Mountain View City Council
February 8, 2022

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CERTIFYING THE 555 WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD PROJECT

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING CEQA FINDINGS

RELATED TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND

ALTERNATIVES AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A

MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 15000, et seq., collectively “CEQA”), the City of Mountain View (“City”), as the lead agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project (hereinafter “Project”), which was noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with CEQA as detailed more fully herein; and
WHEREAS, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for an EIR for the Project for review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals from July 10, 2019 through August 09, 2019; and WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC Sections 21161 and 21092 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087, on June 28, 2021, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”)/Notice of Availability (“NOA”) document for a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project (“Draft EIR”) was duly prepared and distributed; and
WHEREAS, the City duly prepared and circulated the Draft EIR for the required 45-day public comment period which commenced on June 28, 2021 and ended on August 12, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the City duly prepared responses to comments received on the Draft EIR as reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments Document dated October 2021), which address all written and verbal comments on environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period for the Draft EIR, and was made available to the public on October 22, 2021; and -2-
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report/Responses to Comments Document (dated October 2021), together with the Draft EIR, as well as all appendices attached thereto, collectively comprise the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5, 2022 on the Project and the Final EIR and received and considered all evidence presented at said hearing, including, without limitation, all associated staff reports, meeting minutes, technical reports and analyses, oral and written testimony, and other evidence in the record of proceedings and recommended certification of the EIR and approval of the Project to the City Council subject to the required findings; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 8, 2022 on the Project and Final EIR and received and considered all evidence presented at said hearing, including, without limitation, all associated staff reports, meeting minutes, oral and written testimony, technical reports and analyses, and other evidence in the Record of Proceedings (as defined in the CEQA Findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B) and the recommendation for approval from the Environmental Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies certain significant effects on the environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed Project, as detailed more fully in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures which, when implemented, will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment caused by the proposed Project, with the exception of the significant unavoidable air quality impacts; and
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared, which finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant unavoidable air quality impact, exposing existing on-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations of PM 2.5 during construction; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting document for the 555 West Middlefield Road Project were presented to the City Council on February 8, 2022, and the City Council has reviewed the Final EIR and all associated staff reports, meeting minutes, testimony, and evidence constituting the Record of Proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies and analyzes a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed Project, as detailed more fully in Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to monitor implementation of the identified mitigation -3-
measures for the Project, which the City, as lead agency, has approved in conjunction with certification of the Final EIR in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment to the extent feasible;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mountain View:

1. Certifies that the Final EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA, reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and has been presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in it, along with other relevant information in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, public testimony, before approving the Project, and hereby finds that the Final EIR constitutes an accurate, adequate, objective, and complete EIR; and

2. Adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit B, which findings are incorporated by reference herein; and

3. Adopts the MMRP for the Project, attached hereto as Exhibit C; and

4. Adopts all of the mitigation measures identified and described in the Final EIR and determines that the Project, as mitigated, will avoid or reduce all of the significant adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of the significant unavoidable air quality impact, exposing existing on-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, which significant unavoidable impacts are considered acceptable because these unavoidable adverse environmental effects are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

5. Finds that a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives were evaluated in the Final EIR; and further finds that none of the alternatives identified and analyzed in the Final EIR will achieve most of the Project objectives at all and/or to the same degree as the proposed Project; and otherwise are infeasible for the reasons detailed more fully in Exhibit B and are, therefore, rejected as, within the meaning of CEQA, in favor of the proposed Project.

6. The City, in making its decision to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project and as detailed more fully in Exhibit B, hereby recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. The City has acquired a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the range of these technical and scientific opinions by its review of the Final EIR, information provided by the experts who prepared the Final EIR, the City’s staff and other consultants, other -4-
relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings, and its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by the City include, without limitation, conflicting expert opinions and statements of facts, as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the Final EIR. This comprehensive review has enabled the City to make its determinations after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. As a result, the City has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence and not public controversy or speculation. Accordingly, the City certifies that its findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained in the Final EIR as well as the evidence and other information in the Record of Proceedings and hereby elects to rely on the opinions set forth in the Final EIR and other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings.

TIME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

The time within which judicial review of this document must be sought is governed by California Code of Procedure Section 1094.6, as established by Resolution No. 13850 adopted by the City Council on August 9, 1983.
– – – – – – – – – – –
DP/1/RESO
807-01-05-22r
Exhibits: A. Final EIR
B. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
June 2021
555 West Middleeld Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2019070252
Prepared by:

City of Mountain View
In Conjunction With:

ICF

EXHIBIT A

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
555 WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2019070252
PREPARED BY:

City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street, P.O. Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
IN CONJUNCTION WITH:

ICF
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
JUNE 2021
ICF. 2021. 555 Middlefield Road Draft Environmental Impact Report. June. (ICF 00214.20.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of Mountain View, Mountain View, CA.
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report i
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Contents
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures..........................................................................................................................................ix List of Acronyms and Abbreviations....................................................................................................... x Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 3 Summary of Project Impacts............................................................................................................ 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................................... 3 Project Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 3 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved .......................................................................... 5 Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Objectives................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................................. 3 Summary of Project Impacts............................................................................................................ 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts............................................................................................... 3 Project Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 3 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved .......................................................................... 5 Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Environmental Review Process..............................................................................................1-2

1.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act................................................................................1-2

1.1.2 Purpose of EIR..................................................................................................................1-2

1.1.3 Scope and Content of the EIR ..........................................................................................1-2

1.2 EIR Organization.....................................................................................................................1-5 Chapter 2 Project Description ..........................................................................................................2-1

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

2.2 Project Objectives...................................................................................................................2-2

2.3 Project Location......................................................................................................................2-3

2.4 Existing Site Conditions and Surrounding Uses......................................................................2-6

2.4.1 Project Site Land Uses......................................................................................................2-6

2.4.2 Land Use Designation and Zoning....................................................................................2-6

2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses....................................................................................................2-7

2.5 Proposed Project....................................................................................................................2-7

2.5.1 Proposed Development and Site Plan ...........................................................................2-11

2.5.2 General Plan Amendment..............................................................................................2-19

2.5.3 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking .............................................................................2-19 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ii June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.5.4 Amenities.......................................................................................................................2-20

2.5.5 Landscaping and Heritage Trees....................................................................................2-22

2.5.6 Utilities and Stormwater Quality Management ............................................................2-23

2.5.7 Sustainable Design Features, Energy Efficiency Measures, and Transportation Demand Management Features...........................................................2-24

2.6 Construction.........................................................................................................................2-25

2.6.1 Demolition and Excavation............................................................................................2-26

2.6.2 Construction Security and Staging.................................................................................2-27

2.6.3 Construction Hours and Trucks......................................................................................2-27

2.7 Required Permits and Approvals..........................................................................................2-27 Chapter 3 Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.......................................................................3-1

3.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.1-5

3.1.4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................3.1-6

3.2 Air Quality............................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.2-9

3.2.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.2-15

3.3 Biological Resources............................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.3-2

3.3.4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................3.3-4

3.4 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.4-5

3.4.4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................3.4-8

3.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources...................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.5-5

3.5.4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................3.5-8

3.6 Energy..................................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.6-4 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report iii June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.6.4 Impact Analysis.............................................................................................................3.6-8

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.7-5

3.7.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.7-11

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.8-7

3.8.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.8-11

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.2 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.3 Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................3.9-4

3.9.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.9-10

3.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.10-2

3.10.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.10-3

3.11 Noise..................................................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.11-6

3.11.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.11-9

3.11.4 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................3.11-16

3.12 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.12-4

3.12.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.12-5

3.13 Public Services and Recreation..........................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.13-7

3.13.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.13-9

3.14 Transportation and Circulation .........................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.14-8 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report iv June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.14.4 Impact Analysis.........................................................................................................3.14-10

3.15 Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.15-1

3.15.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.15-3

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................3.16-1

3.16.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................3.16-1

3.16.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................................3.16-1

3.16.3 Regulatory Setting.......................................................................................................3.16-3

3.16.4 Impact Analysis...........................................................................................................3.16-6 Chapter 4 Other CEQA-Required Sections ........................................................................................4-1

4.16 Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................4-1

4.16.1 Approach to Impact Analysis...........................................................................................4-1

4.16.2 Analysis of Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................4-2

4.17 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts ..........................................................4-14

4.18 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes...................................................................4-15

4.19 Growth-Inducing Impacts.....................................................................................................4-16

4.19.1 Economic, Population, and Housing Growth.................................................................4-16 Chapter 5 Alternatives.....................................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Alternatives Screening Process ..............................................................................................5-1

5.2.1 Project Objectives............................................................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Significant Impacts of the Project....................................................................................5-2

5.2.3 Alternatives Considered...................................................................................................5-2

5.3 Alternatives Analyzed.............................................................................................................5-6

5.3.1 No-Project Alternative .....................................................................................................5-1

5.3.2 Reduced-Intensity Alternative .........................................................................................5-2

5.3.3 No Block C Alternative .....................................................................................................5-3

5.3.4 Full Redevelopment Alternative ......................................................................................5-4

5.3.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative .............................................................................5-6 Chapter 6 Report Preparation..........................................................................................................6-1

6.16 City of Mountain View, Community Development Department (Lead Agency)...................................................................................................................................6-1

6.17 ICF (Consultant)......................................................................................................................6-1

6.17.1 Project Management.......................................................................................................6-1

6.17.2 Technical Analyses...........................................................................................................6-1

6.18 Hexagon (Consultant).............................................................................................................6-2

6.19 Schaaf & Wheeler (Consultant)..............................................................................................6-2 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report v
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 7 References......................................................................................................................7-1 Chapter 2, Project Description ............................................................................................................7-1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................7-1 Air Quality............................................................................................................................................7-1 Biological Resources............................................................................................................................7-3 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................................7-4 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology ........................................................................................................7-6 Energy ................................................................................................................................................7-8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change ................................................................................7-9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................................................7-11 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................................7-12 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................7-12 Noise ..............................................................................................................................................7-13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................................7-14 Public Services and Recreation..........................................................................................................7-15 Transportation and Circulation .........................................................................................................7-17 Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................7-17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................................7-17 Other CEQA-Required Sections.........................................................................................................7-18 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................................7-18

APPENDICES
1 NOP and Scoping Comments

3.2-1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Materials

3.3-1 USFWS List of Endangered and Threatened Species

3.3-2 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database Results

3.3-3 CNPS Query Results

3.4-1 Department of Parks and Recreation Form

3.4-2 Native American Consultation Materials

3.4-3 NWIC Results

3.8-1 EDR Radius Map Report

3.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Report

3.11-1 Noise Supporting Materials

3.14-1 Transportation Analysis

3.16-1 Utility Impact Study
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report vi June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Tables
Page
2-1 Project Features ..........................................................................................................................2-10 2-2 Anticipated Permits and Approvals.............................................................................................2-28

3.1-1 Project Consistency with Development Review Standard Conditions of Approval .................3.1-11

3.2-1 Ambient Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data (2017–2019)...................................................3.2-6

3.2-2 Federal and State Attainment Status for the Project Site Vicinity .............................................3.2-8

3.2-3 Sensitive Receptors On-Site and within 1,000 Feet of the Project Site......................................3.2-9

3.2-4 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards..................................................................3.2-11

3.2-5 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds............................................................................................3.2-17

3.2-6 Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day)...........................................................................................................................................3.2-26

3.2-7 Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day)..............3.2-27

3.2-8 Estimated Project-level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Unmitigated Construction DPM and PM2.5 Emissions.................................................................................3.2-32

3.2-9 Estimated Project-level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Mitigated Construction DPM and PM2.5 Emissions.................................................................................3.2-32

3.2-10 Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risks from Project and Background Sources.....................................................................................................................................3.2-34

3.3-1 Special-Status Plants Known to Occur or that May Occur in the Project Area ..........................3.3-8

3.3-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area............................3.3-11

3.3-3 Proposed Tree Removals under the Project.............................................................................3.3-18

3.5-1 Regional Faults...........................................................................................................................3.5-2

3.5-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of Geological Units at or Underlying the Project Site......................3.5-5

3.6-1 PG&E, SVCE, and the State of California Power Mix in 2018 .....................................................3.6-3

3.6-2 Existing Energy Resource Consumption at the Project Site in 2018 ..........................................3.6-3

3.6-3 Estimated Construction Energy Consumption from the Project..............................................3.6-10

3.6-4 Estimated Operational Energy Consumption for the Project Site............................................3.6-11

3.7-1 Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases........................................3.7-2

3.7-2 Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories...........................3.7-3

3.7-3 City of Mountain View Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories and Forecasts (metric tons CO2e)......................................................................................................3.7-3

3.7-4 Estimated GHG Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year)..........................3.7-18

3.7-5 Existing On-Site Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year) ....................3.7-19

3.7-6 Project Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year)..................................3.7-19

3.7-7 Net (Project minus Existing) Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons per year).....................3.7-20

3.7-8 Consistency of the Project with 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Policiesa.........................3.7-25

3.7-9 Consistency of the Project with GGRP Reduction Measures ...................................................3.7-26 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report vii June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.8-1 Environmental Database Listings for the Project Site ................................................................3.8-2

3.8-2 Environmental Database Listings for Properties within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site ...............3.8-3

3.9-1 Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters within the Project Vicinity ...................................................3.9-3

3.9-2 Peak Flow for the Project Site ..................................................................................................3.9-20

3.10-1 Consistency with Relevant General Plan Land Use Policies.....................................................3.10-6

3.11-1 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ............................................................................................3.11-2

3.11-2 Rules for Combining Sound Levels by Decibel Addition...........................................................3.11-3

3.11-3 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..............................................................3.11-5

3.11-4 Long-term Noise Level Measurements in and around the Project Site ...................................3.11-8

3.11-5 Short-term Noise Levels Measurements in and around the Project Site.................................3.11-8

3.11-6 Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels along Roadway Segments in the Project Vicinity....................................................................................................................................3.11-10

3.11-7 FTA General Assessment Criteria for Construction Noise......................................................3.11-10

3.11-8 Federal Transit Administration General Assessment Criteria for Vibration Damage.............3.11-11

3.11-9 Federal Transit Administration Ground-borne Vibration Impact Criteria..............................3.11-12

3.11-10 Caltrans Vibration Guidelines for Potential Damage to Structures........................................3.11-12

3.11-11 Caltrans Guidelines for Vibration Annoyance Potential.........................................................3.11-13

3.11-12 City of Mountain View Land Use Compatibility Guidelines....................................................3.11-14

3.11-13 Applicable Criteria Used as Significance Thresholds for Noise and Vibration Analyses.........3.11-17

3.11-14 Project Construction Equipment Noise Levels.......................................................................3.11-20

3.11-15 Reasonable Worst-case Project Demolition/Construction Noise Levels (Leq)........................3.11-22

3.11-16 Reasonable Worst-case Haul Truck Noise Levels (Leq) Detailed Analysis...............................3.11-24

3.11-17 Traffic Noise Levels along Roadway Segments adjacent to the Project Site..........................3.11-27

3.11-18 Construction Vibration Levels at Nearby Sensitive Uses........................................................3.11-32

3.12-1 City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Population Growth Projections, 2020– 2040..........................................................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12-2 City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Housing Units (2010 and 2020).....................3.12-2

3.12-3 City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Household Growth Projections (2020–2040) .............................................................................................................................3.12-3

3.12-4 City of Mountain View and Santa Clara County Employment Projections (2020– 2040).........................................................................................................................................3.12-3

3.13-1 Mountain View Fire Department Responses by Station Serving the Project Site (2018) .......................................................................................................................................3.13-2

3.13-2 Mountain View Police Department Calls and Response Times by Beat...................................3.13-3

3.13-3 Estimated Number of Students Generated by the Project ....................................................3.13-17

3.14-1 Project Trip Generation Estimates.........................................................................................3.14-13

3.16-1 Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand .....................................................................3.16-11

3.16-2 Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand .....................................................................3.16-12

3.16-3 Existing and Project Estimated Water Demand .....................................................................3.16-13 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report viii June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.16-4 Existing and Project Estimated Sewer Flow ...........................................................................3.16-16

3.16-5 Existing and Future Cumulative Project Wastewater Flow....................................................3.16-16 4-1 Traffic Noise Levels along Roadway Segments adjacent to the Project Site...............................4-10 5-1 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures...............................5-3 5-2 Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Project .......................................................................5-7 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ix June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Figures
Page
2-1 Project Location.............................................................................................................................2-4 2-2 Project Site ...................................................................................................................................2-5 2-3 Proposed Site Plan........................................................................................................................2-9 2-4 Illustrative View of Proposed Block B from Moffett Boulevard .................................................2-12 2-5 Illustrative View of Proposed Block A from West Middlefield Road ..........................................2-13 2-6 Illustrative View of Existing On-Site Buildings after Exterior Enhancements.............................2-14 2-7 Illustrative View of Proposed Block C from Cypress Point Drive................................................2-15 2-8a Proposed Site Cross-Section (BLOCK B).......................................................................................2-16 2-8b Proposed Site Cross-Section (BLOCK A).......................................................................................2-17 2-8c Proposed Site Cross-Section (BLOCK C).......................................................................................2-18 2-9 Proposed Landscape Plan............................................................................................................2-21

3.1-1 Existing Conditions in the Project Vicinity.................................................................................3.1-3

3.2-1 Sensitive Receptors within 1,000 Feet of the Project Site ......................................................3.2-10

3.3-1 Project Location.......................................................................................................................3.3-16

3.11-1 Noise Measurement Locations.................................................................................................3.11-7

3.14-1 Site Location and Study Intersections......................................................................................3.14-2

3.14-2 Existing Transit Services ...........................................................................................................3.14-5

3.14-3 Existing Bicycle Facilities...........................................................................................................3.14-7 City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report x
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Acronyms and Abbreviations
2030 GPUUIS Mountain View 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACMs asbestos-containing materials
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADD average-day demand
AEP Association of Environmental Professionals
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
amsl above mean sea level
APN assessor’s parcel number
AQAP Air Quality Attainment Plan
ASTs aboveground storage tanks
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
B.P. before present
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan BAU business as usual
Bay San Francisco Bay
BCP Business Continuity Plan
bgs below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
BMR below market rate
BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene
BTU British thermal unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
cal calibrated
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Clean Air Plan
CAPs criteria air pollutants
CARB California Air Resources Board
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report xi June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Carl Moyer Program Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERS California Environmental Reporting System
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CIP capital improvement project
City City of Mountain View
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Construction General Permit General NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities
County Santa Clara County
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEH Department of Environmental Health
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
DRC Development Review Committee
DRP Disaster Recovery Plan
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DUs dwelling units
EDR Report EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck
EIR environmental impact report
EMT Early Period-Middle Period Transition
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report xii June 2021
ICF 00214.20
EO executive order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protect Agency
EPC Environmental Planning Commission
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESLs Environmental Screening Levels
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FR Federal Register
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTE full-time equivalent
General Plan Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan EIR City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report
GGRP Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
GHG greenhouse gas
gpd gallons per day
GPU General Plan Update
GVB ground-borne vibration
GWP global warming potential
HCD Housing and Community Development
HCP habitat conservation plan
HFCs hydroflourocarbons
HI hazard index
HMCD Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
Hot Spots Act Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 HOV high-occupancy vehicle
HP Permit Historic Preservation Permit
HRA health risk assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
I Interstate
IBC International Building Code
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP Integrated Resource Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU thousand BTU
kWh kilowatt hour
LBP lead-based paint
Ldn day-night level
LED light-emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
Leq 1h 1 hour A-weighted equivalent sound level
LID low-impact development
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report xiii June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Lmax maximum sound level
LOS level of service
LRT light rail transit
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCLs maximum contaminant levels
mgd million gallons per day
Mountain View Register Mountain View Register of Historic Resources mph miles per hour
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
MS4 NPDES General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MVFD Mountain View Fire Department
MVGBC Mountain View Green Building Code
MVLA UHSD Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District MVPD Mountain View Police Department
MVWSD Mountain View-Whisman School District
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
NCP National Contingency Plan
NFIP National Flood Insurance Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O&M Operation and Maintenance
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OES Office of Emergency Services
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
P Planned Community
Parks and Open Space Plan City of Mountain View Parks and Open Space Plan PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
Peninsula San Francisco Peninsula
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report xiv June 2021
ICF 00214.20
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PGA peak ground acceleration
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Mountain View at Middlefield, 555 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California 94043
PHD peak-hour demand
PM particulate matter
PM10 PM less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter
Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
Project 555 West Middlefield Road Project
R4 High-Density Residential
RAP Remedial Action Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
RECs recognized environmental conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROG reactive organic gas
RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard
RTP regional transportation plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant
SB Senate Bill
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCS sustainable communities strategy
SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District
SDMP Storm Drain Master Plan
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Zone
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLCP short-lived climate pollutant
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMaRT Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
State Water Board State Water Resources Control Board
City of Mountain View Contents
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report xv
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
SVCE Silicon Valley Clean Energy
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TA Transportation Analysis
TACs toxic air contaminants
Tanner Act Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act TCE trichloroethylene
TDM transportation demand management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TMA Transportation Management Association
TMDL total maximum daily load
TPHg total petroleum hydrocarbon-gasoline
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S. EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB vibration decibel level
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
VOC and Fuel General Permit Discharge or Reclamation of Extracted and Treated Groundwater Resulting from the Cleanup of Groundwater Polluted by Volatile Organic Compounds, Fuel Leaks, Fuel Additives, and Other Related Wastes
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
WBWG Western Bat Working Group
WDRs waste discharge requirements
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WUCOLS Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Executive Summary
This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed 555 West Middlefield Project (Project). The Project site is located on an approximately

14.5-acre site between Moffett Boulevard and State Route (SR) 85 in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California (City). As required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, this executive summary contains the following.
• Project Overview
• Project Objectives
• Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
• Project Alternatives
• Potential Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Project Overview
The Project is an infill project involving redevelopment of an approximately 14.5-acre site located between Moffett Boulevard and SR 85 in the City. The Project site consists of one legal lot that would be subdivided (Block A through C) as part of the Project. In addition, an approximately 1.3-acre parcel would be created to be conveyed to the City for future public park purposes (as described further below). The Project site is currently occupied by 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings, along with a leasing office, amenity building, common areas, and related improvements. Associated surface parking and common open space areas are located throughout the Project site. The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to allow the retention of the 402 existing residential units (which would ensure no tenant displacement), while involving the demolition of most of the existing surface parking areas, tennis and basketball facilities, as well as the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and space, and the development of up to 3241 new multi-family residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages. In addition, a fourth building with below-grade parking and outdoor amenities would be constructed to replace the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa. The total amount of development at the site would consist of approximately 713,161 square feet (sf), 1 As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, Project Description, and Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, during the preparation of this Draft EIR but after specified technical reports and quanitative analysis was performed, the applicant decreased the number of residential units being proposed from 329 to 324 (a reduction of 5 units), based on input received during City Council study sessions. This Executive Summary and Chapters 1 and 2 reflect the current proposal of 324 units. Chapter 3, however, refers to and evaluates 329 net new residential units in the impacts analysis consistent with the quantitative analysis and technical reports that were already prepared. 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 the site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect a maximum of 324 new units. The decrease of 5 residential units would not result in any changes to the environmental analysis, as discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
including approximately 310,263 sf of existing uses to remain and approximately 402,898 sf2 of new uses to be constructed under the Project. 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 residential units at the Project site. Furthermore, approximately 1.3 acres of land along Cypress Point Drive would be offered for dedication to the City for use as a future park. Vehicular access to the Project site would be via West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Construction activities would include the demolition of the existing surface parking lots, tennis and basketball facilities, existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and space, as well as the removal of trees and vegetation, which would be replaced in accordance with the Project’s landscape plan and consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Refer to Chapter 2, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project’s components.

Project Objectives
The following objectives have been identified for the Project. • Increase the supply of residential units in an existing residential area of the City in an economically viable manner through the innovative, efficient redevelopment of an infill site while avoiding displacement of existing residents by developing at least 320 new multi-family residential units while retaining all existing 402 units; • Facilitate achievement of the City’s goal to produce housing for all economic segments of the community in a financially viable manner by reserving at least 48 of the Project’s units as affordable;
• Better utilize land by developing higher density residential units with significant amenities near existing transit and planned transit enhancements as well as major employment centers and downtown commercial retail uses and services;
• Implement feasible transportation demand management strategies and amenities to reduce vehicle trips and promote alternative transportation options including walking, bicycling, and use of shuttles and public transit;
• Incorporate site and building design features and materials that are high quality, attractive, compatible with adjacent neighborhood residential and commercial uses, and respect the surrounding community through appropriate building height transitions, massing, design, materials, and landscaping;
• 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;
• Preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible, taking into consideration site planning and design objectives, site constraints, density needs, and other relevant criteria; and • Dedicate land for the creation of a new public park to serve the existing uses, the Project, and the broader community.
2 This square footage is expected to decrease incrementally due to the reduction in units from 329 to 324 (refer to Footnote 1), as explained in greater detail in Chapter 2.

City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Summary of Project Impacts
The Project impacts are summarized in Table ES-1 (presented at the end of this summary). For potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures are identified where feasible to reduce the impacts on the environmental resources to a less-than-significant-level. Refer to Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, for a detailed discussion of Project impacts and detailed descriptions of the mitigation measures.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to Project and cumulative PM2.5 concentrations at existing on-site sensitive receptors. • Impact AQ-3a: Expose existing on-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction. Unmitigated Project construction emissions would result in a significant increase in the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations at all six receptors that would receive the highest concentrations of construction-related diesel particulate matter and PM2.5, respectively, although the chronic hazard index (HI) would be below BAAQMD’s significance threshold. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b as well as Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 (Basic Air Quality Construction Measures) would reduce construction emissions. As a result, cancer risks for the six nearest on-site sensitive receptors would be below BAAQMD’s cancer risk significance threshold. However, PM2.5 concentrations would remain above BAAQMD’s PM2.5 concentration significance threshold; therefore, Project impact would be significant and unavoidable.

The cumulative hazard index at the six receptors with the highest impact would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold. However, the unmitigated cumulative cancer risks would exceed the BAAQMD threshold at five receptor locations and PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the BAAQMD threshold at all six receptors that would receive the highest concentrations of construction-related diesel particulate matter and PM2.5, respectively. The contribution of unmitigated PM2.5 concentrations from the Project would exceed BAAQMD’s cumulative annual PM2.5 threshold. The Project’s contribution to cancer risks, in conjunction with existing cancer risks, would exceed BAAQMD’s cumulative cancer risk threshold. This is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b and Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 would reduce construction emissions. As a result, the cumulative cancer risk at all receptor locations would be below BAAQMD’s cumulative threshold. However, 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.

Project Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate a no project alternative and a reasonable range of potential alternatives to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the Project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially reduce any identified significant City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
environmental impacts of the Project. The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction air quality (cumulative PM2.5 concentrations); accordingly, the alternatives to the Project present options that could avoid or reduce this significant and unavoidable impact. The alternatives evaluated are summarized below. Please refer to Chapter 5 of this EIR for the complete discussion of the Project alternatives.

The following four alternatives to the Project are analyzed in Chapter 5, Alternatives. • No-Project Alternative: The Project would not be built and the site would remain in its existing condition.
• Reduced-Intensity Alternative: This alternative assumes a 25 percent reduction in the number of residential units constructed, resulting in the construction of a total of 243 new residential units.
• No Block C Alternative: This alternative assumes that the Block C building proposed under the Project would not be demolished or reconstructed, resulting in the construction of a total of 111 new residential units in Block B only.
• Full Redevelopment Alternative: This alternative assumes that the existing 402 residential units and all existing improvements and amenities would be demolished and replaced with up to 726 new residential units, along with new related improvements and amenities, on the site, in order to minimize the construction timeframe.

Table ES-2 (presented at the end of this summary, after Table ES-1) provides a comparison of the potential impacts among the No Project Alternative, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative, the No Block C Alternative, and the Full Redevelopment Alternative to those of the Project by resource topic. The No-Project Alternative would have less of an environmental impact on almost all resource topics but a slightly greater impact on hydrology and water quality. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in 243 (75 percent) of the residential units proposed under the Project, which is more residential units than the No Block C Alternative. Therefore, the Reduced-Intensity Alternative would result in impacts that would be generally similar to but slightly less than those of the Project because demolition would still occur and a subterranean parking garage would still be constructed, but less overall development would result in slightly fewer operational traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, although there would be no change in the impact conclusions for any of the foregoing resource areas.

The No Block C Alternative would result in 111 (approximately 34 percent) of the residential units proposed under the Project. 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.

The Full Redevelopment Alternative would result in 726 new units, which is approximately 402 additional new units (rather than the 402 existing units being retained on the Project site) that would occur if the Project is constructed. The Full Redevelopment Alternative would result in greater construction-related impacts compared to the Project, but similar operation-related impacts.

The No-Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior of the four alternatives because it would result in fewer impacts overall. However, because the No-Project Alternative would not fulfill City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
any of the Project objectives and is required to be included in the EIR by CEQA, another alternative must be identified as the environmentally superior alternative.

While the Full Redevelopment Alternative would eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality impact by eliminating all of the existing units occupied by the closest on-site sensitive receptors, both the Reduced-Intensity Alternative and the Full Redevelopment Alternative would still result in more overall development than the No Block C Alternative. Therefore, it would result in more operational traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the No Block C Alternative and neither would be the environmentally superior alternative. Because the No Block C Alternative would result in a substantial reduction in overall units (only 34 percent of the residential units proposed under the Project would be built under this alternative), 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.

Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved
On July 10, 2019, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. A combination of ten agencies, and individuals of the public submitted written comments regarding the scope and content of the Draft EIR during the 30-day comment period (which ended August 9, 2019). Additionally, a scoping session on the Draft EIR was held on July 24, 2019 at Mountain View City Hall. All written and oral comments received during the comment period and scoping session were considered in the preparation of this Draft EIR. A copy of the NOP and all comments are provided in Appendix 1. Following is a summary of the environmental comments received.
• The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided guidance on its requirements for the travel demand analysis, which should include the Project-generated trips added to the existing and future scenario traffic volumes, on-ramp storage capacity and analysis of freeway segments near the Project, turning movements, as well as trip generation, distribution, and assignment estimates. Caltrans recommended that freeway segments US-101- from Ellis Street to Shoreline Boulevard on both directions, and SR-85- from Central Expressway to US 101 on both directions, as well as the US 101 on- and off-ramps at Moffett Boulevard and Shoreline Boulevard, and the on- and off-ramps at Moffett Boulevard for SR-85 be evaluated in the travel demand analysis. In addition, Caltrans recommended that the visual impacts of tree removal along SR-85, and construction-related impacts of access to US 101 and SR-85 be evaluated in the EIR. Caltrans also advised that any work or traffic control that would encroach onto SR-85 would require a Caltrans-issued encroachment permit.
• The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) provided guidance on its requirements for preparation of EIRs under CEQA in relation to Cultural resources and Tribal Cultural resources, and compliance with AB 52 and SB 18. The NAHC provided guidance on the following topics for AB 52: the fourteen-day period to provide NOC, tribal consultation, mandatory and discretionary topics of consultation, confidentiality of information, discussion of impacts to tribal cultural resources in the environmental document, conclusion of consultation, recommended mitigation measures (including examples of mitigation measures), required consideration of feasible mitigation, and prerequisites for certifying an EIR or MND or negative declaration with a significant impact on an identified tribal cultural resource. Additionally, the City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
NAHC provided guidance on the following topics for SB 18: tribal consultation, confidentiality, conclusion of tribal consultation, and recommendations for Cultural Resources Assessments. • The Members of the Cypress Point Woods Homeowners Association expressed concern over several aspects of the Project. Specifically, the commenters expressed concerns over the Project’s impacts on site access, circulation, and parking (including street parking and access to Stevens Creek Trail), construction staging and security measures, air quality and fugitive dust emissions (including preparation of dust suppression plan), hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality (including preparation of stormwater management plan), land use and planning (including details on the proposed pubic park to be dedicated to the City), noise (including cumulative noise impacts and construction of sound barrier wall), growth-inducing impacts (including additional public services, safety measures, parking spaces and other resources that are necessary to support the increase in population), public services and recreation, cumulative impacts, significant and irreversible environmental changes (including tree loss and traffic), and the alternatives that will be considered. • The Directors of the Board of the Cypress Point Woods Homeowners Association expressed concern over the Project’s traffic impacts on Cypress Point Drive. Specifically, the Board stated that the road cannot handle the additional traffic, and that the EIR should investigate traffic mitigation alternatives and how the developer can modify its plan to create entry and exit points on both Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Road to mitigate traffic on Cypress Point Drive. The Board also expressed concerns over the Project’s density and building height, and requested that the EIR consider limiting the new buildings to three stories to not only reduce density, but traffic impacts as well resulting from the reduced amounts of units and people. Finally, the Board requested that the EIR explore modifications to the site plan to create a new dedicated access point between the Project site and Stevens Creek Trail to reduce people cutting through the condominium complexes.
• The Members of the Cypress Point Community Preservation Group expressed concern over several aspects of the Project. Specifically, the commenters requested that the following information be provided in the Draft EIR to properly evaluate the Project’s impacts: specific details on the trees (i.e., size and type) that would remain under the Project, trees that would be removed or transplanted, and new trees that would be planted; incorporation of a well-designed evergreen vegetation buffer zone on the northern perimeter of Cypress Point Wood Townhomes and the Project site; installation of a sound wall along Highway 85 to current standards in order to mitigate the loss of noise protection from mature trees removed under the Project; a study of the current noise and air pollution levels in the Project area; and a discussion of potential impacts to redwood trees, building foundations, and nearby residents from Project construction activities related to sheet piling and hammering;
• A resident that lives on Cypress Point Drive expressed concern over traffic impacts as a result of the Project. The commenter stated that there is already an issue with individuals deliberately and illegally entering the last driveway of the Project site from the wrong side of the road. The commenter stated that street parking would be impacted from Project construction and would result in parking issues for existing residents, and that street parking would be further reduced in combination with the other major construction projects happening within 1/2-mile of the Project. The commenter also stated that there is no entrance to Sevens Creek Trail from the Project site which would increase pedestrian and bicycle trespassers through the Cypress Point Woods property. In addition, the commenter states that the proposed public park should be an City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
enclosed greenbelt that is private property for residents only. Furthermore, the commenter noted that construction of the Project would obscure views for existing residents living street side, negatively impact homeowner value, and result in major noise impacts. • A resident that lives on Cypress Point Drive expressed concern about the other proposed highdensity developments that would occur near Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road in addition to the Project, and the resulting traffic impacts that they would have. The commenter suggested adding an entrance to the Project site on Moffett Boulevard or West Middlefield Road. • An individual strongly recommended that Fehr & Peers be used for the Traffic Impact Analysis instead of Hexagon.
• A resident that lives in the Cypress Point Lakes Condominium Complex expressed concern over the Project’s impacts on trees, including heritage trees. Specifically, the commenter stated concern over how the digging and dust involved with the Project’s construction would impact the existing large redwood trees and other trees, and if the trees would receive adequate light upon Project completion.
• A resident that lives at the end of Cypress Point Drive asked that the EIR address the City’s Plan on the following topics in relation to the Project: a gas pipe explosion (such as the one in San Bruno), a fire (such as the one in Oakland Hills), and other unforeseen catastrophes, as existing traffic circulation on Cypress Point Drive is already limited. • An individual asked that level of service (LOS) be used to measure traffic impacts in the EIR instead of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The individual also stated that Fehr & Peers should be used to complete the traffic impact analysis instead of Hexagon Transportation Associates, to ensure the mistakes that were made in the traffic analyses for the 777 and 759 West Middlefield Road projects are avoided.

