one of the Air Quality Sensitive Receptors, and that air quality impacts during construction will be significant. The proposed construction duration (May 2023-August 2028) implies that approximately 64 months of significant pollutants, including the primary criteria pollutants reactive organic gas and nitrogen oxides, could circulate in the air and reach the Stevens Creek Trail. This is noted as a significant impact to the natural corridor along Stevens Creek and trail users on the Stevens Creek Trail. Signage and contact information should be provided for trail users during construction, to inform the City of Mountain View or other agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District of any concerns related to poor air quality along the Stevens Creek Trail.

Board of Supervisors: Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S.Joseph Simitian County Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith
Noise
Noise is considered an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities. Any intense noise related to the Project construction may have a significant impact on the natural corridor along Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek Trail users as well. Signage and contact information should be provided for trail users to inform the City of Mountain View or other agencies such as the California Department of Transportation of any concerns related to noise issues along the Stevens Creek Trail.

The County Parks Department also recommends the City of Mountain View consider any opportunities to improve pedestrian and cycling connections between the Project site and Stevens Creek Trail, to improve public access to regional trails featured in the Countywide Trails Plan.

Thank you for the opportunity for County Parks Department to provide comments on the Draft EIR for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project. If you have any questions, please email me at [email protected]

Sincerely,
Kelly Gibson
Kelly Gibson
Assistant Planner
1 From: Swierk, Robert <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 10:06 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: plan.review <[email protected]>
Subject: 555 West Middlefield Road Project
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello, Diana –
Just writing to let you know that VTA has no comments on the DEIR for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project.

Regards,
Rob
Robert Swierk, AICP
Principal Transportation Planner
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 North First Street, Building B
San Jose, CA 95134-1927
Phone: 408-321-5949

1 Hi Diana,
It looks like there was an intersection LOS and delay assessment that was done and included in Appendix 3.14-

1. I couldn't quite tell if there's a separate appendix related to VMT, but it would be great to get that as well.

Thanks!
From: Kevin Forestieri <kforestieri@mv‐voice.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 4:27 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: MV Voice ‐ seeking appendices for 555 W. Middlefield Road project Hi Diana,
This is Kevin Forestieri from the Mountain View Voice. We're interested in writing a story about 555 W.

Middlefield Road and the recently released DEIR for the project, and the document references numerous tables and information in the appendices. Could you provide us with a copy or a link to these documents? Thanks!
--
Kevin Forestieri
[email protected]
650-223-6535 (office)
408-857-5042 (cell)
1 From: rbankus <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Lucas <[email protected]>; Abe‐Koga, Margaret <Margaret.abe‐[email protected]>; Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Lieber, Sally <[email protected]>; Matichak, Lisa <[email protected]>; Showalter, Pat <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; , City Manager <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Sierra Club & Audubon Society comments on DEIR for 555 W. Middlefield Rd.

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Mountain View City Officials,
Regarding the proposed development project at 555 W. Middlefield Rd, I strongly urge you to oppose the removal of the tree canopy located along Hwy 85 and in close proximity to the Stevens Creek Trail. This canopy provides an important aesthetic and noise reduction barrier between our neighborhood and Hwy 85, and provides habitat for numerous wildlife species that live along Stevens Creek (see attached DEIR document). The removal of these trees will significantly degrade our neighborhood environment.

Your help with this issue would be greatly appreciated! Ron Bankus
505 Cypress Point Dr. #277
Mountain View, CA
August 12, 2021
Diana Pancholi, Project Planner
Community Development
City of Mountain View
Via email to: [email protected]
RE: Comments on the DEIR for 555 W. Middlefield
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed development. We are generally supportive of increasing density using infill and we consider added housing, in proximity to transit, as desirable. However, this should not be at the expense of seriously degrading the environment. We believe that the “No Block C” alternative provides a reasonable balance of housing and environmental impact. 555 Middlefield is proposing to add housing in 3 different locations, using existing surface parking lots to insert additional housing with multi-level underground parking.

Block “C,” however, is very problematic as it has serious impacts. The proposed development here involves removal of every single tree in the existing wide tree buffer that currently exists along Hwy 85 and in close proximity to Stevens Creek Trail. This canopy is part of the unique Stevens Creek habitat corridor that extends from the Bay to the hills.

The 80’-100’ wide existing urban canopy will be lost to make place for a four-story building near Hwy 85 along with a strip of new landscaping including a few relocated olive trees.

We are strongly opposed to degradation of the urban canopy along the habitat corridor and the removal of so many trees. We support the alternative of “No Block C” because we oppose removal of the urban canopy along Hwy 85.

The existing landscaping provides an effective aesthetic barrier to Hwy 85 visually and as a barrier for freeway noise. It also helps to trap airborne toxics, such as particulates from auto exhaust and tire dust, and brake linings dust from the highway. This is important because there is clear evidence of increased incidence and severity of health problems associated with air pollution exposures related to proximity to roadway traffic.

In addition, the tree canopy is part of an important unique habitat corridor, along Stevens Creek, from the Bay to the hills. Many resident and migratory bird species, as well as mammals, including bats, amphibian life and insect pollinators, use this corridor to travel between rich habitat patches. 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
2 View showing Stevens Creek Habitat Corridor at the site along Hwy 85.

Typical view of existing tree canopy along Hwy 85, seen from the site, part of a critical habitat corridor extending from the Bay to the hills. The project proposes clear cutting of all the trees along Hwy 85 to make room for a new building close to Hwy 85.
555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
3 Excerpt from Drawing L.003 ‘Tree Removal Plan”: Green hatched area shows ALL the trees along Hwy 85, on the property, are to be clear cut to make place for new buildings. Blue numbers are heritage trees, black numbers are non-heritage, and shrubs to be removed are not documented Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Stevens Creek is a 20-mile-long waterway that starts on the slopes of Black Mountain in the Santa Cruz Mountains and flows to the Bay.

The 4.8-mile Stevens Creek Trail, which intermittently follows along the banks of Stevens Creek, is one of the best-developed and most ambitious trails in the Bay Area. The existing trail cost around $30 million to build, with funding from a wide range of public and private sources. Building the trail required the construction of several bridges and underpasses, the planting of thousands of trees and shrubs, and the installation of numerous amenities, such as benches, signs, and drinking fountains. Since then, many other funding sources have been utilized to fund improving the ecology of the trail and the creek, and to protect biodiversity.

Because of the extensive landscaping and amenities, the trail acts as a natural linear park and is one of the peninsula’s unique habitat corridors connecting the Bay to the hills.

The Stevens Creek corridor connects several rich habitat areas, home to a variety of both aquatic and land-based wildlife1. Some species found in the parks include:
· Mammals: Coyote, Gray Fox, Raccoon, Brush Rabbit, Merriam's Chipmunk, Fox Squirrel, Opossum, black-tailed deer, and Big brown bat.
· Birds: the parks and trail are great for bird watching, with over 150 different species; 1 SF Bay Wildlife https://www.sfbaywildlife.info/places/stevens_creek_county_park.htm 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
4 · Butterflies: California Sister, Lorquin's Admiral, Variable Checkerspot, Northern Checkerspot, Mylitta Crescent, Unsilvered Fritillary, Sara Orangetip, Gray-veined White, Painted Lady, Mournful Duskywing, Echo Blue, Spring Azure, Umber Skipper, Tailed Copper; · Dragonflies/Damselflies: Flame Skimmer, Red Rock Skimmer, Common Green Darner, Variegated Meadowhawk, Vivid Dancer, Familiar Bluet;
· Other invertebrates worth mentioning are California Forest Scorpion and Banana Slug.

The Stevens Creek habitat corridor connects park habitats along different areas of Stevens Creek, enabling bird, mammal, and insect migration, (re)colonization and breeding opportunities for flora and fauna, and promoting increased genetic diversity. It provides food and shelter for a variety of wildlife and helps with juvenile dispersal and seasonal migrations. We believe that as proposed, the project is likely to interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife species in this corridor.

Summary
We support the alternative of “No Block C” as we oppose removal of the urban canopy along Hwy 85 for all the reasons given above.

In addition, increased density should come with some positive benefits for the community. We would propose actually improving the tree buffer and urban canopy along Hwy 85 by augmenting with more trees, using California natives selected for resistance to highway impacts, to improve the habitat value and add to Mountain View’s urban greening efforts.

This will improve the livability of the project for residents, including better health effects due to an improved buffer for auto exhaust, toxic dust and noise from the freeway, and a better aesthetic experience.

Importantly, it will advance Mountain View's strategic goal for improved biodiversity. In addition, added trees contribute to urban cooling, ameliorating climate change and urban heat island effects, and provide more carbon sequestration and better management of stormwater.

Respectfully submitted,

Gita Dev, Co-Chair Shani Kleinhaus
Sustainable Land Use Committee Environmental Advocate
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society CC
Mountain View City Council
Gladwyn D’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP) James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP) Rajiv Mathur, Friends of Stevens Creek <[email protected]> 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
5 COMMENTS ON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: DEIR 555 WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD,

MOUNTAIN VIEW

1. The Project would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to Project and cumulative PM2.5 concentrations at existing on-site sensitive receptors.

CEQA requires mitigation for impacts, even when mitigation does not reduce the impacts to below significance level. The mitigations offered for Impact AQ-2b are limited to construction activities, and do not address the impact associated with the loss of tree canopy buffer along Hwy 85.

Scientific evidence shows that urban trees remove fine particulate air pollution2. The removal of the trees along Hwy 85 eliminates an important green infrastructure service that can help reduce PM2.5 concentrations not only during construction, but also for the operations lifetime of the project. The Project should be modified in a way that retains all the existing trees along the freeway (eliminating Block “C,” for example).

2. The Project finds no significant impact to Aesthetic Resources. We disagree.

Hwy 85 is not considered a scenic highway at the state level, but thousands of drivers spend several hours each week on this roadway on their way to and from work at Silicon Valley companies3. The value of the tree-lined highway in this section is not negligible - seeing trees 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Our nation’s air: Status and trends through 2016. Accessed October 2020.

Nowak, D.J., D.E. Crane, and J.C. Stevens. 2006. Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 4:115–123.

Smith, W. H. 1990. Air pollution and forests. New York: Springer-Verlag, 618 p.

Nowak, D.J., S. Hirabayashi, A. Bodine and R. Hoehn. 2013. Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health effects. Environmental Pollution 178: 395–402.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2012. Asthma in the U.S: Growing every year.

Accessed October 2020.
3 "Gloomy forecasts abound with traffic experts predicting severe congestion on all South Bay roads to return in a very short time despite the opening of Highway 85. Anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 vehicles are expected to use the freeway each weekday." https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/10/17/from-the-archives-highway-85-debuts-with-a-surprise/ (2014) and
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/census/aadt/tc-2016-aadtvolumes-a11y.pdf 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
6 improves mental health, cognition, and productivity for these drivers4. Indeed, studies show that people who commute through natural environments daily report better mental health, and this association is even stronger among active commuters5. The project replacement trees will take decades to grow to provide the aesthetic and health benefits that the existing trees provide.

Trees (and the urban forest) are also important to community health. The loss of the trees along Hwy 85 should be recognized as a significant, unavoidable impact to the environment and the health of residents and drivers alike. This impact can be avoided if the “No Block C” alternative is adopted, or another configuration is offered that retains the existing trees along the freeway.

Views from Hwy 85,
looking towards the
project site:
4 Urban trees and human health (a scoping review):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345658/
Effects of nature on cognitive functioning, emotional well-being, and other dimensions of mental health:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6656547/
Effects of trees on academic success: https://aslathedirt.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/li-sullivan.pdf Nature conservancy benefits of urban trees:
https://www.nature.org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/Public_Health_Benefits_Urban_Trees_FIN AL.pdf
Urban forests and climate change (discusses benefits of urban forests to physical and mental health):
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/urban-forests and
Effects of vegetation on reducing frustration levels for drivers:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0013916503256267 5 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181018095349.htm 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
7 3. Biological impacts must address and mitigate the impacts of nighttime lighting on human health and on the Stevens Creek riparian ecosystem.

Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) is an emerging global environmental concern, and light pollution is an under-recognized problem. In recent years, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific articles showing devastating effects of ALAN on species and ecosystems6, and on human health.

The most devastating ecological impacts have been on insects and insect populations, including aquatic insects7, and the ecosystems that depend on insects for pollination, or as a food source. Because the project site is so close to Stevens Creek, attracting aquatic insects to light can cause adverse impacts to the aquatic and riparian ecosystem of the Creek.

Outdoor lighting has also been implicated in adverse impacts to teen mental health8and to human physical health, including thyroid cancer and sleeping disorders9.