Table ES-1. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Aesthetics
Impact AES-1: Conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic
quality.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AES-2: Create a new
source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in
the area.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact AQ-2a: Result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase in any criteria pollutant
during construction for which
the Project region is classified as
a nonattainment area under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.

Significant MM AQ-2a: Use clean dieselpowered equipment during construction to control
construction-related NOX
emissions.

MM AQ-2b: Use on-road haul
trucks with model-year 2010 and
newer engines during
construction.

MM AQ-2c: Use low-VOC
architectural coatings during
construction.

Less than
Significant
Impact AQ-2b: Result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase in any criteria pollutant
during operation for which the
Project region is classified as a
nonattainment area under an
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AQ-3a: Expose existing
on-site sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations during
construction.

Significant
(Project and
Cumulative)
MM AQ-2a: Use clean dieselpowered equipment during
construction to control
construction-related NOX
emissions.

MM AQ-2b: Use on-road haul
trucks with model-year 2010 and
newer engines during
construction.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact AQ-3b: Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during operation.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AQ-4: Result in other
emissions (such as those leading
to odors) that would adversely
affect a substantial number of
people.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Disturbance of
nesting migratory bird species if
construction activities begin
during the nesting season
(February 1 to August 31).

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact BIO-2: Removal of trees
regulated by the City of Mountain
View.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL-1: Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource, pursuant to Section
15064.5.

No Impact None required —
Impact CUL-2: Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource, as defined in Section
15064.5.

Significant MM CUL-2: Conduct
preconstruction archaeological
sensitivity training.

Less than
Significant
Impact CUL-3: Disturb any
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Impact GEO-1a: Directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving rupture of a
known earthquake fault.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-1b: Directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects,
including risk of loss, injury, or
death involving strong
seismically induced ground
shaking.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-1c: Directly or
indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury,
or death involving seismically
related ground failure, including
liquefaction.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-2a: Result in
substantial soil erosion.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-2b: Result in the loss
of topsoil.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-3: Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the
Project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact GEO-4: Be located on
expansive soil, as defined in
Section 1802.3.2 of the California
Building Code (2007), creating
substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact GEO-5: Directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Energy
Impact EN-1: Result in
potentially significant
environmental impact due to the
wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources during Project
construction or operation.

Significant MM GHG-1: Implement BAAQMD’s
best management practices to
reduce GHG emissions from
construction.

Less than
Significant
Impact EN-2: Conflict with or
obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-1a: Generate
greenhouse gas emissions during
construction, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment.

Significant MM GHG-1: Implement BAAQMD’s
best management practices to
reduce GHG emissions from
construction.

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

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

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

Not a CEQA impact N/A —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Create a
significant hazard for the public
or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials.

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

Significant MM HAZ-2: Conduct a
comprehensive building materials
survey
Less than
Significant
Impact HAZ-3: Emit hazardous
emissions or handling of
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed
school.

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

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

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

Less than
Significant
None required —
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ-1: Violate any
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact HWQ-2: Substantially
decrease groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that
the Project would impede
sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact HWQ-3a: Substantially
alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area,
including through alteration of
the course of a stream or river or
the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that would
result in substantial erosion,
siltation, or flooding on- or offsite or impede or redirect floodflows.

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

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

Less than
Significant
None required —
Land Use and Planning
Impact LUP-1: Physically divide
an established community.

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

Less than
Significant
None required —
Noise
Impact NOI-1a: Expose adjacent
residential uses to excessive
noise levels during Project
construction.

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

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact NOI-2: Expose residential
uses to ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise levels
during construction.

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

No Impact None required —
Population and Housing
Impact POP-1a: Develop new
residential units that directly
induce population growth.

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

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

No Impact None required —
Public Services and Recreation
Impact PSR-1: Reduced service
ratios and response times for fire
protection and emergency
medical services during
construction or operation,
resulting in the construction or
expansion of new facilities.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact PSR-2: Reduced service
ratios and response times for
police protection during
construction or operation,
resulting in the construction or
expansion of new facilities.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact PSR-3: Substantial
increase in student enrollment,
resulting in adverse physical
impacts.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact PSR-4: Reduced use or
level of service at parks,
resulting in adverse physical
impacts during construction or
operation.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact PSR-5: Reduced use or
level of service at other public
service and community facilities
during construction or operation,
resulting in construction or
expansion of new facilities.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Transportation and Circulation
Impact TRA-1: Conflict with a
program plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact TRA-2: Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact TRA-3: Substantially
increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
land uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact TRA-4: Result in
inadequate emergency access.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in PRC
Section 21074 as a site, feature,
place, or cultural landscape that
is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe and:
a. Listed in, or eligible for
listing in, the CRHR or a
local register of historical
resources, as defined in PRC
Section 5020.1(k)
OR
b. A resource determined by
the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1. In applying
the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of PRC
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the resource
to a California Native
American tribe.

Significant MM TCR-1: Stop work if tribal
cultural properties are
encountered during grounddisturbing activities.

MM CUL-2: Conduct
preconstruction archaeological
sensitivity training.

Less than
Significant
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-1: Require or result
in the relocation or construction
of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment, or
stormwater drainage, electric
power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects.

Significant MM UTL-1: Fair-share
contribution toward sanitary
sewer improvements.

Less than
Significant
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impacts
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
with Mitigation
Impact UTL-2: Result in a
determination by the water
provider that serves or may
serve the Project that it has
insufficient water supplies
available for the Project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during dry and
multiple dry years.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact UTL-3: Result in a
determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves
or may serve the Project that it
has inadequate capacity for the
Project’s projected demand in
addition to existing
commitments.

Significant MM UTL-1: Fair-share
contribution toward sanitary
sewer improvements.

Less than
Significant
Impact UTL-4: Generate solid
waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair attainment
of solid waste reduction goals.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact UTL-5: Comply with
federal, state, and local
management and reduction
statutes and regulations related
to solid waste.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Executive Summary
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report ES-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table ES-2. Comparison of Project Alternatives to the Project Environmental Topic Area
Level of Project
Impact
Impact Compared to Project
No-Project
Alternative
Reduced-Intensity
Alternative No Block C Alternative
Full Redevelopment
Alternative
Aesthetics Less than Significant No Impact Less Less than Significant Similar but slightly greater
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Significant and
Unavoidable
Less
Biological Resources Less than Significant No Impact Similar Less than Significant Similar but slightly greater
Cultural Resources Less than Significant No Impact Similar, but slightly less
Less than Significant Similar
Geology and Soils Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Similar
Energy Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Greater
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Climate Change
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Greater
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Similar Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Similar
Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Greater Similar Less than Significant Similar Land Use and Planning Less than Significant No Impact Similar Less than Significant Similar Noise Significant and
Unavoidable
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Significant and
Unavoidable
Less
Population and Housing Less than Significant Similar Similar, but slightly less
Less than Significant Greater
Public Services and
Recreation
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Less Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Similar
Transportation and
Circulation
Less than Significant No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Less than Significant Greater
Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Similar, but slightly
less
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Similar
Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant
with Mitigation
No Impact Less Less than Significant
with Mitigation
Similar
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 1
Introduction
The proposed 555 West Middlefield Road Project (Project) is an infill project involving redevelopment of an approximately 14.5-acre site (Project site) between West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive in the City of Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. The Project site is currently occupied by approximately 402 multi-family residential units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) as well as associated parking and common areas, amenities, and other related improvements. 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 3241 new multi-family residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages. In addition, a fourth building, with below-grade parking and outdoor amenities, would be constructed to replace the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa. Upon Project completion, the total amount of development at the site would have an area of approximately 713,161 square feet, including the approximately 310,263 square feet of existing uses to remain at the Project site and the approximately 402,898 square feet2 of new uses to be constructed under the Project. A detailed description of the Project is provided in Chapter 2, Project Description.

This document is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City of Mountain View (City), the CEQA lead agency3 for the Project, has prepared this environmental impact report (EIR) to evaluate the Project’s potential environmental impacts and identify required mitigation to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The applicant is Avalon Bay Communities, Inc.
1 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 units based on input received during City Council study sessions. Chapter 2, Project Description, reflects the current proposal of up to 324 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 net new units. The decrease of 5 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. 2 This square footage will be slightly less based on the reduction from 329 units to 324 units. See Footnote 1. 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15367 defines the lead agency as “…the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. Other public agencies may use this draft EIR in their decision-making or permit process and consider the information in this draft EIR along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process.

City of Mountain View Chapter 1. Introduction
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

1.1 Environmental Review Process

1.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA applies to all discretionary activities proposed to be implemented by California public agencies, including state, regional, county, and local agencies (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA requires agencies to estimate and evaluate the environmental impacts of their actions, avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts when feasible, and consider the environmental implication of their actions prior to making a decision. CEQA also requires agencies to inform the public, relevant public agencies, and other interested persons and organizations, and consider their comments in the evaluation and decision-making progress. The CEQA Guidelines are the primary source of rules and interpretation of CEQA (14 California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, 15000 et seq.).

One of the purposes of CEQA is to establish opportunities for the public, relevant public agencies, and other interested persons and organizations to review and comment on projects that might affect the environment. CEQA requires public participation through publication of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) as part of the EIR scoping process. Public participation is also achieved by notice and review of the draft EIR, whereby the public, public agencies, and other interested persons and organizations have 45 days to review the EIR and submit written comments. The public review period for this draft EIR is from June 28, 2021, to August 12, 2021.

1.1.2 Purpose of EIR
The purpose of the EIR is to provide the information necessary for the City to make an informed decision about the Project and related permit applications and review processes.

This draft EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA to achieve the following goals:
• Identify potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the Project;
• Describe feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level;
• Disclose the environmental analysis, including potential Project impacts and proposed mitigation measures, for public and agency review and comment; and • Discuss potential alternatives to the Project that would avoid or reduce identified significant Project impacts.

Once the public review period is complete, the City will prepare a final EIR that includes all comments received on the draft EIR, responses to comments on substantive environmental issues, and any necessary revisions to the draft EIR. CEQA requires the City’s decision-making body to review and consider the information in the EIR before making a decision on the Project.

1.1.3 Scope and Content of the EIR
Scoping refers to the process used to assist the lead agency in determining the focus and content of an EIR. Scoping solicits input on the potential topics to be addressed in an EIR, the range of project City of Mountain View Chapter 1. Introduction
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
alternatives, and possible mitigation measures. Scoping is also helpful in establishing methods of assessment and selecting the environmental effects to be considered in detail.

1.1.3.1 NOP and Scoping Meeting
The scoping process for this EIR was formally initiated on July 10, 2019, when the City submitted the NOP to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies and the County Clerk for public posting. The purpose of the NOP is to solicit participation from relevant agencies and the public in determining the scope of an EIR. The scoping period ended on August 9, 2019.

A public scoping meeting was held on July 24, 2019, at Mountain View City Hall to provide an opportunity for attendees to comment on environmental issues of concern. Written and verbal comments received during the scoping process are on file at the City of Mountain View Community Development Department (500 Castro Street, Mountain View, California) and provided in Appendix 1.

1.1.3.2 Resource Topics
Consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, this draft EIR provides a project-level analysis of the environmental effects of the Project. The environmental impacts of the Project are analyzed in this EIR to the degree of specificity appropriate, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15146.

This draft EIR evaluates the potential impacts of the Project on the following resource areas:
• Aesthetics
• Air quality
• Biological resources
• Cultural resources
• Energy
• Geology and soils
• Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
• Hazards and hazardous materials
• Hydrology and water quality
• Land use and planning
• Noise
• Population and housing
• Public services and recreation
• Transportation and circulation
• Utilities and service systems
• Tribal cultural resources
City of Mountain View Chapter 1. Introduction
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The following topics are also analyzed in this draft EIR:
• Significant unavoidable impacts
• Significant irreversible changes in the environment
• Growth inducement
• Cumulative impacts
• Alternatives to the Project
Although agricultural resources, mineral resources, and wildfire are identified in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR analysis does not include these topics because there would be no impact, as described below.
• Agricultural Resources. The Project site is already developed with urban uses in an urbanized environment. There are no farmlands within or near the Project site that would be affected by the Project. There is no prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance within Mountain View. Therefore, there would be no impact on agricultural resources. • Mineral Resources. The General Plan does not identify any mineral resources within Mountain View, and there are no known mineral resources at the Project site. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources of regional or statewide importance.

Therefore, there would be no impact on mineral resources. • Wildfire. An analysis of wildfire is required only if the Project site is in or near State Responsibility Areas or lands that have been classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

The Project site is not in one of these designated areas (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2007, 2008). Therefore, there would be no impact related to wildfire.

1.1.3.3 Documents Incorporated by Reference
As permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, this draft EIR has referenced numerous technical studies, analyses, previously certified environmental documentation, and planning documents.

Information from the documents, which have been incorporated by reference, has been briefly summarized in the appropriate section(s). The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the draft EIR has also been described as appropriate.

The CEQA Guidelines set forth three methods that may be used to incorporate data from other sources in the EIR:
• Incorporation by reference (14 Cal Code Regs, tit. 14, § 15150) • Use of an EIR Appendix (14 Cal Code Regs, tit. 14, § 15148) • Citation to technical information (14 Cal Code Regs, tit. 14, § 15148) The documents and other sources that have been used in the preparation of this draft EIR are provided in the Appendices and listed in Chapter 7, References, of this draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(b), the General Plan and other sources used in the preparation of the draft EIR are available for review at the address shown in Section 1.1.1, California Environmental Quality Act , above.

City of Mountain View Chapter 1. Introduction
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 1-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

1.2 EIR Organization
This draft EIR is organized in the chapters and appendices described below. • Chapter 1, Introduction, includes a brief overview of the Project, an overview of the environmental review process, and the scope, content, and organization of the draft EIR. • Chapter 2, Project Description, includes a comprehensive description of the proposed Project. • Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, includes an evaluation of the resource topics outlined in Section 1.1.3, Scope and Content of the EIR. Each resource-specific section discusses the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation measures. • Chapter 4, Other CEQA-Required Sections, includes a discussion of significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts. • Chapter 5, Alternatives, includes a description of the Project alternatives considered as well as an evaluation of the No-Project Alternative, Reduced Intensity Alternative, No Block C Alternative, and Full Redevelopment Alternative.
• Chapter 6, Report Preparation, includes a list of staff members who contributed to preparation of the EIR.
• Chapter 7, References, includes a list of the printed references and personal communications cited in the EIR.
• Appendices
1 NOP and Scoping Comments

3.2-1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Supporting Materials

3.3-1 USFWS List of Endangered and Threatened Species

3.3-2 CDFW California Natural Diversity Database Results

3.3-3 CNPS Query Results

3.4-1 Department of Parks and Recreation Form

3.4-2 Native American Consultation Materials

3.4-3 NWIC Results

3.8-1 EDR Radius Map Report

3.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Report

3.11-1 Noise Supporting Materials

3.14-1 Transportation Analysis

3.16-1 Utility Impact Study
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 2
Project Description

2.1 Project Overview
The proposed 555 West Middlefield Road Project (Project) is an infill project involving redevelopment of a portion of an approximately 14.5-acre site (Project site) located between Moffett Boulevard and State Route (SR) 85 in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. The Project site consists of one legal lot that would be subdivided (Block A through C) as part of the Project (as further described below and shown in Figure 2-3, Proposed Site Plan). In addition, an approximately

1.3-acre parcel would be created to be conveyed to the City for future public park purposes (as described further below). The Project site is currently occupied by 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings, along with a leasing office, amenity building, common areas, and other related improvements. Associated existing surface parking and common open space areas are located throughout the Project site.

The Project proposes construction of up to 324 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. 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 units. The decrease of 5 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.

The Project also 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. 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 new multi-family residential units (apartments) in three buildings as well as two below-grade parking garages. In addition, a fourth building, with belowgrade parking and outdoor amenities, would be constructed to replace the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa. The locations of the various Project components are shown in Figure 2-3, Proposed Site Plan, and described more fully below.

Upon Project completion, the total amount of development at the site would have an area of approximately 713,161 square feet, including the approximately 310,263 square feet of existing City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
uses to remain at the Project site and the approximately 402,898 square feet1 of new uses to be constructed under the Project. Including the existing residential units that would be retained and the proposed residential units that would be constructed, there would be a total of 726 residential units at the Project site. Furthermore, approximately 1.3 acres of land along Cypress Point Drive would be offered for dedication to the City of Mountain View (City) for use as a future public park space. Vehicular access to the Project site would be via West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Construction activities would include demolition of surface parking lots, tennis and basketball facilities, a leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa as well as removal of certain identified trees and vegetation, which would be replaced in accordance with the Project’s landscape plan and consistent with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance.

2.2 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires the project description within an environmental impact report (EIR) to include a statement of the project objectives. The applicant identified the following objectives for the Project:
⚫ Increase the supply of residential units in an existing residential area of the City in an economically viable manner through the innovative, efficient redevelopment of an infill site while avoiding displacement of existing residents by developing at least 320 new multi-family residential units while retaining all existing 402 units; ⚫ Facilitate achievement of the City’s goal to produce housing for all economic segments of the community in a financially viable manner by reserving up to 48 of the Project’s units as affordable;
⚫ Better utilize land by developing higher density residential units with significant amenities near existing transit and planned transit enhancements as well as major employment centers and downtown commercial retail uses and services;
⚫ Implement feasible transportation demand management strategies and amenities to reduce vehicle trips and promote alternative transportation options including walking, bicycling, and use of shuttles and public transit;
⚫ Incorporate site and building design features and materials that are high quality, attractive, compatible with adjacent neighborhood residential and commercial uses, and respect the surrounding community through appropriate building height transitions, massing, design, materials, and landscaping;
⚫ 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;
⚫ Preserve Heritage Trees to the greatest extent feasible, taking into consideration site planning and design objectives, site constraints, density needs, and other relevant criteria; and ⚫ Dedicate land for the creation of a new public park to serve the existing uses, the Project, and the broader community.
1 As mentioned above, this square footage will decrease incrementally when site plans are finalized for the Project to reflect the slight reduction in new units.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.3 Project Location
The approximately 14.5-acre Project site is located at 555 West Middlefield Road in a largely residential area of the central portion of the City (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The Project site is located just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard, and is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, SR 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west. Immediately surrounding properties consist of multi-family residential and commercial uses, including a gas station to the north as shown in Figure 2-2. The Project site is situated approximately 1.1 miles north of SR 82 (El Camino Real), 0.6 miles south of US 101, and immediately west of SR 85. The Project site currently consists of one legal lot and comprises assessor’s parcel number (APN) 158-49-001.

Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View

NASA AMES

RESEARCH
CENTER

MOFFETT
FIELD
Palo
Alto
85 237
101

CALIFORNIA ST

CENTRAL EXPY

W EL CAMINO REAL N SHORELINE BLVD

S SHORELINE BLVD

RENGSTORFF AVE

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

SAN ANTONIO RD

W MIDDLEFIELD RD

MOFFETT BLVD

ALAMEDA
CONTRA
COSTA
MARIN
SAN
MATEO
SANTA
CLARA
280
80 580
680
880
SAN

FRANCISCO
Pacic Ocean
101
Project Location
Mile
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1.0
City Limits
Source for site boundary: BDE Architecture, 2018
Figure 2-1
Project Location
555 West Middlefield Road
Graphics…00451.17 (1/16/19) AB
Project Site
Central Expwy
W Evelyn Ave
Montecito Ave
Mountain
Shadows Dr
Vaquero Dr
San Ramon Ave
Stierlin Rd
Cypress Point Dr
Central Ave
Moett Blvd
West Valley Fwy
Terra Bella Ave
N Shoreline Blvd
W Middle
eld Rd
W Middle
eld Rd
85 101
San Veron Dr
San Lucas Ave
Mariner Dr
San Pablo Dr
N Shoreline Blvd
Project Site
Figure 2-2
Project Site
555 West Middlefield Road
Image: Google Inc. 2013. Google Earth Pro, Version 7.1.

Mountain View, CA. Accessed: August 22, 2017.

Image date: November 2, 2016.

Source for site boundary: BDE Architecture, 2018.

Feet
0 250 500 750 1,000
ICF Graphics…00451.17 (6/25/19) tm
City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.4 Existing Site Conditions and Surrounding Uses

2.4.1 Project Site Land Uses
The Project site currently consists of one lot. Existing site conditions are shown in Figure 2-2. The site currently has 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) as well as leasing/amenity space (approximately 7,493 square feet). In addition, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located on the site. The Project site is developed and has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.49. The existing site also contains tennis and basketball facilities,2 which are located on one of the parking areas. Approximately 600 residents currently reside at the Project site. In addition, approximately 10 individuals are currently employed on the site full time. There are approximately 417 trees on the Project site, including approximately 255 on-site Heritage Trees. The existing access points to the Project site are from West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive (Figure 2-2). The topography of the Project site is generally flat. The Project site, which is approximately 62 feet above mean sea level (amsl), slopes to the north. The Project site was originally developed in 1968, and in addition to the features described above, it contains intermittent paving for parking and pedestrian uses, amenity areas, and landscaping throughout the site. There are no existing stormwater treatment features in place on the Project site.

2.4.2 Land Use Designation and Zoning
The City of Mountain View is organized into several geographic areas called planning areas in the General Plan. The Project site is within the Moffett/Whisman Planning Area, which includes a variety of housing intensities, parks, trails, and neighborhood commercial uses. The General Plan also defines several change areas. Change areas are areas within the City that could significantly change over the life of the General Plan. The General Plan identifies new land uses and intensities for change areas, primarily in industrial areas along corridors and in commercial locations. The Project site is not within a designated change area.

The General Plan designates the Project site as Medium-Density Residential, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-family housing with a residential character appropriate to a range of densities and a broad mix of housing types. The General Plan describes the permitted uses for the Project site, which includes detached and attached single-family residential, duplex residential, and multi-family units. The Project site is currently zoned P (Planned Community/Precise Plan).3 This zoning district is designed to provide for those uses or combinations of uses that may be appropriately developed as a planned area development and allows any use permitted in any other zoning district. The existing residential uses and related improvements and amenities on-site are consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning for the Project site. 2 The tennis facilities are currently leased to a local operator; operations would cease in advance of Project construction in accordance with the lease terms and be demolished to allow for Project construction. 3 Although the Project site is currently zoned as Planned Community/Precise Plan, there is no adopted Precise Plan that covers the Project site.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses
Surrounding existing land uses include, among others other medium density multi-family land uses.

Immediately north of the Project site is a gas station (Valero). Farther north of the Project site and across West Middlefield Road are multi-family land uses (Willow Park). East of SR 85 and Stevens Creek Trail are multi-family land uses. South of Cypress Point Drive are professional offices and multi-family land uses (Cypress Point Lakes Condominiums). West of Moffett Boulevard is the Moffett Mobile Home Park and Moffett Plaza (a small shopping center).

2.5 Proposed Project
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 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 residential units at the Project site. In addition, a third building and outdoor amenities would be constructed to replace the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa, which would be demolished under the Project. The Project would also include three below-grade parking garages as well as common and private open spaces.

Furthermore, the applicant would offer to dedicate an approximately 1.3-acre portion of land to the City for purposes of a future public park space (referred to as the “Park Parcel”). 4 Upon Project
completion, development at the site would total approximately 713,161 square feet, including approximately 310,263 square feet within the existing uses that would remain at the Project site and approximately 402,898 square feet5 of new uses to be constructed under the Project. 4 The Project’s site plan incorporates an approximately 1.3-acre area (Park Parcel) that would be offered for dedication to the City. The City would then have the authority and discretion to plan and construct park improvements as it determines appropriate as part of a future planning process. For purposes of a conservative analysis, the anticipated ground disturbance and other impacts associated with the future public park have been evaluated to the degree reasonably feasible, as described more fully in the relevant environmental topic areas in this draft EIR. The ultimate site plan and design for the public park and related improvements are not currently known but are entirely within the City’s discretion and would be determined by the City as part of a future discretionary planning process. Additional site-specific environmental review will be completed for the design of the park, if necessary.
5 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 units. The decrease of 5 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.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As shown in Figure 2-3, the existing residential units would remain in the center portion of the site along West Middlefield Road. The Project proposes only minor exterior upgrades to existing buildings, most likely consisting of wood-like tile enhancements and new paint. The vast majority of existing surface parking areas would be demolished; the proposed residential uses would be constructed on Block B (in the western portion of the site along Moffett Boulevard) and on Block C (in the eastern portion of the site adjacent to SR 85). The 324 new residential units are anticipated to consist of 9 studios, 153 one-bedroom units, 136 two-bedroom units, and 26 three-bedroom units, based on currently available information, although the ultimate unit mix would be determined as part of the final design process. The applicant would reserve and deed restrict up to 49 of the Project’s units as “affordable,” in compliance with the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program.6 The FAR at Project completion (which would include both existing and new residential units and related improvements) would be 1.24.7 The Project elements, including existing uses to remain, existing uses to be demolished, and proposed uses, are summarized in Table 2-1 and further described below.
6 The City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program requires that 15 percent of the new residential units (324) be reserved as affordable units, which equates to a total of 48.6 units. The applicant would reserve and deed restrict 49 of the 324 units as “affordable” as required by the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program. 7 This calculation does not include the approximately 1.3-acre area that would be reserved and dedicated to the City for a future public park.

PROJECT
NORTH
TRUE
NORTH A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 0 7 . 3 1 . 2 0 2 0 G 1 . 0 0 GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV

LANDSCAPE
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
POOL
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV

GNV GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
POOL
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV

65.84 58.63

56.38 83.16

60.87 106
102
107
109
108

LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPE

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT
CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

DENSE VEGETATION
STEPS
STEPS

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT

ASPHALT ASPHALT
CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC. CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

CONC.

ASPHALT
CONC.

CONC.

CONC

CYPRESS POINT DRIVE

CYPRESS POINT DRIVE

MOFFETT BOULEVARD

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
APN 158-49-001

14.52± Acres
Curb
Building
6" Stucco Wall,Typ.

Curb
Curb
Curb & Gutter Driveway
Concrete Walk
HCR
HCR
Curb
HCR
Overhang Sup ort, Typ.
6" Stucco Wall,Typ.

Curb
Curb
Curb
ACRamp
Curb
Curb
6" Stucco Wall
Driveway
Conc.

Driveway
Landscaped

BUILDING A
Building (Not aPart)

BUILDING B

BUILDING C

BUILDING D

BUILDING E

BUILDING F

BUILDING G

BUILDING H

BUILDING K

BUILDING L

BUILDING M

BUILDING S

BUILDING R

BUILDING P

BUILDING N

PRO SHOP

CLUB HOUSE
GNV
Concrete Walk
Landscaped
Curb & Gutter
Asphalt
Trench Drain
Trench Drain
Trench Drain
HCR
BBQ
Lower Wall
Upper Wall
Concrete Overhang
Curb
Curb & Gutter
Driveway
Curb
Asphalt
Tennis Courts
Concrete Walk
Wal
Landscaped
Asphalt
Asphalt
Conc.

Concrete Walk
Overhang Support, Typ.

Carport Overhang, Typ
Carport Overhang, Typ
HCRCurb
Curb
Curb
6" Stucco Wall, Typ.
6" Stucco Wall, Typ.

Curb
Curb
Landscaped
Curb
Conc.

Curb
Curb
Landscaped
Landscaped
Curb & Gutter
Driveway Driveway
Brick Wall
StoneWall
Concrete Walk
Curb & Gutter
Curb
Curb & Gutter
Conc.

Conc.

Conc.

Conc.

Steps
Steps
GNV
GNV
GNV
Steps
Conc.

Picnic Table
Steps
Wall
Curb
Driveway Driveway
Concrete
BBQ
BBQ
Sign
Conc.

56.6 57.3

57.0 57.4

57.3 57.3

57.1 56.5

57.4 57.4

58.3 58.3

59.8 59.6

60.3 58.6

59.2 58.2

58.7 58.7

56.8 59.7

59.3 57.3

60.2 63.6

62.9 63.7

64.3 64.1

63.7 63.3

64.2 63.2

63.4 63.3

63.2 62.7

63.2 63.3

62.8 64.4

62.4 60.6

60.8 60.9

58.7 58.9

55.6 55.7

56.7 56.6

56.9 57.1

57.2 57.1

57.4 57.4

57.7 57.9

57.9 57.7

58.2 58.5

58.5 58.2

68.9 69.3

71.1 71.5

73.1 73.7

75.1 75.7

76.8 77.4

78.4 62.7

66.8 67.2

61.4 61.4

61.5 63.2

64.8 65.2

64.1 62.7

59.1 59.8

59.8 59.1

60.6 60.8

61.7 62.1

63.4 62.8

62.3 62.7

55.7 56.6

57.3 57.3

57.3 57.7

57.9 58.1

57.4 57.5

57.4 58.5

57.5 59.1

59.3 59.9

59.4 59.9

57.4 57.7

58.1 57.8

57.6 59.3

59.7 59.9

60.2 60.4

58.6 59.5

59.7 60.9

61.2 62.6

63.5 63.9

64.2 63.5

63.9 63.7

64.4 64.2

64.3 63.6

64.1 64.4

62.8 63.5

64.1 64.4

64.6 65.4

63.3 63.5

63.6 64.2

64.2 64.0

64.9 63.5

64.3 64.2

63.9 64.8

63.9 64.7

65.3 79.1

79.7 80.2

80.9 81.4

81.6 82.2

82.2 82.6

63.4 65.1

64.5 64.8

65.1 64.9

64.9 64.4

64.5 65.2

64.9 65.1

65.6 66.1

65.6 65.4

65.8 65.9

63.9 64.7

64.7 64.5

65.3 65.1

82.9 82.4

82.6 83.1

63.2 63.9

64.5 69.7

70.2 70.6

64.9 64.9

65.6 66.6

67.8 68.4

69.1 67.1

60.3 63.1

62.1 62.2

62.1 62.1

62.4 62.3

62.6 62.8

63.1 62.1

62.1 62.1

61.4 62.1

62.5 62.2

63.5 60.1

58.5 57.6

58.2 57.2

61.4 61.3

63.2 63.2

67.6 67.3

62.4 62.1

62.1 67.7

67.4 67.2

67.2 67.8

67.5 67.3

67.4 67.5

67.4 67.8

67.5 57.7

67.7 58.8

57.2 56.2

55.8 56.1

56.4 56.1

56.1 56.3

55.9 65.2

56.6 57.3

57.1 57.5

57.4 56.5

57.1 56.8

56.7 56.5

56.6 57.1

58.3 56.9

57.4 57.3

56.5 56.2

55.1 55.5

57.1 57.9

64.5 65.4

61.5 57.3

63.3 57.5
GNV

DENSEVEGETATION

DENSEVEGETATION

DENSE VEGETATION

DENSEVEGETATION

64.9 64.5

65.6 65.2

66.4 66.8

67.4 66.6

67.1 65.2

81.2 74.2

72.2 70.6

72.0 70.6

71.1 73.3

64.7 64.1

63.0 62.45

63.2 63.8

64.3 66.1

65.9 64.4

64.2 65.5

65.5 63.9
earth berm
earthberm
earthberm
GNV
GNV

62.54 Conc.

Conc.

61.21 Conc.
4"PVC
Xfmr
GNV
GNV
Asphalt
GNV
Conc.

Asphalt
APN 158-49-001

14.52± Acres
Driveway Driveway
DrivewayDriveway
Driveway
Driveway
Driveway
Building
Building
Building
Building
Building
Building
Building
Building
Garage
Garage
Carport
Carport
Carport
Carport
Carport
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
GNV
Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk
Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk
Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk
Curb & Gutter
Concrete Sidewalk
Landscape

65.59tc

67.03tc

66.55tc

66.26tc

66.09tc

65.92tc

65.75tc

66.77tc

67.20tc

66.94tc

66.74tc

66.52tc

66.46tc

66.41tc

66.49tc

66.33tc

66.29tc

66.10tc

65.94tc

65.90tc

65.80tc

65.41tc
Curb Curb
9' X 18' 9' X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" DN
8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 9' X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 9' X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" 8'-6" X 18' 0" EVCS
8'-6" X 18' 0"
EVCS
8'-6" X 18' 0"
EVCS
VAN
VAN
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BLOCK B AREA: ± 2.24 AC
TYPE: I/V-A
OCC: R-2
(E) BUSINESS

EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
PARK PARCEL AREA: ± 1.34 AC

LAND TO BE DEDICATED

TO THE CITY FOR A

FUTURE PARK
BLOCK A AREA: ± 1.56 AC
TYPE: I
OCC: A-3
BLOCK C AREA: ± 3.53 AC
TYPE: I/V-A
OCC: R-2
0 50 100 200
SCALE: 1" = 100' - 0"

O V E R A L L SIT E P L A N

CYPRESS POINT DRIVE

MOFFETT BOULEVARD

MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
HIGHWAY 85 (WEST VALLEY FREEWAY)
LEGEND

PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE

PROJECT BOUNDARY
7' MECHANICAL SETBACK

WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
Figure 2-3
Proposed Site Plan
555 West Middlefield Road
0 Feet
100 200
Project Site
Legend
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
Note: This plan is conceptual/illustrative and subject to change.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 2-1. Project Features
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 Spaces8
(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 0 324
Residential Area (square feet) 145,091 0 0 236,452 0 381,543 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 0 18,863
Dedication for a future public
park (acres)9
0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3
Vehicle Parking Spaces 171 363 0 425 0 959
Total Uses (Including Existing Uses to Remain plus Proposed Uses) Residential Units 111 0 402 213 0 726
Residential Area (square feet) 145,091 0 310,263 236,452 0 691,806 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 0 18,863
Dedication for a future public
park (acres)
0 0 0 0 1.3 1.3
Vehicle Parking Spaces 171 363 28 425 0 987
Total Residential Area + Leasing/Amenity Area Uses (square feet) 713,161 Source: BDE Architecture, 2020.
8 The tennis and basketball facilities located on the parking structure on Block C would necessarily be demolished as well when the parking area is demolished. 9 The Project’s site plan incorporates an approximately 1.3-acre area that would be offered for dedication to the City. The City would then have the authority and discretion to plan and construct park improvements as it determines appropriate as part of a future planning process.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.5.1 Proposed Development and Site Plan
The description of the Project’s uses, including the summary information above and detailed information below, is based on the current plans (see Figure 2-3 for the proposed site plan).10 With the exception of a surface parking lot along West Middlefield Road at the northwest corner of the Project site, all existing surface parking would be demolished to accommodate new construction and associated below-grade parking. The existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, spa, and tennis and basketball facilities (located on the parking structure on the Park Parcel) would also be demolished. The total ground area to be disturbed by the Project would be approximately 8.7 acres.

The proposed development on Block B would include a total of 111 new residential units within a four-story, 52-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 residential units within a fourstory, 52-foot-tall building and two levels of below-grade parking (Figure 2-7). Proposed site crosssections, 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.

Vehicular access to the Project site, including to the three proposed below-grade parking garages, would continue to be provided from West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive, similar to existing conditions. These parking garages are described in further detail in Section 2.5.3, Site Access, Circulation, and Parking.

The Project would feature contemporary materials and detailing, including plaster, wood-like materials, accent walls, ledgestone, railings, and trellises. In addition, the Project would include minor exterior enhancements to the existing residential buildings (consisting of enhanced wood-like tiles and new paint). The new residential units would complement the enhancements to the existing residential buildings. The building construction type, per the California Building Code, would be Type I (building materials used would be noncombustible materials (e.g., steel, reinforced concrete) for the concrete garages and Type V (structural elements, exterior walls, and interior walls are of any material permitted by the California Building Code) for the wood frame buildings. 10 These plans will be subject to minor refinements as they are reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the Environmental Planning Commission (EPC) and ultimately considered by the City Council.

2.CURRENTPERSPECTIVE
Figure 2-4
Illustrative View of Proposed Block B from Moffett Boulevard 555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20 JC

2.CURRENTPERSPECTIVE
Figure 2-5
Illustrative View of Proposed Block A from West Middlefield Road 555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
TIVE2.PROPOSEDPERSPECTIVE
Figure 2-6
Illustrative View of Existing On-Site Buildings aft Exterior Enhancements 555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
A
VALON/[email protected]

PERSPECTIVEVIEW-CYPRESSPOINTDRIVE

CURRENTPERSPECTIVE
Figure 2-7
Illustrative View of Proposed Block C from Cypress Point Drive 555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
P.L.

P.L.
-10'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B1
3'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 1
13'-4"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 2
23'-8"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 3
34'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 4
46'-0"
T.O. PLATE
49'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
0'-0" (+61.5')
T.O. GRADE
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
COR. UNIT
COR.

COR.

COR.

PARKING
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
COR.

COR.

COR.

COR.
6" CURB
P.L.
-10'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B1
3'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 1
13'-4"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 2
23'-8"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 3
34'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 4
46'-0"
T.O. PLATE
49'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
0'-0" (+61.5')
T.O. GRADE
UNIT
UNIT

UNIT UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

UNIT UNIT
UNIT
UNIT

UNIT UNIT

UNIT UNIT

UNIT UNIT
UNIT

STORAGE STAIR

LEASING LOUNGE/ AMENITIES

UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

PARKING
UNIT
STAIR
UP DN
DN UP
F
F F
F
F
F
F
UP DN
F

1.01 1.01
F
F
F
1 -
2 -
SECTION 1
SECTION 2
A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 0 7 . 3 1 . 2 0 2 0 A 6 . 0 1

B L O C K B B UIL D I N G S E C TIO N
Figure 2-8a
Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block B)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
-20'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B2
-10'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B1
0'-0" (+61.5')
T.O. GRADE
15'-2"
T.O. ROOF
21'-2"
T.O. UPPER
ROOF
-30'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B3

PARKING
CHILL

LOUNGE FITNESS

PARKING

PARKING
DN
8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6"

1.01 1.01

1.01 9'X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 9 X' 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" EVCS
8'-6" X 18' 6"

EVCS EVCS
DN
DN

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01
1 -
SECTION 1
A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 0 7 . 3 1 . 2 0 2 0 A 6 . 0 2

B U IL D I N G A B U IL D IN G S E C TIO N
-20'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B2
-10'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B1
0'-0" (+61.5')
T.O. GRADE
15'-2"
T.O. ROOF
21'-2"
T.O. UPPER
ROOF
-30'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B3

PARKING
CHILL

LOUNGE FITNESS

PARKING

PARKING
DN
8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6"

1.01 1.01

1.01 9'X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 9 X' 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" EVCS
8'-6" X 18' 6"

EVCS EVCS
DN
DN

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01
1 -
SECTION 1

PARKING
CHILL

LOUNGE FITNESS

PARKING

PARKING
DN
8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6"

1.01 1.01

1.01 9'X 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 9 X' 18' 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" 8'-6" X 18' 6" EVCS
8'-6" X 18' 6"

EVCS EVCS
DN
DN

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01

1.01 1.01
1 -
SECTIO

FITNESS CO-WORKING SPACE BOH
Figure 2-8b
Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block A)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
summary plans exterior units interiors landscape
A
34 $YDORQ0LGGOHÀHOG
Mountain View, California
MIC Design Review
07 September 2017 LOT 3: AVA BUILDING SECTIONS
-20'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B2
-10'-6"
T.O. SLAB
B1
3'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 1
13'-4"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 2
23'-8"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 3
34'-0"
T.O. SLAB
FLOOR 4
46'-0"
T.O. PLATE
49'-6"
T.O. PARAPET
0'-0" (+61.5')
T.O. GRADE
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
STAIR ELEV.

LOBBY/

AMENITY

ROOFTOP DECK
ELEV.

LOBBY
ELEV.

LOBBY

PARKING PACKAGE MAIL
RAMP

PARKING

PARKING

PARKING
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
UNIT
BIKE

STORAGE

BIKE STORAGE
SECTION 1
UP
DN

DN UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUP
1 -
A V A L O N / A V A @ M I D D L E F I E L D 0 7 . 3 1 . 2 0 2 0 A 6 . 0 3

B L O C K C B UIL D I N G S E C TIO N
Figure 2-8c
Proposed Site Cross-Section (Proposed Block C)
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Approximately 1.3 acres of land on the proposed Park Parcel along Cypress Point Drive would be offered for dedication to the City for use as a future public park space. The specific, potential future park improvements are not known at this time and would be determined by the City as part of a future planning process. Site-specific environmental review of the ultimate park improvements will be conducted at a later time, as may be required under CEQA, once the specifics of the park facilities are determined by the City. However, for purposes of a conservative analysis and because the Project developer would be required to grade and stub utility lines to the Park Parcel prior to offering it to the City for dedication, this draft EIR evaluates the potential impacts related thereto in the relevant environmental topic areas.

Approximately 10 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) employees would work at the Project site upon completion and occupancy of the new buildings, for a total of approximately 20 FTE employees (including the existing 10 FTE employees) at the Project site.

2.5.2 General Plan Amendment
To implement the Project, the applicant proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to a new land use designation referred to as the HighLow Density Residential; the Project would retain the existing Planned Community (“P”) zoning. The High-Low Density Residential designation would be a new designation that allows for multi-family housing such as apartments and condominiums with shared open space provided for common use, close to transit, shopping and public facilities. The allowed land uses under the High-Low Density Residential designation would be multi-family residential, parks, and open space. The allowable density under the High-Low Density Residential designation would be 36–50 dwelling units/acre, approximately 75-105 residents/acre. The height limit under the High-Low Density Residential would be is up to 5 stories. This new High-Low Density Residential designation would only apply to the Project site.

In addition, the existing High-Density Residential designation in the General Plan would be revised.

The allowable density under the High-Density Residential designation would be revised from 35-80 dwelling units/acre, equating to approximately 75-170 residents/acre, to 50-80 dwelling units/acre, equating to approximately 105-170 residents/acre.

Furthermore, a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium Purposes and Development Review Permit to allow construction of 324 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.

2.5.3 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
As shown in Figure 2-3, vehicular access to the Project site would continue to be provided from West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive, similar to existing conditions. The Project would include three entrances to the three proposed below-grade garages. Access to the Block B belowgrade garage would be provided along Cypress Point Drive in the southeastern portion of Block B.

Access to the Block A below-grade garage would be provided along West Middlefield Road in the center portion of the Project site. Access to the Block C below-grade garage would be provided along Cypress Point Drive in the southwestern portion of Block C.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The Project would include a total of approximately 987 vehicle parking spaces, consisting of approximately 159 spaces in the below-grade garage and approximately 12 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 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.

The Project would also include a total of approximately 334 bicycle parking spaces for the new residential dwelling units and 33 public short-term bicycle parking spaces, in accordance with applicable Green Code building requirements. The proposed building on Block B would include bicycle parking space in each building level, including the below-grade garage. The proposed residential building on Block C would include bicycle parking in each building level, except the below-grade garage.

The existing bicycle and pedestrian paths throughout the Project site would be retained. In addition, a new pedestrian and bicycle path, approximately 580 feet in length, would be constructed through the Project site between Block B and the Park Parcel that would connect West Middlefield Road to Cypress Point Drive. Signage and wayfinding would be provided at the entrances to the parking garages, both on West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive. Signage and lighting would also be included at the site entrances, walkways, and the new pedestrian and bicycle path.

Emergency access would be provided at West Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, and Cypress Point Drive. Emergency vehicles would be able to access the Project site at one location on West Middlefield Road, two locations on Moffett Boulevard, and seven locations on Cypress Point Drive.

One emergency vehicle access driveway has been added at the end of Cypress Point Drive to allow emergency access along SR 85’s building frontage (see Figure 2-3, which shows the proposed access points). Additional fire hydrants would be installed at the Project site.

The Project would include one new loading area for Block B, one new loading area for Block A, and one new loading area for Block C.

2.5.4 Amenities
The Project proposes a number of amenities, both for new and existing residents and the general public (in the form of future City-owned park space), as shown in Figure 2-9. In terms of on-site open space, including the existing 56,914 square feet of common open space that would remain in the areas containing the existing residential units, there would be a total of approximately 145,474 square feet of common usable open space and a total of approximately 18,863 square feet of private open space upon Project completion.

Cypress Point Dr

07.31.2020
0 25 50 100 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
Proposed Landscape Plan
555 West Middlefield Road
BDE Architecture, 2020.

ICF Graphics…00214.20 (10-20-20) JC
City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The Project would include a new leasing office and amenities building in the new residential building on Block B, at the corner of Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive. The amenities building on Block B would include a fitness center, co-working lounge, and roof terrace. The existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa on Block A would be demolished and replaced with an approximately 9,250-square-foot leasing office and amenity building and outdoor amenities.

The amenities on Block A are anticipated to include a fitness center, co-working space, and large outdoor courtyard featuring a pool, spa, barbeque grills, dining areas, and a fire feature. The amenities on Block C are anticipated to include trees and other landscaping as well as barbeque grills, outdoor seating/dining areas, and pet walking areas. 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 2020). In addition, as noted above, the Park Parcel, which consists of approximately 1.3 acres of land along Cypress Point Drive on the Park Parcel would be offered for dedication to the City for use as a future public park space. The specific park uses and facilities are not known at this time, and would be determined in the future by the City, in its discretion, with input from the public as part of a separate planning process. The future public park space would be available for use by the general public as well as residents and guests of the Project as a public improvement. Prior to offering the Park Parcel for dedication, the Project developer would grade the land in a manner suitable for the future public park uses, which would then be designed, approved, and implemented by the City in its discretion.

2.5.5 Landscaping and Heritage Trees
The Project includes a landscape plan to compensate for the removal of existing trees and vegetation to enhance the development. Figure 2-9 shows the proposed landscaping elements for the Project.

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).

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. 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.

Proposed streetscape improvements include a combination of newly planted trees and transplanted existing trees. Shrubs and groundcover would surround the building frontages up to the streetscape.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-23 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.5.6 Utilities and Stormwater Quality Management
Given the infill, already developed nature of the Project site, the Project would connect to existing City utilities, as described further below. All existing water, sewer, and storm drain services to the site would be abandoned by phase per applicable City standards, except for the existing 4-inch water lateral from Cypress Point Drive and the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral to West Middlefield Road, both of which would remain. All new utilities would maintain standard City horizontal clearance from trees (5 feet for water utilities and 10 feet for sewer utilities).

2.5.6.1 Water
New water utilities would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site and throughout the Project site. A new water service line for Block B would be provided and connect to the existing 8- inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. In addition, the existing 8-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive would be upsized into a 12-inch water main to meet the requirements of the Project. The existing residential uses would continue to be served by an existing on-site water distribution system, which is supplied by two connections to the City water main. Of these two connections, the existing 4-inch water service line that connects to the existing 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive would remain, and the existing water service line that connects to the existing 12-inch water main in West Middlefield Road would be removed and replaced. A new water service line for Block A would be provided and connect to the existing 12-inch water main in West Middlefield Road. A new water service line for Block C would be provided and connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive. A new 1-inch water service line and meter for both domestic water and irrigation for the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the park property line and connect to the existing 12-inch water main in Cypress Point Drive.

2.5.6.2 Wastewater
New sanitary sewer infrastructure would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. New sanitary sewer lines for Block B would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer mains in Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive. The sewer laterals to the City main servicing the existing residential uses would be removed and relocated to facilitate construction of Blocks B and A, with the exception of the existing 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral to West Middlefield Road, which would remain. New sanitary sewer lines for Block C would connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main in Cypress Point Drive. A new 6-inch sanitary sewer lateral for the Park Parcel would be stubbed to the park property line and connect to the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer mains in Cypress Point Drive.

2.5.6.3 Stormwater
New stormwater drains would be placed around the perimeter of the Project site. The stormwater generated from Block B would drain to the existing 60-inch storm drain on Moffett Boulevard and the City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Based on a preliminary review of the City’s infrastructure planning documents, it is anticipated that the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive may need to be increased in size to accommodate the Project and ensure it is adequately sized to meet the applicable City hydraulic design criteria. The ultimate size of the upgraded storm drain would be confirmed during the final design/improvement plan phase and required to satisfy all applicable performance standards and criteria. If it is determined that the anticipated upgrades to the existing storm drain in Cypress Point Drive would be necessary to accommodate existing flows City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-24 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
to the storm drain from both the public right-of-way and the tributary private properties, as well as the Project, then an appropriate fee credit and/or reimbursement, beyond the Project’s pro rata contribution, may be appropriate, in accordance with applicable City procedures and requirements.

Stormwater from Block A would drain to the existing 18-inch City storm drain in West Middlefield Road by removing and replacing the existing storm drain lateral to West Middlefield Road. New storm drain laterals for Block C would connect to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive. Stormwater from the Park Parcel would drain to the aforementioned City stormwater main in Cypress Point Drive via a 15-inch storm lateral connected to an area drain at the low end of the Park Parcel frontage.

The Project would implement a variety of stormwater management measures to reduce water quality impacts related to stormwater runoff pursuant to applicable provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Permit No. CAS612008. Stormwater runoff generated on each proposed lot within the Project site would be treated to the maximum extent feasible by implementing a mixture of low-impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) as well as a media filtration system that complies with applicable provisions of Chapter 6 of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Handbook.

2.5.6.4 Dry Utilities
Blocks B, A, and C, and the areas containing the existing residential units would be connected to the existing PG&E electrical system and furnished with dedicated sub-surface transformers for all new building services and new pad-mounted transformers, replacing existing pad-mounted transformers, for all existing buildings to remain. All new transformers located along public streets or frontages would be placed in sub-surface vaults. The existing overhead electrical system at Moffett Boulevard along the Project site frontage would be placed underground in a joint trench with aerial connections at the riser poles at both ends of the overhead conversion. The Project would include three dedicated gas connections, including one at Moffett Boulevard for Block B, one at West Middlefield Road for Block A, and one at Cypress Point Drive for Block C.

2.5.7 Sustainable Design Features, Energy Efficiency
Measures, and Transportation Demand Management
Features
The applicant intends to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials, low-flow plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, drought-tolerant landscaping, low-flow irrigation systems, landscape bio-filtration planters for stormwater management, a highly efficient building envelope that mitigates solar heat gain, light-colored surfaces, and/or the installation of all new parking below grade (which reduces heat island effect).

In addition, 10 percent of the proposed total vehicle parking spaces would be designated for electric vehicles, with power outlets for recharging.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-25 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The Project proposes the following TDM features, which are anticipated to reduce peak-hour traffic by approximately 6 percent for both the existing and new residential units:
⚫ On-site carshare spaces
⚫ Secure bicycle parking
⚫ Bicycle repair stations
⚫ Convenient delivery storage space
⚫ Site enhancements to encourage walking to facilities on-site and nearby ⚫ Parking supply reduction
⚫ Real-time transit information screens
⚫ Collaborative workspace
⚫ TDM coordinator
⚫ Affordable housing

2.6 Construction
As discussed above, with the exception of a small area along West Middlefield Road at the northwest corner of the Project site, all existing surface parking (as well as the tennis and basketball facilities located thereon) would be demolished to accommodate new construction and associated belowgrade parking. The existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa would also be demolished. In total, excavation for the proposed below-grade parking would result in approximately 156,000 cubic yards of off-haul material from Blocks B, A, and C. In addition, grading of the Park Parcel would result in approximately 4,000 cubic yards of off-haul material. The total ground area to be disturbed by the Project would be approximately 8.7 acres.

Construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting approximately 64 months. The Project would be constructed in phases to ensure that no existing residents are displaced, to ensure there is adequate on-site parking throughout Project construction, and to otherwise minimize impacts on existing residents to the extent feasible. In addition, the number of vehicle parking spaces that would be available during construction would vary by the phase of construction and would depend on which parking areas have been demolished or constructed. The Project would be phased such that applicable parking ratios would be maintained throughout construction of the Project.

The Project would include the following construction phases: (1) demolition, (2) excavation and shoring, (3) foundations, (4) garages, (5) wood framing, (6) roofing, (7) exterior finishes, (8) interior finishes, and (9) delivery of spaces/units. First, the tennis and basketball facilities and parking structure on the Park Parcel would be demolished and the land would be graded (approximately 3 months). Then, the existing leasing office11 and amenity building, pool, and spa would be demolished and the proposed new leasing office and amenity building, outdoor amenities, and below-grade parking garage on Block A would be constructed (approximately 15 months). Next, following 11 The existing leasing office would be relocated temporarily to a trailer, to be located in the surface parking lot south of Block A.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-26 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
occupancy of Block A, the existing surface parking lot on proposed Block B would be demolished and the proposed new building and below-grade parking garage on Block B would be constructed (approximately 21 months). Then, the existing surface parking lot on Block C would be demolished and the proposed new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C would be constructed (approximately 25 months). While the new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C are being constructed, the proposed minor enhancements to the exterior of existing residential buildings would also be made.

The following is a brief description of the anticipated construction methods. Additional available detail regarding construction (equipment, workers, hours, etc.) is provided as needed in the technical analyses in Chapter 3, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

2.6.1 Demolition and Excavation
Areas proposed for demolition are described above. Before beginning demolition activities at the site, a comprehensive building materials survey would be performed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations to check for asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and fluorescent tubes containing mercury vapors. If found, construction worker health and safety regulations, as well as material removal and disposal regulations, would be implemented in accordance with applicable federal, state, and regional standards and requirements, including California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.

Construction of the below-grade parking garages and their foundations would require excavation of soils. The Project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet below ground surface. Excavation would result in the export of approximately 160,000 cubic yards of soil.

Demolition activities would generate approximately 30,513 cubic yards of demolished materials, trees, concrete, and asphalt. Of the demolished materials, approximately 79 percent would be recycled, according to the applicant and consistent with applicable requirements and standards.

Demolition debris and removed trees would be transported to Zanker Disposal and Recycling in San José. Demolished concrete and asphalt would be transported to Stevens Creek Quarry in Cupertino.

Demolished materials from grading and paving activities would be transported to the Newby Island Landfill in Milpitas, and materials from garage excavation and miscellaneous grading activities would be transported to either Newby Island Landfill or Dumbarton Quarry. The haul route (used by end dump trucks) to either Zanker Disposal and Recycling or Newby Island Landfill is anticipated to include heading southeast on West Middlefield Road and taking SR 237 east to either Zanker Road or Interstate (I) 880 northbound. The haul route to Stevens Creek Quarry in Cupertino would involve traveling south on SR 85 to Foothill Expressway. The haul route to Dumbarton Quarry would involve either heading southeast on West Middlefield Road and taking SR 237 east to I-880 northbound, or traveling US 101 northbound and then crossing the Dumbarton Bridge. The haul route for trucks returning to the Project site would be in the opposite direction.

Trenching and temporary lane closures would be required during construction along West Middlefield Road, Cypress Point Drive, and Moffett Boulevard for water, sewer, and storm drain utility connections.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-27 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

2.6.2 Construction Security and Staging
On-site construction activities would be contained with a chain-link fence around each phase as it is constructed. Construction materials and equipment would be consistent with standard construction staging practices and are anticipated to be located 1) on the Park Parcel, if permitted by the City, or 2) on-site in areas that are not under construction and/or potentially temporarily utilizing adjacent street frontages, subject to the City’s approval of any required encroachment permit.

2.6.3 Construction Hours and Trucks
Project construction would be required to comply with Section 8.70.1 of the City of Mountain View Municipal Code, which includes regulations related to noise generated by construction. It stipulates that no construction activity would commence prior to 7:00 a.m. or continue later than 6:00 p.m.

Monday through Friday. Additionally, no noise-generating construction work shall be permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays unless prior written approval is granted by the Chief Building Official.

In addition, during Project construction, haul and vendor trucks that travel along Cypress Point Drive would be limited to speeds of 15 miles per hour along Cypress Point Drive, would be prohibited from parking heavy trucks on neighborhood streets, and would minimize idling times on and near the Project site by shutting off equipment when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, Title 13, Section 2485 of the CCR).

2.7 Required Permits and Approvals
As the Lead Agency and as appropriate under CEQA, the City also intends this EIR to serve as the CEQA-required environmental documentation for consideration of this Project by other Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies that may have discretionary authority over certain aspects of the Project. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the term “Responsible Agency” includes all public agencies, other than the Lead Agency, that have discretionary approval power over aspects of the Project for which the Lead Agency has prepared an EIR (Section 15381); the term “Trustee Agency” means a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Project that are held in trust by the people of California (Section 15386).

Discretionary and Ministerial permits and approvals from the Lead Agency, Responsible Agencies, and Trustee Agencies for the Project may include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 2-2.

City of Mountain View Chapter 2. Project Description
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 2-28 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 2-2. Anticipated Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit/Review Required
City of Mountain View Discretionary Approvals:

General Plan Amendment to High-Low Density Residential
(new designation)
General Plan Amendment to High-Density Residential
Designation
Approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for Condominium
Purposes
Approval of a Planned Community Permit
Approval of a Development Review Permit
Heritage Tree Removal Permit
Site and Architectural Plan Review
Ministerial Approvals:
⚫ Approval of a Demolition Permit
⚫ Approval of a Grading Permit
⚫ Approval of a Building Permit
⚫ Approval of Offsite Improvement Plans
⚫ Public Works Approval for Work within the Right of Way (Encroachment Permit)
Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH)
Review and permits may be required if wells or soil borings are required (for environmental cleanup, for example), or if abandoned wells or septic tanks are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the Project
San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity
Notice of Intent for construction activities
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for on-site stormwater management and pollution prevention
Department of Transportation
(Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit
Airport Land Use Commission Consistency Determination
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 3
Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
This chapter provides environmental analyses of the physical impacts to the environment that could occur as a result of implementing the 555 West Middlefield Road Project (Project). There is a separate section for each resource analyzed, as listed below. Each section presents a description of the environmental and regulatory setting for that resource, the significance criteria and methodology used in the impact analysis, and the potential impacts requiring mitigation measures.

This chapter comprises the following sections:
• 3.1, Aesthetics
• 3.2, Air Quality
• 3.3, Biological Resources
• 3.4, Cultural Resources
• 3.5, Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
• 3.6, Energy
• 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
• 3.10, Land Use and Planning
• 3.11, Noise
• 3.12, Population and Housing
• 3.13, Public Services and Recreation
• 3.14, Transportation and Circulation
• 3.15, Tribal Cultural Resources
• 3.16, Utilities and Service Systems
In December 2015, the California Supreme Court found that “CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act] generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents,” unless the project “could exacerbate hazards that are already present.” The California Supreme Court identified several exceptions to this general rule in which CEQA could apply to impacts of the environment on a project, all of which are statutory provisions in CEQA that specifically require consideration of impacts of the environment, such as consideration of projects near airports, school construction projects, and statutory exemptions for housing and transit priority projects (California Building Industry Assoc. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal. 4th 369). None of these exceptions apply to the Project; as such, this draft EIR does not draw significance conclusions for those topics for which the environment could have an effect on the Project.

City of Mountain View Chapter 3. Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
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 units, from 329 to 324 based on input received during Environmental Planning Commission and City Council study sessions. Thus, the proposed Project is up to 324 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 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 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 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.

Project development characteristics are typically compared to the existing physical environment to isolate impacts caused by the project on its surroundings. In other words, the existing condition (also referred to as the environmental setting) is normally the baseline against which the project’s impacts are measured to determine whether impacts are significant. Therefore, the Environmental Setting subsection of each topic describes existing conditions on and around the Project site. In some circumstances, however, it is appropriate to use a different baseline to identify a project’s impacts to account for circumstances that can change over time during the course of environmental review.

The baseline conditions for the analysis in this draft EIR represent existing conditions as of 2020 and 2021 with the exception of transportation and noise. The transportation and noise analyses represent existing conditions as of 2019, which was before the COVID-19 pandemic substantially altered traffic patterns. Traffic counts were taken in May 2019 and noise measurements were taken in February 2018 before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for the transportation or noise analyses. Instead, to establish an existing condition that is representative of anticipated post-pandemic conditions in which the Project is expected to be constructed and operated, the transportation and noise analyses used data collected before the onset of the COVID19 pandemic to provide a more accurate baseline than more recent data collected during the pandemic. This approach enables analysis of an observed real-world condition and no major developments have since been completed in the vicinity of the Project site that would substantially affect traffic patterns or noise.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.1 Aesthetics

3.1.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for aesthetics. It also describes impacts on aesthetics that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.1.4.4, Summary of Aesthetics Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include the removal of Heritage Trees, visual impacts for motorists along State Route (SR) 85, and the building height and overall massing.

Aesthetics, or visual resources, are generally defined as the natural and built features of the landscape that can be seen. Natural landscape features are the combined landform, water, and vegetation patterns that define an area’s visual character. Built features are those elements in the landscape that reflect human or cultural modifications, such as buildings, roads, utility structures, and ornamental plantings. These natural landscape and built features, which, together, represent the aesthetic or visual resources of the area, contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, aesthetic impacts may occur.

The Project site and surrounding area comprise built features but no natural landscape features, although there is manicured landscaping on the site and in the surrounding area.

3.1.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to aesthetics on the Project site and in the surrounding area.

3.1.2.1 Regional Character
Mountain View is a 12-square-mile municipality situated approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles north of San José. The City, which is named for its vista of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, is at the southern end of the San Francisco Peninsula (Peninsula), in the area where it meets the Santa Clara Valley. Mountain View is one of more than a dozen cities on the flatter portions of the western margin of San Francisco Bay (Bay), east of the San Andreas Fault Zone. The City is bordered by the Bay on the north, Palo Alto on the northwest, Los Altos on the south/southwest, and Sunnyvale to the east.

The Bay and its natural features are key visual components in the eastern and northern portions of the City. However, the principal topographic feature is the Santa Cruz mountain range, which runs the length of the Peninsula and forms a barrier between the Pacific Ocean and the Bay. The mountain range is visible from the majority of Mountain View and adjacent cities.

Urban development within the region is largely concentrated between the Bay and the Interstate 280 (I-280) corridor. In general, the Peninsula is developed with low-density uses within distinct neighborhoods that include commercial, retail, and residential uses. Larger-scale development, such City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
as office parks and industrial buildings, tend to be located between the Bay and US 101. Some highrise office, apartment, and hospital buildings are located between US 101 and I-280; however, these buildings are concentrated mainly along the US 101 and El Camino Real corridors.

The Mountain View Parks Division is responsible for protecting and maintaining the 35 urban parks found throughout the City as well as 5 miles of public bicycle and pedestrian trails along Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, and the Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way.

3.1.2.2 Project Vicinity
The approximately 14.5-acre Project site is in a largely residential area within the central portion of the City. The Project site is just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard and bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, SR 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west. Immediately surrounding properties consist of multifamily residential and commercial uses, including a gas station to the north on the corner of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard. The Project site is situated approximately 1.1 miles north of SR 82 (El Camino Real), 0.6 mile south of US 101, and immediately west of SR 85.

North of the Project site, across West Middlefield Road, are medium-density multi-family residential units at the Willow Park complex. These buildings are mainly one or two stories and surrounded by surface parking and ornamental landscaping. Setbacks, dense perimeter vegetation, and fencing limit views of these buildings from the surrounding streets and public areas. An approximately 17-acre area of federally owned land, including open areas and some residential uses, is also in the Project vicinity, northwest of the West Middlefield Road/Moffett Boulevard intersection. This property is mainly vacant, with vast open areas of ruderal vegetation and pavement surrounded by sidewalks and dense landscaping. West Middlefield Road, which has two lanes plus a Class 2 bike lane in each direction, is directly north of the Project site. Ornamental landscaping and mature trees are growing in the center median. Sidewalks, bus stops, and cobra-style street lamps are provided on both sides of the street. Figure 3.1-1a shows West Middlefield Road, facing east, with the existing buildings at the Project site to the south and the perimeter fencing of the Willow Park complex to the north.

Adjacent to the northeast corner of the Project site, Middlefield Road traverses SR 85 via an overpass.

SR 85, a state highway, is directly east of the Project site. This route bisects the City in a north/south direction, connecting US 101 and I-280. The segment of SR 85 immediately adjacent to the Project site provides three lanes in each direction.

Views of the Project site from SR 85 are entirely blocked by dense landscaping, mature trees, and a soundwall; no existing on-site features are visible from the state highway. Figure 3.1-1b depicts the view from the easternmost portion of the Project site, facing the dense landscaping in front of the SR 85 soundwall.

Cypress Point Drive is south of the Project site. The two-way unmarked street features sidewalks and parallel street parking on both sides. To the south are two multi-family residential properties (Cypress Point Lakes and Cypress Point Woods) and an office building. The multi-family complexes feature twoor three-story buildings, which are surrounded by artificial lakes, streams, mature trees, highly manicured landscaping, pools, tennis courts, and clubhouses. The office building at the corner of Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive is two stories high, with a small vegetated buffer along Moffett Boulevard and a surface parking lot behind the building, which is accessible from Cypress Point Drive. As shown in Figure 3.1-1c, the eastern segment of Cypress Point Drive includes a landscaped center median with mature eucalyptus trees. The street terminates at the SR 85 soundwall. a. West Middleeld Road facing east. b. Views of SR 85 soundwall facing east on Project Site. c. Cypress Point Drive facing east. d. Mo
ett Boulevard facing south.

Figure 3.1-1
Existing Conditions in the Project Vicinity
555 West Middlefield Road
ICF Graphics…00451.17 (10-24-2019)
City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Moffett Boulevard, which is west of the Project site, travels in a north/south direction. This arterial street includes two travel lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. Sidewalks, cobra-style light fixtures, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Wooden utility poles with overhead wires parallel the east side of the street. West of Moffett Boulevard is the Moffett Mobile Home Park, with one-story residential structures, surface parking, landscaping, and a swimming pool. Moffett Plaza, a shopping area, includes one-story commercial buildings, which are setback from Moffett Boulevard by an expansive surface parking lot and a narrow landscaped buffer. Figure 3.1-1d depicts Moffett Boulevard, facing south, with the Project site to the east and Moffett Plaza to the west.