The International Dark-sky Association provides sound recommendations for addressing light pollution10 including:
● Shield lights and direct light downward;
● Use only as much light as needed;
● Use light only when necessary;
● Install control systems such as dimmers, motion sensors, and timers; ● Light close to ground;
6 "Exposure to Artificial Light at Night and the Consequences for Flora, Fauna, and Ecosystems" - an in depth summary of how ALAN affects the natural world:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2020.602796/full. 7 https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/can-scientists-help-insects-survive-their-fatal-attraction-lightnight 8 https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2020/outdoor-light-linked-with-teens-sleep-and-mentalhealth 9 https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/cncr.33392 and https://time.com/5033099/light-pollution-health/.
10 https://www.darksky.org
555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
8 ● Prevent light spillage.11
In addition, please limit the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) of all lights to warmer light - no more than 2400 Kelvin within 300-ft of a riparian corridor, and no more than 2700 Kelvin throughout the Project. The reason is that LED lighting >2400 Kelvin is associated with pervasive negative impacts on humans, wildlife, and ecosystems 12.

4. Plant and tree palette
The City of Mountain View has adopted a strategic plan that prioritizes biodiversity in the City13. To support biodiversity, mature trees (especially oaks) should be retained, especially in areas where they function as a wildlife movement corridor (along Hwy 85). In addition, a native plant palette would support native fauna and flora, especially local birds, and pollinators.

Almost all the species in the plant palette for the Project are not native to California and to our region and the vast majority has no habitat value beyond providing some structure.

Trees
There are no California native trees in the plan! The only oak, holly oak, is a species that provides no habitat value. Even the redbud is the eastern, rather than western, redbud. Some of the species on the list should not be planted here. For example, in California, London plane trees tend to hybridize with local sycamores in riparian corridors, threatening the genetic integrity of the local population.14 The plan should be revised to use trees from the North Bayshore plant palette15, even where the chosen non-native is consistent with existing trees onsite. This will result in less consistency visually, but much higher biodiversity value, which is a key priority of the City.

Shrubs
The plan is predominantly non-native despite the fact that California is blessed with an extensive diversity of native shrubs that are drought tolerant, aesthetically lovely, and provide habitat and biodiversity value. The North Bayshore plant palette provides many options. 11 https://www.iau.org/static/publications/dqskies-book-29-12-20.pdf 12 2021 A Values-Centered Approach to Nighttime Conservation https://www.darksky.org/valuescentered-lighting-resolution/ 13 https://www.mountainview.gov/council/strategic_planning_and_visioning.asp Strategic plan FY 2021-23 pg. 2 Protect and enhance local ecosystems and biodiversity through rewilding and other measures.; and pg. 3 Define biodiversity requirements for landscaping in Mountain View. 14 https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/D2%20- %20Sycamore_Alluvial_Woodland_Planting_Guide_08_30_2018_med_res.pdf O’Rourke, S.M. and M.R. Miller. 2017. RAD sequencing identifies trees that are a product of hybridization between California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) and London planetree (Platanus × acerifolia).

Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis. 15 https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/planning/activeprojects/northbayshore_/default.asp 555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
9 The plan should be revised to replace most of the shrubs with natives in accordance with the City priority for improving biodiversity.

The landscaping plan allows “minor planting revisions [to] occur during working drawings development, due to architecture and site plan refinements, irrigation design and/or plant material availability.” All the plants should be selected from the North Bayshore plant palette with no substitution.

4. Biological Resources: nesting birds
Large trees near waterways are often used by nesting birds, including raptors such as the Redshouldered hawk, Great-horned owl, and Red-tailed hawk16. The nesting season for large birds is longer, and thus a nesting raptor survey is needed for the trees along Hwy 85 in the months of January through September.

5. Energy
Net Zero Energy
Mountain View’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) requires the City to move towards electrification to reduce GHG emissions. We note that some of the existing buildings have solar panels on their roofs. However, the proposed development does not include rooftop solar and the roof design may possibly preclude rooftop solar.

In order to achieve the City’s Climate Action goals, proposed new development should be encouraged to be Net Zero energy for new construction and include rooftop solar.

EV Charging Stations
This project will be operational for the next 50 years and climate change is driving the movement from gas powered vehicles to electric powered vehicles. By setting a course to end sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035, the Governor’s Executive Order established a target for the transportation sector that helps put the state on a path to carbon neutrality by 2045.

We believe more EV charging stations are needed than the 10% currently proposed. The project should provide closer to 25% charging stations or include documented capacity for easily expanding the number of charging stations to 25% within the next decade17.

6. Transportation
Parking and Car Share
16 Breeding Bird Atlas of Santa Clara County (Bill Bousman, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, 2007) 17 A study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that 3.4 DCFC, and 40 Level 2 charging ports are needed per 1,000 EVs. Assuming 35 million EVs by 2030, the U.S. will need to build about 50,000 DCFCs and 1.2 million Level 2 ports. This means that 380 EV charging ports will need to be installed each day over the next nine years. In comparison, the U.S. has installed on average about 30 ports a day between 2010 and 2020.
555 W. Middlefield DEIR comments
10 The parking ratio is difficult to determine as it is not clear from the documents whether the parking count includes the parking spaces that will be replaced by the new construction.

The DEIR documents indicate 997 parking spaces (there may be a math error in the DEIR which lists 987 spaces) including garage spaces and surface parking. This yields a parking ratio of 1.37 spaces per unit.

These numbers need to be clarified to explain whether existing spaces are included in this count or excluded.

A parking ratio of 1 space per unit should be the maximum for a transit-oriented housing development in order to encourage transit use. Please clarify the parking count of existing versus new parking spaces.

Car Share, in addition, is a critical element in making it convenient to have access to a car when transit is not available. The number of Car Share spaces is not listed anywhere. Since this is a critical element in the parking design, the proposed number of car share spaces needs to be part of the development proposal. Please include the minimum number of Car Share units that will be included even though the TDM plan is not part of the DEIR.

7. Noise
Green space has the ability to mitigate noise in urban areas. Planting "noise buffers" composed of trees and shrubs can reduce noise by five to ten decibels for every 30m width of woodland, especially sharp tones, and this reduces noise to the human ear by approximately 50%18.

For this reason, with the intensification of development on this site, the tree buffer along Hwy 85 is an important element that needs to be preserved and augmented. We recommend improving the tree buffer and urban canopy along Hwy 85, by augmenting with more trees, using California natives selected for resistance to highway impacts, to improve the habitat value and add to Mountain View’s Urban Greening efforts.

8. Alternatives
The EIR suggests that the “No Block C” alternative would have “similar but slightly lesser” environmental impacts for most resource topics (particularly air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and traffic) because of the reduced scale of the alternative compared with the Project, although there would be no change in the impact conclusion for any of the foregoing resource areas.

Based on the evidence provided above, we believe we have a fair argument showing that the “No Block C” alternative reduces aesthetic and air pollution impacts and improves noise impacts enough to provide additional housing while balancing environmental considerations and the need for housing.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR.
18https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/fthr/urban-regeneration-and-greenspacepartnership/greenspace-in-practice/benefits-of-greenspace/noise-abatement/ From: Lada Adamic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 7:34 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>; Whyte, Brandon <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: feedback on environmental impact of 555 W. Middlefield project Dear Ms. Pancholi,
Apologies for the second email. It just occurs to me that current utilization of bikes at the site may be indicative of the potential for biking. Since there are already hundreds of apartment units at 555 W. Middlefield, one could observe people biking there. However, in my weekly visits for tennis lessons I have not observed anyone exiting or entering the complex by bike (except for my son and me), and the bike racks inside the gate by the parking garage (they are probably not the only ones, but still...) have no bikes locked there except for a while there was a stripped bike frame locked to one of them.

For this to improve, one would need one or probably actually both of these

1. a legit way to access Stevens Creek trail

2. bike lanes on Moffet
Thanks and sorry about the multiple emails!
From: Lada Adamic <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 7:23 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Whyte, Brandon <[email protected]>
Subject: feedback on environmental impact of 555 W. Middlefield project Dear Ms. Pancholi,
I would like to suggest this project be reviewed by the Mountain View B/PAC if it is claiming to have significant environmental benefits for providing bike facilities.

Though the improvements are laudable, e.g. providing 300+ bike parking spots + a cut-through path connecting Cypress Point and Middlefield (this is great! as long blocks are the enemy of good pedestrian circulation), they gloss over the reality that this development is on an island unreachable by bikes, since Moffet does not have bike lanes (and this project makes no accommodation for e.g. a bike lane along Moffet, as the facade/landscaping goes right up to the sidewalk), no access to the Stevens Creek Trail except by cutting through private property in order to get to Central (unless one again would like to brave Moffet with no bike lanes).

Getting back from Stevens Creek trail (if one were to not cut through the condo complex), one ends up on the sidewalk on Middlefield. Moffet is a 40mph road and without bike lanes it is not suitable for most people.

So even though the report advertises that residents could take their bikes to the lightrail or Caltrain station, this is not the case. Without being able to bring their bikes on public transit, the range of endpoints accessible to the residents without cars is more limited. Either the city, or the project planners, need to figure out how bikes would actually be able to access this complex where hundreds of people would be living with 300+ bikes.

Separately (and less of an environmental concern, more for parks & rec future planning), the loss of the tennis courts (where Silicon Valley Tennis holds classes and lessons -- one of the few outfits in the city besides Mountain View Tennis) is a casualty, as park tennis courts are frequently fully booked, especially on evenings and weekends.

Thanks for considering this feedback!
1 From: Patricia Albers <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 9:55 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: 555 Middlefield Road Project
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Dear Ms. Pancholi:

I live on Central Avenue near the corner of Orchard Avenue, and I’m deeply concerned about the 555 Middlefield Road Project currently under consideration by the city.

I understand that the proposed development would involve taking down one hundred‐and‐some trees, over half of them heritage trees, including those at the end of Cypress Point Drive. Those trees protect all of us in this neighborhood from the intense noise and pollution from highway 85. They’re also a refuge for birds and other wildlife along Stevens Creek, badly needed storehouses for carbon, and a small oasis in our overbuilt city. I understand that emissions from transportation are a major problem for Mountain View and that, in theory, people who will live in this project will take advantage of public transportation or at least be closer to their offices. But to develop the end of Cypress Point Drive is to throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually, the developer should be required to plant more trees there to compensate for those they will remove for the rest of the project.

Thanks for reading this.

All best,
Patricia Albers
1 From: Hala Alshahwany <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 10:11 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: , City Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for 555 Middlefield Draft EIR
Hello Ms. Pancholi,
The following are my comments and concerns regarding 555 Middlefield project’s DEIR.

Pp. 5‐6 & 5‐7 section 5.3.5, Environmentally Superior Alternative states that “The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be identified… Because the No Block C Alternative would result in 34 percent of the residential units proposed under the Project, the impacts would be similar to but less than those of the Project. Therefore, the No Block C Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative.” I completely agree with the EIR’s statement above. Exposing neighboring residents to harmful air particulates during construction period, estimated to last 5+ years, is a great and unreasonable burden to inflict on the community.

The report highlights this in p. ES‐3 under Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (Impact AQ‐3a) stating that despite mitigations measures, “cumulative PM2.5 concentrations would remain above BAAQMD’s PM2.5 concentration significance threshold at all receptor locations; therefore, the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.” The EIR report, however, missed a very critical long term cumulative impact, namely the proposed removal of 62 mature heritage trees. Most of these trees are currently positioned between the project site and HWY 85 (where Block C units to be built) functioning as the best natural and highly effective buffer to air pollution from cars’ exhaust and airborne toxic dust formed by tires and brakes particulates. There’s well documented and tracked scientific evidence that negative health impacts along our freeways are significant and affects human health adversely (respiratory problems, asthma, etc.). The EIR fails to state that. Moreover, this natural tree buffer being in close proximity to Steven’s Creek Trail (275 feet from site per EIR p. 3‐2‐9 Table 3.2‐3) acts as an extension to the trail’s natural habitat corridor from the hills all the way to the bay shorelines. In addition to protecting human health and sustaining natural habitats, the trees are also highly effective as a sound barrier to noise pollution. The removal of these trees may require sound walls to achieve acceptable decibel levels from freeway. The EIR does not adequately address this and all other long term impacts caused by elimination of the heritage trees. Replanting 197 trees to compensate for the removal of 135 trees, 62 of which are heritage (p. 2‐22, section 2.5.5 Landscaping and Heritage Trees), is not a realistic nor is it an equivalent solution, considering current climate change and GHGe we’re facing today. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released their 6th assessment report on August 9th, 2021, stating that human activities are the primary source for our planet degradation of natural habitats, and it’s leading to dangerous warming of oceans and climate extremes. It is in our power to act now to save our natural resources‐habitats and plan a sustainable growth so we can have a future.