Light pollution includes all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, such as glare, light trespass, sky glow, and over-lighting. Sources of light and glare are abundant in the urban environment of the Project vicinity, including streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, vehicular headlights, internal building lights, and reflective building surfaces and windows. The City may be adversely affected, not only by light pollution from development within the City but also from sky glow associated with development in surrounding cities.

3.1.2.3 Site Characteristics
The Project site currently contains 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) and approximately 7,493 square feet of leasing/amenity space, along with other related improvements. The existing on-site buildings are three stories high (40 feet). The exteriors of the buildings include mostly flat façades, with windows that face the surface parking lots. The interiors of the buildings front onto park-like landscaping features and pedestrian paths. The ground-floor units include enclosed patios, while the second- and third-story units include balconies. The center of the Project site also includes an amenity area that is surrounded by a black iron fence. This area contains a pool, spa, and a pool deck with chairs, tables, and umbrellas. The Project site also features three tennis courts and two basketball courts on a podium level above the parking area.

Existing access to the Project site is from West Middlefield Road or Cypress Point Drive. The topography of the Project site is generally flat, with a gentle slope to the north. The Project site contains paving for parking as well as pedestrian uses, amenity areas, and landscaping throughout the site. Parking is provided along the perimeter of the Project site, within surface parking spaces, several of which are covered by canopy structures with peaked roofs. In total, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located throughout the Project site.

On-site landscaping consists of a lawn, ornamental trees, and shrubs. There are 417 trees on the Project site. Of these, 255 meet the City’s criteria for Heritage Trees. In general, the on-site buildings are setback from the surrounding streets by the surface parking lots and large landscaped areas.

Significant portions of the buildings are blocked from view by trees and other vegetation.

3.1.2.4 Scenic Resources
There are no designated scenic resources in the City’s Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) (City of Mountain View 2012). In addition, no designated state scenic highways are in the City or the surrounding area. I-280 through Santa Clara County is an eligible state scenic highway but not officially designated. The only designated state scenic highway in Santa Clara County is SR 9 from the Santa Cruz county line to the Los Gatos city limits (California Department of Transportation City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
2019). The Project site is approximately 9 miles north of SR 9. Given this distance, the Project site cannot be seen from any portion of SR 9.

Because of flat topography and surrounding development, views of the Project site are limited to the immediate surrounding area. The mature trees growing on the site are the most prominent visual features on the site and visible from surrounding roadways. At its closet location, Stevens Creek Trail is approximately 300 feet east of the Project site, on the other side of SR 85; views of the Project site from Stevens Creek Trail are blocked by the highway and associated features. Similarly, although Whisman Park is less than 1,000 feet northeast of the Project site, intervening features, including SR 85 and dense vegetation, obstruct all views. Channelized views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are available when facing southwest on Moffett Boulevard, adjacent to the Project site (Figure 3.1-1d). However, because of the flat topography, intervening structures, and mature landscaping, the Santa Cruz Mountains are not visible from the Project site.

3.1.2.5 Sensitive Viewers
For purposes of evaluating aesthetic resource impacts under CEQA, sensitive viewers are generally individuals or large groups of people who view a scenic resource or area of high aesthetic quality from or within a public place. The Project site includes private sensitive viewers in the existing residential units. Motorists on adjacent streets are considered low-sensitivity viewers because they have only fleeting views, given the speeds permitted. In addition, motorists generally direct their attention to the roadway and freeway ahead rather than views from the road. Views of the Project site from adjacent streets are interspersed with views of trees along the Project site frontage. No views of the Project site are visible from public open spaces or parks.

3.1.3 Regulatory Setting

3.1.3.1 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to the preservation of aesthetic/visual resources in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal LUD-1: Open and inclusive planning process
Policy LUD 1.5: Development review process. Use the City’s development review process to ensure well-designed projects.

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

Policy LUD 6.1: Respect neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with existing neighborhood character.

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

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Goal LUD-9: Buildings that enhance the public realm and integrate with the surrounding neighborhood.

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

Policy LUD 9.3: Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces through these measures:

Applicable Measures:
 Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
 Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses.  Encourage building articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest.  Promote and regulate high-quality sign materials, colors, and designs that are compatible with site and building designs.
 Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.

Policy LUD 9.5: View preservation. Preserve significant views throughout the community.

Policy LUD 9.6: Light and glare. Minimize light and glare from new development.

Goal LUD-10: High-quality sustainable and healthful building design and development.

Policy LUD 10.2: Low-impact development. Encourage development to minimize or avoid disturbing natural resources and ecologically significant land features.

Policy LUD 10.7: Beneficial landscaping options. Promote landscaping options that conserve water, support the natural environment, and provide shade and food.

The Project site is in the Moffett/Whisman Planning Area, as designated by the General Plan. This planning area, on the east side of Mountain View, contains a mix of general industrial, commercial, and residential uses. The key policy direction for this area applicable to aesthetics includes:

Preserve neighborhood character. Development will provide appropriate transitions to surrounding lower-intensity residential areas.

3.1.4 Impact Analysis

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

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

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3. If a project is in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (The portion of this threshold dealing with “non-urbanized” areas is not evaluated herein since the Project site and vicinity are considered an “urbanized” area for purposes of evaluating the Project’s significant impacts related to this threshold.)

4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

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

Impacts on Scenic Vistas. For the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a prominent landscape feature (e.g., a mountain range, lake, coastline) or a significant historic or architectural feature (e.g., views of a historic building). A scenic vista is a location that offers a high-quality, harmonious, and visually interesting view. The Project would result in additional height, bulk, and massing from the proposed buildings, which would interrupt existing off-site views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. However, no areas that are considered scenic vistas would be affected by the proposed development (City of Mountain View 2012). The City does not have any officially designated scenic vistas; therefore, the Project would result in no impact on a scenic vista. This topic is not evaluated further.

Impacts on Scenic Resources within a State Scenic Highway. The Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. As discussed above, the closest state scenic highway is SR 9, which is approximately 9 miles south of the Project site. I-280, which is approximately 4 miles south of the Project site, is designated as an eligible state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2019). The Project site cannot be seen from any portion of SR 9 or I-280. Therefore, although the Project would remove trees, no impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor would occur. This topic is not evaluated further.

3.1.4.2 Methods
Identifying the Project area’s visual character or quality involves the following steps:
• Identify applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. • Identify the visual features (visual resources) of the landscape. • Assess the character and quality of the visual features relative to the surrounding area. • Determine viewer sensitivity (i.e., importance of the view to people). • Identify the change to visual features and the viewer response. • Determine if the change would result in a conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

A site survey was conducted on October 3, 2019, to evaluate visual resources in the Project site and vicinity. Photographic documentation was compiled during the site survey.

3.1.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.1.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.1.4.4, Summary of Aesthetics Impacts.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact AES-1 Conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The General Plan currently designates the Project site as Medium-Density Residential, which allows for a mix of single- and multi-family housing units, with a residential character appropriate to a range of densities and a broad mix of housing types. The Project site is currently zoned “P” (Planned Community/Precise Plan). This zoning district is designed to provide uses or combinations of uses that can be appropriately developed as a planned area development; it also allows any use permitted in any other zoning district. To implement the Project, a General Plan Amendment would be required to change the land use designation from Medium-Density Residential to High-Low Density Residential.

Because the current and land use designations allow less density than that proposed under the Project, resulting in the need for a General Plan Amendment, this discussion focuses on the increase in density, height, scale, and massing at the Project site as well as the associated impacts on scenic quality. The discussion also considers various General Plan goals and policies related to the preservation of aesthetic/visual resources in Mountain View, focusing mainly on development compatibility with the existing surroundings. For a detailed analysis of each relevant General Plan goal and policy, refer to Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning. In addition, the analysis examines Project consistency with the City’s applicable Development Review Standard Conditions of Approval and other relevant and applicable standards and requirements.

Construction. Project construction would include demolition, excavation, and other construction activities on the Project site in phases over an approximately 64-month period. These activities would temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the Project site and the surrounding area. A chain link fence would contain each phase of construction and provide visual screening, as feasible. 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.

The trees on the Project site that would be retained would be protected during construction. The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-151 (effective December 15, 2020), which requires a work stop order to be issued and no construction activity to occur for 2 working days if one or more of the preserved Heritage Trees are not maintained and irrevocable damage or death occurs because of construction activity. In addition, trees within the state right-ofway along the eastern boundary of the Project site, adjacent to SR 85, would be protected during construction. Any trees within the state right-of-way that are damaged by construction activities would require replacement per the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Replacement Highway Planting Policy and guidance provided in Caltrans’ Project Development Procedures Manual, Chapter 29. Accordingly, construction would not substantially conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, resulting in less-than-significant impacts. No mitigation measures are required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Operation. As described above, the Project site comprises 402 multi-family units within 15 buildings, paving for parking and pedestrian uses, amenity areas, landscaping, and other related improvements throughout the site. The Project proposes to retain the 402 residential units to ensure no displacement of existing tenants. However, most of the surface parking areas as well as the leasing and amenity building, pool and spa, as well as the tennis/basketball courts would be demolished and replaced by up to 329 new multi-family residential units within two new buildings.

Including the existing residential units that would be retained and the proposed residential units that would be constructed, there would be 731 residential units at the Project site. In addition, a third building with below-grade parking and outdoor amenities would be constructed to replace the existing leasing office and amenity building, which would be demolished under the Project. The Project would also include two below-grade parking garages as well as common and private open spaces. Furthermore, the applicant would dedicate an approximately 1.3-acre portion of land along Cypress Point Drive (Park Parcel) to the City for a future public park space.

The Project buildings would feature contemporary materials and detailing, including plaster, woodlike materials, accent walls, ledgestone, railings, and trellises, with an overall traditional architectural style. In addition, the Project would include minor exterior enhancements to the existing residential buildings (e.g., enhanced wood-like tiles and new paint). The new residential units would complement the enhancements to the existing residential buildings. Variations in the building bays and balconies have been included in the building design to create differentiation in the building form. Architectural features along street edges would articulate the vertical and horizontal elements, as encouraged by the City’s design guidelines, thereby reducing visual impacts.

The development on proposed Block B would include a four-story, 52-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 feet) and have two levels of below-grade parking. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 52 feet, which would be greater than the height of the existing buildings, and the new buildings would add density to the area. In addition, the existing buildings are setback from the surrounding streets by vegetation and surface parking lots. 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. The proposed residential complex would incorporate landscaping, walkways, and street trees, which would provide a cohesive design and be consistent with other residential complexes within the immediate vicinity and throughout the City.

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. 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. In addition to the approximately 282 trees that would remain on the site, the Project would plant approximately 197 trees at the site, in accordance with applicable provisions of the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. As required by the City, the majority of the new trees that would be planted City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
on-site would be in the “low water use” category, in accordance with the Water Use Classifications of Landscape Species. Many of these new trees would be evergreen, allowing for year-round shade and screening of the Project site. Proposed streetscape improvements would include a combination of newly planted trees and transplanted trees. Shrubs and groundcover would surround building frontages up to the streetscape.

The principal viewer groups include motorists along West Middlefield Road, SR 85, Cypress Point Drive, Moffett Boulevard, and at the nearby residences to the north, south, and west. 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. Therefore, the proposed buildings would most likely be visible from all immediately adjacent roadways. Along Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive, the buildings would have limited setbacks but would be partially blocked by proposed landscaping and trees. The views along West Middlefield Road would not be significantly altered because the majority of the existing buildings would remain, with the exception of the leasing office. However, because of the location and height, as well as the removal of mature trees in the area, the upper levels of the proposed building on Block C could be visible from SR 85, in areas beyond the soundwall. Although the surrounding roadways are highly traveled, motorists have only fleeting views of the Project site because of the speeds permitted and the fact that drivers on these streets typically direct their attention to the road ahead rather than the views. Accordingly, these motorists are not considered sensitive viewers. The nearby residents would have moderate sensitivity; however, most views are not direct because of intervening structures, roadways, fencing, setbacks, and mature vegetation and would primarily be considered private views.

The City of Mountain View’s Planning Division has a development review process to ensure conformance with City plans, ordinances, and policies related to urban design and scenic quality.

This development review process includes review of preliminary plans by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and consideration of public input. The review, consistent with General Plan Policy LUD 1.5, would ensure that the proposed design would be consistent with applicable standards for residential development and would not adversely affect the visual quality of the area. The first DRC meeting for the Project was held on May 3, 2017. Site plans were revised by the applicant, based on the recommendations provided by the DRC. Subsequent meetings were held on July 18, 2018 and March 4, 2020. The Project design was revised in response to comments and feedback received during this process. This process is ongoing and will be finalized during the approval process for the Project.

The City’s Standard Conditions of Approval, which help the City govern scenic quality associated with development projects, outline requirements for designs and street trees. Standard Conditions of Approval PL-01 through PL-19 outline the findings of approvals, depending on which permits are required. Standard Conditions of Approval PL-07 and PL-14 apply to the Project. The DRC would consider the Project’s compliance with Standard Conditions of Approval during final review. As described in Table 3.1-1, the Project would adhere to Standard Conditions of Approval PL-07 (Development Review Permit). In addition, Standard Condition of Approval PL-14 (Heritage Tree Removal Permit) outlines requirements for the removal of Heritage Trees and mandates that the removal of such trees not visually affect the neighborhood or the remaining trees in the area.

Standard Conditions of Approval PW-53 through PW-55 (Street Trees) (see full conditions of approval below) require the installation of street trees along street frontages and describe requirements for the location and upkeep of these trees.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.1-1. Project Consistency with Development Review Standard Conditions of Approval Standard Condition of Approval Project Consistency
PL-07(A). The Project is consistent with the
general design considerations described in
Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code, the
General Plan, and any City-adopted design
guidelines.

Consistent. As discussed throughout this section and in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning
ordinance, the General Plan, and design guidelines.

PL-07(B). The architectural design of
structures, including colors, materials, and
design elements (e.g., awnings, exterior
lighting, screening of equipment, signs, etc.)
is compatible with surrounding
development.

Consistent. The Project would result in a substantial
increase in building density compared with existing
conditions. However, a Project objective is to incorporate high-quality site and building design features that are attractive and compatible with adjacent residential and commercial uses, with appropriate building height
transitions, massing, designs, and materials. In addition, landscaping would block views of some of the buildings.

PL-07(C). The location and configuration of
structures, parking, landscaping, and access
are appropriately integrated and compatible
with surrounding development, including
public streets and sidewalks and other
public property.

Consistent. The Project would feature contemporary
materials and detailing, including plaster, wood-like
materials, accent walls, ledgestone, railings, and trellises.

In addition, the Project would include minor exterior
enhancements to the existing residential buildings. The new residential units would complement the
enhancements to the existing residential buildings. This would create a presence at the street level, including
public streets, sidewalks, and other surrounding public areas. Proposed streetscape improvements include a
combination of newly planted trees and transplanted
existing trees. Shrubs and groundcover would surround
the building frontages up to the streetscape.

PL-07(D). The general landscape design
ensures visual relief, complements
structures, provides an attractive
environment, and is consistent with any
adopted landscape program for the general
area.

Consistent. The Project would include new landscaping
along the perimeter of the Project site and between each of the buildings. In addition to the approximately 282
trees that would remain, the Project would plant
approximately 197 trees at the site. The Project would
also dedicate an approximately 1.3-acre area along
Cypress Point Drive (Park Parcel) to the City for a future public park space. Therefore, the Project would ensure
visual relief, complement existing structures, and provide an attractive environment. The Project would be
consistent with adopted landscape programs for the
general area.

PL-07(E). The design and layout of the
Project will result in well-designed vehicular
and pedestrian access, circulation, and
parking.

Consistent. The Project would support pedestrian access between neighborhoods by constructing a new public
pedestrian and bicycle path that would connect Cypress
Point Drive to West Middlefield Road. The Project site
would also be accessible to vehicles from various points along West Middlefield Road and Cypress Point Drive.

Currently, large surface parking areas are visible from surrounding areas. With implementation of the Project,
the majority of on-site parking would be located in belowgrade parking garages.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Standard Condition of Approval Project Consistency
PL-14 (C). Removal of the tree(s) are based
on the nature and qualities of the tree(s) as
Heritage tree(s), including maturity,
aesthetic qualities such as its canopy, shape
and structure, majestic stature, and visual
impact on the neighborhood.

Consistent. 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. Aesthetic qualities of the remaining trees such as canopies, shapes, and stature
would be retained and the visual impact on the
neighborhood would not be substantially altered.

PL-14 (F). Removal of the tree(s) will not
adversely affect the remaining number,
species, size, and/or location of existing
trees on the site or in the general vicinity.

Consistent. Removal of the 62 heritage trees would not
adversely affect the remaining 158 heritage trees. All
trees to remain would retain the existing scenic
characteristics.

PL-14 (G). 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.

Consistent. In addition to the approximately 282 trees
that would remain on the site, the Project would plant
approximately 197 trees at the site, in accordance with applicable provisions of the City’s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. This would ensure continued
shade, noise attenuation, protection from wind and air
pollution. The remaining and replacement trees would
help maintain existing scenic quality of the area.

The Project would be compatible with surrounding uses, partially obscured by proposed landscaping and setbacks, and subject to the City’s development review process. In addition, the Project would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval. Adhering to the Planning Division’s Standard Conditions of Approval would ensure that the proposed buildings and related improvements would be integrated into the existing neighborhood and that proposed landscaping would complement existing conditions, consistent with the goals and policies in the City’s General Plan and zoning requirements. Adhering to Public Works’ Standard Conditions of Approval would require the planting of street trees, which would help screen views of the proposed buildings, as seen from surrounding streets. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PW-53: Street Trees. Install standard City street trees along the street frontage, including where there are gaps in the space of existing street trees.
• PW-54: Street Tree Location. The location of existing trees to remain, existing trees to be removed, and new street trees shall be shown on the grading, utility, and landscaping plans.

New street trees shall be planted in accordance with Detail F-1 of the Standard Provisions a minimum of 10’ from sanitary sewer lines, traffic signals, stop and yield signs, and streetlights and 5’ from water lines, fire lines, and driveways. New street tree species must be selected from the City’s official street tree list and as approved by the City’s Parks and Open Space Division per Proposed Street Tree Form available online at www.mountainview.gov/planningforms. • PW-55: Street Tree Irrigation. Street trees are to be irrigated by the property owner in accordance with Chapter 32 of the City Code.

City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact AES-2 Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. The approximately 64-month construction period would introduce construction equipment and vehicles to the area. This could create glare if sunlight is reflected off metal and glass.

However, views of the site from nearby residences to the north, south, and west are partially screened by mature trees along West Middlefield Road, Cypress Point Drive, and Moffett Boulevard as well as within the medians. Glare from construction equipment at the Project site that cannot be screened would be temporary and would not be considered substantial enough to affect daytime views because such equipment is generally not made from glare-producing materials. There would be no new sources of light during construction because, in compliance with Section 8.70.a of the City of Mountain View City Code, construction activity would take place during daylight hours since it cannot commence prior to 7:00 a.m. or continue later than 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The Project would not include nighttime construction lighting. Therefore, short-term impacts related to new sources of substantial light or glare during Project construction are expected to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. The proposed four-story buildings would be additional sources of light and glare and could adversely affect daytime and nighttime views in the area. Permanent features such as windows and reflective building surfaces would introduce new sources of glare, which could affect daytime views. Buildings would also include metal panels, metal railings, and decorative canopies.

These surfaces could be reflective. The Project would most likely include accent and security lighting at the entrances to buildings and in the open spaces/courtyards. Pedestrian-scale lights could be mounted on poles and/or installed as bollard lights. Overall, because of the height and mass of the proposed buildings, the Project would increase the amount of ambient light radiating into the night sky.

The Project would be subject to the City’s development approval process prior to submittal of construction drawings. This review and approval process includes a DRC public hearing to receive recommendations on the design as well as public hearings before the Environmental Planning Commission and City Council. As mentioned previously, DRC meetings for the Project were held in 2017, 2018, and 2020. These reviews would ensure that the proposed design, construction materials, and lighting would be consistent with the City’s community standards for residential development and would not significantly adversely affect the visual quality of the area or create a substantial new source of light or glare. Per Standard Condition of Approval PL-121 (Lighting Plan) (see full condition of approval below), a lighting plan would be required with the application for a building permit. Specifically, Standard Condition of Approval PL-121 requires the applicant to submit a lighting plan with the application for building permit that includes photometric contours, manufacturer’s specifications on the fixtures, and mounting heights. At the time of final design review, the DRC would review the lighting plan to ensure that lighting would be directed downward and would not spill over on adjacent properties or be highly visible, as required under applicable standards and guidelines. The proposed buildings would be oriented and designed in accordance with the City’s design standards to minimize glare and the use of reflective materials. Therefore, City of Mountain View Section 3.1. Aesthetics
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.1-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
impacts related to new sources of substantial light or glare during Project operation are expected to be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-121: Lighting Plan. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan with the application for building permit. This plan should include photometric contours, manufacturer’s specifications on the fixtures, and mounting heights. The design and location of outdoor lighting fixtures shall ensure there will be no glare and light spillover to surrounding properties. The lighting plan submitted with building permit drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance.

3.1.4.4 Summary of Aesthetic Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
after Mitigation
Impact AES-1: Conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact AES-2: Create a new source of substantial
light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.2 Air Quality

3.2.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for air quality. It also describes impacts on air quality that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented in Section 3.2.4.4, Summary of Air Quality Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. Applicable issues that were identified include dust suppression and releases of particulate matter.

3.2.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to air quality in the study area.

The information below is drawn from the relevant oversight agencies, which are the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Project site and vicinity are within the larger San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB); the air basin comprises the study area for the Project for purposes of evaluating air quality impacts under CEQA. Ambient air quality in the study area is affected by climatological conditions, topography, and the types and amounts of pollutants emitted. The following discussion describes relevant characteristics of the SFBAAB, notes the key pollutants of concern, summarizes existing ambient pollutant concentrations, and identifies sensitive receptors.

3.2.2.1 Climate and Atmospheric Conditions
The SFBAAB contains all of Napa, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Marin County as well as portions of Sonoma and Solano Counties (17 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 60101). The Santa Clara County portion of the SFBAAB is bounded by San Francisco Bay (Bay) to the north and mountains to the east, south, and west. Temperatures are warm on summer days and cool on summer nights; winter temperatures are fairly mild. At the northern end of the valley, mean maximum temperatures are in the low 80s during the summer and the high 50s during the winter; mean minimum temperatures range from the high 50s in the summer to the low 40s in the winter. Farther inland, where the moderating effect of the Bay is not as strong, temperature extremes are greater. For example, in San Martin, 27 miles south of Norman Y. Mineta San José International Airport, temperatures can be more than 10 degrees warmer on summer afternoons and more than 10 degrees cooler on winter nights.

Winds in the Santa Clara Valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that roughly parallels the valley's northwest–southeast axis. A north-northwesterly sea breeze flows through the valley during the afternoon and early evening, and a light south-southeasterly drainage flow occurs during the late evening and early morning. In the summer, the southern end of the valley sometimes becomes a “convergence zone” when air flowing from Monterey Bay gets channeled northward into the southern end of the valley to meet the prevailing north-northwesterly winds.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The air pollution potential of the Santa Clara Valley is high. Warm summer temperatures, stable air, and the surrounding mountains combine to promote the formation ozone. In addition to the many local sources of pollution, ozone precursors from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties are carried by prevailing winds to the Santa Clara Valley. The valley tends to channel pollutants to the southeast. In addition, on summer days with low-level inversions, ozone can be recirculated by southerly drainage flows in the late evening and early morning and the prevailing northwesterlies in the afternoon. A similar recirculation pattern occurs in the winter, affecting levels of carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM). This movement of the air up and down the valley increases the impact of the pollutants significantly.

Pollution sources are plentiful and complex in the Santa Clara Valley subregion. The Santa Clara Valley has a high concentration of industry at the northern end, in the Silicon Valley. Some of the industries there are sources of air toxics as well as criteria air pollutants. In addition, Santa Clara Valley's large population and many work-site destinations generate the highest levels of mobilesource emissions of any subregion in the SFBAAB.

3.2.2.2 Criteria and Other Air Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Pollutants
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards (discussed below) for six criteria pollutants: ozone, lead, CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and PM, which consists of PM less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Ozone is considered a regional pollutant because its precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. PM10 and PM2.5 are both regional and local pollutants. The primary criteria pollutants of concern generated by the Project are ozone precursors (reactive organic gas [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]), CO, and PM.1 BAAQMD recognizes these pollutants as the “air pollutants of greatest concern for protecting public health” (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a).

All criteria pollutants can have human health and environmental effects at certain concentrations.

The ambient air quality standards for these pollutants (see Table 3.2-2) are set to protect public health and the environment within an adequate margin of safety (Clean Air Act Section 109).

Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards.

The principal characteristics of the primary criteria pollutants generated by the Project and the possible health and environmental effects from exposure are discussed below.

Ozone, or smog, is a photochemical oxidant that forms when ROGs and NOX (both by-products of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight.
1 As discussed further below, there are also ambient air quality standards for SO2, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particulates. However, these pollutants are typically associated with industrial sources, which are not included as part of the plan. Accordingly, they are not evaluated further.

Similarly, the vast majority of NOX emissions (95 percent) generated by the combustion of fuel is in the form of nitric oxide. Accordingly, the Project would not contribute to substantial localized NO2 emissions.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Reactive organic gases are compounds that are made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms.

Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle usage is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROGs are the emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products, such as aerosols.

Nitrogen oxides serve as integral participants in the process of photochemical smog production.

The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas that is formed from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperatures and/or high pressures. NO2 is a reddish-brown gas that is formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. NOX acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens.

Ozone poses a higher risk to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma), children, older adults, and people who are active outdoor. Exposure to ozone at certain concentrations can make breathing more difficult, cause shortness of breath and coughing, inflame and damage the airways, aggregate lung diseases, increase the frequency of asthma attacks, and cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020a). The concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms in the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrement in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, the evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when the 8-hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2016). The average background level of ozone in the Bay Area is approximately 45 parts per billion (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a).

In addition to its human health effects, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage (e.g., the degradation of rubber products and other materials).

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, toxic gas that is produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. In the air quality study area, high CO levels are of greatest concern during the winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground-level temperature inversions from evening through early morning. These conditions trap pollutants near the ground, reducing the dispersion of vehicle emissions. Moreover, motor vehicles exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with the normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain. There are no ecological or environmental effects related to ambient CO (California Air Resources Board 2019a).

Particulate matter consists of finely divided solids or liquids, such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of fine particulates are now recognized—inhalable coarse particles, or PM10, and inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5. Particulate discharges into the atmosphere result primarily City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading.

Particulate pollution can be transported over long distances and may adversely affect the human respiratory system, especially for people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with a history of preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that long-term exposure to PM2.5 was associated with an increased risk of mortality, ranging from a 6 to 13 percent increased risk per 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of PM2.5 (California Air Resources Board 2010). Every 1 µg/m3reduction in PM2.5 results in a 1 percent reduction in the mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a).

Studies also show an increase of approximately 0.5 percent in overall mortality for every 10 mg/m3 increase in PM10, as measured the day before death (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005).

PM10 levels have been greatly reduced since 1990. Specifically, peak concentrations have declined by 60 percent, and annual average values have declined by 50 percent (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). Depending on the composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020b).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Although ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist for toxic air contaminants (TACs). Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or their acute or chronic health risks. For TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, CARB has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk free. Individual TACs vary greatly with respect to the risks they present. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. TACs are identified and their toxicity studied by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).

Air toxics are generated by many sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, auto body shops, and combustion sources; mobile sources, such as motor vehicles, diesel trucks, ships, and trains; and area sources, such as farms, landfills, and construction sites. The adverse health effects of TACs can be carcinogenic, short-term (acute) noncarcinogenic, and longterm (chronic) noncarcinogenic. Direct exposure to these pollutants has been shown to cause cancer and birth defects, damage the brain and nervous system, and aggravate respiratory disorders.

The primary TACs of concern associated with the Project are diesel particulate matter (DPM) and asbestos. DPM is generated by diesel-fueled engines and considered a carcinogen. Within the Bay Area, BAAQMD has found that of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are responsible for about 82 percent of the total ambient cancer risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). Shortterm exposure to DPM can cause acute irritation (e.g., eye, throat, and bronchial irritation), neurophysiological symptoms (e.g., lightheadedness and nausea), and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and phlegm). EPA has determined that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003).

Asbestos is the name given to many naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals. It has been mined for applications that require thermal insulation, chemical and thermal stability, and high tensile City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
strength. In its natural state, asbestos is found in rock or soil and known as naturally occurring asbestos, or NOA. Maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey and California Geological Survey (USGS 2011) indicate that the Project site does not have any reported historic asbestos mines, historic asbestos prospects, asbestos-bearing talc deposits, fibrous amphiboles, or ultramafic rock outcrops. However, asbestos may have been used during construction of the existing buildings on the site.

Odors
Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant and lead to considerable distress for the public. This distress often generates citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. According to BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, chemical plants, petroleum refineries, auto body shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations. BAAQMD provides recommended screening distances for citing new receptors near existing odor sources. Sources of potentially offensive odors within 2 miles of the Project site include the following:
• Pan American Collision Center, approximately 1,100 feet south of the Project site • King’s Body Shop, approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the Project site • Advanced Auto Repair Center, approximately 0.6 mile southeast of the Project site • Caliber Collision, approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the Project site • Autobahn Body and Paint, approximately 1.1 miles south of the Project site • Anchor Auto Body, approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Project site • Kuykendall’s Collision Repair, approximately 1.7 miles southeast of the Project site • Golden West Collision Center, approximately 1.8 miles southeast of the Project site • Pedro’s Auto Clinic, approximately 1.0 mile southwest of the Project site • GTS Auto, approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site • Peninsula Auto Repair, approximately 0.5 mile northwest of the Project site • Mountain View Body Shop, approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the Project site • Bedford Auto Body, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Project site • Caliber Collision, approximately 1.4 miles northwest of the Project site • United Collision Center, approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Project site • Mozart Restoration, approximately 1.6 miles northwest of the Project site • TAP Plastics Manufacturing, approximately 0.7 mile southwest of the Project site City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.2.2.3 Air Quality Conditions
CARB collects ambient air quality data from a network of air monitoring stations throughout the state. In Santa Clara County, five stations record ozone levels, three stations record PM2.5, and two stations record PM10, CO, NO2, and SO2. The closest ozone monitoring station is the San José– Jackson Street station, which is approximately 10.2 miles southeast of the Project area. Table 3.2-1 summarizes ozone, PM2.5, PM10, CO, NO2, and SO2 levels for the last 3 years with complete data available (2017–2019). As shown in Table 3.2-1, the San José–Jackson Street station has experienced violations of the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards.

Table 3.2-1. Ambient Criteria Air Pollutant Monitoring Data (2017–2019) Pollutant Standards 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.121 0.078 0.095
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.098 0.061 0.082
Number of days standard exceededa
CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 0.09 ppm) 3 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 4 0 2
NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 4 0 2
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.8 2.1 1.3
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.1 2.5 1.7
Number of days standard exceededa
NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
NAAQS 1-hour standard (> 35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 67 86 59
State second-highest 1-hour concentration (ppb) 64 82 59 Annual average concentration (ppb) * 12 10
Number of days standard exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour standard (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 69.4 115.4 75.4 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 67.3 111.6 53.6 Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 69.8 121.8 77.1 Statec second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 67.6 118.5 56.0 National annual average concentration (g/m3) 20.7 20.9 18.4 State annual average concentration (g/m3)
d 21.3 23.1 19.1
Number of days standard exceedede
NAAQS 24-hour standard (> 150 g/m3) 0 0 3
CAAQS 24-hour standard (> 50 g/m3) 19 12 12
City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Pollutant Standards 2017 2018 2019
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.7 133.9 27.6 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 46.5 130.5 27.4 Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.7 133.9 34.4 Statec second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 46.5 130.5 29.9 National annual average concentration (g/m3) 9.5 12.7 9.0 State annual average concentration (g/m3)
d * 12.9 9.1
Number of days standard exceedede
NAAQS 24-hour standard (> 35 g/m3) 6 16 0
Sources: California Air Resources Board 2020; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020c.

Notes:
ppm = parts per million
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
* = data not available
a. An exceedance is not necessarily a violation.
b. National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers, using federal reference or equivalent methods.
c. State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, an area where statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, state statistics are based on California-approved samplers. d. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria.
e. Mathematical estimate of how many days concentrations would have been measured as higher than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. Values have been rounded.

As discussed above, the ambient air quality standards represent the maximum amount of pollution that can be present in outdoor air without harmful effects on people and the environment.

Violations of the ozone and PM10 ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals, when exposed, may experience health effects, including increased incidences of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.

Attainment Status
Local monitoring data (Table 3.2-1) are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified areas for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The four designations are defined as follows:
• Nonattainment is assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question.
• Maintenance is assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. • Attainment is assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
• Unclassified is assigned to areas were data are insufficient for determining whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question.

Table 3.2-2 summarizes the attainment status of the Project vicinity with regard to the NAAQS and CAAQS.

Table 3.2-2. Federal and State Attainment Status for the Project Site Vicinity Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (O3)(8-hour standard) Marginal Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Attainment Attainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Moderate Nonattainment (2006) Nonattainment
NO2 Attainment Attainment
SO2 Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment (2008) Attainment
Sulfates (No Federal Standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (No Federal Standard) Unclassified
Visibility-Reducing Particles (No Federal Standard) Unclassified Sources: California Air Resources Board 2019b; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2020d.

Notes:

O3 = ozone
CO = carbon monoxide
PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns NO2 = nitrogen dioxide
SO2 = sulfur dioxide

3.2.2.4 Sensitive Receptors in the Study Area
The NAAQS and CAAQS apply at publicly accessible areas, regardless of whether the areas are populated. BAAQMD generally defines a sensitive receptor as a facility or land use that houses or attracts members of the population who are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of sensitive receptors include residential areas, schools, and hospitals.

For any project that includes the siting of a new source or new receptor, BAAQMD recommends an assessment of associated impacts within 1,000 feet. Sensitive receptors that are located on-site or within 1,000 feet of the Project site are shown in Table 3.2-3 and Figure 3.2-1. Due to the large number of residential uses within the vicinity of the Project site, Figure 3.2-1 identifies only off-site residential areas and does not specifically delineate each of the closest sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors are the on-site residences adjacent to proposed buildings on the site (approximately 15 feet from future Project construction areas/buildings).

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.2.3 Regulatory Setting
The agencies of direct importance to the Project for air quality are EPA, CARB, and BAAQMD. EPA has established federal air quality standards for which CARB and BAAQMD have primary implementation responsibility. CARB and BAAQMD are also responsible for ensuring that state air quality standards are met.

Table 3.2-3. Sensitive Receptors On-Site and within 1,000 Feet of the Project Site Sensitive Receptora Distance from Project Site
Yew Chung International School of Silicon Valley 470 feet northeast Creekside Park 540 feet southeast
Whisman Park 610 feet northeast
Stevens Creek Trail 270 feet east
Residences Within the Project siteb
Note:
a. The off-site sensitive receptors are separated from the Project site by SR 85 and the Stevens Creek corridor. b. There are residences north (across West Middlefield Road), south (across Cypress Point Drive), east (across SR 85), and west (across Moffett Boulevard) of the Project site. The closest sensitive receptors are the on-site residences adjacent to proposed buildings on the site (approximately 15 feet from future Project construction areas/buildings). Refer to Figure 3.2-1 for additional information regarding the locations of sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Project site.

3.2.3.1 Federal
Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted in 1963 and amended numerous times in subsequent years (1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes federal air quality standards (i.e., NAAQS) and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for local areas that fail to meet the standards. The plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met.

The 1990 amendments to the CAA identify specific emission-reduction goals for areas that fail to meet the NAAQS. These amendments require both a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. The sections of the CAA that would affect development of the Project include Title I (Nonattainment Provisions) and Title II (Mobile-Source Provisions).

F
igure3.2-1
AirQualitySensitiveReceptorswithin1,000FeetoftheProjectSite 555WestMiddlefieldRoad
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_MountainView\451_17_555WestMiddlefield\Figures\Doc\AirQuality\AQ_Figure.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 12/16/2020 Legend
!#
Park
!#
School
ResidentialArea
ProjectSite
â
â
â
â
1,000-ftRadius
fromProjectSite
±
0200400
Feet
Source:BINGImagery2020
ProjectSite
City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.2-4 shows the NAAQS currently in effect for each criteria pollutant. The CAAQS (discussed below) are also provided for reference.

Table 3.2-4. National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time
California
Standards
National Standardsa
Primary Secondary
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm Noneb Noneb
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 150 g/m3 Annual mean 20 g/m3 None None
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
24 hours None 35 g/m3 35 g/m3
Annual mean 12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15.0 g/m3
Carbon Monoxide 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm None
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm 1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm None
Sulfur Dioxidec Annual mean None 0.030 ppm None
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm None
3 hours None None 0.5 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm None
Lead 30-day average 1.5 g/m3 None None
Calendar quarter None 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3
3-month average None 0.15 g/m3 0.15 g/m3
Sulfates 24 hours 25 g/m3 None None
Visibility-Reducing Particles 8 hours —d None None
Hydrogen Sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm None None
Vinyl Chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm None None
Source: California Air Resources Board 2016.

Notes:

PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ppm = parts per million
a. National standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare and the environment. b. The federal 1-hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced because it was employed for such a long period and is a benchmark for SIPs. c. The annual and 24-hour NAAQS for sulfur dioxide apply for only 1 year after designation of the new 1-hour standard in areas that were previously nonattainment areas for the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. d. The CAAQS for visibility-reducing particles is defined by an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer (visibility of 10 miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent).

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Non-Road Diesel Rule
EPA has established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and locomotives. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, would be required to comply with the relevant emissions standards.

3.2.3.2 State
California Clean Air Act and California Ambient Air Quality Standards In 1988, the state legislature adopted the California CAA, which established a statewide air pollution control program. The California CAA requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to meet the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Unlike the federal CAA, the California CAA does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the California CAA establishes increasingly stringent requirements for areas that require more time to achieve the standards. The CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibilityreducing particles, and vinyl chloride. The CAAQS and NAAQS are listed together in Table 3.2-4.

CARB and local air districts bear responsibility for achieving California’s air quality standards. The standards are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans, which are incorporated into the SIP. In California, EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to CARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts. Traditionally, CARB has established state air quality standards, maintaining oversight authority for air quality planning, developing programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developing air emission inventories, collecting air quality and meteorological data, and approving SIPs.

The California CAA substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The California CAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control measures. The California CAA also emphasizes the control of “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions. The California CAA gives local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution and establish traffic control measures.

Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation
Originally adopted in 2005, the on-road truck and bus regulation requires heavy trucks to be retrofitted with PM filters. The regulation applies to privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. Compliance with the regulation can be reached through one of two paths: 1) vehicle retrofits according to engine year or 2) a phase-in schedule. Compliance paths ensure that nearly all trucks and buses will have 2010 model-year engines or newer by January 2023.

State Tailpipe Emission Standards
CARB established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new off-road diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and harbor craft. New construction equipment used for the Project, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, would be required to comply with the relevant standards.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Carl Moyer Program
The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) is a voluntary program that offers grants to owners of heavy-duty vehicles and equipment. The program is a partnership between CARB and local air districts throughout the state to reduce air pollution emissions from heavy-duty engines. Locally, the air districts administer the Carl Moyer Program.

Toxic Air Contaminant Regulation
California regulates TACs primarily through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Act) and the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (“Hot Spots” Act). In the early 1980s, CARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Tanner Act created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The “Hot Spots” Act supplements the Tanner Act by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.

In August 1998, CARB identified DPM from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC. In September 2000, CARB approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. The goal of the plan was to reduce DPM emissions (i.e., respirable particulate matter) and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and 85 percent in 2020. The plan identifies 14 measures that CARB will implement over the next several years to accomplish these goals.

3.2.3.3 Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAAQMD has local air quality jurisdiction over projects in Santa Clara County. The responsibilities of the air district include overseeing stationary-source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality stations, overseeing agricultural burn permits, and reviewing air quality–related sections of environmental documents required by CEQA as a responsible agency. BAAQMD is also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations to address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws and ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met.

BAAQMD has adopted advisory emission thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of a project’s emissions; the thresholds are outlined in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b). BAAQMD has also adopted air quality plans to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate. The Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted to reduce ozone and achieve the NAAQS ozone standard.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan was adopted by the BAAQMD on April 19, 2017. It updates the prior 2010 Bay Area ozone plan and outlines feasible measures to reduce ozone; provides a control strategy for reducing PM, air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan; and establishes City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
the emission control measures to be adopted or implemented. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains the following primary goals (consistency with these goals is evaluated in this section):
• Protect Air Quality and Health at the Regional and Local Scale: Attain all state and national air quality standards, and eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities with respect to the cancer health risk from TACs; and
• Protect the Climate: Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan is the current applicable air quality plan for the air basin. Consistency with the plan is the basis for determining whether a project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan.

In addition to air quality plans, BAAQMD also adopts rules and regulations to improve existing and future air quality. The Project may be subject (either directly or indirectly) to various district rules, including those outlined below.
• Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review). This regulation contains requirements for best available control technology and emissions offsets.
• Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminates). This regulation outlines guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and their potential health risks. • Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter). This regulation restricts emissions of PM darker than No. 1 on the Ringlemann chart to less than 3 minutes in any 1 hour. • Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances). This regulation establishes general odor limitations on odorous substances and specific emissions limitations on certain odorous compounds. • Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings). This regulation limits the quantity of ROG in architectural coatings.
• Regulation 9, Rule 6 (NOX Emissions from Natural Gas–fired Boilers and Water Heaters).

This regulation limits emissions of NOX generated by natural gas–fired boilers. • Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines). This regulation limits emissions of NOX and CO from stationary internal combustion engines of more than 50 horsepower.
• Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing). This regulation controls emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition and renovation activities.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The City of Mountain View (City) Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) (City of Mountain View 2012) includes the following goals and policies associated with air quality:

Goal MOB-9: Achievement of state and regional air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Policy MOB 9.2: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Policy MOB 9.3: Low-emission Vehicles. Promote use of fuel-efficient, alternative-fuel, and lowemission vehicles.

Goal INC-20: Clean, breathable air and strongly controlled city sources of air pollution.

Policy INC 20.1: Pollution Prevention. Discourage mobile and stationary sources of air pollution.

Policy INC 20.2: Collaboration. Participate in state and regional planning efforts to improve air quality.

Policy INC 20.3: Pollution-reduction Technologies. Encourage the use of non-fossil fuels and other pollution-reduction technologies in transportation, machinery, and industrial processes.

Policy INC 20.4: Freight Routes. Identify and maintain primary freight routes that provide direct access to industrial and commercial areas.

Policy INC 20.5: Truck Access. Plan industrial and commercial development to avoid truck access through residential areas, and minimize truck travel on streets designated primarily for residential access by the General Plan.

Policy INC 20.6: Air Quality Standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

Policy INC 20.7: Protect Sensitive Receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.

Policy INC 20.8: Offensive Odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

3.2.4 Impact Analysis

3.2.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (14 CCR, tit 14, § 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing air quality.

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

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Local Air District Thresholds
The following section summarizes BAAQMD’s thresholds and presents substantial evidence regarding the basis upon which they were developed. It also describes how the thresholds are used to determine whether Project construction and operational emissions would result in either of the following:
• Interfere with or impede attainment of state or federal ambient air quality standards (CAAQS or NAAQS, respectively); or
• Increase risks to human health.

Regional Thresholds for Air Basin Attainment of State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards
With respect to air quality plans, this analysis considers whether the Project would conflict with the most recent air quality plan (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a or 2017 Clean Air Plan). The impact analysis evaluates whether the Project supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, including applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and whether it would disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure.

BAAQMD has adopted thresholds for regional air pollutants (see Table 3.2-5) to assist lead agencies in determining the significance of environmental effects as they pertain to local attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards.2 The thresholds are based on emissions levels identified under the “New Source Review” (NSR) program, a permitting program established by Congress as part of the 1990 amendments to the CAA, to ensure that air quality is not significantly degraded by new sources of emissions. The NSR program requires stationary sources to receive permits before construction and/or the use of equipment. By permitting large stationary sources, the NSR program ensures that new emissions will not slow regional progress toward attaining the NAAQS. BAAQMD has concluded that the stationary pollutants described under the NSR program are equally significant to those pollutants generated with land use projects. BAAQMD’s regional thresholds (see Table 3.2-5) were set to represent the emission thresholds associated with the NSR program and help attain the NAAQS (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b).

Health-Based Thresholds for Project-Generated Pollutants of Human Health Concern In December 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its Sierra Club v. County of Fresno decision (226 Cal. App. 4th 704) (hereafter referred to as the Friant Ranch Decision). The court reviewed the long-term regional air quality analysis contained in the environmental impact report for the proposed Friant Ranch development. The Friant Ranch project is a 942-acre master-plan development in unincorporated Fresno County, which is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.

The basin is currently classified as a nonattainment area for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and CAAQS. The court found that the air quality analysis was inadequate because it failed to provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” The court’s decision clarifies that environmental documents must connect a project’s air quality impacts on specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis. 2 As discussed above, ROG and NOX are regional pollutants, whereas PM is both a regional and local pollutant.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
As discussed in Section 3.2.2.2, Criteria and Other Air Pollutants of Concern, all criteria pollutants that would be generated by the Project are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma).

Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source.

Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. Ozone is considered a regional criteria pollutant, whereas CO, NO2, SO2, and lead are localized pollutants. PM can be both a local and a regional pollutant, depending on its composition. As discussed above, the primary criteria pollutants of concern generated by the Project are ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, and PM (including DPM).

Table 3.2-5. BAAQMD Significance Thresholds
Analysis Threshold
Regional Criteria Pollutants
(Construction)
ROG:

NOX:

PM10:

PM2.5:
54 pounds/day
54 pounds/day
82 pounds/day (exhaust only)
54 pounds/day (exhaust only)
Regional Criteria Pollutants
(Operations)
ROG:

NOX:

PM10:

PM2.5:

Same as construction
Same as construction
82 pounds/day (total)
54 pounds/day (total)
Localized Carbon Monoxide Violation of CAAQS (per screening criteria) Localized Particulate Matter Failure to implement emissions control practices PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3 (Project)
PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 (cumulative)
Localized Diesel Particulate Matter Increased cancer risk of 10 in 1 million (Project) Increased HI greater than 1.0 (Project)
Increased cancer risk of 100 in 1 million (cumulative)
Increased HI greater than 10.0 (cumulative)
Asbestos Failure to comply with Regulation 11, Rule 2
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b.

Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gas
NOX = nitrogen oxide
PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
HI = hazard index
Regional Project-Generated Criteria Pollutants (Ozone Precursors and Regional PM) Adverse health effects induced by regional criteria pollutant emissions generated by the Project (ozone precursors and PM) are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). For these reasons, ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) contribute to the formation of ground-borne ozone on a regional scale, in which emissions of ROG and NOX generated in one area may not equate to a specific ozone concentration in that same City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
area. Similarly, some types of particulate pollutant may be transported over long distances or formed through atmospheric reactions. As such, the magnitude and locations of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone or regional PM concentrations are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region, as opposed to a single project.

Moreover, exposure to regional air pollution does not guarantee that an individual will experience an adverse health effect because there are large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses to air pollutant. These differences are influenced, in part, by the underlying health condition of an individual, which cannot be known.

Models and tools have been developed to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions to potential community health impacts. Although models are capable of quantifying ozone and secondary PM formation as well as associated health effects, these tools were developed to support regional planning and policy analysis and have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations induced by individual projects. Therefore, translating Project-generated criteria pollutants to the locations where specific health effects could occur or the resultant number of additional days of nonattainment cannot be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.

The technical limitations of existing models for correlating Project-level regional emissions to specific health consequences are recognized by air quality management districts throughout the state, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which provided amici curiae briefs for the Friant Ranch legal proceedings. In its brief, SJVAPCD (2015) acknowledged that, although health risk assessments for localized air toxics, such as DPM, are commonly prepared, “it is not feasible to conduct a similar analysis for criteria air pollutants because currently available computer modeling tools are not equipped for this task.” The air district further noted that emissions solely from the Friant Ranch project, which would equate to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the San Joaquin Valley, were not likely to yield valid information and that any such information would not be “accurate when applied at the local level.” SCAQMD (2015) presents similar information in its brief, stating that “it takes a large amount of additional precursor emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels.” 3 As discussed above, air districts develop region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in considering existing air quality concentrations and attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS, which are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates that there are known safe concentrations for criteria pollutants. While recognizing that air quality is cumulative problem, air districts typically consider projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions that are below the thresholds to be minor in nature and therefore would not adversely affect air quality such that the NAAQS or CAAQS would be exceeded. Emissions generated by the Project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which, at certain concentrations, could lead to increased incidences of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions. As such, a project’s incremental contribution cannot be traced to specific health outcomes on a regional scale, 3 For example, SCAQMD’s analysis of its 2012 Air Quality Attainment Plan showed that modeled NOX and ROG reductions of 432 and 187 tons per day, respectively, reduced ozone levels by only 9 parts per billion. Analysis of SCAQMD’s Rule 1315 showed that emissions of NOX and ROG of 6,620 and 89,180 pounds per day, respectively, contributed to 20 premature deaths per year and 89,947 school absences (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2015).

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
and a quantitative correlation of Project-generated regional criteria pollutant emissions to specific human health impacts is not included in this analysis. It is foreseeable that unmitigated construction-period and operational emissions of ozone precursors and PM in excess of BAAQMD thresholds could contribute to cumulative and regional health impacts. In such cases, all feasible mitigation would be applied, and emissions would be reduced to the extent feasible. Please refer to Impact AQ-2a and Impact AQ-2b for a discussion of Project-generated emissions, cumulative impacts, and feasible mitigation.

Localized Project-Generated Criteria Pollutants (PM and CO) and Air Toxics (DPM) Localized pollutants generated by a project can affect the population near the emissions source.

Although these pollutants dissipate with distance, emissions from individual projects can result in direct and material health impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. Models and thresholds are readily available to quantify the potential health effects and evaluate their significance (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association 2009; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015; Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b; California Air Resources Board 2000).

Locally adopted thresholds and analysis procedures for localized pollutants of concern associated with the Project (CO, PM and DPM,4 and asbestos)5 are identified below and summarized in Table

3.2-5.

Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Heavy traffic congestion can contribute to high levels of CO, and individuals who are exposed to such hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria that provide a conservative indication of whether Project-generated traffic would cause a potential CO hot spot. If the screening criteria are not met, a quantitative analysis through site-specific dispersion modeling of Project-related CO concentrations would not be necessary, and the Project would not cause localized violations of the CAAQS for CO. Projects that do not generate CO concentrations in excess of the health-based CAAQS would not contribute a significant level of CO such that localized air quality and human health would be substantially degraded. BAAQMD’s CO screening criteria are summarized below.

1. Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections beyond 44,000 vehicles per hour.

2. Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections beyond 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).

3. The Project would be consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 4 DPM is the primary TAC of concern—of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are estimated to be responsible for about 82% of the total ambient cancer risk in the Bay Area (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). Given the risks associated with DPM, tools for evaluating human health impacts from Project-generated DPM have been developed and are readily available. Conversely, tools and techniques for assessing Projectspecific health outcomes as a result of exposure to other TACs (e.g., benzene) remain limited. These limitations impede the ability to evaluate and precisely quantify potential public health risks posed by TAC exposure. 5 Although SO2 NO2, and lead may also concentrate locally, the Project does not represent a significant source of these pollutants. Accordingly, they are not discussed or evaluated further.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Localized Particulate Matter Concentrations
BAAQMD adopted an incremental PM2.5 concentration-based significance threshold in which a “substantial” contribution at the project level for an individual source is defined as total (i.e., exhaust and fugitive) PM2.5 concentrations exceeding 0.3 μg/m3. This is the same threshold used to evaluate the placement of new receptors that would be exposed to individual PM2.5 emissions sources.

BAAQMD considers projects to have a cumulatively considerable PM2.5 impact if sensitive receptors would be exposed to PM2.5 concentrations from local sources within 1,000 feet, including existing sources, project-related sources, and reasonably foreseeable future sources, that would exceed

0.8 μg/m3.

BAAQMD has not established PM10 thresholds of significance. BAAQMD’s PM2.5 thresholds apply to both new receptors and new sources. However, BAAQMD considers fugitive PM10 from earthmoving activities to be less than significant with application of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.

Localized Diesel Particulate Matter Concentrations
DPM, which has been identified as a TAC, is particularly concerning because long-term exposure can lead to cancer, birth defects, and damage to the brain and nervous system. BAAQMD has adopted incremental cancer and hazard thresholds to evaluate receptor exposure to single sources of DPM emissions. The “substantial” DPM threshold defined by BAAQMD is exposure of a sensitive receptor to an individual emissions source, resulting in an excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in 1 million or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index (HI) greater than 1.0.

BAAQMD considers projects to have a cumulatively considerable DPM impact if they would contribute DPM emissions that, when combined with cumulative sources within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, would result in excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in 1 million or an HI greater than 10.0. BAAQMD considers a project to have a significant cumulative impact if it introduces new receptors at a location where the combined exposure to all cumulative sources within 1,000 feet is in excess of the cumulative thresholds.

Asbestos
BAAQMD considers a project to have a significant impact if it does not comply with the applicable regulatory requirements outlined in Regulation 11, Rule 2.

3.2.4.2 Methods
The City has decided, in its discretion, to utilize the above-described thresholds and standards for purposes of evaluating the Project’s air quality impacts.

Air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project were assessed and quantified using standard and accepted software tools, techniques, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below.

Construction Inventory
Construction of the Project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that would result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality in the study area. Emissions would originate from mobile and stationary construction equipment, employee vehicles, asphalt paving, demolition and land City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-21 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
clearing, and the application of architectural coatings. Based on currently available information, construction of the Project is scheduled to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting a total of approximately 64 months. Following is a brief summary of the anticipated construction phasing. First, the tennis and basketball facilities and parking structure on the Park Parcel would be demolished and the land would be graded (approximately 3 months). Then, the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa would be demolished and the proposed new leasing office and amenity building, outdoor amenities, and below-grade parking garage on Block A would be constructed (approximately 15 months). Next, following occupancy of Block A, the existing surface parking lot on proposed Block B would be demolished and the proposed new building and belowgrade parking garage on Block B would be constructed (approximately 21 months). Then, the existing surface parking lot on Block C would be demolished and the proposed new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C would be constructed (approximately 25 months). While the new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C are being constructed, the proposed minor enhancements to the exterior of existing residential buildings would also be made.

Criteria pollutant emissions from heavy-duty equipment, on-road vehicles, asphalt paving, architectural coatings, and land disturbance were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod was run with model default values for some construction parameters, such as equipment horsepower and load factors. The construction schedule (i.e., start and end dates), the types of construction equipment, the number of pieces of equipment, the amount of material imported and exported, and the number of acres to be graded and paved at the Project site were provided by the applicant based on available information and reasonable assumptions. The construction modeling outputs and detailed assumptions are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Methods for evaluating potential health risks from Project construction are described below.

Operations Inventory
Operation of the Project would generate emissions of ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 that could result in long-term impacts on ambient air quality. Criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles associated with operation of the Project were evaluated using the BAAQMD screening-level sizes for land use projects in Table 3-1 of the agency’s CEQA Guidelines. As stated in the guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b), “if a project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, a project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the thresholds of significance.” If a project meets these criteria, then a detailed analysis of operational criteria air pollutants (CAPs) is not required.

Health Risk Assessment
DPM, which is classified as a carcinogenic TAC by CARB, is the primary pollutant of concern with respect to health risks for sensitive receptors. Diesel-powered construction equipment would emit DPM that could expose nearby sensitive receptors to pollutants. As described above, the closest sensitive receptors are the existing on-site residences adjacent to proposed buildings on the site (approximately 15 feet from future Project construction areas/buildings). Given the Project would introduce DPM emissions to an area near existing sensitive receptors, a human Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed using EPA’s most recent dispersion model, AERMOD (version 19191); chronic risk assessment values presented by OEHHA; as well as assumptions for model inputs from BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol (August 2020). Note that the HRA takes into account OEHHA’s most recent guidance and calculation methods from the Air Toxics City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Risk Assessments (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015).

The HRA analyzes health risks for nearby sensitive receptors from construction activities. The human HRA consists of three parts: a DPM inventory, air dispersion modeling, and risk calculations.

A description of each of these parts follows.

DPM Inventory
The DPM inventory includes emissions associated with short-term Project construction activity. The construction inventory used the same methodology as the mass emissions analysis for identifying mass daily criteria pollutant emissions, as previously discussed, which is based on diesel PM2.5 exhaust and total PM2.5 emissions generated on-site and off-site as a result of Project construction.

All PM2.5 exhaust from off-road equipment during construction was assumed to be DPM for purposes of a conservative analysis.

Air Dispersion Modeling
The HRA used EPA’s AERMOD model (version 19191) to model annual average concentrations at nearby receptors. Modeling inputs, including emissions rates (in grams per second) and source characteristics (e.g., release height, stack diameter, plume width), were based on guidance provided by OEHHA and BAAQMD. Meteorological data were obtained from CARB for the Moffett Federal Airfield location, which is approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the Project site.

On-site construction exhaust emissions for the Project were characterized as area sources (AREAPOLY) with a release height of 4.1 meters (13.5 feet). On-site construction fugitive dust emissions were characterized as area sources (AREAPOLY) with a release height of 0.9 meter (2.95 feet). Off-site construction exhaust emissions were characterized as line/area sources (LINEAREA) with a release height of 3.4 meters (11.2 feet). Off-site construction fugitive dust emissions were characterized as line/area sources (AREAPOLY) with a release height of 0.9 meter (2.95 feet). The urban dispersion option was assumed. The modeling of emissions from construction activities was based on normal construction hours and days (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays)6. To account for plume rise associated with mechanically generated construction emissions sources for the AERMOD run, the initial vertical dimension of on-site exhaust area sources was based on a 3.81-meter (12.5-foot) release height. For off-site exhaust line/area sources, it was based on a 3.16-meter (10.37-foot) release height. For the on-site and off-site fugitive sources, it was based on a 0.79-meter (2.59-foot) release height.

A receptor is defined as a point where a person (e.g., resident) may be located for a given period. With respect to cancer and chronic health effects, all locations where a person could be located for extended periods of time, such as a residence or school, need to be identified. Sensitive receptor locations are located at the nearest existing residences on-site, along Moffett Boulevard and Cypress Point Drive, and at the residences along West Middlefield Road. Additional receptors were placed at the sensitive receptor locations indicated in Table 3.2-3, which are within 1,000 feet of the Project site. All receptors were assumed to have a height of 1.5 meters. According to BAAQMD guidance, residential cancer risks assume a 30-year exposure (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2020). 6 Although the modeled construction hours do not fully encompass the City’s standard weekday construction hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., the modeled construction hours reflect the maximum eight hours each piece of construction equipment would operate per workday.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-23 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
A complete list of dispersion modeling and risk calculation inputs is provided in Appendix 3.2-1.

Risk Calculations
The risk calculations incorporate OEHHA’s recent guidance update, which now includes age-specific factors that account for increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure. The approach for estimating cancer risk from long-term inhalation, with exposure to carcinogens, requires calculating a range of potential doses and multiplying by cancer potency factors in units corresponding to the inverse dose to obtain a range of cancer risks. For cancer risk, the risk for each age group is calculated using the appropriate daily breathing rates, age sensitivity factors, and exposure durations. The cancer risks calculated for individual age groups are summed to estimate the cancer risk for each receptor. For residential receptors, the age-specific sensitivity factors for the maximally exposed individual residents were assumed. For school receptors, an age-specific (i.e., 2 to 9 years old) sensitivity factor for the maximally exposed individual student was assumed. These assumptions are consistent with OEHHA and BAAQMD recommendations.

Chronic cancer and hazard risks were calculated using Equations 5.4.1 and 8.2.4a as well as Section 8.3.1 from OEHHA’s 2015 HRA guidance. Refer to Appendix 3.2-1 for the risk calculations and additional assumptions.

3.2.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.2.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.2.4.4, Summary of Air Quality Impacts.

Impact AQ-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The CAA requires an SIP or an air quality control plan to be prepared for areas with air quality that violates the NAAQS. The SIP sets forth the strategies and pollution control measures that states use to attain the NAAQS. The California CAA requires attainment plans to demonstrate a 5 percent reduction per year in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, averaged every consecutive 3-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air quality attainment plans (AQAPs) outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. The current AQAP for the SFBAAB is the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the determination of 2017 Clean Air Plan consistency should consider the following for project-level analyses (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b):
• Does the project support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan? • Does the project include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan? • Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure? City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-24 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Each of these questions is addressed below for the Project.

Support of 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to (1) reduce emissions and decrease concentrations of harmful pollutants, (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, and (3) reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.

The Project, once constructed and operational, would include numerous improvements that would support regional attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS. For example, the Project would include features that would support sustainable building designs, reductions in GHG emissions, and coordination at the local and regional levels to improve air quality. Specifically, the Project would install high-efficiency appliances and electric charging stations, encourage walking and biking by expanding the bicycle and pedestrian network within the Project site, and install water-conserving appliances and LED lighting. The outdoor water conservation measures prescribe the use of waterefficient landscaping with low-maintenance plant material to minimize irrigation requirements.

Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable City and state measures, including Title 24, Part 6, of the California Energy Code baseline standard for energy efficiency. In addition, as discussed under impacts AQ-2a and AQ2b, the Project would be required to implement mitigation and control measures to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions during construction. The Project would not result in significant regional air quality impacts.

Support Applicable Control Measures
The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains 85 control measures to address pollutants (e.g., ozone precursors, PM, air toxics, GHGs). These control strategies can be grouped into the following categories:
• Stationary-source measures,
• Transportation control measures,
• Energy control measures,
• Building control measures,
• Agricultural control measures,
• Natural and working lands control measures,
• Waste management control measures,
• Water control measures, and
• Super-GHG control measures.

The Project would include design features that would support emissions reductions in the transportation sector. As discussed in Section 3.14, Transportation, because of the Project’s transportation demand management (TDM) measures and the proximity to public transit, including Caltrain and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus routes, no substantial increase in traffic is anticipated with Project implementation. Such connectivity to Caltrain and VTA routes would reduce the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Also, the Project would remove existing surface parking within the Project site to allow for construction of a new public pedestrian and bicycle path (Measures TR9 and TR13). In addition, the Project would implement a number of sustainability features, such as Energy Star–rated appliances (Measures BL1, BL2 and EN2), lowflow shower heads and toilets (as required by CALGreen) (Measure WR2), and waste diversion City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-25 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
programs (consistent with the City’s waste management practices) (Measures WA3 and WA4), to reduce resource consumption and criteria pollutant and GHG emissions. Furthermore, the Project would result in a net increase in the number of trees on the site (approximately 62 additional trees) (Measure NW2) and would plant drought-tolerant vegetation to reduce emissions associated with lawn and garden equipment (Measure TR23).

Disrupt or Hinder Implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures As discussed above, the Project would incorporate sustainability design features. It would not disrupt, delay, or otherwise hinder implementation of any applicable control measure from the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Rather, the Project would support and facilitate implementation. For example, the Project would encourage sustainability measures and support alternative modes of transportation, such as transit, walking, and bicycling. Similarly, the Project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure related to parking. Rather, the Project would remove existing surface parking within the Project site to allow for construction of a new public pedestrian and bicycle path. Accordingly, the Project would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, including relevant control measures, and would not interfere with implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. In addition, as described in Section 3.10, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact AQ-2a Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant during construction for which the Project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a Use clean diesel-powered equipment during construction to control construction-related NOX emissions.

Mitigation Measure AQ2bUse on-road haul trucks with model-year 2010 and newer engines during construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2c Use low-VOC architectural coatings during construction.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
Criteria pollutant emissions generated by construction of the Project were quantified using CalEEMod. Estimated unmitigated construction emissions would be considered short term (because the emissions would be construction-related and not permanent), occurring for approximately 5 years (May 2023 through August 2028). Table 3.2-6 summarizes the results of the emissions modeling. Model outputs are provided in Appendix 3.2-1.

As shown in Table 3.2-6, construction of the Project would not generate PM exhaust in excess of BAAQMD’s numeric thresholds. However, the Project would generate ROG in excess of BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for 2027 and 2028 and NOX in excess of BAAQMD’s significance thresholds for 2023, 2025, and 2026. These emissions, if left unmitigated, could contribute to ground-level City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-26 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
ozone formation in the SFBAAB, which, at certain concentrations, can contribute to short- and longterm human health effects.

Santa Clara County does not currently attain the CAAQS and NAAQS for ozone (see Table 3.2-2).

Certain individuals residing in areas that do not meet the ambient air quality standards, including Santa Clara County, could be exposed to pollutant concentrations that cause or aggravate acute and/or chronic health conditions (e.g., asthma). Although construction of the Project would contribute to future ROG and NOX emissions, maximum daily construction-generated ROG and NOX emissions would represent approximately 0.01 and 0.02 percent of total ROG and NOX in the SFBAAB, respectively (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). 7 As previously discussed,
the magnitude of change in ambient air quality from these additional emissions, and therefore the health consequences, cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty because of the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation (e.g., meteorology, emissions sources, sunlight exposure).

However, public health will continue to be affected in Santa Clara County as long as the region fails to attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2c would reduce construction-related ROG and NOX emissions to levels that would be below BAAQMD’s ROG and NOX thresholds, as shown in Table 3.2-7.

Table 3.2-6. Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO
PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
Phase 1
2023 2 27 22 4 1 1 1
Phase 2
2023 6 72 62 10 2 4 2
2024 13 41 49 2 2 < 1 2
Phase 3
2024 4 45 28 21 1 11 1
2025 44 78 71 22 3 11 2
2026 44 9 15 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Phase 4
2026 9 103 77 25 3 12 3
2027 66 50 68 5 2 1 2
2028 66 12 21 1 1 < 1 1
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceed Threshold? Yes Yes — — No — No
Notes: Exceedances denoted with underline.