Additionally, the EIR p. 2‐1, section 2.1, Project Overview states that project “seeks approval of an amendment to the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) from the existing designation of Medium‐Density Residential to a new land use designation referred to as the High‐Low Density Residential; the Project would retain the existing Planned Community (“P”) zoning“. This amendment should not be made without clear vision by the city and the community as to what Moffett Blvd area should look like in the future. In other words, a precise plan is essential for that area (considering 2 all the old buildings with potential developments surrounding this project site). Providing housing near transit is very desirable, however not at the expense of degrading livability and the infrastructure for the existing community.

Finally, great consideration should be given to surrounding streets such as Cypress Point Dr (a substandard less than 40’ wide, dead‐end street) where most of the generated traffic by this project will take place. Parking and traffic issues especially when the Adult Education Center was operating at full capacity (located at corner of Moffett & Cypress), do not seemed to be addressed adequately in the EIR (p. 3.14.4.2 section Traffic Analysis Scenarios). As a daily driver on that street for the last 4 years, and prior to Covid restrictions, I have experienced many near accidents at the intersection mentioned above, as well as great difficulty parking on the street. The report assessment of traffic and parking impacts do not reflect the reality I experienced.

In summary, I believe that “No Block C” alternative will allow this project to provide 111 units (with 15% affordable), save our most valuable natural resources, the heritage trees for human and habitat health, minimizes the construction duration which will lessen the impacts of air contaminants, retain traffic and parking issues at a reasonable level, and continue the medium density zoning until the precise plan for Moffett area is completed.

Thank you for supporting the community and myself in how we imagine our city progresses into the future.

Best Regards,
Hala Alshahwany
1 From: Leona Chu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 1:00 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on DEIR for 555 Middlefield Road
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

As a resident of Mountain View living on Cypress Point Drive, I have read the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and I am concerned about some of the developer’s plans for building more apartment units at 555 Middlefield Road.

Discrepancy re Units to be Constructed
The DEIR of June 2021 and the Architect’s schematic drawings of July 2021 list different numbers of units to be built. The DEIR states 324 apartments will be constructed. The Architect’’s schematic drawings show that 345 units will be built. There is a discrepancy of 21 apartment units to be built. Which number is correct? “
Trees in Block C
There are serious issues regarding the trees located in Block C on the developer’s property and what the developer plans to do with them.

Current trees vs replacement trees
Currently there are many heritage trees located in Block C. They are mature and native to California. The developer intends to replace them with non-native and immature olive trees. The replacement olive trees are not equal to the quality of heritage trees which will be destroyed. These olive trees are a poor substitute. 2 The landscape replacement plan in the DEIR will also remove a green buffer of heritage trees which absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. Olive trees don’t provide those healthy benefits. The tree replacement plan in the DEIR would also remove a wildlife habitat corridor. And it would destroy trees that currently provide shade for urban cooling.

Preserve Heritage Trees
We need to preserve the mature native heritage trees and shrubs located in Block C, especially those on the wide swath located at the border of Block C and Highway 85. We need this green buffer to:
**. Preserve healthy air quality and reduce noise levels, ** Provide a wildlife habitat corridor for birds and animals And
** Protect residents of Avalon Bay Communities and Cypress Point Drive from airborne toxic dust which comes from the tire and brake dust generated by the cars and trucks driven on HWY 85 located on the other side of the Block C property. It has been proven these toxic dusts cause asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

In fact, the developer intends to plant fewer trees to replace those removed. One aerial overview also shows the size of new trees 15 years after construction.

Conclusion Preserve Heritage Trees in Block C
We need to preserve, even increase, the heritage trees in Block C. We need to preserve the healthy environmental benefits these trees provide. These mature trees remove unhealthy carbon dioxide and release oxygen! They serve as a wildlife habitat corridor, and they provide shade for urban cooling, especially so in a time of higher temperatures and increasing wildfires in California.

Choose No Block C Alternative
3 This is the environmentally healthy alternative. It allows both the construction of additional rental units and the preservation of trees and shrubs in Block C, vital to maintaining a healthy quality of life.

Consider Other Alternative
Another alternative is to build more units on Block A and move the park (public or private) to Block C. This alternative will allow more apartment units to be built, reduce the amount of time needed for construction, and preserve the trees and shrubs growing in Block C.

I hope this alternative will receive serious consideration. It has many benefits meeting housing and environmental needs.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns,
Leona Chu
Sent from my iPad
1 From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 9:31 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: Abe‐Koga, Margaret <Margaret.abe‐[email protected]>; Kamei, Ellen <[email protected]>; Hicks, Alison <[email protected]>; Lieber, Sally <[email protected]>; Ramirez, Lucas <[email protected]>; Matichak, Lisa <[email protected]>; Showalter, Pat <[email protected]>
Subject: 555 West Middlefield DEIR Transportation Impact Analysis Attached are my comments on the subject TIA.
1 555 West Middlefield DEIR, Transportation Impact Analysis Public comments by Joel Dean
This TIA, aided and abetted by the Mountain View Voice, has sown confusion among the public over how expansion of the Eaves complex could result in minimal traffic impacts on Cypress Point Drive. Stripping away irrelevant topics and hairsplitting statistics reduces the traffic forecasting process to a few pages of text, a pair of tables, one chart and one photo. Decision makers and the public can review these in a fraction of the time it takes to wade through the TIA, leaving them more time to evaluate what they are reading.

Irrelevant topic 1: Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
VMT analysis is not required because the Eaves is within half a mile of the Caltrain station, the importance of which is greatly exaggerated. Why do it at all? VMT would not have changed the assessments of traffic impacts if it had been applied.

Irrelevant topic 2: Level of Service (LOS)
The importance of LOS in the real world is equal to the number of times you hear the term "Level of Service" used in a mass media traffic report.

Irrelevant topic 3: Forecasts of traffic on Moffett Boulevard which use 2019 as the base condition
2019 traffic counts do not show the impact on Moffett of the planned closing of Castro Street at Central Expressway. The number of crossings of the expressway in 2019 exceeded the total volume of traffic which would be generated by a 731-unit Eaves. Most of the crossings which won't be made at Moffett will be diverted to Shoreline Boulevard. Moffett will see considerable relief, its intersections will operate more efficiently, and the effects of Eaves traffic will be less pronounced than they are today. Using 2019 traffic to to generate the existing-plus-project estimates is unavoidable. Using it for longer-range forecasts would cause them to overestimate traffic on Moffett.

Relevant topics
Traffic forecasting is not rocket science. It's barely even considered engineering. Digging up a few facts, making a few assumptions, doing some elementary arithmetic, and documenting all the digging, assuming, and pencil-pushing are its essentials. The process consists of three steps:
trip generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment. 2 Trip generation
A DIY version of the trip generation step is shown in Attachment 1 on page 6. The results were computed on a 50-year-old hand-held calculator. The grunt and groan method's bottom line is virtually identical to the TIA's.

Inputs to trip generation include:
(1) Base-year traffic counts. While the base traffic counts were taken on one day only, they are quite consistent with counts taken in 2017 -- 3% lower in the AM peak hour, 4% higher in the PM peak hour. There is no reason to believe they are inaccurate and there are no better sources of this information.
(2) The number of trips generated per dwelling unit. The per-unit trip rates are national averages taken from an Institute of Transportation Engineers manual. They produce plausible estimates of total peak traffic at CP Drive when compared to the actual counts. They differ in the proportion of trips which are incoming to the project site (26% estimated vs. 31% counted in the AM, 61% estimated vs. 73% counted in the PM), with a corresponding overestimate of outgoing trips. If, instead of the ITE percentages, the count percentages had been applied to all forecasts, there would be shifts of trips from outgoing to incoming as follows: At CP Drive, 1 or 2 trips in the AM, 3 in the PM; at Middlefield, 3 or 4 trips in the AM, 12-13 in the PM. These numbers are too small to require Hexagon to modify the TIA. Counts were not taken at all Eaves driveways to determine trip rates specific to the project. Lacking those, the ITE rates are the most acceptable substitute.
(3) The numbers of dwelling units existing and to be added by the project. So far, no one has denied that Eaves currently has 402 units. The number of units to be added is a subject of debate. 329 was the number the consultant on the TIA used, and is used here. Anyone who wants to dispute that can easily patch a different number into the table and recalculate trips generated. (4) The percent reduction in per-unit trips due to Transportation Demand Management measures.

The benefits of TDM are purely notional, and our governmental authorities tend to overestimate the effectiveness of the local mass transportation system. If brownie points for TDM have to be injected into the trip forecasts, then TIA's should publish projections both with and without the TDM bonus. Attachment 1 does this. It shows the effects of the 6% reduction in trips attributed to TDM are minimal.
(5) The percentages of trips allocated to Cypress Point Drive and to Middlefield Road. Lacking base-year trip counts at the Eaves driveways, Hexagon somewhat arbitrarily assumed 90% used CP Drive and 10% used Middlefield. If they had used the proportions of spaces in the parking lots, which is currently 626 (93.4%) Cypress Point and 44 (6.6%) Middlefield, they would have assigned 4 more trips to CP Drive in the AM and 6 more in the PM. The difference is too trivial to worry about. Post-expansion, the parking space split will be 602 (60.6%) CP Drive and 391 3 (39.4%) Middlefield. Hexagon used splits of 61/39 inbound and 60/40 outbound. 60.6% is used for all trips in Attachment 1. These splits seem reasonable, but there is one element of uncertainty, which will be discussed later.

Trip distribution and traffic assignment
Once trips generated by a project are estimated, they are distributed into a matrix by assigning destinations to outgoing trips and origins to incoming ones.

Documentation of how this was done for Eaves expansion consists of a short paragraph on page 25 of the TIA stating that distribution was "based on existing travel patterns and complementary land uses." That sounds reasonable enough, but is too vague to permit critiquing Hexagon's methods.

After the origin/destination matrix is created, each cell is assigned to the road network.

Documentation of this step is as sketchy as that for the previous one: a short paragraph on page 25 saying it is based on "directions of approach and departure, roadway connections, and locations of project driveways." That also sounds reasonable, and probably means trips are assigned to whatever route from origin to destination a computer algorithm decides is quickest.

Attachment 2 on page 7 shows an origin/destination matrix for project-generated trips in the immediate vicinity of The Eaves. Thanks to the paucity of information about the trip distribution method, this matrix had to be derived by working backwards from the traffic assignments shown in TIA Figure 9 and the inset to Figure 8, with 2019 trips subtracted from the latter for the sake of consistency. Most notable is that U-turns are minimized in some ways. First, outgoing Block A trips which would have been assigned to southbound Moffett had they originated at Cypress Point are assigned to southbound Easy Street instead. The opposite movement is assigned to eastbound Middlefield or northbound Moffett because left turns from eastbound Central Expressway to Easy Street are prohibited. Second, eastbound trips from Block A are assigned to Middlefield rather than U-turning at Easy Street and taking the freeway. The opposite movement mostly avoids a U-turn at Moffett by being assigned to the freeway, exiting at Moffett and making a left from a supposedly overloaded pocket onto Middlefield.

Attachment 3 on page 8 is derived from TIA Figure 9. It is composed of diagrams of expansiongenerated trips assigned to the Moffett/CP Drive, Moffett/Middlefield, and Middlefield/Easy intersections, with the addition of the Middlefield/Eaves inset from TIA Figure 8. These have been arranged according to their actual physical relation to each other, instead of the Picasso-like jumble of Figure 9. There were a few small bloopers in Figure 9. Two were corrected, one was not, as noted in Attachment 2.

The 2019 traffic data in the TIA looks reasonable, the modeling process is boilerplate, and the arithmetic errors are minimal. Anyone who accepts those statements is apt to agree that the TIA 4 makes a reasonable case for claiming that Eaves expansion will have less than significant impact on the operation of the Moffett/Cypress Point intersection.