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMPs = best management practices
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxide
PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter ROG= reactive organic gases
7 SFBAAB 2015 ROG and NOX emissions reported in the Clean Air Plan were 259 and 300 tons per day, respectively (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). Maximum project-generated ROG and NOX emissions were 66 and 103 pounds per day, which equates to 0.033 and 0.0515 ton per day, respectively.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-27 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.2-7. Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) Construction Year ROG NOX CO
PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
Phase 1
2023 1 8 26 2 < 1 < 1 < 1
Phase 2
2023 2 35 73 7 < 1 3 < 1
2024 7 10 56 2 < 1 < 1 < 1
Phase 3
2024 1 15 32 11 < 1 5 < 1
2025 20 22 86 12 < 1 5 < 1
2026 20 1 16 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Phase 4
2026 3 47 91 15 < 1 6 < 1
2027 29 14 78 5 < 1 1 < 1
2028 29 2 24 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 — BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceed Threshold? No No — — No — No
Notes:

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMPs = best management practices
CO = carbon monoxide
NOX = nitrogen oxide
PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter ROG= reactive organic gases
The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 (Basic Air Quality Construction Measures) (effective December 15, 2020) (see full condition of approval below), which requires all construction contractors to implement BAAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures as part of their projects. Specifically, Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 requires exposed surfaces to be watered twice a day, haul trucks with loose materials to be covered, visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads to be removed using wet-power vacuum street sweepers at least once a day, vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to be limited to 15 mph, anticipated paved surfaces to be paved as soon as possible, and a publicly visible sign to be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. Implementation of Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 would ensure that impacts from construction-related fugitive dust emissions are less than significant. In addition, Standard Condition of Approval PL-37 (Permit Submittal Requirements) (see full condition of approval below) would require a permit from BAAQMD for construction. Specifically, Standard Condition of Approval PL-37 requires the applicant to secure a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or provide written assurance that no permit is required prior to issuance of a building permit.

Because construction-related criteria pollutant emissions associated with the Project would be mitigated to a level that would be below BAAQMD’s significance thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a through AQ-2c, and dust emissions would be less than significant with City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-28 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
implementation of Standard Conditions of Approval PL-199 and PL-37, criteria pollutant emission impacts would be considered less-than-significant. As such, construction emissions would not be expected to contribute a significant level of pollution that would degrade air quality within the SFBAAB.

MM AQ-2a: Use clean diesel-powered equipment during construction to control construction-related NOX emissions.

The Project developer shall ensure that all off-road diesel-powered equipment used during construction will be equipped with EPA Tier 4 Final engines. The construction contractor shall submit evidence of the use of EPA Tier 4 Final engines, or cleaner, for Project construction to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

MM AQ-2b: Use on-road haul trucks with model-year 2010 and newer engines during construction.

The Project developer shall ensure that contractors, as a condition of contract, use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year, as set forth in CARB’s EMFAC2017 model database, unless such trucks cannot be obtained. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the applicant, in coordination with the construction contractor, shall provide documentation to the City showing that a good-faith effort to locate such engines was conducted, with outreach to at least two vendors. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall submit evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure to the City from a third-party evaluator.

MM AQ-2c: Use low-VOC architectural coatings during construction.

The Project developer shall use low-VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings, beyond local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for all residential and nonresidential interior and exterior paints during construction. Coatings must meet the low-VOC standard of less than 50 grams of VOC per liter of paint. After the start of construction activities, the contractor shall submit quarterly reports to the City, documenting compliance with this measure by providing an inventory that lists the VOC content of all coatings purchased and applied during construction activities.

3.2.4.4 Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-37: Air Quality. The applicant is required to secure a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District or provide written assurance that no permit is required prior to issuance of a building permit.
• PL-199: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures: (a) all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day; (b) all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered; (c) all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-29 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
sweeping is prohibited; (d) all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph; (e) all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; (f) idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measures Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; (g) all construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; and (h) post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Impact AQ-2b Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant during operations for which the Project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Long-term emissions would be caused by mobile transportation sources such as vehicles belonging to residents, visitors, and employees, as well as maintenance equipment. In addition, area-source emissions would be caused by incidental activities related to maintenance and services for the Project, such as paint reapplication, cleaning, and landscaping. Energy-source emissions are the result of natural gas use8.

BAAQMD provides screening-level sizes for land use projects in Table 3-1 of its CEQA Guidelines. As stated in the guidelines (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b), “if a project meets the screening criteria in Table 3-1, a project would not result in the generation of operational-related criteria air pollutants and/or precursors that exceed the thresholds of significance.” If a project meets the criteria, then a detailed analysis of operational CAPs is not required. The screening-level sizes for operational CAPs associated with mid-rise apartments9 and general office buildings are 494 dwelling units (DUs) and 346,000 square feet, respectively. Because the Project would include 329 net new DUs and approximately 21,355 square feet of leasing/amenity space, it would meet the screening criteria. A detailed analysis is not required.

Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD guidelines does not include a screening-level size for parking garages.

Parking garages emit CAPs from vehicle trips and area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, 8 The draft EIR air quality analysis conservatively assumed natural gas usage from Project appliances. The applicant has since committed to installing all electric appliances (Joe Kirchofer, pers. comm.). Therefore energy-source emissions mentioned in Impact AQ-2b represent a conservative estimate of criteria pollutant emissions associated with Project operations.
9 According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, “Mid-rise apartments are units located in rental buildings that have between three and 10 levels.” The Project would include four-story buildings; therefore, it is considered a midrise apartment.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-30 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
consumer products). As discussed in Section 3.14, Transportation, the proposed below-grade parking garages would not generate new vehicle trips relative to existing parking demand.

Therefore, the proposed below-grade parking garages would not result in additional CAPs from mobile sources. Based on CalEEMod defaults and the below-grade parking garages with 965 vehicle parking spaces, area-source emissions would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds.

The Project, including the proposed residential and amenity buildings, would meet the screening criteria and would not result in the generation of operational CAPs and/or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Similarly, the proposed below-grade parking garages would result in minor emissions that would not exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds. The Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality during operation and would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade regional air quality within the SFBAAB. No mitigation is required.

Impact AQ-3a Expose existing on-site sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure AQ-2a Use clean diesel-powered equipment during construction to control construction-related NOX emissions.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2b Use on-road haul trucks with model-year 2010 and newer engines during construction.

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Significant and Unavoidable
Discussion
The primary pollutants of concern from Project construction with regard to health risks for sensitive receptors are criteria pollutants, asbestos, DPM, and PM2.5. Each of these pollutants, including the potential impact on nearby receptors, is analyzed below.

Criteria Pollutants
As discussed above, BAAQMD has developed region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS, which are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates that there are known safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. While recognizing that air quality is a cumulative problem, BAAQMD considers the impacts of projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions that are below the thresholds to be minor in nature. Such projects would not adversely affect air quality or cause the NAAQS or CAAQS to be exceeded. Regional emissions generated by a project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which, at certain concentrations, could lead to increased incidences of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions.

As shown in Table 3.2-7, construction of the Project would not generate regional criteria pollutants that would be in excess of BAAQMD thresholds with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2a, which requires the use of Tier 4 Final off-road construction equipment; Mitigation Measure AQ-2b, which requires the use of model-year 2010 and newer engines for on-road haul trucks; and City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-31 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Standard Condition of Approval PL-199, which requires implementation of all feasible dust control measures, effectively reducing localized fugitive dust emissions during construction by 75 percent (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b). As such, construction of the Project would not be expected to contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade air quality within the SFBAAB. Consequently, the impact from construction-generated criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant with mitigation. The Project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations or risks.

As described above, operation of the Project would meet the screening criteria and would not result in the generation of operational criteria pollutants or precursors that would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Consequently, the impact from operational criteria pollutant emissions would be less than significant. The Project would not expose receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations or risks.

Asbestos
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that was once used in construction because of its heat resistance and strong insulating properties. Exposure to asbestos, however, has been shown to cause many disabling or fatal diseases, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and pleural plaques.

Demolition of the buildings on the Project site could expose workers and nearby receptors to asbestos if the material was used during construction of the original buildings. However, the Project would be required to comply with BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, Asbestos, Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing. The purpose of the rule is to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition and building renovation. Because the Applicant would be required to control asbestos emissions according to BAAQMD regulations, impacts would be less than significant.

DPM and Localized PM2.5
Cancer health risks from exposure to DPM are typically associated with chronic exposure (i.e., a 30-year exposure period). BAAQMD has determined that construction activities occurring more than 1,000 feet from a sensitive receptor most likely do not pose a significant health risk.

Sensitive land uses (e.g., residences, schools, recreational areas) are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site and on-site (in the form of existing residential units that would remain in place) on-site residences. Accordingly, an HRA was undertaken to assess: 1) inhalation cancer risks, 2) non-cancer hazard impacts, and 3) PM2.5 concentrations, as recommended in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. As explained more fully below, there would not be any significant impacts to any sensitive receptors with implementation of mitigation with respect to 1) inhalation cancer risks, 2) non-cancer hazard impacts. However, there would be a significant impact to six on-site sensitive receptors with respect to PM2.5; even with implementation of mitigation, there would be an exceedance of the applicable threshold and therefore, impacts would remain significant.

During construction activities, DPM and PM2.5 emissions would be generated by heavy-duty offroad equipment as well as on-road vehicles. The HRA was prepared consistent with guidance from EPA; the California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA; and BAAQMD. More specifically, the HRA relied on EPA’s most recent dispersion model, AERMOD (version 19191). Calculations of acute and chronic cancer risks relied on the assessment values developed from OEHHA’s Air Toxics Hotspots Program, Risk Analysis Guidelines and BAAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol.

Refer to Appendix 3.2-1 for more detailed modeling assumptions and AERMOD outputs.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-32 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.2-8 presents the maximum unmitigated construction-related health risks for the six receptors that would receive the highest concentrations of construction-related DPM and PM2.5, all of which are existing onsite residential receptors. As shown in Table 3.2-8, the effect of unmitigated Project construction emissions would result in a significant increase in the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations at these receptor locations, although the chronic HI would be below BAAQMD’s significance threshold.

However, with implementation of identified measures, the impacts associated with cancer risk would be reduced to less than significant levels under CEQA. As shown in Table 3.2-9, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b as well as Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 would reduce construction emissions. As a result, cancer risks for the six nearest on-site sensitive receptors would be below BAAQMD’s cancer risk significance threshold. However, PM2.5 concentrations would remain above BAAQMD’s PM2.5 concentration significance threshold; therefore, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Table 3.2-8. Estimated Project-level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Unmitigated Construction DPM and PM2.5 Emissions
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(cases per
million)
Non-Cancer
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximally affected residence for cancer risk 75 0.2 1.9 Second-highest affected residence for cancer risk 72 0.2 1.8 Third-highest affected residence for cancer risk 70 0.2 1.6 Maximally affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
60 0.2 3.7
Second-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
50 0.2 3.0
Third-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
45 0.1 2.7
Significance Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceed Threshold? Yes No Yes
Notes: Exceedances denoted with underline.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter Table 3.2-9. Estimated Project-level Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks from Mitigated Construction DPM and PM2.5 Emissions
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(cases per
million)
Non-Cancer
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Maximally affected residence for cancer risk 6 0.0 0.5
Second-highest affected residence for cancer risk 5 0.0 0.5 Third-highest affected residence for cancer risk 5 0.0 0.4 Maximally affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
5 0.0 1.3
City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-33 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Receptor
Cancer Risk
(cases per
million)
Non-Cancer
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Second-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
4 0.0 1.0
Third-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
4 0.0 1.0
Significance Threshold 10 1.0 0.3
Exceed Threshold? No No Yes
Notes: Exceedances denoted with underline.
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
PM 2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter Cumulative DPM and Localized PM2.5
According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, combined risk levels should be determined for all TAC sources within 1,000 feet of a project site, and the combined risk levels should be compared to BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk thresholds (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017b).

This analysis is presented below.

Nearby TAC sources combined with Project construction could contribute to a cumulative health risk for sensitive receptors near or on the Project site. GIS raster files, Google Earth map files, and distance multipliers provided by BAAQMD were used to estimate excess impacts for existing roadway, railway, and stationary sources (Flores pers. comm.; Winkel pers. comm.). The methods used to estimate Project-related TAC emissions are described above and in Appendix 3.2-1. The results of the cumulative impact assessment are summarized in Table 3.2-10. Individual source contributions are provided in Appendix 3.2-1.

As shown in Table 3.2-10, the cumulative HI at the six receptors (all of which are existing on-site residential receptors) with the highest impact would not exceed BAAQMD’s threshold. However, the unmitigated cumulative cancer risks would exceed the BAAQMD threshold at five of these on-site receptor locations, and cumulative PM2.5 concentrations would exceed the BAAQMD threshold at all six of these on-site receptors that receive the highest concentrations of construction-related DPM and PM2.5, respectively. The contribution of unmitigated PM2.5 concentrations from the Project would exceed BAAQMD’s cumulative annual PM2.5 threshold. The Project’s contribution to cancer risks, in conjunction with existing risks, would exceed BAAQMD’s cumulative cancer risk threshold.

This is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact.

However, similar to the Project impact discussion above, with implementation of identified measures, the impacts associated with cancer risk would be reduced to a less than significant level.

As shown in Table 3.2-10, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-2b as well as Standard Condition of Approval PL-199 would reduce construction emissions. As a result, the cumulative cancer risk at all six of the impacted, on-site receptor locations would be below BAAQMD’s cumulative threshold. However, cumulative PM2.5 concentrations would remain above BAAQMD’s PM2.5 concentration significance threshold at all receptor locations; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-34 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.2-10. Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminant Health Risks from Project and Background Sources Sensitive Receptor
Increased
Cancer Risk
(per million)
(unmitigated
/mitigated)
Non-Cancer
Hazard Index
(unmitigated
/mitigated)
PM2.5
Exposure
(μg/m3)
(unmitigated
/mitigated)
Contribution from Existing Sources
Maximally affected residence for cancer risk 42 0.0 0.7 Second-highest affected residence for cancer risk 42 0.0 0.6 Third-highest affected residence for cancer risk 42 0.0 0.6 Maximally affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
50 0.0 0.7
Second-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
50 0.0 0.7
Third-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
49 0.0 0.8
Contribution from Project Construction
Maximally affected residence for cancer risk 75/6 0.2/0.0 1.9/0.5 Second-highest affected residence for cancer risk 72/5 0.2/0.0 1.8/0.5 Third-highest affected residence for cancer risk 70/5 0.2/0.0 1.6/0.4 Maximally affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
60/5 0.2/0.0 3.7/1.3
Second-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
50/4 0.2/0.0 3.0/1.0
Third-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
45/4 0.1/0.0 2.7/1.0
Cumulative Totals
Maximally affected residence for cancer risk 118/55 0.2/0.0 2.5/1.1 Second-highest affected residence for cancer risk 114/55 0.2/0.0 2.4/1.1 Third-highest affected residence for cancer risk 113/53 0.2/0.0 2.3/1.0 Maximally affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
110/48 0.2/0.0 4.4/2.1
Second-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
100/48 0.2/0.0 3.7/1.8
Third-highest affected residence for PM2.5
concentration
93/48 0.1/0.0 3.5/1.7
BAAQMD Thresholds 100 10 0.8
Exceed Threshold? Yes/No No/No Yes/Yes
Notes: Exceedances denoted with underline.

NA = not available
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Impact AQ-3b Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during operation.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-35 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Discussion
The primary pollutants of concern with regard to health risks for sensitive receptors from Project operation are indoor formaldehyde, DPM, PM2.5, and locally concentrated CO. Each of these pollutants and their potential impact on sensitive receptors is analyzed below.

Indoor Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde in building materials is regulated by CARB, which determined an acceptable level of exposure through its Phase II Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCMs). The Project would be required by the City to comply with the 2019 CALGreen Code—specifically, Section 4.504.5, Composite Wood Products, which specifies that composite wood products (e.g., hardwood, plywood, particleboard, medium-density fiberboard) must meet the requirements for formaldehyde found in CARB’s ATCMs for composite wood products (17 CCR 93120 et seq.). The 2019 CALGreen Code does not allow formaldehyde-based resins or ultra-low-emitting formaldehyde resins to be added to composite wood products and requires documentation of compliance with CARB’s ATCMs. In addition, the 2019 CALGreen Code also includes voluntary measures, such as A4.504.1, which address issues pertaining to formaldehyde. For these reasons, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

DPM and PM2.5
The Project is not expected to represent a significant source of operational DPM because traffic to and from the site would consist primarily of light-duty vehicles of the residents, site visitors, and employees, which are not substantial emitters of DPM. In addition, given the residential nature of the Project, diesel emergency backup generators or other diesel-fueled equipment would not be included as part of Project operations. Therefore, the Project would not result in any appreciable increases in health risks from DPM or PM2.5 during operation, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operations-Generated Localized CO
Continuous engine exhaust may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in “hot spots.” Receptors exposed to these CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline-powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations throughout the day.

Peak-hour traffic volumes at intersections in the transportation study area were analyzed to determine whether the Project would meet the BAAQMD screening criteria for CO hot spots. The intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Middlefield Road would have the highest traffic volumes in the site vicinity, which would occur during the PM peak hour, under the existing, background, and cumulative scenarios. Therefore, this intersection was modeled to determine the potential for exceeding CO hot spot criteria. The traffic volumes at that intersection under the three scenarios are identified below.

1. Existing with Project: 3,886 vehicles per hour

2. Background with Project: 4,349 vehicles per hour

3. Cumulative with Project 4,757 vehicles per hour10
10 Existing conditions represent 2019; cumulative conditions represent a 5-year horizon beyond 2019.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-36 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The maximum volumes under all scenarios at all intersections would be well below the 44,000- vehicle-per-hour screening threshold by a substantial amount (almost 90 percent). Also, intersection volumes under all scenarios at all intersections would be below 24,000; therefore, there would be no exceedance of either the limited vertical/horizontal mixing threshold (24,000 vehicles per hour) or the non-limited mixing threshold (44,000 vehicles per hour) (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2021). Thus, the Project would not result in an exceedance of the BAAQMD screening criteria, and CO concentrations would not exceed the CAAQS. In addition, the City will require the Project to be consistent with the City of Mountain View and the VTA Congestion Management Program (Hexagon Transportation Consultants 2021). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact AQ-4 Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress for the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. According to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfill sites, recycling facilities, and manufacturing plants (California Air Resources Board 2005). Odor impacts on residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, and schools, warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, work sites, and commercial areas.

Potential odor emitters during Project construction include diesel exhaust, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings. Construction-related activities near existing receptors would be temporary.

Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the periodic reapplication of architectural coatings on Project buildings and facilities.

However, odor impacts would be typical of similar construction projects and multi-family residential uses (including existing conditions) and would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Therefore, these construction and operational activities associated with the Project would not result in nuisance odors that would violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. Although such brief exhaust- and paint-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not affect a substantial number of people or rise to the level of a significant impact under CEQA. Because the Project is not anticipated to result in new substantial or long-term odors, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.2. Air Quality
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.2-37 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.2.4.5 Summary of Air Quality Impacts
Impact
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AQ-2a: Result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase in any criteria pollutant
during construction for which the
project region is classified as a
nonattainment area under an
applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard.

Significant MM AQ-2a: Use clean
diesel-powered equipment
during construction to
control constructionrelated NOX emissions.

MM AQ-2b: Use on-road
haul trucks with modelyear 2010 and newer
engines during
construction.

MM AQ-2c: Use low-VOC
architectural coatings
during construction.

Less than
Significant
Impact AQ-2b: Result in a
cumulatively considerable net
increase in any criteria pollutant
during operation for which the
project region is classified as a
nonattainment area under an
applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AQ-3a: Expose existing onsite sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations
during construction.

Significant
(Project and
Cumulative)
MM AQ-2a: Use clean
diesel-powered equipment
during construction to
control constructionrelated NOX emissions.

MM AQ-2b: Use on-road
haul trucks with modelyear 2010 and newer
engines during
construction.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact AQ-3b: Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations during operation.

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact AQ-4: Result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
odors) that would adversely affect a
substantial number of people.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.3 Biological Resources

3.3.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for biological resources. It also describes impacts on biological resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.3.4.5, Summary of Biological Resources Impacts.

3.3.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of existing conditions related to biological resources on the Project site and the Project area.1
The Project site currently contains 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings as well as leasing/amenity space and related improvements. In addition, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located on the site. The Project site is located just south of the intersection of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard, and is bounded by West Middlefield Road to the north, SR 85 to the east, Cypress Point Drive to the south, and Moffett Boulevard to the west. The Project site is less than 0.25 miles west of Stevens Creek.

Surrounding existing land uses include other medium density multi-family land uses. Immediately north of the Project site is a gas station. West of Moffett Boulevard is the Moffett Mobile Home Park and Moffett Plaza (a small shopping center); south of Cypress Point Drive are professional offices. In addition, there are small landscaped parks (e.g., San Veron Park, Whisman Park) in the area surrounding the Project site. An approximately 17-acre area of federally owned land with open areas and residential units is located north of West Middlefield Road and Moffett Boulevard. The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (LSA Associates 2012) classify this area as “Developed.”2 Outside the surface parking areas, much of the area surrounding the existing buildings within the Project site consists of lawns and landscaped ornamental trees and shrubs. There are approximately 417 trees on the Project site, including approximately 255 on-site Heritage Trees (HortScience 2016, 2018, 2019). The trees on or adjacent to the Project site could provide nesting substrate for numerous bird species. The common urban bird species that are expected to use ornamental trees or features on or adjacent to buildings include mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock pigeon (Columba livia), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). No wetlands, streams, or other aquatic features are present on the Project site. The project site is, however, located less than 0.25 miles west of Stevens Creek.
1 The Project area is defined as the area immediately surrounding the Project site that could be directly affected by Project activities.
2 Developed habitat types include residential neighborhoods; commercial and industrial buildings; roads; schools; golf courses; and urban parks as well as associated landscaping, consisting of lawns, ornamental trees, and ornamental shrubs (LSA Associates 2012).

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
The determination rationale for the potential of special-status species to occur within a five-mile radius of the Project site3 is discussed in Section 3.3.4.3, Methods.

3.3.3 Regulatory Setting

3.3.3.1 Federal
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 et seq.) and subsequent amendments provide guidance for conserving federally listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.

Section 7 (Interagency Consultation and Biological Assessments) Section 7 requires federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

Section 9 (Prohibited Acts)
Section 9 prohibits the take of any plant, fish, or wildlife species listed under the federal ESA as endangered, unless otherwise authorized by federal regulations.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC 702–712) protects selected species of birds that cross international boundaries (i.e., species that occur in more than one country at some point during their annual life cycle). The law applies to the removal of nests, eggs, and feathers.

Protection of Migratory Bird Populations
Executive Order 13186 directs each federal agency that carries out actions that will or may result in adverse impacts on migratory bird populations to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding that promotes the conservation of such populations.

3.3.3.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Cal Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 to 2085) mandates that state agencies not approve a project that would jeopardize the continued existence of endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid a jeopardy finding.
3 Conducting a CNDDB query for a five-mile radius from the Project site provides the species records for the region; a five-mile radius is typically the industry standard for this type of records search.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
California Fish and Game Code
Sections 3503 and 3503.5 (Bird Nesting Protections)
Sections 3503 and 3503.3 state that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by the code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.

Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 (Fully Protected Species) Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 list 37 fully protected species and prohibit take or possession at any time, with few exceptions.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (Cal Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 to 1913) requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. It gives the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) the power to designate native plants as endangered or rare and protect endangered and rare plants from take.

3.3.3.3 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to biological resources in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal POS-12: A healthy urban forest and sustainable landscaping throughout the City.

Policy POS 12.1: Heritage trees. Protect trees as an ecological and biological resource.

Policy POS 12.2: Urban tree canopy. Increase tree canopy coverage to expand shaded areas, enhance aesthetics, and help reduce greenhouse gases.

Policy POS 12.4: Drought-tolerant landscaping. Increase water-efficient, drought-tolerant and native landscaping where appropriate on public and private property.

City of Mountain View Municipal Code
The City of Mountain View Municipal Code tree regulations protect Heritage Trees (Chapter 32, Article 2), which are defined as follows:
⚫ A tree of any species with a trunk circumference of 48 inches or more measured 54 inches above the natural grade.
⚫ A tree with multiple branches below the area 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured immediately below the first major trunk fork. ⚫ Any oak (Quercus spp.), redwood (Sequoia spp.), or cedar (Cedrus spp.) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more measured 54 inches above the natural grade. ⚫ A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or significant community benefit.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
A tree removal permit is required from the City of Mountain View for the removal of Heritage Trees.

It is unlawful to injure, damage, destroy, move, or remove a Heritage Tree without obtaining a tree removal permit from the City pursuant to applicable City requirements.

3.3.4 Impact Analysis

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

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

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS.

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal areas, etc., through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

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

Impacts on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities, Federally Protected Wetlands, or Migratory Wildlife/Wildlife Corridors. The Project area is completely developed and does not contain any riparian habitat, wetlands, or other sensitive natural communities.

Similarly, the Project site does not serve as a native resident or migratory wildlife corridor.

Consequently, implementation of the Project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or access to native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, there would be no impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities, federally protected wetlands, or migratory wildlife/wildlife corridors. These topics are not analyzed further.

Impacts Related to Potential Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Local, Regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project site lacks habitat, lacks potential to support sensitive and special-status species, City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
and is outside the adopted Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan area. Consequently, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there would be no impact related to potential conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. These topics are not analyzed further.

3.3.4.2 Identification of Special-Status Species
Special-status species are defined as plants and animals that are protected under the federal ESA, CESA, or other applicable laws and regulations as well as species that are considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. Special-status plants, animals, and fish are in the following categories:
⚫ Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals]) and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]). ⚫ Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA, including federal species of concern (61 FR 40 7596–7613, February 28, 1996). ⚫ Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 California Code of Regulations 670.5).
⚫ Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380).
⚫ Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.).
⚫ Plants considered to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank 1B and 2B, 3, and 4 [California Native Plant Society 2020]). ⚫ Animal species of special concern to CDFW, as identified in the Special Animals List (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020a).
⚫ Bird species that are CDFW first- and second-category species of special concern. Third-priority species are not included because, as stated in the CDFW list, they are “not in any present danger of extirpation and their populations within most of their range do not appear to be declining seriously; however, simply by virtue of their small populations in California, they are vulnerable to extirpation should a threat materialize.”
⚫ Animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]).
⚫ Bat species designated as having high or medium priority by the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). The WBWG is a partner in the Coalition of North American Bat Working Groups. The WBWG is composed of bat experts from agencies, organizations, and research groups interested in bat research, management, and conservation from 15 western states and the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. High-priority bat species are those species that, based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats, should be considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. These species are imperiled or at high risk of imperilment. Medium-priority species are those that warrant closer evaluation, City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
both the species and possible threats; more research; and conservation actions (Western Bat Working Group 2017).

3.3.4.3 Methods
The evaluation of potential adverse effects on special‐status species in the Project area was based on a review of the occurrences of special‐status species within the Project region (i.e., within the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5-minute quadrangle of Mountain View). The following principal sources were consulted during analysis:
• USFWS list of endangered and threatened species that may occur within five miles of the Project site, current as of November 6, 2020 (Appendix 3.3-1) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020). • CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) query results for the USGS 7.5‐minute quadrangle of Mountain View, current as of November 6, 2020 (Appendix 3.3-2) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020b).
• The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) electronic inventory query results for the USGS 7.5‐ minute quadrangle of Mountain View, current as of November 6, 2020 (Appendix 3.3-3) (California Native Plant Society 2020).
• The arborist report and addendum letters prepared for the Project (HortScience 2016, 2018, 2019).

After a review of all relevant data sources, a final list of candidate, sensitive, and special‐status species with moderate or greater potential to occur within five miles of the Project site was compiled, and each of the species was evaluated for presence or absence. The presence of suitable habitat was also evaluated. Candidate, sensitive, and special‐status plant species that could occur in the Project area are presented in Table 3.3‐1. Candidate, sensitive, and special‐status wildlife species are presented in Table 3.3‐2. These tables also include, for informational purposes, species with no or low potential for occurrence in the Project area. CNDDB occurrences within five miles of the Project site are shown in Figure 3.3‐1 for plants and wildlife.

To refine the list of species potentially affected by implementation of the Project, the species in Tables 3.3‐1 and 3.3‐2 were evaluated for their potential to occur in the Project area, as follows:
• Species rated as having “no potential to occur” have no suitable habitat in the Project area or are thought to have been extirpated from the region.
• Species rated as having “low potential to occur” include species whose known distribution does not include the Project area, species for which little appropriate habitat or only marginal habitat is present in the Project area, and species that have not been observed during recent surveys. • Species rated as having “moderate or high potential to occur” include those species for which suitable habitat characteristics are present in the Project area, even though the species was not detected during focused surveys.
• Species rated as “known to occur” have been observed in the Project area.

Species rated as having “moderate or high potential to occur” or “known to occur” in the Project area as well as migratory bird nests were considered in the impact analysis. Where impacts are significant, mitigation measures are identified to reduce the impact to a less-than‐significant level.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Based on Tables 3.3‐1 and 3.3‐2, no special‐status species have potential to occur at the Project site.

As shown in Figure 3.3-1, California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) occurs near the Project site. CNDDB notes that this occurrence is mapped with an accuracy of 0.1 mile; however, the exact location of the species is unknown. All occupied habitat is described as coastal salt marsh with Salicornia virginica, Grindelia stricta and Spartina spp. The coastal salt marsh habitat is more than 2 miles north of the Project site; therefore, there is no habitat for California black rail on the Project site or in the Project area. Migratory birds are the only wildlife resource considered in this impact analysis.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.3-1. Special-Status Plants Known to Occur or that May Occur in the Project Area Species
Statusa
California Distribution Habitats
Blooming
Period
Likelihood to Occur
in Project Areab
Federal/State/
CRPR
Androsace elongate
spp. acuta
California androsace
–/–/4.2 Alameda, Contra Costa, Colusa,
Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Los
Angeles, Merced, Riverside, San
Bernardino, San Benito, Santa
Clara, San Diego, Siskiyou, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San
Mateo, Stanislaus, and Tehama
Counties
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, pinyon
and juniper woodland, valley
and foothill grassland; 500 feet
above mean sea level
Mar–June None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Astragalus tener var.
tener
Alkali milk-vetch
–/–/1B.2 Southern Sacramento Valley,
northern San Joaquin Valley,
east San Francisco Bay Area
Playas, adobe clay in valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools
on alkaline soils, annual
grassland on alkaline soil,
seasonal wetlands; less than
200 feet above mean sea level
Mar–June None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon’s tarplant
–/–/1B.1 Eastern San Francisco Bay
Area, Salinas Valley, Los Osos
Valley
Alkaline soils in annual
grassland, lower slopes, flats,
swales, and sometimes on
saline soils; less than 755 feet
above mean sea level
May–Oct None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre (Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp.
palustris)
Point Reyes bird’s-beak
–/–/1B.2 Coastal Northern California,
from Humboldt to Santa Clara
County; Oregon
Coastal salt marsh; less than 30
feet above mean sea level
June–Oct None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Clarkia concinna spp.
automixa
Alkali milk-vetch
–/–/4.3 Alameda, Santa Clara, and
Santa Cruz Counties
Chaparral and cismontane
woodland; 300–5,000 feet
above mean sea level
May–Jun None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Statusa
California Distribution Habitats
Blooming
Period
Likelihood to Occur
in Project Areab
Federal/State/
CRPR
Eryngium aristulatum
var. hooveri
Hoover’s button-celery
–/–/1B.1 South San Francisco Bay Area;
South Coast Ranges in
Alameda, San Benito, Santa
Clara, and San Luis Obispo
Counties
Vernal pools; 10–150 feet
above mean sea level
July None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpine
Slender-leaved
pondweed
–/–/2B.2 Scattered locations in
California, including Contra
Costa, El Dorado, Lassen,
Merced, Mono, Modoc,
Mariposa, Placer, and Sierra
Counties; also, Arizona,
Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington. Presumed
extirpated in Santa Clara
County
Freshwater marshes, shallow
emergent wetlands and
freshwater lakes, drainage
channels; 985–7,055 feet above
mean sea level
May–July None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
Suaeda californica
California seablite
E/–/1B.1 Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo
County; historically found in
south San Francisco Bay Area
Margins of tidal salt marsh; less
than 50 feet above mean sea
level
July–Oct None; there is no
suitable habitat
within the Project
area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Statusa
California Distribution Habitats
Blooming
Period
Likelihood to Occur
in Project Areab
Federal/State/
CRPR
Sources: Species taken from CNDDB list (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020b); habitats and blooming periods obtained from the CNPS (2020) website.

The Project area is defined as the area immediately surrounding the Project site that could be directly affected by Project activities. a. Status explanations:

Federal
E = listed as endangered under the ESA
– = no listing
State
E = listed as endangered under the CESA
– = no listing
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
1B = List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2B = List 2B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 = List 3 species: review list—plants about which more information is needed 4 = List 4 species: watch list—plants of limited distribution.

CRPR Code Extensions:

0.1 = Seriously threatened in California (more than 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree of threat)

0.2 = Moderately threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree of threat)

0.3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened/low degree of threat or no current threats known) b. Definitions of levels of occurrence likelihood:

Moderate: Plant known to occur within five miles of the Project site based on CNDDB records or other documents or habitat conditions are of suitable quality.

Low: Plant not known to occur within five miles of the Project site based on CNDDB records or other documents or habitat conditions are of poor quality.

None: Plant not known to occur within five miles of the Project site based on CNDDB records or other documents from the vicinity of the Project site or suitable habitat is not present in any condition.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.3-2. Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur in the Project Area Species
Status
Federal/
Statea Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence in the
Project Areab
Invertebrates
Bombus occidentalis
Western bumblebee
–/CE Disjunct occurrences in San Mateo
and Santa Clara Counties
Associated with specific host
plants that typically grow on
serpentine soils
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Euphydryas editha bayensis
Bay checkerspot butterfly
T/– Disjunct occurrences in San Mateo
and Santa Clara Counties
Associated with specific host
plants that typically grow on
serpentine soils
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Callophrys mossii bayensis
San Bruno elfin butterfly
E/– San Bruno Mountain, Montara
Mountains, northern end of Santa
Cruz Mountains in San Mateo
County
North-facing slopes and ridges
facing Pacific Ocean from 600 to
1,100 feet in elevation
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Lepidurus packardi
Vernal pool tadpole shrimp
E/– Shasta County south to Merced
County
Vernal pools and ephemeral stock
ponds
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Fish
Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt
T/T Primarily in the Sacramento–San
Joaquin estuary but has been found
as far upstream as the mouth of the
American River on the Sacramento
River and Mossdale on the San
Joaquin River; range extends
downstream to San Pablo Bay
Occurs in estuary habitat in the
Delta where fresh and brackish
waters mix, with a salinity range
of 2 to 7 parts per thousand
(Moyle 2002)
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Spirinchus thaleichthys
Longfin smelt
–/T, SSC Within California, mostly in the
Sacramento–San Joaquin River
Delta but also in Humboldt Bay, the
Eel River estuary, and Klamath
River estuary. Also found in South
San Francisco Bay, Alviso Slough,
sloughs in Coyote Creek, and in
nearby salt ponds (Rosenfield and
Baxter 2011)
Saltwater or brackish estuary
waters with freshwater inputs for
spawning
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Status
Federal/
Statea Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence in the
Project Areab
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander
T/T, SSC Central Valley, including Sierra
Nevada foothills, up to
approximately 1,000 feet, and
coastal region from Sonoma County
south to Santa Barbara County
Small ponds, lakes, or vernal
pools in grasslands and oak
woodlands for larvae; rodent
burrows, rock crevices, or fallen
logs for cover for adults and for
summer dormancy
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
T/SSC Found along the coast and in the
coastal mountain ranges of
California from Mendocino County
to San Diego County and in the
Sierra Nevada from Butte County to
Stanislaus County
Permanent and semipermanent
aquatic habitats, such as creeks
and coldwater ponds, with
emergent and submergent
vegetation; may aestivate in
rodent burrows or cracks during
dry periods
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Reptiles
Chelonia mydas
Green sea turtle
T/– East and West Coast of United States
and throughout open ocean
Occupies marine habitats;
migrates between nesting sites
and foraging sites. After hatching,
resides in a variety of marine
habitats for up to 40 or more years
and then returns to natal beaches
to lay eggs; occurs in offshore
habitat or coastal habitat (National
Marine Fisheries Service and U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007)
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Emys marmorata
Western pond turtle
–/SSC Occurs along the Oregon border in
Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties and
along the coast to San Francisco Bay;
also, inland through the Sacramento
Valley and on the western slope of
the Sierra Nevada
Occupies ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams, and irrigation canals with
muddy or rocky bottoms and
watercress, cattails, water lilies, or
other aquatic vegetation in
woodlands, grasslands, and open
forests
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Status
Federal/
Statea Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence in the
Project Areab
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
Pallid bat
–/SSCc Widespread throughout California Roosts in fissures in caves, tunnels, mines, hollow trees, and locations
with stable temperatures
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend’s big-eared bat
–/SSCc Coastal regions from Del Norte
County south to Santa Barbara
County
Roosts in caves, tunnels, mines,
and dark attics of abandoned
buildings; very sensitive to
disturbances (may abandon a
roost after one on-site visit)
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Lasiurus cinereus
Hoary bat
–/–
c Widespread throughout California Roosts in trees, typically within forests
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Reithrodontomys raviventris
Salt marsh harvest mouse
E/E, FP San Francisco Bay estuary and
Suisun Marsh
Saline to brackish salt marsh
habitat
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Sorex vagrans halicoetes
Salt marsh wandering shrew
–/SSC Southern arm of San Francisco Bay
in San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda,
and Contra Costa Counties
Salt marshes 6 to 9 feet above
mean sea level
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Birds
Athene cunicularia hypugaea
Western burrowing owl
–/SSC Lowlands throughout California,
including the Central Valley,
northeastern plateau, southeastern
deserts, and coastal areas; rare
along south coast
Level, open, dry, heavily grazed,
or low-stature grassland or desert
vegetation with available burrows
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
Western snowy plover
T/SSC Population defined as those birds
that nest adjacent to or near tidal
waters, including all nests along the
mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore
islands, and adjacent bays and
estuaries; 20 breeding sites are
known in California, from Del Norte
to San Diego County
Coastal beaches above the normal
high-tide limit in flat, open areas
with sandy or saline substrates;
vegetation and driftwood are
usually sparse or absent
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Circus cyaneus
Northern harrier
–/SSC Occurs throughout lowland
California; has been recorded in fall
at high elevations
Grasslands, meadows, marshes,
and seasonal and agricultural
wetlands
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Status
Federal/
Statea Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence in the
Project Areab
Coturnicops noveboracensis
Yellow rail
–/SSC Occurs in coastal areas in California. Sedge marshes/meadows with moist soil or shallow standing
water for breeding; wet meadows
and coastal tidal marshes during
winter (Shuford and Gardali 2008)
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
Salt marsh common
yellowthroat
–/SSC Found only in the San Francisco Bay
Area in Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano,
San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Clara, and Alameda Counties
Freshwater marshes in summer
and salt or brackish marshes in fall
and winter; requires tall grasses,
tules, and willow thickets for
nesting and cover
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Laterallus jamaicensis
conturniculus
California black rail
–/T, FP Permanent resident in San Francisco
Bay and eastward through the Delta
into Sacramento and San Joaquin
Counties; small populations in Marin,
Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Orange,
Riverside, and Imperial Counties
Tidal salt marshes associated with
heavy growth of pickleweed; also
occurs in brackish marshes or
freshwater marshes at low
elevations
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Melospiza melodia pusillula
Alameda song sparrow
–/SSC Found only in marshes along the
southern portion of San Francisco
Bay
Brackish marshes associated with
pickleweed; may nest in tall
vegetation or among pickleweed
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
Ridgway’s rail
E/E, FP Found along the Pacific Coast in
Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties
From tidal mudflats to tidal
sloughs
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Rynchops niger
Black skimmer
–/SSC Found along the Pacific Coast from
southern Oregon to Mexico (Cornell
Lab of Ornithology 2019)
Open sandy beaches, gravel bars
with sparse vegetation, or wrack in
salt marsh (Cornell Lab of
Ornithology 2019)
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
Sternula antillarum browni
California least tern
E/E, FP Found along the Pacific Coast of
California from San Francisco to Baja
California
On open beaches kept free of
vegetation by natural scouring
from tidal action
None; there is no suitable
habitat within the Project area
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Species
Status
Federal/
Statea Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements
Potential Occurrence in the
Project Areab
Source: Species taken from CNDDB list (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020b).

The Project area is defined as the area immediately surrounding the Project site that could be directly affected by Project activities. a. Status explanations:

Federal
E = listed as endangered under the ESA
T = listed as threatened under the ESA
PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened under the ESA C = species for which USFWS has sufficient information on file regarding biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but issuance of the proposed rule is precluded
D = delisted
– = no listing
State
E = listed as endangered under CESA
T = listed as threatened under CESA
CE = candidate for listing as endangered under CESA
FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code SSC = species of special concern in California
D = delisted
– = no listing
b. Definitions of potential for occurrence:

High: Known occurrences of the species within the Project site; CNDDB, or other sources, records occurrence of the species within the five-mile radius of the Project site. Suitable habitat is present within the Project site.

Moderate: CNDDB, or other sources, records a known occurrence of the species within five miles of the Project site; habitat within the Project site is poor quality Low: CNDDB, or other sources does not record an occurrence of the species within five miles of the Project site; suitable habitat is present within the Project site None: CNDDB, or other sources does not record an occurrence of the species five miles of the Project site; suitable habitat is not present within the Project site c. Pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and hoary bat have additional status listing designations from the WBWG (i.e., “H” [high priority] and “M” [medium priority]).

The listings, which represent conservation priorities, are based on available information regarding species distribution, status, ecology, and known threats.

Figure 3.3-1
Project Location
555 West Middlefield Road
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_MountainView\451_17_555WestMiddlefield\Figures\Doc\EIR\1_DEIR\01_ADEIR\Fig3-3-1_CNDDB_20190729.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 11/24/2020 0 0.5 1 Miles Source: CNDDB, 2020
±
5-Mile Radius from Project Site Alameda song sparrow
American peregrine falcon
California Ridgway's rail
California black rail
California least tern
California red-legged frog
California seablite
California tiger salamander
Congdon's tarplant
Crotch bumble bee
Franciscan onion
Hoover's button-celery
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Point Reyes salty bird's-beak
San Francisco collinsia
San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
San Francisco gartersnake
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
Townsend's big-eared bat
Alkali milk-vetch
Black skimmer
Burrowing owl
Hoary bat
Longfin smelt
Northern harrier
Obscure bumble bee
Pallid bat
Round-headed Chinese-houses
Salt marsh harvest mouse
Salt marsh wandering shrew
Salt marsh common yellowthroat
Slender-leaved pondweed
Western bumble bee
Western leatherwood
Western pond turtle
Western snowy plover
Woodland woollythreads
Yellow rail
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.3.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.3.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.3.4.5, Summary of Biological Resources Impacts.

Impact BIO-1 Disturbance of nesting migratory bird species if construction activities begin during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31).

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Migratory bird 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 (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 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.

Standard Conditions of Approval
⚫ PL-206: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey. To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 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:

The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500’ for active nests—with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds—if construction (including site preparation) will begin during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or the surrounding area, the applicant, in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests, with the size to be determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (usually 100’ for perching birds and 300’ for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer will remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey will be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.

Impact BIO-2 Removal of trees regulated by the City of Mountain View.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-18 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Discussion
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). The trees that would be removed as part of the Project and an indication of whether each tree species is considered native or non-native, are presented in Table 3.3‐3. In addition to the approximately 282 trees that would remain on site, the Project would plant approximately 197 trees at the Project site. Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2, Project Description, shows the proposed landscaping elements for the Project. In addition, the Project includes a request for a Heritage Tree Removal Permit, which is subject to City review and approval with conditions.

Table 3.3-3. Proposed Tree Removals under the Project
Scientific Name Common Name
Total
Removals
Heritage
Trees
Native/NonNative
Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood 14 13 Native
Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 15 0 Non-native
Ilex aquifollum English holly 3 0 Non-native
Olea europaea Olive 24 20 Non-native
Pittosprum undulatum Victorian box 9 1 Non-native
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 9 8 Non-native
Prunus caroliniana Carolina cherry laurel 4 0 Non-native Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze loquat 2 0 Non-native
Pinus halepensis Aleppo pine 8 7 Non-native
Lingustrum lucidum Glossy privet 7 1 Non-native
Schinus terebinthifolia Brazilian pepper 29 6 Non-native Quercus ilex Holly oak 4 0 Native
Schinus molle California pepper 4 3 Non-Native
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 3 3 Native
Total 135 62
Source: BDE Architecture, 2020.
a. Although Monterey pine trees are native to California and identified by CNPS as a special-status species, ornamental plantings in the Bay Area are treated as non-native because they are outside their native range in central California and have been planted as landscaping.

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), PL-136 (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 PL154 (Replacement Fee) (see full conditions of approval below).

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-19 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Adherence to the above-referenced Standard Conditions of Approval would ensure that the Project would comply with City regulations regarding the removal of trees. To comply with Standard Condition of Approval PL-144, the loss of 136 Heritage Trees at the Project site would be offset with the planting of 197 trees at the Project site. Each replacement tree would have a box no smaller than 24 inches, and the landscape plan would include a note that states “Heritage Replacement Tree.” To comply with Standard Condition of Approval PL-147, the tree protection measures listed in the arborist’s report prepared by HortScience (2016, 2018, 2019) would be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures would include 6-foot chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. In addition, no materials shall be stored within the drip line of any tree on the Project site. A Tree Removal Permit is part of the Project application and would need to be approved pursuant to the policies and objectives set forth in the City’s ordinance regulating trees. With adherence to the above-referenced Standard Conditions of Approval and conformance with the necessary Tree Removal Permit, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-133: Trees and Landscaping. Proposed landscaping shall be shown on the site plan and submitted with the building permit drawings for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance. Additional landscaping materials or modifications may be required by the Planning Division at final inspection to ensure adequate planting coverage and/or screening.
• PL-134: Landscaping. Detailed landscape plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to the street curb must be included in building permit drawings. Minimum plant sizes are flats or 1-gallon containers for ground cover, 5-gallon for shrubs, and 24” box for trees. The drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance and implemented prior to occupancy. All plans should be prepared by a licensed Landscape Architect and should comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines, including the Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations (forms are available online at www.mountainview.gov/planningforms). Additional landscaping materials or modifications may be required by the Planning Division at final inspection to ensure adequate planting coverage and/or screening.
• PL-136: Certification. Prior to occupancy, the Landscape Architect shall certify in writing the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans and final inspection(s), subject to final approval by the Zoning Administrator. • PL-137: Street Tree. The applicant shall complete the “Proposed Street Tree” form available in the Planning Division or online at www.mountainview.gov/planningforms. Once completed, the applicant shall return the original to the Parks Division, located at 235 North Whisman Road, and provide a duplicate copy to the Building Inspection Division with building permit submittal. • PL-138: Arborist Report. A qualified arborist shall provide written instructions for the care of the 417 trees before, during, and after construction. The report shall also include a detailed plan showing installation of chain link fencing around the dripline to protect these trees and installation of an irrigation drip system and water tie-in for supplemental water during construction. Arborist’s reports shall be received by the Planning Division and must be City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-20 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
approved prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to occupancy, the arborist shall certify in writing that all tree preservation measures have been implemented. Approved measures from the report shall be included in the building permit drawings. • PL-139: Arborist Inspections. During demolition activity and upon demolition completion, a qualified arborist shall inspect and verify the measures described in the arborist report are appropriately implemented for construction activity near and around the preserved trees, including the critical root zones. Should it be determined that the root systems are more extensive than previously identified and/or concerns are raised of nearby excavation or construction activities for the project foundation or underground parking garage, the design of the building and/or parking garage may need to be altered to maintain the health of the trees prior to building permit issuance.
• PL-140: Monthly Arborist Inspections. Throughout demolition and construction, a qualified arborist must conduct monthly inspections to ensure tree protection measures and maintenance care are provided. A copy of the inspection letter, including recommendations for modifications to tree care or construction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at [email protected].
• PL-143: Implementation. Permits to remove, relocate, or otherwise alter Heritage trees cannot be implemented until a project building permit for new construction is secured and the project is pursued.
• PL-144: Replacement. The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage/street tree with approximately 1.5 replacement trees, for a total of 197 replacement trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24” box and shall be noted on the landscape plan as Heritage or street replacement trees.
• PL-147: Tree Protection Measures. The tree protection measures listed in the arborist’s report prepared by HortScience and dated 2019 shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, 6’ chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site. • PL-148: Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan. The applicant shall develop a tree mitigation and preservation plan to avoid impacts on regulated trees and mitigate for the loss of trees that cannot be avoided. Particular attention shall be paid to trees near underground utility work, excavation for foundations, and grading activities. Routine monitoring for the first five years and corrective actions for trees that consistently fail the performance standards will be included in the tree mitigation and preservation plan. The tree mitigation and preservation plan will be developed in accordance with Chapter 32, Articles I and II, of the City Code, and subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to removal or disturbance of any Heritage trees resulting from project activities, including site preparation activities. • PL-149: Security Bond. The applicant shall post a security bond to ensure that replacement trees are planted and become established (one year after planting) and to compensate for the trees that were lost due to illegal removal.
• PL-150: Security Deposit. The applicant shall take all precautions during construction activities to protect the following trees: 246 trees at the Project site that would remain in their current City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-21 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
location, including 158 Heritage Trees. Measures shall include, but not be limited to, all preservation measures identified in the arborist report pursuant to Condition No. PL-147.

To demonstrate accountability for implementing tree preservation measures, the applicant shall provide a security deposit prior to building permit issuance. The deposit shall be placed into an account where no interest shall accrue with payment of a nonrefundable administrative fee. The amount of the deposit shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator based on City review and approval of a cost estimate provided by the applicant. At minimum, the cost estimate shall cover fees associated with a subsequent Heritage Tree Removal Permit process, if required, in accordance with Chapters 32 and 36 of the City Code; the cost of labor and materials for tree removal(s) for all Heritage trees identified to be preserved; and the cost of labor and materials for tree replacement(s) for all Heritage trees identified to be preserved, based on replacement tree species and sizes approved by the Zoning Administrator. The cost estimate submittal and fee deposit shall be completed prior to building permit issuance.

Upon completion of construction, the City will return the security deposit to the applicant upon issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the project if either of the following conditions exist: (1) a site inspection by a certified arborist confirms the health of the trees was maintained and no irrevocable damage or death of the trees has occurred due to the project’s construction activity; or (2) upon completion of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit process and verification the trees have been removed and replaced.
• PL-151: Irrevocable Damage to Heritage Trees. In the event one or more of the preserved Heritage tree(s) are not maintained and irrevocable damage or death of the tree(s) has occurred due to construction activity, a stop work order will be issued on the subject property and no construction activity shall occur for two (2) working days per damaged tree. The applicant will also be subject to a penalty fee at twice the tree valuation prior to damage; this fee applies to each Heritage tree damaged. No construction activity can resume until the penalty fee(s) have been paid to the City.
• PL-152: Tree Relocation. Approximately 35 trees identified in the arborist report prepared by HortScience, and dated 2019 shall be relocated to another location on-site as identified in the approved site and landscape plans
• PL-153: Off-Site Mitigation. There is no suitable on-site location for replacement trees.

Therefore, the applicant shall either pay a fee or donate box trees to the City or other public agency to be used elsewhere in the community. The fee for replacement of a tree or trees shall be, at a minimum, based on the cost of a 24” box tree of the same species, delivered and installed.
• PL-154: Replacement Fee. In exchange for site constraints and/or the limited ability to plant new trees on-site, the applicant shall offset the loss of 62 Heritage/street tree(s) with a replacement fee made payable to the City of Mountain View, based on the adopted fee schedule.

The fee must be paid prior to building permit issuance.

City of Mountain View Section 3.3. Biological Resources 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.3-22 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.3.4.5 Summary of Biological Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact BIO-1: Disturbance of
nesting migratory bird species if
construction activities begin
during the nesting season
(February 1 to August 31).

Less than
Significant
None required —
Impact BIO-2: Removal of trees
regulated by the City of
Mountain View.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.4 Cultural Resources

3.4.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for cultural resources. It also describes impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented in Section 3.4.4.4, Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts.

3.4.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions, as well as relevant prehistorical and historical conditions, related to cultural resources on the Project site and in the immediate vicinity of the Project site.

3.4.2.1 Current Conditions
The existing site contains 402 multi-family units within 15 buildings (The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex). The complex also contains a club house, a pro shop, and numerous recreational and landscape features and improvements. The residential buildings vary with respect to dimensions and floor plans but share architectural characteristics such as stucco cladding, flat roofs that overhang the façades, a regular arrangement of bays, balconies and fenced patios, openair stairwells, and minimal architectural detailing. Lawns; vegetation, including mature trees and hedges; circulation paths; and outdoor seating areas are arranged between the residential buildings.

Tennis courts, basketball courts, and pools are located at the center of the complex. Surface parking areas and post-and-beam carports are on the east and west ends of the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex.

The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at the Project site, constructed in 1968, was designed by architect Robert H. Skinner of SBC Design, Inc., a Los Angeles–based firm. The complex was constructed during a period of rapid residential development within Mountain View and the surrounding South Bay area. The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex (originally called the South Bay Club) contributed to this broad pattern of development and reflected a growing preference among developers for garden apartments, which incorporated shared open spaces among residential buildings, with parking areas shifted to the periphery. Numerous residential tenants have occupied apartments within the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex since its construction in 1968.

The complex has experienced several alterations; these included removal and replacement of the original balcony railings as well as general repairs to the buildings and recreational facilities. The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex was evaluated for its historic significance but found not to be a historical resource for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

More information on development of The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at the Project site is included on the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A (Primary Record) and 523B (Building, Structure, and Object Record) forms in Appendix 3.4-1.

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
A search of the California Historical Resources Information System and literature review did not identify any previously recorded archaeological or historical resources on the Project site or within

0.5 mile (refer to Section 3.4.4.2, Methods, for additional information on the research conducted.) The Project site is situated on alluvial plains from the Holocene epoch (about 12,000 years before present [B.P.]) adjacent to San Francisco Bay. The alluvial plains consist primarily of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits from streams in the Santa Cruz Mountains as well as estuarine deposits from the shores of San Francisco Bay. Because these sediments were deposited during a period for which there is scientific consensus regarding human occupation of North America, they have the potential to contain buried archaeological resources. It is possible that these deposits are also underlain by older alluvium. According to a study conducted for the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan), local Late Pleistocene alluvium (126,000 to 10,000 B.P.) contains fossils of invertebrates and extinct vertebrates (LSA Associates 2012:453).

The Franciscan Complex is the “basement rock” that underlies the alluvium. The Franciscan Complex consists of volcanic and metavolcanic rocks, metamorphosed and unmetamorphosed sandstone, shale, conglomerate, chert, greenstone, and graywacke from the Middle and Upper Jurassic to the Lower Cretaceous (175 million to 100 million years B.P.). Marine fossils occur in the unmetamorphosed rocks of this complex (LSA Associates 2012:454).

3.4.2.2 Prehistory, Ethnography, and History
Prehistory
The Bay Area was a region of intense human occupation long before the European explorers settled there in the 18th century. In the early 20th century, the prehistory of the region was virtually unknown, aside from a small amount of ethnographic information (Kroeber 1925) or information related to the discovery of a few prehistoric sites at the southern end of San Francisco Bay (Nelson 1909).

Milliken et al. (2007) present a series of culture changes in the San Francisco Bay Area. The period of occupation during the 11,500 to 8000 calibrated (cal) B.C. timeframe, when Clovis big-game hunters, followed by the initial Holocene gatherers, presumably lived in the area, lacks evidence, presumably because it has been washed away by stream action, buried under more recent alluvium, or submerged on the continental shelf (Rosenthal and Meyer 2004:1). There is evidence, however, for an in-place forager economic pattern, beginning around 8000 cal B.C., followed by a series of five cycles of change that began at approximately 3500 cal B.C.

Early Holocene (Lower Archaic), 8000–3500 cal B.C.

Between 8000 and 3500 cal B.C., the Bay Area appears to have been occupied by a widespread but sparse population of hunter-gatherers. Stone tools designed for grinding grains and seeds, such as hand stones (also referred to as manos) and milling slabs (also referred to as metate), started to appear in the region during this period, reflecting an emerging reliance on these food sources. A variety of wide-stemmed, leaf-shaped projectile points also emerged during this period, reflecting increased diversity in the range of faunal resources that were being pursued (Milliken et al. 2007:114).

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Early Period (Middle Archaic), cal 3500–500 B.C.

Several technological and social developments characterize the Early Period period in the Bay Area.

Notably, this period marked the beginning of the bead horizon, which continued until around 2,800 years ago (Ingram 1998; Wallace and Lathrop 1975:19). This horizon is characterized by the presence of rectangular beads, carved out of the shells of abalone (Haliotis sp.) and dwarf olive snails (Olivella sp.). During this period, the technology used to grind and process seeds and grains transitioned from hand stones and milling stones to mortars and pestles (Wiberg 1996:373).

Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic), 500 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 430 A new suite of decorative and presumed religious items appeared during the Early Period-Middle Period Transition (Elsasser 1978), which corresponds to the beginning of the Lower Middle Period.

A particularly notable example of newly emerged decorative items was the appearance of saucer beads carved out of Olivella shells. These beads, which appear to be associated with a spatially and chronologically discrete period, represented the first of a series of bead horizons that reflected a robust central Californian bead trade network until cal A.D. 1000 (Groza 2002).

Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic), A.D. cal 430–1050 During the Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic) (cal A.D. 430–1050), the Olivella saucer bead trade network of the Lower Middle Period collapsed. This collapse was reflected in the archaeological record by the abandonment of more than half of the known archaeological sites that contained Olivella saucer shells during this period. In the remaining sites, the number of sea otter bones greatly increased from intensified use of sea otters for both food and their furs (Bennyhoff 1994a, 1994d), possibly suggesting the emergence of otter furs as status items.

Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent), A.D. cal 1050–1550 During the Initial Late Period, burial objects became much more elaborate, and initial markers of the Augustine Pattern appeared in the form of multi-perforated, bar-scored Haliotis ornaments and new Olivella bead types (see Hylkema 2002). Classic Augustine Pattern markers, which appeared in the bead horizon that post-dated the Olivella saucer bead horizon (after cal AD 1250), include the arrow, flanged pipe, Olivella callus cup bead, and the banjo effigy ornament (Bennyhoff 1994c).

Evidence for increased social stratification throughout the Bay Area after AD 1250 can be found in mortuary items, such as higher-quality burial items in high-status burials and cremations (Fredrickson 1994:62). This may have reflected a new regional ceremonial system that was the precursor of the ethnographic Kuksu cult, a ceremonial system that unified the many language groups around the Bay Area during bead horizon L1 (Fredrickson 1974:66; Bennyhoff 1994b:70, 72 [in Milliken et al. 2007:117]).

Terminal Late Period: Protohistoric Ambiguities
An upward cycle of regional integration was very likely commencing around the same time as Spanish settlement in the Bay Area. Such regional integration was a continuing characteristic of the Augustine Pattern, most likely brought to the Bay Area by Patwin speakers from Oregon, who introduced new tools (such as the bow) and traits (such as pre-interment grave-pit burning) into central California. Perhaps the Augustine Pattern, with its inferred shared regional religious and ceremonial organization, was developed as a means of overcoming insularity, not in the core area of one language group but in an area where many neighboring language groups were in contact (Milliken et al. 2007:118).

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Ethnography
The Project site is within the ancestral territory of the Ohlone. Historically, the Ohlone were called the Costanoan Indians. Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word costaños, meaning “people of the coast” (Levy 1978:494). The term Ohlone or Costanoan denotes a larger group with many other tribelets throughout the Bay Area (Levy 1978:485). The term Ohlone is preferred by the present-day members of the group.

The Ohlone were hunter-gatherers and relied on acorns and seafood; however, they also exploited many other foods, including various seeds, the growth of which was promoted by controlled burning; berries; roots; land and sea mammals; reptiles; and insects (Levy 1978:491–493).

The Ohlone were politically organized by tribelet, with each having a designated territory. A tribelet comprised one or more villages and camps within a territory, often designated by geographic features. Tribelets generally had 100 to 250 members (Kroeber 1925). The office of tribelet chief was inherited patrilineally but could be occupied by a man or woman. Duties of the chief included directing ceremonial activities and serving the leader of a council of elders, which functioned primarily in an advisory capacity to the community (Levy 1978:487).

According to Milliken (1995), the vicinity of the Project site was inhabited by the Tamien tribelet of the Ohlone group, whose territory encompassed the central Santa Clara Valley, along the banks of the Guadalupe River, to present-day downtown San José as well as the flatlands westward to Stevens Creek and present-day Cupertino (Milliken 1995).

Today, modern descendants of Ohlone groups now identify themselves collectively, using the name Ohlone. Although they have yet to receive formal recognition from the federal government, the Ohlone are becoming increasingly organized as a political unit and have developed an active interest in preserving their ancestral heritage. Descendants of the Ohlone still live in the area, and many are active in maintaining their traditions and advocating for Native American issues.

History
In the late 1760s and 1770s, Spanish explorers were the first non-native European peoples to traverse the Santa Clara Valley. In 1777, the Spanish settlers established their first built settlements in the valley, known as Mission Santa Clara and Pueblo San José de Guadalupe.

During the Mexican Period, from 1822 to 1846, large parcels of land were granted to individuals.

This included former mission lands that had reverted to public domain (LSA Associates 2012:450).

Mountain View is on formerly ungranted or unbuilt lands, part of Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas. Old Mountain View originated as a stagecoach stop along El Camino Real, the route that historically connected California’s missions. However, Old Mountain View began to fade as the commercial center with the arrival of the San Francisco-San José Railroad (LSA Associates 2012:450).

Santa Clara Valley’s population grew mostly as an outcome of the Gold Rush of 1848, the San Francisco-San José Railroad in 1864, and the transcontinental railroad, completed in 1869.

Mountain View, including the surrounding area’s agricultural land, developed during the Spanish-Mexican period, strengthened in the American period, and persisted until post–World War II urban development took hold (LSA Associates 2012:451).

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Mountain View incorporated in 1902 with a residential community of approximately 1,000. At that time, Mountain View’s identity was largely tied to its location, which allowed agricultural products to be shipped by railroad (County of Santa Clara 2012:77). Throughout the 19th and mid-20th centuries, Mountain View and the Santa Clara Valley thrived as centers of agriculture (LSA Associates 2012:451).

By the 1940s, much of the agricultural land in Mountain View and the surrounding area was replaced by urban housing developments and commercial shopping centers, along with technology and electronic companies in Silicon Valley. Military and high-tech operations, such as Moffett Federal Airfield, the NASA Ames Research Center, and the Lockheed Missile and Space Company, also formed in the postwar era. Like much of the surrounding area, Mountain View experienced major growth after World War II (LSA Associates 2012:451). The population of Mountain View grew nearly tenfold during the postwar period, from 3,946 in 1940 to 30,889 in 1960. The surrounding Cities of Cupertino, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara grew just as quickly. Santa Clara County and the City of Palo Alto grew threefold (County of Santa Clara 2012:80). During that time, the area was transformed by dense housing developments, businesses, light industry, and high-tech companies.

Since the 1960s, new commercial centers and electronic industries have developed steadily in Mountain View and the greater Santa Clara Valley, replacing much of the region’s remaining agricultural lands. In the 1970s, the personal computer took flight, which led to land development designed to serve the commercial and technology sector. In the 1980s, industrial parks served growing technology companies. Mountain View Industrial Park modeled itself after Stanford Industrial Park, which was constructed one decade earlier. Mountain View’s North Bayshore area now includes numerous technology-centered developments (LSA Associates 2012:453; County of Santa Clara 2012:46). The new job market brought about an influx of new residents, accompanied by an increase in the number of automobiles. As a result, suburban housing tracts became the prominent building type, and car-oriented businesses lined the new expressways and boulevards. In particular, Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield was constructed as one of a series of South Bay Club apartments—garden apartments designed and advertised specifically for single people, including several amenities for social living. This housing typology, which originated in California in the late 1950s, had ties to the aerospace industry, which employed hundreds of thousands of young workers (Lasner 2014).

A review of historic aerial photographs revealed that the area surrounding the present-day location of the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex was primarily an agricultural landscape, with open fields, orchards, and farm buildings. By 1960, the agricultural fields west of the Project site had been subdivided and developed with tract housing. This trend continued through the 1980s. Land surrounding the Project site was redeveloped, creating a suburban landscape with residential neighborhoods (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1980).

3.4.3 Regulatory Setting

3.4.3.1 Federal
The term cultural resources, as used in this document, refers to all “built-environment” resources (e.g., structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems), culturally important resources, and archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of significance. Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, which sets forth national policy and procedures for historic properties, defined City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on such properties and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 Code of Federal Regulations 800).

3.4.3.2 State
Historical resources are considered under CEQA as well as California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, which established the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA, as codified in PRC Section 21000 et seq. and implemented by the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.), is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects in California. CEQA defines a historical resource as a property listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR; included in a qualifying local register; or determined by a lead agency to be historically significant. In order to be considered a historical resource, a property must generally be at least 50 years old. Section 21084.1 of the PRC and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource for purposes of CEQA.

CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on important historical resources or unique archaeological resources. If a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the State CEQA Guidelines note that the effects of the project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(4)).

Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Actions that would materially impair the significance of a historical resource are any actions that would demolish or adversely alter the physical characteristics that convey the property’s historical significance and qualify it for inclusion in the CRHR, the NRHP, or in a local register or survey that meets the requirements of PRC Sections 5020.1(k) and 5024.1(g).

California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and indicating which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The CRHR criteria are based on the NRHP criteria (PRC Section 5024.1(b)). Certain resources are determined by CEQA to be automatically included in the CRHR, including California properties formally eligible for or listed in the NRHP. To be eligible for the CRHR, a resource must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following evaluative criteria, as defined in PRC Section 5024.1(c):

1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.

2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.

4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

As with the NRHP, a significant historical resource must possess integrity in addition to meeting the significance criteria to be considered eligible for listing in the CRHR. Consideration of integrity for evaluation of CRHR eligibility follows the definitions and criteria from the National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin 15.

Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA and equates significant impacts on tribal cultural resources with significant environmental impacts (new PRC Section 21084.2). Senate Bill 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places ("cultural places") through local land use planning. Impacts on tribal cultural resources are discussed in Section 3.15, Tribal Cultural Resources.

3.4.3.3 Local
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View (City) Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the City Code) includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources at Section A36.78, Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources (City of Mountain View 2020). Section A36.78 established the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources (Mountain View Register) as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, sites, or other improvements that are considered during the permit review process. The Mountain View Register has criteria for listing similar to the criteria of the CRHR. Specifically, historical resources must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization that, significantly contributed to the culture, history, or development of the City of Mountain View;

2. Is the site of a significant historic event in the City’s past;

3. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the City in terms of a type, period, region, or method of construction; is representative of the work of a master; or possesses high artistic value; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the City’s prehistory or history.

Under Section A36.78.080 of the City Zoning Ordinance, persons are prohibited from making significant alterations, redeveloping, or relocating a property listed in the Mountain View Register without first obtaining a Historic Preservation Permit (HP Permit) from the City’s zoning administrator. An HP Permit is granted if the City finds that (1) the proposed significant alteration will not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource and (2) the proposed significant alteration maintains and enhances the appearance of the community. The provisions of Section A36.78.080 also apply to properties that are eligible for listing in the NRHP and City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
the CRHR, with the added requirements of City Council approval for an HP Permit and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties for alterations made to NRHP and CRHR properties. None of the buildings at the Project site are listed on the Mountain View Register are eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes the following goal and policies related to the protection of historic and cultural resources (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal LUD-11: Preserved and protected important historic and cultural resources.