Issues the TIA does not address
(1) Block A driveway at Middlefield. This is the location with the heaviest impact from Eaves expansion. The expected increase in vehicle trips is concentrated there. Middlefield already carries considerably more traffic than Moffett and will not get any relief from Castro Street closing. In common with TIA's for other large residential projects (777 West Middlefield, 1001 North Shoreline) this one does not have much to say about operations at driveways. The Eaves driveways on Middlefield are not huge problems currently, thanks to their low hourly trip counts -- 15 in the AM, 18 in the PM. That could change with the construction of a 363-space garage in Block A, with sevenfold increases in trip counts during peak hours. One car every minute in the AM and one every minute and a half in the PM are forecast to be trying to exit the Block A garage onto eastbound Middlefield. Queues at the downstream intersection at Easy street are not likely to extend far enough (+/- 1000') to obstruct the Eaves driveway. But there may be long waits for breaks in the traffic, especially in the evening, which could lead to queuing in the driveway and impatient motorists blocking the bike lane. Attachment 4 on page 9 shows the defects of the existing eastern driveway, including a car parked in the bike lane and vegetation obstructing the vision of drivers exiting Eaves. Removal of that vegetation should be added to Hexagon's suggestion to paint the curb red. Hexagon also suggests transitioning the slopes of the garage ramps to prevent bottoming out. Reducing the threat of bottoming out might encourage more drivers going up a ramp with a 16-degree incline to accelerate, which some will do anyway, thus endangering passing bicyclists. Assuming that the lives of cyclists are at least as important as preventing scraped undercarriages, adding a speed hump before cars exiting the Block A garage reach the bike lane would be advisable. That goes double if a sidewalk is added to the south side of the SR85 overpass, adding pedestrians to the list of potential victims. Based on the bicycle counts on Middlefield at Moffett and Easy, it would be difficult to justify an expensive upgrade of the SR85 overpass. If there are no bicycle improvements, there will be no pedestrian improvements. Though pedestrians outnumber cyclists, they are stepchildren who subsist on table scraps from shared bike/ped projects. They even have to compete for the scraps with unscrupulous cyclists. The effort and expense of improving the SR85 overpass would be better spent on a pedestrian crossing on the west side of the Shoreline/Central Expressway interchange, with barriers to keep cyclists from encroaching. Ditto the planned bike/ped bridge over US101 on Shoreline.
(2) Cypress Point Drive. The "element of uncertainty" mentioned above concerns how the trip split between CP Drive and Middlefield is affected by unassigned parking spaces, of which there will be 181 in Blocks B & C. People may find being assigned spaces in the Block A garage onerous and occupy unassigned spaces in B and C instead, or park on the street. So may multicar households. At its unlikely worst, this could add 60 vehicle trips (one per minute) to Cypress Point Drive in the AM peak hour and 70 (one every 51 seconds) in the PM peak hour. Another 5 issue on CP Drive is congestion due to Adult School traffic. The driveway there and the Eaves driveway across the street, are close enough to the Moffett intersection that a very short queue could obstruct both driveways and possibly all traffic on CP Drive. The TIA should include documentation of whether this occurs and how serious it is. The information should be obtained at times when the Adult School traffic is greatest, which would not necessarily be during peak hours.
(3) Shoreline at Middlefield. The TIA notes on page 23 that lengthy queues occur in the northbound left turn pocket in the AM and in the southbound pocket in the PM. Since these pockets are in flush medians and defined only by pavement markings, the backups do not interfere with through traffic. Hexagon also observed lengthy queues in the westbound turn pocket in the PM, and these did interfere with through traffic thanks to the pocket being carved out of the raised median. Conspicuously absent was any mention of excessive queueing in the eastbound pocket, for the simple reason that it does not occur. On page 30, when discussing background conditions, the TIA mentions that the Shoreline median between Middlefield and Terra Bella is to be converted to a reversible exclusive bus lane, which will require a preemptive signal phase to allow southbound buses to exit that lane in the PM, and thus increase delays for everyone else. It neglects to say that the bus lane will inflict the same problem on the southbound pocket that already affects the westbound pocket. Also on page 30, the TIA notes that second lanes are to be added to both eastbound and westbound turn pockets. It doesn't admit that the eastbound second lane is not needed and its justification is based on fabricated data. The TIA also fails to discuss the effects of the closing of Castro Street at Central Expressway, which, as stated above, will divert considerable traffic from Moffett to Shoreline. Shoreline will have to bear another burden whenever Rengstorff is closed by grade separation construction. Finally, the TIA does not discuss the plan to convert Shoreline at Middlefield to a so-called 'Dutch' intersection, which is likely to backfire, with severe negative consequences for traffic operations and for pedestrian and bicycle safety. The only thing that could save Shoreline at Middlefield from this serial abuse would be Google's adopting a hybrid remote work schedule permanently. (4) Shoreline at Terra Bella. This receives only a tiny mention in the TIA, having been excluded from the scope of study. The TIA notes that there will be a protected left-turn signal phase to cross Shoreline there in the future, which will increase delays for everyone else. At least we are spared hearing any repetition of "During the A.M. peak hour, this intersection generally operates well without significant operational issues." Thank heaven for little favors. They are all Shoreline Boulevard ever gets.
6 Attachment 1
7 Attachment 2
8 Attachment 3

9 Attachment 4
1 From: Gita Dev <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:31 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 555 W Middlefield Road_DEIR All Appendices CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Thank you Diana. Much appreciated.

What is the reason behind for removing these critical landscape drawings ‐showing the existing and proposed trees on the site ‐ from view of the public?
Best,
Gita Dev
Sierra Club Loma Prieta
415.722.3355
www.devarchitects.com
On 7/29/2021 9:40 AM, Diana Pancholi via Proofpoint wrote:
15 FILE(S)
SHARED 105.2 MB TOTAL 30 DAYS UNTIL EXPIRATION
Diana Pancholi has invited you to a new Secure Share
Message from Diana Pancholi:

Please see attached all the Appendices for the 555
W Middlefield Road Project DEIR. Also, attached is
the Landscape sheets for your reference as
requested. Please confirm receipt of this
information and let me know if you need anything
else.

Diana
Shared Files:
555 W Middlefield Road _Landscape
Plan.pdf App 1_NOPComments.pdf
2 App 3.10-1_NoiseSupportingMaterials.pdf
App 3.14-
1_TransportationAnalysis_2021-03-

25.pdf
App 3.14-
1_TransportationAnalysisAppendices_2021-
3-25.pdf
App 3.16-1_UtiltyImpactStudy_4-9-
2021.pdf
App 3.2-1_AirQualityGHGSupportingMaterials.pdf App 3.3-1_USFWSList.pdf App 3.3-2_CDFW-CNDDBList.pdf App 3.3-3_CNPSList.pdf
App 3.4-1_DPRForm_091419.pdf App 3.8-
1_2020EDRRadiusMapReport.pdf
App 3.9-
1_Hydrology&WQReport_092520.pdf
Redacted_App 3.4-2_SB18-
AB52Materials.pdf
Redacted_App 3.4-3_NWICResults
(CONFIDENTIAL).pdf
Go to Secure Share
Disclaimer:

These files have been shared securely with you and cannot be accessed with another email address. Please treat sensitive or confidential information with due care. 1 From: Diane Gazzano <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 9:42 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: , City Manager <[email protected]>
Subject: DEIR 555 Middlefield Road Project
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAILͲEnsure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
City of Mountain View
Having lived on Cypress Point Drive CPD) for 45 years, I found the 555 Middlefield (555) DEIR, lacking in data to support certain claims, nuanced, and short on critical thinking and analysis as it pertains to the 555 Middlefield Project and the City of Mountain View. My analysis comes from a long term “boots on the ground” observation; not from boilerplate material, nor from sitting in a board room making observations.

There are many items of concern in the DEIR. I will highlight only some of them.

Note-Incorrect number of new units cited in DEIR
The footnote on page ES-l of the DEIR explains how the project is being reduced from 329 to 324 units, and how these numbers are being used in the analysis of the project. Unfortunately, these number are incorrect. The actual number of units shown on the July 2021 project plans posted on the City’s Web site is 345. (Verified by multiple people). When the initial incorrect unit count was discovered in the July 2020 project plan on the City Web Site, the Planning Department was notified and the response was that it would be corrected in the next update. There is still an error in the counting of units in the Developer’s plan. All numbers and analysis in my response are based on the actual number of units as shown in the Developer’s plans posted on the City’s web site.

TREES
On page 3.1.12. the DEIR boldly states 555 is in compliance with PL-14´” (Removal of the tree(s) will not adversely affect the shade, noise attenuation, protection from wind damage and air pollution, historic value, or scenic beauty of the area, nor shall the removal adversely affect the general health, safety, prosperity, and general welfare of the City as a whole).” This is inaccurate for the following reasons:
- The Google Map shows there is a dense forest of trees running along the side of the 85 freeway and the Stevens Creek and Trail all the way from 555 to the Bay. This buffer serves to protect the City of Mountain View from pollution, offers carbon sequestration, and provides urban cooling. The trees also provide a habitat for many species, and help in the fight against global warming. Studies have shown that there is strong evidence that tire, brake dust, and road dusk resuspension, which these trees and shrubs protect against, have an adverse effect on health. Brake & Tire Wear Emissions | California Air Resources Board. The City of Mountain View should not allow the clear cutting of this buffer, but should be adding to the buffer along Highway 85 and the Stevens Creek and Trail. - The DEIR states that as a solution for the 62 Heritage trees they are destroying, “The Project would provide approximately 62 additional trees; many of the trees would be evergreens, providing year-round shade for the Project site.” pg. 3.7-27 and pg. 3.1-10. The DEIR is in conflict with the Developers plans as no evergreen trees are shown as tree replacement in the Developer’s July 2021 Plan Set 3 pg. L.043, posted on the City’s Web site. Many of the heritage trees are being replaced by olive trees. How many olives trees does it take to replace one heritage tree? Olive trees are not native to California, will never reach the height or foliage of heritage trees, and all new trees planted will take 2 15 to 20 years to reach maturity, thus creating a very barren effect for many years. Along the sound wall will be ornamental trees and shrubs creating an environmental disaster both for the residents living as close as 38’ from the wall, the community, and City of Mountain View.
- Tree Relocation. The DEIR states that approximately 35 trees shall be relocated on the property. Some of these are heritage trees. The DEIR admits that some of these trees may be damaged in relocation. The success rate of relocating trees is low. The developer would then have the option to pay a small fee and the trees could be placed at another site. This would further reduce the number of trees at 555. Nowhere does the DEIR factored this into the calculations of number of trees on site. The Developer’s plans show the heritage trees being kept in place at the future park area, but the DEIR also states that this site could be used for a staging area. These two things are incongruent and, in all probability, this staging area would lead to the further loss of additional heritage trees. - Cypress Point Wood Drive has long been known and written about for its street tree canopy giving the street a park like feeling. I strongly take exception to the following statement made by the DEIR. “The proposed buildings would have limited street buffers and would be highly visible from surrounding areas, such as roadways and residences.

However, this change would not be considered a significant impact because the Project site is not currently a visual asset to the area. Pg. 3.1-9. For 40 years I drove down the street and marveled at the wonderful landscaping of 555. Since Avalon has taken over the property the landscaping has gone downhill fast. No benefit comes to the community or the City of Mountain View by degrading the street canopy or failing to maintain an acceptable level of landscaping. (Avalon is not known for the maintenance of their property.) The City of Mountain View should demand that Avalon bring CPD back to its position where it is a visual asset to the community. -
5 Year 4 Month Construction Plan
The following are statements taken from the DEIR.
“The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction air quality (cumulative PM2.5 concentrations)”pg. ES-4
“Construction materials and equipment would be staged on the Park Parcel, if permitted by the City, or, otherwise, on-site in areas that are not under construction, or potentially within Project frontage rights-of-way. Construction and associated visual degradation would be short term and temporary.”pg 3.1-8
As a resident of CPD, short-term is not 5.3 years. The park area in which the construction materials and equipment would be stored, would have to be fenced in for 5.3 years. This would be a degradation to the visual asset of the community.

The construction time according to the DEIR would be 7:00 am until 6:00 pm. Since this is a long-established community, there are many elder citizens in the surrounding community some of which are house bound. The noise, dust, and pollution created for 5.3 years would be a hardship and a health risk for them and the community as a whole. If the developer where truly dedicated to the project, he should be able to complete the building in a much shorter period of time. Other builders do not take 5.3 years to constructing 345 apartments.

Pg 3.12-8 states: “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.” The probability of this happen is most likely zero. During the construction of Phase I and II , two parking lots will be removed (247 parking spaces). Only Block C with 217 parking spaces will remain for 402 existing units. Many residents, guests, and deliveries trucks would be without parking spaces. Cypress Points Drive is usually lined with parked cars, especially when the Adult School is in session. Delivery trucks often block one side of the narrow street. There will be no spaces for cars to park.

As the DEIR states residents will be exposed to excessive loud construction noise from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm, along with the exposure to dust and pollutants created during construction. The residents of 555 will be without amenities such as the club house, pool, and tennis courts for much of the construction. Now, especially with the work from home environment, which is expected to continue in some form after the pandemic, tenants will move. No community accommodations have been by the Developer to offset these major disruptions. If the Developer really believes there will be no displacement of tenants during construction, the Developer should offer to pay moving costs for all residents who have to move for physical or mental health reasons.

Bicycle Path
The DEIR claims that 555 will :“Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity for the Project and surrounding neighborhood by constructing a new pedestrian and bicycle path to connect Cypress Point Drive with West Middlefield Road; pg. ES-2 This is a spurious claim. The whole time I have lived on Cypress Point Drive, I have seen about 2 bicycles on the street. This is because it is a dangerous street to bike on. It is a narrow dead-end street with cars parked on both sides of the street. There are no bicycle paths. The proposed bicycle path near the front of the property would lead to nowhere. Since CPD is a narrow dead-end street, one would need to peddle out to Moffett Blvd or traverse through private property. Contrary to what the DEIR says, from experience, I can say Moffett Blvd is also a dangerous street to bike on. With cars parked along the street and no bike lanes I have followed many a bike down the first lane of 3 traffic on Moffett. Moffett can be a very busy street. Only recently has a bike lane been placed in one small section. It is also dangerous to bicycle over the 85 overpass on Middlefield to the Steven Creek Trail. The bike path lane through 555, as it now shown, is dangerous especially to children as it flows out into a busy street with no bike lanes, and is not a benefit to the community.

Parking /Walkability
The DEIR projects states that walking will be a major mode of transportation due to the drastic lack of parking spaces. However the DEIR on pg 3.1-10 states: “Under existing conditions, a large portion of the development on the Project site is blocked by dense landscaping and setbacks. However, the Project would include buildings with limited setbacks from the streets and would remove vegetation.” Unfortunately, this creates a less desirable environment for walking. With the removal of heritage redwoods trees on Moffett Blvd, very narrow setbacks of buildings on Moffett and CPD, limited planned street tree canopy, and narrow sidewalks on both Moffett Blvd. and CPD, an inviting walking environment is not being created. The 555 developer needs to revise their design to accommodate a friendly, inviting walking environment.

Most of the time parking is limited on CPD. When the Adult School is in session parking is nonexistent, with some of the students parking on Cypress Point Lakes property. There will be an addition of 835 new residents on CPD and only approximately 1.3 parking spaces per the total 747 units at 555. The residents, guests, and delivery trucks of the 555 project will have to share the 1.3 spaces. The Developer must work with the City and the citizens of the Willow Gate community to mitigate the parking crisis that is coming without careful planning. The school plays an important role in serving the Mountain View community and they must be protected from 555 residents parking in their lot or taking up all the street parking.

Traffic
Pre-covid there was a dangerous traffic problem on CPD when classes ended and students were driving out of the parking lot of the Adult School. This parking lot is very close to the intersection of CPD and Moffett. Traffic, on the narrow CPD street, is going in three directions. Cars are coming onto and leaving CPD, as the students try to exit the parking lot by making a left had turn into these two lanes of traffic. All this is taking place a few feet from the stop light on Moffett. Adding 345 new units (825 residents) on CPD will make this traffic scramble exponentially worse. The DEIR does not address this issue.

Also, pre-covid there were problems exiting CPD during commute ties. Traffic was so bad on Moffett that the City installed pavement bumps at the corner of Moffett and Central to prevent cars from forming an illegal third land so they could make a right hand turn off Moffett toward Siterlin Court to get out of the Moffett traffic.

The City’s Web site shows an extraordinary amount of recently completed, active and future large projects being constructed in the Moffett/Whisman corridor. Whether it is the Hotel/Office/Garage complex at 101 and Moffett, the 777 Middlefield construction of 716 new apartments, the Linklin garages, the future Goggle Whisman complex, a possible future school, or a host of other projects, all these projects will come with their transportation needs and traffic burdens on the Moffett-Middlefield corridor.

No Block C/Precise Plan
The DEIR is correct in stating the most of the environmental and livability problems would be overcome by no new construction on Block C. The project will still be able to build 119 new units.

The DEIR is not correct in its statement on pg. 5-3 “Potential alternatives sites were evaluated that would (1) reduce or avoid some or all of the environmental impacts of the Project, (2) be of sufficient size to meet most of the basic Project objectives, and (3) be immediately available to be acquired or controlled by the applicant. A review of properties in Mountain View did not find any suitable properties that are available and meet these criteria.” By choosing the No Block C option there are properties that could accommodate the building of the 226 units that would be built at Block C. The shopping center one-half block from the 555 project, on the other side of the adult school, is for sale. This property has two street accesses, Central and Moffett Blvd. It would not cause the environmental destruction of 192 trees and place residents right on top of the 85 freeway endangering their health. Also, the shopping center across Moffett from the 555 project, has recently been sold and will be up for redevelopment. 4 I hope the City of Mountain View will not accept below market rate apartments as close as 38’-40’ from the freeway where the health of the residents is endangered. For too long in our Country, the less fortunate have been forced to live in environmentally degraded housing. Mountain View should not continue this tradition, especially when there are alternatives. It would be ironic if after the City Council voted to protecting apartment dwellers from cigarette smoke, the City would endanger the health of apartment residents and the surrounding communities by allowing the destruction of hundreds of trees along the Middlefield and 85 corridors.

Section 3.12 of the DEIR discusses the future population and housing needs of Mountain View. It relies on data from the California Department of Finance 2020, and Association of Bay Area Governments 2019. This data is outdated. Nowhere does it analyze what the housing needs may be after the covid pandemic. Bloomberg and other news organization reported recently that Google is granting applications from employees to work out of the area, and to work from home.

Google OKs thousands of staff requests to transfer or work remotely - CNET. In order for any analysis on population to be valid, the post pandemic work environment needs to be taken into consideration. There may be former office and industrial buildings which can be converted to housing.

The Willow Gate neighborhood is the Gateway to downtown Castro. It should not be developed in a hodge-podge fashion. There are many other properties along Moffett Blvd and the surrounding neighborhood that will be redeveloped in the near future. There must be a vision for the community and a Precise Plan that can be used as a guideline. With proper planning all areas of Mountain View can be environmentally friendly and have good neighborhoods in which to live and work.

Diane Gazzano
Resident of Mountain View

1 From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2021 8:37 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>; , City Manager <[email protected]>; Kimberly Thomas <[email protected]>
Subject: Correction ‐ Comments on the DEIR for the Proposed 555 West Middlefield Road High‐Density Housing Development (Version 2)
Dear Diana Pancholi,
As I notified you in my last email, I was unable to review and edit the first draft of my comments prior to the deadline. Please do me a favor and delete the first email and use this email which contains version 2, or the edited version, of the original I submitted earlier today.

Thank You,
Daniel Shane
213 Cypress Point Drive
Mountain View, CA
Homeowner
Representative for the Cypress Point Community Preservation Group Environmental Scientist, U.S. EPA (retired), 1982‐2017
(650) 269‐7551
[email protected]
1 August 12, 2021

COMMENTS ON THE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
By
DANIEL M. SHANE
HOMEOWNER, 213 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW 04043 (Version 2)
Project Title: 555 West Middlefield Road Project (SCH #2019070252) City/County: City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California Public Review Period: June 28, to August 12, 2021
Comments to be submitted to Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View, Community Development Department, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View, CA 94041 or emailed to [email protected]
Dear Diana Pancholi,
The purpose of the letter is to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed 555 West Middlefield Road Project in my neighborhood. My comments begin by a broad overview of my evaluation of the report. Additionally, I have provided comments for key sections of the DEIR. I hope my comments will be incorporated into the Final EIR.

The DEIR seems to be mostly focused on the short-term environmental impacts during the 5-year construction phase. However, there are long-term impacts from this project to the future livability, qualityof-life, and neighborhood character from this high-density housing development. I know this because we have already reached maximum levels and capacities for this multi-family housing neighborhood. We have mostly townhouses, condominiums, and apartments in our neighborhood. I have listed some of the existing problems currently plaguing our neighborhood. The project, as proposed, will simply exacerbate these problems.

The Cypress Point Community Preservation Group (CPCPG) is supporting the No Block C Alternative listed in the DEIR. The No Block C Alternative will mitigate most of our concerns about environmental impacts including increased noise levels, dust, pollution, exposure to toxic emissions from the cars and trucks using the nearby freeway and preserve the aesthetics and visual comfort we benefit from the tree canopies. The No Block C will reduce the density and intensity of this development in our neighborhood which is medium-density multi-family townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings. Our neighborhood has already reached its maximum limit on several livability parameters such noise sources, availability of street parking, traffic safety, and the numbers of people (bikers, dog walkers, and joggers) who cross our property to access the Stevens Creek Trailhead. The full project without the No Block C Alternative will have significant impact on the livability, quality of life, and the character of our neighborhood. As part of the Block C development many of the mature trees including majestic Heritage trees will need to be removed to make space for the construction of a large 4-story apartment building, a 2-level underground garage, and an emergency vehicle access road next to the driveway entrance to Cypress Point Woods Townhouse parking lot and townhouse units. The No Block C 2 Alternative will likely shorten the duration of the construction activities from 5-years and 4-months to about 2-years. A demolition and construction project that lasts 64-months cannot be tolerated by the residents of our neighborhood.

The loss of the tree buffer zone in Block C and along Highway 85 will have significant impacts to the health of our families, especially our infants and children. It is a well-known, scientific fact that mature tree canopies along the freeways absorb high levels of noise, dust, and pollution and protect the health of our residents from toxic air emissions by cars and trucks. The replacement trees will not be a mature canopy for decades and will not have the capacity to provide the benefits of the existing tree buffer/barrier zone. This area in Block C has many trees including Heritage trees which are visually comforting and has aesthetic scenic qualities that are enjoyed by all the residents. It is a woodland area that supports a wildlife habitat and tall trees for nesting birds. There is a nexus between this woodland area and the Stevens Creek Trail corridor, and it provides more species and diversity to this world class urban forested trail that stretches from the coastal mountains to the Baylands.

The DEIR does not adequately address these problems.
• There are already many sources of noises causing a nuisance in our neighborhood such as Highway 85 freeway noise, leaf blowers, Caltrain, freight trains, and Shoreline Park Amphitheater. The loss of many trees and Heritage trees during construction activities will eliminate the tree buffer zone that protects our homes and the health of our families from noise, dust, and pollution, especially with the construction of the large apartment building, underground garage, and emergency vehicle access roadway in Block C.
• There are already too many projects in our neighborhood that are removing trees and Heritage trees, filling in open space, and having a negative impact on aesthetics, including urban forest areas, trees, and wildlife habitat. The replacement trees and vegetation will not have the benefits that a mature woodland area provides the community. The Stevens Creek Trail green corridor is a world class urban green open space and trail. The woodland area in Block C is part of the Stevens Creek Trail corridor even though it is located across the freeway from the trail. The ecosystems are interconnected.
• There is already a traffic safety problem for both drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Many near misses have been reported by residents. The substandard neighborhood street has street parking on both sides which narrows the street even more and cars cannot easily maneuver and avoid collisions.

Cars come out of the driveways blindly and nearly collide with oncoming traffic. If street parking is moved away from the intersection of the driveway and the street to improve visibility, the street parking spaces will be reduced even further than it is now. Cypress Point Drive is a dead-end culde-sac and there are no barriers to prevent wayward vehicles from entering the driveway of Cypress Point Woods townhouse parking lot and endangering children at play. • There is already competition for street parking spaces on Cypress Point Drive. Due to the addition of more 2 and 3-bedroom, as opposed to studios that now exist, the numbers of people could double in size. This means more vehicles, less garage parking, and added pressure on street parking.

According to AvalonBay, there will be more vehicles flowing to Middlefield Road compared to Cypress Point Drive. How can this be if there are a total of 602 underground garage parking spaces on Cypress Point Drive and only 363 underground garage parking spaces on West Middlefield 3 Road. There will be 171 parking spaces in Block B and 431 parking spaces in two underground garages located on Cypress Point Drive.
• There is already a lack of access to the Stevens Creek Trailhead for dog walkers, joggers, and bike commuters who cut through our properties to get onto Central Avenue and the trailhead. The development will more than double the existing numbers of people who will cut through our properties to get to the Stevens Creek Trailhead. Security of our homes and garages have been a constant area of concern. Allowing more access to the properties will certainly increase the breakins and thefts. • There is already a cumulative impact from multiple housing and commercial developments in a relatively small area north of Central Expressway. These developments are proposed, under review, under-construction, and recently completed. The cumulative impacts are not known because they have not been studied. Equally important is the lack of a Precise Plan to guide the growth and development of this significant area that will eventually be an extension of Downtown Castro Street.
• We already have the developers designing and guiding our growth through their many housing developments being allowed no matter the cost to the residents and the livability of their neighborhood. This property has never been envisioned as high-density housing and will require the city to give a large private real estate investment trust exemptions to the General Plan and the local zoning density requirements. This is called the Gate-Keeper Program which has been disbanded for good reasons. A Precise Plan is needed to guide the growth and development of our community and ensure the people reap the benefits of a green, livable, healthy, and prosperous life for all, not just more profit for the developers and their shareholders. • The Draft DEIR already has a comprehensive list of alternatives to the proposed project. Many in our community support the No Block C Alternative. The No Block C Alternative will sufficiently scale-back the project to mitigate most of our concerns about the project. According to the City’s consultant, ICF, the No Block C Alternative is the most environmentally superior alternative, except for the No Project Alternative. The No Block C Alternative appears to be a win-win for all the stakeholders including the developer, the homeowners and their families, retired seniors, the neighborhood, and the environment. The No Block C alternative will allow the construction of Block A and Block B. Block B construction site is distant from most of the existing multi-family housing developments compared to the construction activities in Block C. Block B will allow the development of an apartment building with 119 units and an underground garage, a leasing building as well as an amenities and recreation building. We estimate the duration of short-term environmental impacts will be reduced from 5 years to 2 years which is typical for a housing development in our area. Most of our concerns about the long-term health and environmental consequences of this project should be mitigated by the No Block C Alternative. Additionally, this will allow time to study and evaluate future growth and a vision for our community.

It was difficult to review and evaluate the DEIR against the Project Plan. The Project Plan was repeatedly revised by AvalonBay during the review period. The DEIR used the June 2021 project plan and was released to the public on June 28, 2021. The plan was modified by the developer and the July 2021project plan was posted on the city website. This resulted in a lot of confusion because the July 2021 project plan became a moving target and did not always equate or agree with the June 2021 DEIR.

Once a DEIR has been released to the public, there should be no modifications made by the developer 4 to the project plan. This was not the case and created a lot of confusion. Here is an example. The number of dwelling units constantly changed during the review period. • The original project plan had 329 units including 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. • For unknown reasons, 5 units were removed from Block B, making it a total of 324 units. • My project metrics analysis of the June 2021 project plan revealed 32 more units than reported by AvalonBay. This made the new total 356 units. This was verified in an email message from Diana Pancholi.
• The DEIR was made available on June 28, 2021, and was based on the June 2021 project plan. • The June 2021 project plan was again revised in July 2021. Now there were 11 less units making a new total of 345 units. But the DEIR was still based on the June 2021 project plan. • The June 2021 project plan had 111 units in Block B and 218 units in Block C. • In July 2021 this was changed. Block B had 119 units and Block C had 226 units. The new total was 345 units.
• Are the total number of dwelling units existing and proposed 747 units (402 units + 345 units)? Executive Summary
• I recommend the consultant provide a one or two-page summary table, in bullet format, the key basic project metrics. The purpose of this summary is to preclude any future confusion. This page can be revised in the future if necessary to highlight any changes made to the project plan and can be posted on the city’s website. Some of the metrics should be the size of the project site, the number of units per acre (density), the allowable density for this project, the number of existing and future studios, 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units, the number of affordable units, the estimated rent to comply with “affordability” in this area, the estimated number of existing tenants, the estimated maximum number of tenants after the addition of 345 new units, the number of dwelling units and parking spaces in Blocks A, B, and C, the number of stories and the heights for each existing and new buildings, the number of underground parking garage levels for each Building Block, the number of parking spaces in each underground garage and corresponding primary street for entering and existing traffic, the number of total trees and Heritage trees that will be lost in each Building Block, and other metrics that are deemed an important metric to keep track of during the planning process.

ES-3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
• Impact AQ-3a: This impact description addresses construction emissions involving diesel particulate matter and PM2.5 concentrations. These are emissions from trucks and heavy equipment. Why does this impact element not address dust emissions from the construction site? Significant and unhealthy dust emissions are typically generated by construction activities including demolition, excavation, vehicle, and heavy equipment driving over on-site dirt roads, moving and stockpiling soils, loading and transporting soils and demolition debris off-site in trucks.

Additionally, due to the age of the existing apartment complex and its buildings there is a potential for asbestos in building materials and insulations, and lead in painted surfaces. I do not see this addressed as a potential impact nor any sampling and test results for these highly toxic substances. 5 Is there an asbestos and/or lead problem at this old apartment complex and does public health need to be protected?
ES-4 Project Alternatives
• The report downplays the significance of the No Block C Alternative. It diminishes the benefits of the No Block C Alternative by not addressing the preservation of the urban woodland, the trees including Heritage Trees, the tree buffer zone that protects the health and welfare of the homeowners and their families by absorbing the noise, dust, and pollution from Highway 85. This is a well-known scientific fact. Other benefits include bird and wildlife habitat and it being integrated with the Stevens Creek Trail corridor. It is our desire that this area in Block C be even better integrated into the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor with the addition of trees and native waterresistant plants, landscape maintenance, watering, and habitat restoration. The Stevens Creek Trail corridor is a jewel, and we are very fortunate to have this in our community. We desire this area be deeded to the City in exchange for project approval in Blocks A and B. This would be a greater benefit to neighborhood, the city, and the environment compared to a small manicured public park surrounded by apartment units. We are constantly losing the aesthetics and other benefits provided by the natural environment which is as important as the air we breathe.

2.1 Project Overview
• The total number of units is incorrect when compared to the June 2021 and July 2021 Project Plan.
• The reference to the new “High-Low Density” designation needs more explanation. It is implied in the DEIR the new designation is necessary to allow the developer to move forward with the development and meet the regulatory requirements. The new designation will apply only to this project site or developer and to no other project site or developer.

Has there been a legal opinion for this type of special treatment or “gift” to a private corporation?
• I can find no description or reference for “High-Low Density”. This density classification needs to be described in more detail.
• Is the demolition and non-replacement of the tennis and basketball courts, the pool and spa consider a benefit of the project? The tennis courts are used by the Silicon Valley Tennis Academy as is a significant benefit to the young tennis players. • Is the city considering the building of a 1.3-acre public park a benefit to the public or to the tenants of the apartment complex? I believe, the developer will get most of the benefit from the park because it will increase the value of his property. The park will be constructed, maintained and watered at the taxpayers’ expense. The other multi-family townhouses and condominiums have their own green open space, picnic and barbeque areas. How can the public park be seen as a benefit when there will be a loss of a woodland area, trees including Heritage Trees? I consider the small public park a much lesser benefit to the neighborhood compared to the wooded wildlife area in Block C that will be lost to the development.
• There is no access to the Project Site from Moffett Blvd as far as I know (page 2-2). 6 2.2 Project Objectives
• I do not agree that AvalonBay has taken adequate measures to preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible. I believe the No Block C Alternative would preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible and allow the developer to build 119 units in Block B.

2.3 Project Location
• Although the Project Site has an address of 555 West Middlefield Road, most of the demolition, construction of apartment buildings and underground garages, and the public park will occur on Cypress Point Drive. Since 2015, the public was unaware of the potential impacts of this project to their Cypress Point Drive neighborhood because the project site was referred to as “555 West Middlefield Road”. This was misleading because the residents believed the project was located on West Middlefield Road when, in fact, the project was going to extend to Cypress Point Drive and most of the construction activity and traffic would occur on our street and in our neighborhood. If there had been more outreach, our neighborhood would have likely opposed this high-density housing project from being voted into the Gate-Keeper Program at that time and prevented a massive highdensity construction project in proximity to their homes.

2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses
• This sentence is incorrect “South of Cypress Point Drive are professional offices”. On the southside of Cypress Point Drive are several multi-family housing developments including Cypress Point Woods Townhouses and Cypress Point Lakes Condominiums. There is also an Adult School and parking lot on the southside of Cypress Point Drive. The area between Cypress Point Drive and Central Expressway are more multi-family housing developments and single-family homes.

Figure 2-3: Proposed Site Plan
• The diagram labeled figure 2.3 should illustrate the locations of the multi-family housing developments including Cypress Point Woods Townhouses and Cypress Point Lakes Condominiums on the southside of Cypress Point Drive, and Willow Park Apartments on the northside of West Middlefield Road. These are the nearest targets for environmental impacts and should be displayed on all project site diagrams in the DEIR. • The diagram should also show the proximity of the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor to Block C. I will attach a Google Map on page 8 that displays the proximity of this very important feature of Mountain View. The map displays the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor in green.

The surface parking lot in Block C is marked with a “C” and is located at the end of Cypress Point Drive. The woodland area in Block C is visible as a green area to the north and east of Block C.
• A new diagram is needed. It is very important to illustrate the footprint of the new apartment building and underground garage in Block C. This footprint would be overlayed by the existing location of the trees including Heritage trees that AvalonBay plans to cut 7 down and remove to construct the apartment building, underground garage, and the emergency vehicle access road. Without this diagrammatic overlay it is not possible to fully assess the environmental impacts in Block C and surrounding lands. 8 e
9 2.5.2 General Plan Amendment
• The new High-Low Density Residential designation would only apply to this Project Site. This is not a City-wide new zoning designation, and it appears to be a special gift to a private real estate investment trust company?
• The High-Low designation would allow a height limit of up to 5 stories. What is to stop AvalonBay or the new landowner to get approval to continuing adding stories to their buildings in the future? The Project Plan currently has a 4-story building in Block C.

2.5.3 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
• The number of total parking spaces in Blocks B & C is 624 parking spaces (584 underground and 40 surface spaces). This parking facilities will be accessed from Cypress Point Drive, a substandard, narrow, dead-end, cul-de-sac. There is currently parking on both sides of the street making it a very narrow roadway for cars, trucks, and bikers. The use of this small neighborhood street for traffic and parking will have competition from a townhouse complex, a condominium, and an adult school. There are no bike lanes and there is no space for bike lanes. This is a formula for disaster in terms of car and bike safety, traffic jams at the intersection of Moffett Blvd and Cypress Point Drive, and wayward vehicles entering the driveway and parking lot at Cypress Point Woods Townhouse because they are unaware that street dead-ends at the entrance to the townhouse parking lot.
• There are a total of 363 parking spaces in Block A (341 underground and 22 surface spaces).

This will generate much less traffic entering and exiting Middlefield Ro which is a standard primary road for through traffic. Why are there not more vehicles entering and exiting Middlefield Road as compared to Cypress Point Drive. Middlefield Road has much more capacity to handle the number of vehicles and traffic safely and efficiently compared to Cypress Point Drive. Clearly, Cypress Point Drive cannot handle this vehicle load safely and efficiently. • The DEIR states an emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see figure 2-3) will be provided. What does “SR 85’s building frontage” referred to? According to the figure, this area is for an emergency vehicle access road. The area is located between Cypress Point Woods parking garages and surface parking lot in Block C. It is very close to the property lines separating the two properties. It is also very close to the driveway entrance to Cypress Point Woods. There is a steep vegetated hill with trees with a path to the top of the hill. The path ends at the end of the Cypress Point Woods perimeter wall on top of the hill. This is a low security wall along the freeway that was not constructed by Caltrans as a sound wall. The wall was constructed in 1977 by the developer of Cypress Point Woods (CPW). The CPW HOA has been trying for years to have Caltrans build a proper sound wall. But for the present, the tall trees and canopy along the low perimeter wall, as well as the taller sound wall behind Block C, provide protection from the noise, dust, and pollution from the freeway. According to statements by AvalonBay, this hill will be leveled to ground surface and the soil and debris will be trucked away. The DEIR does not address the property lines, the hill, the leveling of the hill, and impacts to the environment and to Cypress Point Woods property, if any. • Diagrams are needed to be expanded to display the relationship and distance of other multi-family housing developments to this project site. These existing residential developments are cut-off in the diagrams. For example, Figure 2-3, Project Site Plan, and Figure 2-9, Proposed Landscape 10 Plan do not display or identify major housing developments in proximity to the project site. The diagrams need to display the footprint of Cypress Point Woods Townhouse, Cypress Point Lakes, and the Adult School buildings and driveway entrances in relationship to the opposing project site across Cypress Point Drive.

• Have highly visible property perimeter stakes been placed between Cypress Point Woods property and 555 West Middlefield property so it is clear where the properties lie? Very visible perimeter stakes driven into the ground should also be used to outline the perimeter or footprint of the apartment building, underground garage, and the emergency access road in Block C.

We support the No Block C Alternative. We believe the No Block C Alternative to be a win-win for all the key stakeholders including the residents, the neighborhood, the city, the developer, and the environment in the following ways:
• The resident’s health & safety will be protected and there will be less disturbances and impacts to the quality of life. The aesthetic value of the trees, the urban forest canopy, and wildlife will continue to be enjoyed at the pleasure of the residents. • The neighborhood as a functioning community will be less impacted by the project if there is no Block C.
• The city will gain 119 or possibly more dwelling units to help meet the housing demand and help abate the housing shortage problems in Mountain View. • The developer will be permitted to improve and expand the old apartment building complex by adding Blocks A and B. This will include a new apartment and leasing building, two underground garages, and a new amenities building on their property. • The environment will benefit because the urban forest woodland area, Heritage Trees and wildlife habitat will be preserved. These areas are endangered and are dwindling at a rapid pace in our cities. Trees should be added to these areas and the accumulated and competitive undergrowth be removed to improve the health of our prized urban forested areas right in our backyards. This area in Block C is a prime example. • The No Block C Alternative is a good compromise. A good compromise is when no one party gets all they want but it still results in a win-win for all the parties.

Thank you for the opportunity to review, evaluate, and comment on the DEIR. I hope my comments will improve upon the work already accomplished by the consultant, ICF. I hope my comments will inform the consultant with best practices to use to communicate this project to the audience. In this case, the audience is primary the public. These are the residents, homeowners, tenants, shopkeepers, and other people living or working near the project site. Although I understand there are certain rules and requirements that must be followed under CEQA in the drafting of the DEIR and Final EIR, there is no reason why the DEIR had to be over 400 pages. This was too overwhelming even for me and I have been in the environmental protection business for nearly 40 years. This document could be reduced, condensed, and distilled down to the most important project details, problems, and solutions. This report could be more concise and transparent. As it is, I am not sure it will have the practical utility it was intended for and that was communicate to the community (1) accurate details about project, (2) the environmental impacts of this project both short-term and long-term and, (3) feasible alternatives and solutions that would mitigate these impacts. Also 11 importantly, the DEIR was supposed to thoroughly address the pre-DEIR comments submitted by the public. I believe this was not accomplished. I believe this DEIR could have been more focused on the interests and needs of the neighborhood and the environment by scheduling pre-DEIR meetings with representatives from the developer, the city, the community, and the environmental advocacy groups.

Sincerely,
Daniel Shane
213 Cypress Point Drive
Mountain View, CA
Homeowner
Representative for the Cypress Point Community Preservation Group Environmental Scientist, U.S. EPA (retired), 1982-2017
(650) 269-7551
[email protected]

Copied:
[email protected] (Mayor)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (Kimbra McCarthy)
[email protected] (Kimberly Thomas)

From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Diane Gazzano <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Cox <[email protected]>; Hala Alshahwany <[email protected]>; Denley Rafferty <[email protected]>; Terrie Rayl <[email protected]>; Nancie Fimbel <[email protected]>; Leona Chu <[email protected]>; Tim Dooley <[email protected]>; Christopher Peri and Sayo Palomino <[email protected]> Subject: Where Is Asbestos Commonly Found In The Home, When and How Should It be Removed? CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

The apartment buildings at 555 W Middlefield were built in 1969. It’s unfortunate but asbestos installation was commonly used in buildings prior to 1970. EPA did not begin to ban and phase out asbestos due to its carcinogenicity until 1970. Do we know if the Amenities building and clubhouse and other structures to be demolish contain asbestos? AvalonBay should be testing their building insulation for presence of asbestos and doing geotechnical borings to assess soil properties and the depth to groundwater for their 30’ deep excavations. This data is needed to understand the environmental impacts. When the consultant determines “no impact” is this based on proper data and evidence? Or is it just wishful thinking or guessing? Additionally, lead-based paint was not phased out until 1978. Lead was commonly used in paint prior to 1978. Has AvalonBay tested the paint in their buildings to be demolished?
http://www.ehso.com/asbestosfoundwhere.htm
Sent from my iPhone
1 CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

On Jul 24, 2021, at 4:11 PM, Daniel Shane <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Diana,
I do not see a list of appendices in the 435 page DEIR. Please send me the appendix that addresses the following:
 Describes the removal and replacement of trees.
 Diagrams and overlays that show the locations (footprints) of the apartment building and underground garage overlaying the trees that will be removed in Block C. We want to know if it is necessary to remove many or just a few trees for construction of the apartment building and underground garage. These trees are located along Highway 85 and provide a buffer between the freeway and the homes in our neighborhood. It is also a nice size woodland area that provides wildlife habitat in an urban setting. These are getting super rare.  Most recent Google satellite photographs with apartment building and underground garage diagram overlays to evaluate the biological, climate, noise, and air quality impacts in Block C.
 The landscape plan for removal, transplanting, and replacement of trees and herbaceous plants in Block C.
 Please send me the list of appendices related to landscaping, building and underground garage footprints that support the need to remove so many trees.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. As you know we have little time to evaluate and comment on the DEIR by August 12, 2021.

Daniel Shane
CPCPG Representative
650‐269‐7551
1 From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 9:08 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: louise katz <[email protected]>; Cox, Robert <[email protected]>; Gita Dev <[email protected]>; Diane Gazzano <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Appendices for the 555 W Middlefield Road Project Plan CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hi Diana. Gita Dev, Diane Gazzano, Louise Katz, and myself are in need of information from the developer and the City Planning Division on the information listed below. I don’t know if you responded to the others but I have not received a confirmation of receipt of my request. Can you provide this information to me this week? Thank you, Daniel Shane.

Sent from my iPhone
1 From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 9:02 AM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appendices for the 555 W Middlefield Road Project Plan CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAILͲEnsure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Diana, thank you for the response.Question. Can you request AvalonBay to submit a diagram and an overlay displaying the extent of the apartment building and underground garage footprint over a diagram of the locations of the existing trees, canopy, and Heritage Trees on the perimeter of Block C, inside or outside Block C?Also can the diagram include a clear property line in this woodland area separating Caltrans property from AvalonBay property?Will AvalonBay need an easement to cut sown trees on Caltrans property?I believe it is very difficult to do this impact assessment for the woodland area without the diagrams, overlays, clear property lines, and locations of Heritage trees and their relationship with construction in Block C. Thank you for your timely response to my inquiry.Daniel Shane. Sent from my iPhone
1 From: Daniel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 8, 2021 8:35 PM
To: Pancholi, Diana <[email protected]>
Cc: Diane Gazzano <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Island of Eucalyptus Trees located at the end of Cypress Point Drive and across from the proposed Block C CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAILͲEnsure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

Hello Diana,
I remember AvalonBay telling the residents during a community meeting that the stand of Eucalyptus trees must be removed to allow heavy equipment access, and a turnͲaround area for trucks, during demolition and construction activities.We do not see the loss of these trees addressed in the DEIR.These trees provide shade, cooling in the summer, bird perches and nests, and wildlife habitat.As long as the tree debris is removed by city workers they should not pose a significant fire hazard in this location.Several people have expressed their pleasure with preserving these trees and canopy.I guess they were put there for a reason. Will the Eucalyptus trees and the island be removed as part of the construction project? Thanks for clarifying this.

Daniel Shane
Homeowner
1 August 12, 2021

COMMENTS ON THE

OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
By
DANIEL M. SHANE
HOMEOWNER, 213 CYPRESS POINT DRIVE, MOUNTAIN VIEW 04043 Project Title: 555 West Middlefield Road Project (SCH #2019070252) City/County: City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California Public Review Period: June 28, to August 12, 2021
Comments to be submitted to Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner, City of Mountain View, Community Development Department, P.O. Box 7540, Mountain View, CA 94041 or emailed to [email protected]
Dear Diana Pancholi,
The purpose of the letter is to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed 555 West Middlefield Road Project in my neighborhood. My comments begin by a broad overview of my evaluation of the report. Additionally, I have provided comments for key sections of the DEIR. I hope my comments will be incorporated into the Final EIR.

It was difficult to review and evaluate the DEIR against the Project Plan. The Project Plan was repeatedly revised by AvalonBay during the review period. Once a DEIR has been released to the public, there should be no modifications made by the developer to the project plan. This was not the case and created a lot of confusion. Here is an example. The number of dwelling units constantly changed during the review period.
• The original project plan had 329 units including 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units. 4 • For unknown reasons, 5 units were removed from Block B, making it a total of 324 units. • My project metrics analysis of the June 2021 project plan revealed 32 more units than reported by AvalonBay. This made the new total 356 units. This was verified in an email message from Diana Pancholi.
• The DEIR was made available on June 28, 2021 and was based on the June 2021 project plan. • The June 2021 project plan was again revised in July 2021. Now there were 11 less units making a new total of 345 units. But the DEIR was still based on the June 2021 project plan. • The June 2021 project plan had 111 units in Block B and 218 units in Block C. • In July 2021 this was changed. Block B had 119 units and Block C had 226 units. The new total was 345 units.
• Are the total number of dwelling units existing and proposed 747 units (402 units + 345 units)? Executive Summary
• I recommend the consultant provide a one or two-page summary table, in bullet format, the key basic project metrics. The purpose of this summary is to preclude any future confusion. This page can be revised in the future if necessary to highlight any changes made to the project plan and can be posted on the city’s website. Some of the metrics should be the size of the project site, the number of units per acre (density), the allowable density for this project, the number of existing and future studios, 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units, the number of affordable units, the estimated rent to comply with “affordability” in this area, the estimated number of existing tenants, the estimated maximum number of tenants after the addition of 345 new units, the number of dwelling units and parking spaces in Blocks A, B, and C, the number of stories and the heights for each existing and new buildings, the number of underground parking garage levels for each Building Block, the number of parking spaces in each underground garage and corresponding primary street for entering and existing traffic, the number of total trees and Heritage trees that will be lost in each Building Block, and other metrics that are deemed an important metric to keep track of during the planning process.

Is there an asbestos and/or lead problem at this old apartment complex and does public health need to be protected?
5 ES-4 Project Alternatives
• The report downplays the significance of the No Block C Alternative. It diminishes the benefits of the No Block C Alternative by not addressing the preservation of the urban woodland, the trees including Heritage Trees, the tree buffer zone that protects the health and welfare of the homeowners and their families by absorbing the noise, dust, and pollution from Highway 85. This is a well-known scientific fact. Other benefits include bird and wildlife habitat and it being integrated with the Stevens Creek Trail corridor. It is our desire that this area in Block C be even better integrated into the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor with the addition of trees and native waterresistant plants, landscape maintenance, watering, and habitat restoration. The Stevens Creek Trail corridor is a jewel, and we are very fortunate to have this in our community. We desire this area be deeded to the City in exchange for project approval in Blocks A and B. This would be a greater benefit to neighborhood, the city, and the environment compared to a small manicured public park surrounded by apartment units. We are constantly losing the aesthetics and other benefits provided by the natural environment which is as important as the air we breathe.

2.1 Project Overview
• The total number of units is incorrect when compared to the June 2021 and July 2021 Project Plan.
• I can find no description or reference for “High-Low Density”. This density classification needs to be described in more detail.
• Is the demolition and non-replacement of the tennis and basketball courts, the pool and spa consider a benefit of the project? The tennis courts are used by the Silicon Valley Tennis Academy as is a significant benefit to the young tennis players. • Is the building of a 1.3-acre public park considered a benefit to the public or to the tenants of the apartment complex? The multi-family townhouses and condominiums have their own green open space, picnic areas, and barbeques. How can the public park be seen as a benefit when there will be a loss of a woodland area, trees including Heritage Trees? I consider the small public park as a much less benefit to the neighborhood compared to the wooded area in Block C.
• There is no access to the Project Site from Moffett Blvd as far as I know (page 2-2).

2.2 Project Objectives
• I do not agree that AvalonBay has taken adequate measures to preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible. I believe the No Block C Alternative would preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible and allow the developer to build 119 units in Block B.

2.3 Project Location
• Although the Project Site has an address of 555 West Middlefield Road, most of the demolition, construction of apartment buildings and underground garages, and the public park will occur on Cypress Point Drive. Since 2015, the public was unaware of the potential impacts of this project to their Cypress Point Drive neighborhood because the 6 project site was referred to 555 West Middlefield Road. This was misleading and the residents believed the project was located on West Middlefield Road when, in fact, the project was going to extend to Cypress Point Drive and most of the construction activity and traffic would occur in our neighborhood. If there had been more outreach, our neighborhood would have likely opposed this high-density housing project from being voted into the Gate-Keeper Program at that time and prevented a massive construction project in proximity to their homes.

Figure 2-3: Proposed Site Plan
• The diagram should illustrate the locations of the multi-family housing developments including Cypress Point Woods Townhouses and Cypress Point Lakes Condominiums on the southside of Cypress Point Drive, and Willow Park Apartments on the northside of West Middlefield Road.
• The diagram should also show the proximity of the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor to Block C. I will attach a Google Map on page 8 that displays the proximity of this very important feature of Mountain View. The map displays the Stevens Creek Trail Corridor in green.

The surface parking lot in Block C is marked with a “C” and is located at the end of Cypress Point Drive. The woodland area in Block C is visible as a green area on the north and east side of Block C.
• Another diagram is needed and very important to illustrate the footprint of the new apartment building and underground garage in Block C. This footprint would be overlayed by the existing location of the trees including Heritage trees that AvalonBay plans to cut down and remove to construct the apartment building, underground garage, and the emergency vehicle access road. Without this diagrammatic overlay it is not possible to fully assess the environmental impacts in Block C and surrounding lands. 7 8

2.5.2 General Plan Amendment
• The new High-Low Density Residential designation would only apply to the Project Site. This is not a City-wide new zoning designation and is a special gift to a private real estate investment trust company? That’s what it sounds like to me.
• The High-Low designation would allow a height limit of up to 5 stories. What is to stop AvalonBay or the new landowner to get approval to continuing adding stories to their buildings? The Project Plan has a 4-story building in Block C.

This will generate much less traffic entering and exiting Middlefield Ro which is a standard primary road for through traffic. Why are there not more vehicles entering and exiting Middlefield Road as compared to Cypress Point Drive. Middlefield Road has much more capacity to handle the number of vehicles and traffic safely and efficiently compared to Cypress Point Drive. Clearly, Cypress Point Drive cannot handle this vehicle load safely and efficiently. • The DEIR states an emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see figure 2-3) will be provided. This area for an emergency vehicle access road is located between Cypress Point Woods parking garages and surface parking lot in Block C. It is very close to the property lines separating the two properties. It is also very close to the driveway entrance to Cypress Point Woods. There is a steep vegetated hill with trees with a path to the top of the hill. The path ends at the end of the Cypress Point Woods perimeter wall on top of the hill. This is a low security wall along the freeway that was not constructed by Caltrans as a sound wall. The trees along the perimeter wall and the sound wall provide protection from the noise, dust, and pollution from the freeway. According to statements by AvalonBay, this hill will be leveled to ground surface and the soil and debris will be trucked away. The DEIR does not address the property lines, the hill, the leveling of the hill, and impacts to Cypress Point Woods property, if any. • Diagrams are needed to be expanded to display the relationship and distance of other multi-family housing developments to this project site. These residential developments are cut-off from the diagrams. For example, Figure 2-3, Project Site Plan, and Figure 2-9, Proposed Landscape Plan do not display or identify major housing developments in proximity to the project site. The diagrams need to display the footprint of Cypress Point Woods Townhouse, Cypress Point Lakes, and the Adult School buildings and driveway entrances in relationship to the opposing project site.
9 • Have highly visible property perimeter stakes been placed between Cypress Point Woods property and 555 West Middlefield property so it is clear where the properties lie? Very visible perimeter stakes driven into the ground should also be used to outline the perimeter or footprint of the apartment building, underground garage, and the emergency access road in Block C.

It was my intention to review, evaluate, and comment on all the sections of the DEIR. But I did not have sufficient time to give this report all my attention and time. I suffered a severe angina attack on July 30 and admitted to the ER. I received two stents in two of three of previous triple bypass arteries that flowed blood to the heart. It was a very close call. I may have additional comments in a second submission before the deadline, which is today, August 12, 2021. But I wanted to submit the comments I have ready to share to guarantee the comments are received by the official deadline.

Please call me at 650-269-7551 if you have any questions pertaining to my comments or suggestions.

This report could be more concise and transparent. As it is, I am not sure it will have the practical utility it was intended for and that was communicate to the community (1) accurate details about project, (2) the environmental impacts of this project both short-term and long-term and, (3) feasible alternatives and solutions that would mitigate these impacts. Also importantly, the DEIR was supposed to thoroughly address the pre-DEIR comments submitted by the public. I believe this was not accomplished. I believe this DEIR could have been more focused on the interests and needs of the neighborhood and the environment by scheduling pre-DEIR meetings with representatives from the developer, the city, the community, and the environmental advocacy groups.

10 Copied:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (Kimbra McCarthy)
[email protected] (Kimberly Thomas)

August 12, 2021
Diana Pancholi, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Mountain View
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94041
Re: 555 W. Middlefield project EIR
Dear Ms. Pancholi:

GreenSpacesMV appreciates the opportunity to respond to the 555 W. Middlefield project environmental impact report (EIR). To learn more about our organization, see “About GreenSpacesMV” at the end of this letter.

The primary goals of our organization are to protect and enhance green spaces in Mountain View and, by extension, to protect wildlife that depends on our actions on their behalf. This letter reflects those concerns. That said, many of our members also have an interest in our city meeting housing needs and would like to see the project succeed due to its contribution on this front. To the extent the developers can do it, we would like to see housing optimized through the project while being mindful about environmental impacts during and after the development process.

Note that, while some of our comments here might fall outside of the purposes of the EIR documentation, we would like to bring all of them to your attention due to their relevance to the project, and to the environmental health and stability of our city at large.

Regarding landscaping
Tree removal is a major concern of ours. Our understanding is that all the existing trees providing a wide buffer along highway 85 are to be cut down in order to make space for a new Block C building (Landscape Drawing L.003) and, in addition, a significant number of additional trees will be removed in the area of Block C, and that this is needed specifically (we have been told) to enable access for construction vehicles during the construction process. In hopes of preserving trees, especially large mature trees that take decades to grow, we strongly urge you to find other solutions for this. Those trees are providing numerous benefits and will to current and future residents as well. Large trees should not be permanently removed for the sake of short term convenience. The trees along Highway 85 have an aesthetic value to drivers, and they provide a sound barrier between the highway and the entire neighborhood in addition to a myriad of environmental benefits including sequestering carbon and reducing air pollution.

In both cases where trees and landscaping are to be replaced or added (see 2.5.5 Landscaping and Heritage Trees in the EIR), we urge you to choose from native, drought tolerant, climate resilient, pollinator-friendly landscaping choices. In addition to great choices identified in the North Bayshore Precise Plan (https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31203), we would like you to select from the following options, as identified by GreenSpacesMV members with the appropriate expertise:

The species list for the gardens may be drought tolerant (unfortunately even in swales where it makes sense to allow some flexibility and use a little more water), but almost all the species are not native and have no habitat value beyond providing some structure.

As a requirement for mulch, at least 3“ is required on all soil surfaces. This is very common in plans but it's harsh unless compost-like mulch is used. Kids often no longer know what soil looks like, or feels. And mulch is often wood chips, sometimes dyed, which is worse.

The entire surface is paved or mulched. And mulch needs to be applied only to tree cups, not on all soil surfaces. Incidentally, the development could use a community garden! In addition, the plans note: “Minor planting revisions may occur during working drawings development, due to architecture and site plan refinements, irrigation design and/or plant material availability.” All the plants should be selected from the North Bayshore list with no substitution.

Rethinking your planting palette to include significantly more natives will not affect the buildings but will enhance the environment for their residents (making it more desirable) and for the community as a whole. Currently, with many people choosing to work from home, thriving landscaping and biodiversity are more attractive and important than ever.

Trees
There are no native trees in the plan. The one oak, holy oak, is a species that provides no habitat value. Even the redbud is the eastern, rather than western redbud. Some of the species on the list should not be planted here—magnolias are thirsty, camphor trees break easily, and London plane trees hybridize with local sycamores.

The plan should be revised to use trees from the North Bayshore list, even where the chosen non-native is consistent with existing trees onsite. Less consistency visually, but much higher biodiversity value.

We are particularly concerned about seeing any native oak trees removed. As Staff has noted, the developer should work very hard on protecting as many oaks as possible. A mature native oak is irreplaceable. Certainly, why plant European oaks when there are so many native oaks that are clearly thriving while many other trees in town (including camphors and magnolias) are suffering? Removing oaks simply goes against the biodiversity goal of the City, and important habitat is lost
Shrubs
The plan is predominantly (99%) non-native. Very disappointing given that California is blessed with a huge diversity of native shrubs that are drought tolerant, lovely, and provide habitat and biodiversity value. The North Bayshore plant palette provides many options.

The plan should be revised to replace most of the shrubs.

Is ok to keep:
● The only native on the list, Juncus patens, which people plant in swales everywhere. ● New gold lantana provides nectar for butterflies and hummingbirds ● Lion tail provides nectar for butterflies and hummingbirds Some additional plants provide nectar for hummingbirds, but there are better choices on the North Bayshore Precise Plan list.

In short, we urge you to take a development approach that thoughtfully incorporates trees and high quality green spaces.

Regarding transportation impacts
We also care about making our transportation network as robust as possible, with high accessibility, safety, and comfort provided to pedestrians and bicyclists, with special attention to children, seniors, and those with disabilities. These needs go beyond the boundaries of the project site. As you know, three access points to the Stevens Creek Trail are nearby (at the end of Central Avenue, to the north off of Moffett Boulevard, and to the east off of Middlefield Road). We urge you to do all that you can to make these connection points as accessible, safe, and comfortable as possible, even if this means tying this project to others undertaken separately and also to work with neighboring communities to secure access through their jurisdictions.

Regarding lighting throughout the site
We ask that you do the following:
● Limit the Correlated Color Temperature of all lights to warmer light - no more than 2400 Kelvin within 300-ft of a riparian corridor, and no more than 2700 Kelvin throughout. The reason is that LED lighting >2400 Kelvin is associated with pervasive negative impacts on humans, wildlife and ecosystems.
● Use timers to dim during use hours and turn off lighting outside of activity hours. ● Have all bollard lights on motion sensors to dim when not in use and turn off after 6pm. ● Shield all lights and direct it to only light the intended area ● Do not impact pollinators, native plants, or school gardens through additional lighting or destruction of their plantings.

If you would like more information on light pollution and its impacts, you can see details here:
https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/.

Regarding stormwater management
We once again urge you to retain as many trees as possible, as they provide needed water filtration and that you incorporate as many green infrastructure features as possible that prevent unnecessary water runoff to storm drains.

We hope you incorporate our recommendations into the project specifications and design prior to approval of the project. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,
Bruce England for GreenSpacesMV
Cc:

Joe Kirchofer, Avalon Bay
Cynthia James, Noble James, LLC
Ellen Kamei, Mountain View Mayor
Lucas Ramirez, Mountain View Vice Mayor
Margaret Abe-Koga, Mountain View City Council Member
Alison Hicks, Mountain View City Council Member
Sally Lieber, Mountain View City Council Member
Lisa Matachek, Mountain View City Council Member
Pat Showalter, Mountain View City Council Member
About GreenSpacesMV
Our focus is on biodiversity, native, drought-tolerant, and pollinator-friendly landscaping, complete green streets, parks and other open spaces, including Privately owned, publicly accessible (or POPA) park spaces, and so on.

For more information, see https://www.facebook.com/GreenSpacesMV.

To contact us, send email to [email protected].

CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.

August 12, 2021
Diana Pancholi, Project Planner
Community Development
City of Mountain View
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed development. We are generally supportive of increasing density using infill and we consider added housing, in proximity to transit, as desirable.

However, this should not be at the expense of seriously degrading the environment.

We believe that the “No Block C” alternative provides a reasonable balance of housing and environmental impact.

Please see our full comment letter attached.

Respectfully submitted,
Gita Dev, Co-Chair Shani
Kleinhaus
Sustainable Land Use Committee
Environmental Advocate
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Santa Clara
Valley Audubon Society
Cc: Mountain View City Council
Gladwyn D’Souza, Conservation Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter(SCLP) James Eggers, Executive Director, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter(SCLP) Rajiv Mathur, Friends of Stevens Creek <[email protected]> sent by:

Barbara Kelsey
she/her/hers
Chapter Coordinator
Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
3921 E. Bayshore Rd, Suite 204
Palo Alto, CA 94303
[email protected]
We do not have a Chapter office
opening date yet, so email is the
best way to contact us. Thank you.

August 12, 2021
Diana Pancholi, Project Planner
Community Development
City of Mountain View
Via email to: [email protected]
RE: Comments on the DEIR for 555 W. Middlefield
The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Sustainable Land Use Committee and the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed development. We are generally supportive of increasing density using infill and we consider added housing, in proximity to transit, as desirable. However, this should not be at the expense of seriously degrading the environment. We believe that the “No Block C” alternative provides a reasonable balance of housing and environmental impact. 555 Middlefield is proposing to add housing in 3 different locations, using existing surface parking lots to insert additional housing with multi-level underground parking.