Policy LUD 11.1: Historical preservation. Support the preservation and restoration of structures and cultural resources listed in the Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, the California Register of Historical Resources, or National Register of Historic Places.

Policy LUD 11.2: Adaptive re-use. Encourage the adaptive re-use of historic buildings in ways that retain their historical materials and character-defining features.

Policy LUD 11.3: Incentives. Encourage historical preservation through incentives and opportunities.

Policy LUD 11.5: Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

Policy LUD 11.6: Human remains. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

3.4.4 Impact Analysis

3.4.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (14 California Code of Regulations 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing cultural resources.

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

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5.

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, as defined in Section 15064.5.

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

3.4.4.2 Methods
The Project site was studied to determine whether cultural resources are present and, if so, assess the impacts of the Project on those resources. Several methodologies were employed for the purpose of determining the presence of cultural resources.

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Research Summary
Permits for existing buildings within the Project site were reviewed at the City of Mountain View Building Division, and deed information was sought at the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office. ICF consulted City directories held by the Mountain View History Center at the Mountain View Public Library. In addition, ICF consulted archived newspapers and secondary historical sources. The information gathered from these research sources informed the CRHR evaluation for the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex, which is described in the Historic Architectural Resources section below.

A review of all previously recorded cultural resources and studies on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System was completed on February 6, 2018. To determine sensitivity for Native American resources within the Project site, consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and local Native American groups was conducted. Historic aerials, topographic maps, and geologic maps were consulted to determine potential sensitivity with respect to encountering buried archaeological resources within the Project site. These efforts are described in the Archaeological Resources section below.

Field Survey
ICF architectural historians surveyed all buildings at 555 West Middlefield Road on September 5, 2018. The survey included field verification of buildings within the Project site, as well as alterations and additions to the complex, and documentation of the Project site with photographs and written notes. The methodology for photographic documentation involved recording representative examples of buildings within the Project site, landscaped common areas on the interior of the site, and surface parking areas at the perimeter of the parcel.

Because of the developed nature of the Project site, as well as the lack of visible ground surface, an archaeological pedestrian survey was not conducted.

Historic Architectural Resources
The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex, located at 555 West Middlefield Road in Mountain View, has not been previously evaluated for eligibility with respect to listing in the CRHR. ICF completed DPR 523A and 523B forms (refer to Appendix 3.4-1) for this draft EIR to record and evaluate the individual eligibility of The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex under CRHR criteria. The DPR forms document all buildings and landscaped areas within the Project site. The DPR forms conclude that the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex is not eligible for listing in the CRHR. A summary of the evaluations for the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex under CRHR Criteria 1 through 4 is provided below.
• Criterion 1 (Events): The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road, which contains 15 buildings plus recreational/amenity facilities, landscaped areas, perimeter parking areas, and other related improvements is not associated with any event(s) of historical significance. The apartment complex is a product of the rapid population growth in Mountain View that occurred after the development of Silicon Valley and a typical example of suburban multi-family residential construction on the southern San Francisco Peninsula from the late 1960s. The complex was originally built as part of the South Bay Club apartment franchise, which provided housing and social programming for young, single, co-ed tenants. The City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex is not an important or influential example of residential development within the context of Mountain View’s suburban residential development during the post–World War II period, nor is it an early or notable example of the garden apartment complexes within the South Bay Club franchise developed to serve the needs of young and single tenants. Therefore, the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road is not significant under CRHR Criterion 1. • Criterion 2 (Persons): The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road is not associated with any persons of historical significance. The complex contains 402 residential units and related improvements, which have been occupied for approximately 50 years by a changing mixture of tenants, none of whom appear to have remained in the building for more than 10 years or achieved historical significance during their occupancy in the apartment complex. Therefore, the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road is not significant under CRHR Criterion 2. • Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design): The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road is an unremarkable example of a suburban apartment complex design developed during the post–World War II period. The complex generally has elements belonging to the Mid-Century Modern architectural style, but it is not a significant or innovative example of the style for its date of construction in the 1960s, a period when many similar buildings were being constructed in suburban areas in the Bay Area and across California. The architect of the complex, Robert Skinner, was based in Los Angeles and involved in the design of many similar garden apartment complexes in California. Skinner is not recognized as a master architect of the mid-20th century in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex is typical of 1960s and 1970s apartment complexes that integrate central landscaping into their design. Therefore, the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road is not significant under CRHR Criterion 3. • Criterion 4 (Information Potential): The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road does not appear to be a source, or likely source, of important historical information that has not already been captured in the historic record and thus is not significant under CRHR Criterion 4.

Based on this evaluation, the Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at the Project site does not meet CEQA’s definition of a historical resource.

Archaeological Resources
Records Search
A review of existing literature at the NWIC on February 6, 2018, identified two cultural resources studies in areas adjacent to the Project site:
⚫ David Chavez & Associates. 1981. Cultural Resources Evaluations for the Proposed Navy Housing Locations at Moffett Field, Santa Clara County, California (S-8371). ⚫ N. Sikes, et al. 2006. Cultural Resources Final Report of Monitoring and Findings for the Qwest Network Construction Project, State of California (S-33061).

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Neither study identified resources within or adjacent to the Project site. A total of 17 studies have been conducted within 0.5 mile of the Project site. These studies consist of reconnaissance and evaluation studies for transportation, telecommunication, restoration, and development projects.

No archaeological resources were identified on the Project site or within 0.5 mile of the Project site.

No built-environment resources were identified on the Project site; however, 27 built-environment resources were identified within 0.5 mile of the Project site. One built-environment resource is listed on the NRHP; Mountain View Adobe (P-43-000708), listed on the NRHP in 2002, is 0.5 mile south of the Project site. The NWIC results are included in Appendix 3.4-3.

Native American Consultation
ICF contacted the NAHC on March 11, 2019, and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) and a list of Native American individuals who are affiliated with the geographic region. The NAHC responded on March 13, 2019, stating that a search of the SLF failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources on the Project site. The NAHC provided a list of six individuals who may have knowledge of resources in the area. On March 15, 2019, letters containing a description of the Project and the location of the Project site were sent to the following individuals:
⚫ Andrew Galvan – The Ohlone Indian Tribe
⚫ Valentin Lopez, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band ⚫ Charlene Nijmeh, Chairperson – Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area ⚫ Katherine Erolinda Perez, Chairperson – North Valley Yokuts Tribe ⚫ Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson – Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan ⚫ Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista On March 15, 2019, Mr. Galvan requested a Phase I report, which is a cultural resources technical report that typically includes the results of a records search and/or survey. That same date, ICF informed Mr. Galvan that a Phase I report would not be prepared for the Project, but a copy of the draft EIR would be provided. On December 16, 2020, ICF followed-up with Mr. Galvan regarding his original request; ICF left a voicemail message with a brief description of the reason for the call and a request for a return phone call. On December 17, 2020, ICF followed up with Mr. Galvan to provide a summary of the literature review and a description of the policies and mitigation measures put in place for the protection of cultural resources. Mr. Galvan stated that, given the mitigation measures, he had no additional concerns but would still like to receive a digital copy of the draft EIR. On March 18, 2019, Ms. Nijmeh requested consultation. On December 21, 2020, ICF followed up with Ms.

Nijmeh via email. This email acknowledged her request and requested a meeting to discuss consultation. On January 5, 2021, ICF followed up with Ms. Nijmeh via phone call after no response was received to ICF’s email. Ms. Nijmeh was unavailable and a voicemail message was left with reason for the call and a request for a call back. On May 9, 2020, Mr. Lopez stated that the Project site is not within his jurisdiction; the tribe had no comment. On May 9, 2020, Ms. Zwierlein stated that construction crews who are involved with Project excavation should receive archaeological sensitivity training. In response to Ms. Zwierlein’s request, Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Conduct Preconstruction Archaeological Sensitivity Training was included as a mitigation measure for the Project. On April 22, 2021, a letter acknowledging Ms. Zwierlein’s request and explaining that her recommendation was incorporated as a mitigation measure was sent via email. To date, no other City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
responses have been received. The Native American consultation materials are included in Appendix

3.4-2.

Historic Landscape Development
As stated in Section 3.4.2.2 Prehistory, Ethnography, and History, the Project site consisted of agricultural fields until the 1940s. Historic aerial photographs depict development that occurred between 1948 and 1961, although the Project site still appeared to be used for farming. Historic topographic maps show the area was primarily undeveloped between 1897 and 1960. A 1980 aerial photograph shows development of the Project site and surrounding area, including residential units that stand today (Nationwide Environmental Title Research 1980). The development boom between 1960 and 1980 suggests low probability for encountering buried historic archaeological material.

Desktop-based Archaeological Sensitivity Review
As indicated above, the Project site is entirely on Holocene-aged alluvial plains. These landforms would have been in the process of forming during a period for which there is scientific consensus about the timing of human occupation in North America. Therefore, these deposits retain the potential to contain buried archaeological resources.

3.4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.4.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.4.4.4, Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts.

Impact CUL-1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Level of Impact No Impact
Discussion
The Project site contains an age-eligible apartment complex, The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex at 555 West Middlefield Road, comprising 15 buildings plus recreational/amenity facilities, landscaped areas, perimeter parking areas, and other related improvements. The evaluation of The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex concluded that the Project site does not meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR and thus does not qualify as a historical resource under CEQA. The evaluation of The Eaves Mountain View at Middlefield complex’s CRHR eligibility is documented on DPR 523A and 523B forms, included in Appendix 3.4-1 of this document and summarized above under Section 3.4.4.2, Methods.

Based on the above analysis, the Project site does not contain historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Moreover, no demolition of the existing residential buildings is proposed by the Project.

Demolition of other buildings and associated elements at the Project site, and redevelopment associated with the Project, would not alter the significance of a historical resource, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on historical resources. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact CUL-2 Potential discovery and adverse effect on unknown prehistoric and historic archaeological resources during construction.

Level of Impact Significant
Mitigation Measure
CUL-2
Conduct preconstruction archaeological sensitivity training.

Level of Impact after
Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
As described above, no prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were identified at the Project site during the literature review conducted at the NWIC. However, the Project site is within Holocene-aged soils, which would indicate elevated sensitivity for subsurface archaeological deposits. Although the Project site has been developed and is within areas of known humanimported fill, the extent of fill material is unknown. The Project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet below ground surface. The ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the Project would have the potential to affect as-yet undocumented intact archaeological resources; this impact could be significant. The Project would be required to adhere to the City’s Standard Condition of Approval PL-201 (Discovery of Archaeological Resources) (effective December 15, 2020) (see full conditions of approval below), which requires that all work within 100 feet of cultural materials unearthed during ground-disturbing activities be halted until the significance of the find can be assessed. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, Standard Condition of Approval PL-201 requires a treatment plan to be developed that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery. To further ensure the protection of any as-yet undocumented resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce the potential for damaging or destroying as-yet undocumented archaeological resources and human remains to a less-thansignificant level by assisting in early identification of resources during Project-related ground disturbance and prescribing the steps to be taken in the event of an unanticipated discovery.

MM CUL-2: Conduct preconstruction archaeological sensitivity training.

Prior to the start of any Project construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a preconstruction archaeological sensitivity training to the excavation crew. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), Project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol, as outlined in PL-118.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-201: Discovery of Archaeological Resources. If prehistoric or historic-period cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, it is recommended that all work within 100’ of the find be halted until a qualified archaeologist and Native American representative can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric materials might include obsidian and chert-flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American representative, will develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.

Impact CUL-3 Disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Although no previously documented human remains were identified within the Project site during the literature review at the NWIC, the potential always exists for previously undiscovered human remains to be encountered during demolition or construction activities associated with the Project.

The Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-202 (Discovery of Human Remains) (effective December 15, 2020) (see full conditions of approval below), which requires no excavation or disturbance within a 50-foot radius of the discovery of human remains until an agreement can be made regarding disposition of the materials. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then Standard Condition of Approval PL-202 requires the landowner to reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. Adherence to Standard Condition of Approval PL-202 would ensure that, if encountered during Project construction, human remains would be properly treated. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-202: Discovery of Human Remains. In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50’ radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

City of Mountain View Chapter 7. References
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.4-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.4.4.4 Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact CUL-1: Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical
resource, pursuant to Section
15064.5.

No Impact None required —
Impact CUL-2: Cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource, as defined in Section
15064.5.

Significant MM CUL-2: Conduct
preconstruction
archaeological sensitivity
training.

Less than Significant
Impact CUL-3: Disturb any
human remains, including those
interred outside of formal
cemeteries.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources

3.5.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for geology, soils, and paleontological resources. It also describes impacts associated with geology, soils, and paleontological resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.5.4.4, Summary of Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Impacts.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. The only applicable issue that was identified is related to building foundations.

3.5.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, including topography, seismic conditions, and the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units present at the Project site.

3.5.2.1 Geology
Mountain View is situated in the Santa Clara Valley between the Central California Coast Ranges (Santa Cruz Mountains) and San Francisco Bay. The Coast Ranges geomorphic province is characterized by northwest-to-southeast-trending valleys and ridges (California Geological Survey 2002). Santa Clara Valley is composed of folded and faulted sedimentary and volcanic rocks and more recent alluvial and Bay deposits in lower valley areas (Wentworth et al. 1998). The Santa Clara Valley is underlain by Quaternary-age alluvial deposits, which are up to several hundred feet deep, and recent Bay deposits at the extreme northern end of the valley. The Santa Cruz Mountains are composed primarily of Franciscan Assemblage sandstone, shale, chert, and serpentine, with lesser amounts of Santa Clara, Purisima, San Lorenzo, Monterey, and Vaqueros formations of Tertiary age also occurring.

Mountain View is located entirely on the alluvial plains adjacent to San Francisco Bay. This alluvial plain consists mainly of unconsolidated gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposits that have been subject to redistribution by fluvial (stream) processes.

3.5.2.2 Topography
Mountain View has relatively varied topographic relief, starting at approximately mean sea level at San Francisco Bay and rising to approximately 200 feet above mean sea level near the southern edge of the Mountain View. The topography of the Project site is generally flat. The site, which is approximately 62 feet above mean sea level, gently slopes to the north toward Stevens Creek Boulevard. No landslide deposits exist at the Project site (California Geological Survey 2006).

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.5.2.3 Seismic Conditions
The characteristic northwest-to-southeast valleys and ridges of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province were created from the collision of the Farallon and North American plates. Movements on this plate boundary in the Northern California region occur along the San Andreas fault system, causing seismic activity. Table 3.5-1 shows the distance of each of the major regional faults from the Project site.

Table 3.5-1. Regional Faults
Fault
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site (miles)
Direction from
Site
Maximum
Moment
Magnitude
Monte Vista-Shannon 4.3 Southwest 6.5
North San Andreas-Peninsula 7.5 Southwest 7.2
North San Andreas (1906 event) 7.5 Southwest
Total Hayward 11.8 Northeast 7.0
Total Hayward-Rodgers Creek 11.8 Northeast 7.3
Total Calaveras 14.9 East 7.0
North San Andreas-Santa Cruz 15.5 South 7.1
San Gregorio Connected 19.3 West 7.5
Zayante Vergeles 22.4 Southeast 7.0
Mount Diablo Thrust 26.7 Northeast 6.7
Greenville 29.2 Northeast 7.0
Monterey Bay-Tularcitos 32.9 South 7.3
Green valley Connected 34.8 North 6.8
Sources: Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015.

The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region and subject to numerous earthquake events.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which organized a working group to study earthquakes in the Bay Area, estimates there is a 72 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years (Field et al. 2015). The faults in the region with the highest estimated probability of generating damaging earthquakes between 2014 and 2043 are the Hayward (33 percent), Rodgers Creek (33 percent), Calaveras (26 percent), and San Andreas faults (22 percent).

Surface Fault Rupture
The Project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2006).

Seismic Ground Shaking
Moderate to severe design-level earthquakes can cause strong ground shaking. Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is a measure of an earthquake’s maximum ground acceleration at a site. A PGA of

0.54 g was estimated for the Project site (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). This acceleration corresponds to perceived severe shaking (Wald et al. 1999).

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Seismically Induced Ground Failure
Liquefaction is a process in which loose sand and silt behave like a liquid when shaken by an earthquake. The soil can lose its ability to support structures (U.S. Geological Survey n.d.). The Project site is within a state-designated liquefaction hazard zone (California Geological Survey 2006). Below-grade parking garages and foundations would be constructed below the water table (discussed below under Soils and Groundwater). Preliminary field testing indicates that several subsurface sandy layers at the Project site could experience liquefaction (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015).

When the soil consolidates after liquefaction, the particles are closer together than before liquefaction, resulting in soil settlement. Soil settlement is a process through which soil particles consolidate such that the soil decreases in volume. Because layers of soil are generally not uniformly dense, liquefaction often results in differential settlement. Differential settlement is unequal settling of soil. As discussed below under Soils and Groundwater, field testing through borings and cone penetration tests identified layers of sand and sandy silt of varying thickness underlying the Project site (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). Because the layers of sandy soil underlying the Project site are not uniformly thick or dense, the site could experience differential settlement as a result of liquefaction.

Other phenomena are associated with liquefaction, specifically lateral spreading. Lateral spreading is horizontal (or lateral) ground movement of relatively flat-lying or gently sloping soil deposits toward a free face such as an excavation, channel, or open body of water. Typically, lateral spreading is associated with liquefaction of one or more subsurface layers near the bottom of the exposed slope. In lateral spreading, surficial soil displaces along a shear zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). Because the site slopes away from Stevens Creek and the potentially liquefiable soils are not continuous, and because testing indicates that saturated cohesionless sediments underlying the Project site would not be subject to displacement, it is unlikely that widespread shear zones would develop that would allow for lateral spreading. Therefore, lateral spreading is not likely to affect the site.

Loose to medium-dense unsaturated sandy soils can settle during strong seismic shaking. As with settlement as a result of liquefaction and soil layers that are not uniformly dense, differential settlement can result. The Project foundations would be located below groundwater, and the unsaturated soils above groundwater are clayey soils rather than sandy soils. The potential for substantial differential seismic settlement affecting the Project site is low (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015).

3.5.2.4 Soils and Groundwater
Field testing was conducted at the Project site with three boring samples and five cone penetration tests (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). All borings encountered pavement sections made up of approximately 2 to 3 inches of asphalt concrete, underlain by approximately 4 to 6 inches of aggregate base. Underlying the pavement is alluvial deposits. An upper clay layer extends to approximately 17 to 23 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The upper clay consists of medium-stiff to very stiff clay. Testing indicates that the soil is overconsolidated1 and has a low to moderate 1 An overconsolidated clay has experienced a pressure greater than its current load.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
expansion potential.2 The upper clay layer is underlain by medium-dense to dense sand, silty sand, and sand with gravel. This layer of heterogeneous sand ranges from 2 to 13 feet in thickness. The sandy layer is underlain by stiff to hard clay interbedded with dense to very dense sand, silty sand, and sand with gravel. This clay layer with interbedded sand extends from the sandy layer to the maximum depth explored. The lower clay layer is also overconsolidated.

Soils in the Project area are Urbanland-Elpaloalto complex, Urbanland-Campbell complex, and Urbanland-Cropley complex (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019). The UrbanlandElpaloalto complex at the Project site is composed of approximately 70 percent Urban land, 23 percent Elpaloalto and similar soils, and 7 percent minor components. The Urbanland-Campbell complex at the Project site is composed of approximately 70 percent Urbanland, 20 percent Campbell and similar soils, and 10 percent minor components. The Urbanland-Cropley complex at the Project site is composed of approximately 75 percent Urbanland and 25 percent Cropley and similar soils. Urbanland soils occur in areas that have been cut, filled, or covered as a result of urban development and do not comprise native soils. Therefore, approximately 25 percent of the soil at the Project site is native soil.

Because soils at the Project site are largely Urbanland soils, with variable components of fill, there is no rating for erodibility (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2019). The properties and characteristics of these soils are variable because of the differences in the kind and amount of fill material used. Because the soils at the Project site are fairly level soils, they would not be highly susceptible to water erosion.

Depth to groundwater, as encountered in subsurface exploration, was between 11.5 and 22 feet bgs (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). Maps of the Project site and vicinity indicate that the historic high groundwater is approximately 10 feet bgs. Sandy layers of sediments reported above occur below the groundwater level.

3.5.2.5 Paleontology
Paleontological sensitivity is an indicator of the likelihood of a geologic unit to yield fossils, as defined and discussed in Section 3.5.4.2, Methods. Unlike archaeological sites, which are narrowly defined, paleontological sites are defined by the entire extent (both areal and stratigraphic) of a unit or formation. Once a unit is identified as containing vertebrate fossils, or other rare fossils, the entire unit is a paleontological site (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010). For this reason, the paleontological sensitivity of geologic units is described and analyzed broadly (referenced herein as the “study area”) and not limited to jurisdictional boundaries.

The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units exposed at the ground surface at the Project site or underlying the Project site is shown in Table 3.5-2. Following the table is a description of geologic unit in the study area with the potential to contain fossils. 2 An expansive soil undergoes volume changes with changes in moisture content, such as with seasonal precipitation.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.5-2. Paleontological Sensitivity of Geological Units at or Underlying the Project Site Symbol Geologic Unit Epoch
Paleontological
Sensitivity Notes
Q Alluvium Holocene High In most areas, unit is most
likely too young to yield
fossils.a However, recent
research suggests that the
Quaternary alluvium of the
Santa Clara Valley may be
more paleontologically
sensitive than previously
recognized.b
Sources: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010, p. 2000; Wagner et al. 1991.

Notes:
a. Geologic units younger than 5,000 years old are generally not considered old enough to contain fossils (Wagner et al. 1991).
b. Maguire and Holroyd 2016.

Quaternary Alluvium of the Santa Clara Valley (Q)
Pleistocene vertebrate fossils have been found from multiple localities across Santa Clara Valley, including Lawrence Expressway East, San José; Santa Clara Valley Water District lands in the Guadalupe River in San José; Sunnyvale Sewer, Sunnyvale; Calabaza Creek, Sunnyvale; and Milpitas, as well as multiple localities farther north. All of these fossil localities occur in units that have been mapped as surficial Holocene deposits (Maguire and Holroyd 2016). Radiocarbon dating of the mapped Holocene sediments where the Pleistocene remains were found shows Pleistocene age for two of these finds (11 and 30 feet below modern ground surface); for the others, no dating was performed. Some of these finds may have washed down from the mountains and been deposited in Holocene waterways, but the two radiocarbon-dated finds most likely originated where they were found. These occurrences demonstrate that older sediments and fossils (greater than 10,000 years before present [B.P.]) occur at or very near the surface in these areas, particularly because the amount, association, and orientation of the fossils from these localities indicate that the sediments in which they occur have not been reworked through geologic or artificial processes (Maguire and Holroyd 2016). Accordingly, Pleistocene alluvium may be more widespread and shallower in the Santa Clara Valley than was previously thought, and Pleistocene fossil resources are very likely present in Santa Clara Valley in units mapped as Holocene alluvium. Documented vertebrate fossils include extinct species of mammoth, bear, horse, bison, and camel. The Quaternary alluvium of the Santa Clara Valley is considered sensitive for paleontological resources.

3.5.3 Regulatory Setting

3.5.3.1 Federal
There are no relevant federal regulations for geology and soils, other than Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, which is discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.5.3.2 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
California’s Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code Section 2621 et seq.), originally enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994, is intended to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. The Alquist-Priolo Act prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults and strictly regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). It also defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal weight to terms such as active, and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to earthquake fault zones.

Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned, and construction along or across them is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as referring to approximately the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (California Geological Survey 2018).

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
Similar to the Alquist-Priolo Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (Public Resources Code Sections 2690–2699.6) is intended to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the AlquistPriolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Its provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act (i.e., the state is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped seismic hazard zones).

Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development. Specifically, cities and counties are prohibited from issuing development permits for sites within seismic hazard zones until appropriate site-specific geologic and/or geotechnical investigations have been carried out and measures to reduce potential damage have been incorporated into the development plans.

California Building Standards Code
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Standards Code (CBC), provides minimum standards for building design in the state. The 2019 CBC, effective January 1, 2020, is the current code and based on the current International Building Code (IBC).

Each jurisdiction in California may adopt its own building code but based on the CBC. Local codes are permitted to be more stringent than the CBC but, at a minimum, are required to meet all state standards and enforce the regulations of the CBC. The City of Mountain View (City) has adopted the 2019 CBC.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Chapter 16 of the CBC deals with structural design requirements governing seismically resistant construction (Section 1604), including the factors and coefficients used to establish seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the proposed building design (Sections 1613.5 through 1613.7). Chapter 18 includes the requirements for foundation and soil investigations (Section 1803); excavation, grading, and fill (Section 1804); allowable loadbearing values of soils (Section 1806); the design of footings, foundations, and slope clearances (Sections 1808 and 1809); retaining walls (Section 1807); and pier, pile, driven, and cast-in-place foundation support systems (Section 1810). Chapter 33 includes requirements for safeguards at work sites to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (Section 3304). Appendix J of the CBC includes grading requirements for the design of excavations and fills (Sections J106 and J107) and for erosion control (Sections J109 and J110). Construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching, as specified in the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulations (CCR, Title 8).

3.5.3.3 Local
City of Mountain View
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies related to geology and soils in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal PSA-5: The protection of life and property from seismic hazards.

Policy PSA 5.1, New Development: Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.

Policy PSA 5.2, Alquist-Priolo Zones: Development shall comply with the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Act.

Policy PSA 5.4, Utility Design: Ensure new underground utilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, are designed to meet current seismic standards.

Ordinances
Chapter 8 of the City Code of Ordinances requires adherence to the CBC, 2019 edition, which incorporates, by adoption, the 2015 edition of the IBC of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This code specifies designs for structural integrity, including in a seismically active area.

Association of Bay Area Governments
The City is an “actively participating jurisdiction” in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Association of Bay Area Governments 2011). The plan, which was released in 2005 and updated in 2010, was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on March 24, 2011.

The plan is a joint effort among many jurisdictions in the Bay Area to “build a more disasterresistant region.” Local governments adhere to the plan when they adopt a formal resolution to support the plan’s eight commitment areas: infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use. The plan lays out strategies that will help local City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
jurisdictions set priorities as they allocate resources for hazard mitigation so that their approaches are mutually supporting. Local governments that adopt a hazard mitigation plan may be eligible for certain benefits, including points under the National Flood Insurance Program community rating system, and waiver of the local match requirement for public assistance moneys after a disaster (Association of Bay Area Governments 2011).

The local hazard mitigation plan, or annex, for the City was adopted in 2012 (Association of Bay Area Governments 2012). The City’s priorities are to install a microwave backup network that would serve as a backup for existing facilities, enhancing the City’s ability to recover IT operations in the event of a disaster, and develop and maintain a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP). A BCP includes minimizing interruptions to the City’s ability to provide its services and being able to resume critical operations within a specified time after a disaster. A DRP describes how the City will deal with potential disasters and details the precautions that need to be taken to minimize the effects of a disaster.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program As discussed in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program comprises 77 cities in the Bay Area region (including the City of Mountain View) and other agencies in the Santa Clara Valley. These jurisdictions and agencies are regulated by the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit issued under federal Clean Water Act Section 402 Phase II regulations, which require stormwater management plans to be developed by municipalities with populations of less than 100,000. As part of permit compliance, these permit holders have created stormwater management plans for their respective locations.

3.5.4 Impact Analysis

3.5.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) identifies the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing geology and soils.

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

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)
b. Strong seismic ground shaking.
c. Seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction. d. Landslides.

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

5. Have soils that would be incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

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

Impacts Related to Landslides. No known landslide zones exist on or near the Project site, which is relatively flat (California Geological Survey 2006). Therefore, there would be no impact related to landslides. This topic is not analyzed further.

Impacts Related to Septic Tanks or Alternative Wastewater Disposal Systems. The Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; instead, the Project would connect to the City’s wastewater system. Therefore, there would be no impact resulting from the performance of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This topic is not analyzed further.

3.5.4.2 Methods
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity were analyzed qualitatively, based on information from the preliminary site-specific geotechnical report and published maps and reports. The primary sources are the following:
⚫ Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 555 West Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015); and
⚫ Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation: Mountain View Triangle. October 18 (California Geological Survey 2006).

Paleontological Resources
The paleontological study area is the Project site and the underlying sediments to the maximum depth of excavation. The fossil-yielding potential of geologic units in a particular area depends on the geologic age and origin of the units as well as on the processes they have undergone, both geologic and anthropogenic.4F
3 The methods used to analyze potential impacts on paleontological resources and develop mitigation for the identified impacts involve the following steps:
⚫ Assess the likelihood that sediments affected by Project implementation contain scientifically important, nonrenewable paleontological resources.
 Identify the geologic unit(s) in the paleontological study area. 3 Anthropogenic means caused by human activity.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
 Evaluate the potential of the identified geologic unit(s) to contain significant fossils (their paleontological sensitivity).
 Identify the geologic unit(s) that would be affected the Project, either at ground surface or below ground surface.
⚫ Identify and evaluate impacts on paleontologically sensitive geologic unit(s) as a result of construction and operations that involve ground disturbance. ⚫ Evaluate impact significance.
⚫ According to the identified degree of sensitivity, formulate and implement measures to mitigate potential impacts.

The potential of the Project to affect paleontological resources relates to ground disturbance, particularly with respect to excavation. Ground disturbance caused by the Project would take place during construction but not during Project operation; therefore, this impact analysis addresses construction impacts.

To identify the geologic units in the paleontological study area, the Geologic Map of the San Francisco-San José Quadrangle (Wagner et al. 1991) was consulted. To evaluate the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units, the University of California Museum of Paleontology database was searched for records of fossils in geologic units present at the Project site (University of California Museum of Paleontology 2019), and scientific literature was reviewed (Maguire and Holroyd 2016).

After the records search and review of scientific literature, the paleontological sensitivity of the units was assessed. The Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revisions Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has published Standard Guidelines (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010). The Standard Guidelines include procedures for the investigation, collection, preservation, and cataloging of fossil-bearing sites. The Standard Guidelines are widely accepted among paleontologists and followed by most investigators. The Standard Guidelines identify the two key phases of paleontological resource protection as (1) assessment and (2) implementation.

Assessment involves identifying the potential for a project site or area to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources that could be damaged or destroyed by project excavation or construction. Implementation involves formulating and applying measures to reduce such adverse effects. For the assessment phase, the SVP defines the level of potential as one of four sensitivity categories for sedimentary rocks: High, Undetermined, Low, and No Potential (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2010).
⚫ High Potential. Assigned to geologic units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered as well as sedimentary rock units suitable for the preservation of fossils (e.g., middle Holocene and older sandstones, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones). Paleontological potential consists of the potential for yielding abundant fossils, a few significant fossils, or “recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data.”
⚫ Undetermined Potential. Assigned to geologic units “for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment.” In cases where no subsurface data already exist, paleontological potential can sometimes be assessed by subsurface site investigations.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
⚫ Low Potential. Field surveys or paleontological research may allow determination that a geologic unit has low potential for yielding significant fossils (e.g., basalt flows). Mitigation is generally not required to protect fossils.
⚫ No Potential. Some geologic units have no potential to contain significant paleontological resources, such as high-grade metamorphic rocks (e.g., gneisses and schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (e.g., granites and diorites). Mitigation is not required.

Based on data from the University of California Museum of Paleontology database and information from the scientific literature, each geologic unit in the study area was assigned a paleontological sensitivity according to SVP’s Standard Guidelines. Based on paleontological sensitivity of the disturbed sediments, a CEQA impact conclusion was drawn.

As discussed under Quaternary Alluvium of the Santa Clara Valley (Q), this unit has yielded vertebrate fossils and is considered sensitive for paleontological resources. Accordingly, this unit has high potential with respect to containing paleontological resources.

3.5.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.5.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.5.4.4, Summary of Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Impacts.

Impact GEO-1a Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed under Surface Fault Rupture, the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as designated by the California Geological Survey, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. Therefore, the risk of surface fault rupture at the site is low.

The Project site is in a seismically active area, and although unlikely, future faulting may occur in areas where no active faults were previously known to exist. However, given the nature and location of the site, along with the geologic history of the area, the risk of surface fault rupture from unknown faults is considered to be low. Furthermore, the Project would be required to comply with requirements set in the then-current CBC to withstand forces associated with the maximum credible earthquake. The CBC sets standards for excavation, grading, construction earthwork, fill embankments, foundation investigations, liquefaction potential, and soil strength loss. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report)(effective December 15, 2020) (see full condition of approval below), which ensures the recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical report are implemented. Specifically, Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 requires the applicant to have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and the report would be submitted to the City during building plan check. Adherence to these recommendations and other City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
applicable requirements and standards would address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specification of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. All recommendations in the report must be implemented as part of the Project. Implementation of these recommendations would minimize any risk to the extent feasible associated with exposure to potential surface fault rupture in the Project area. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-48: Geotechnical Report. The applicant shall have a design-level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey (CGS) Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report will be submitted to the City during building plan check, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report will be implemented as part of the project and included in building permit drawings and civil drawings as needed.

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

Impact GEO-1b Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismically induced ground shaking.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed in Section 3.5.2.3, Seismic Conditions, the Project is in a seismically active area that contains numerous faults. A list of faults of regional significance is provided in Table 3.5-1.

Seismically induced ground shaking at the Project site would depend on a number of factors, such as:
⚫ Size of the earthquake (magnitude),
⚫ Distance from the Project site to the fault rupture source, ⚫ Directivity (focusing of earthquake energy along the fault in the direction of the rupture), and ⚫ Subsurface conditions.

Given the Project site’s proximity to the San Andreas fault (approximately 7.5 miles) and other faults that could produce a large earthquake, as discussed under Seismic Ground Shaking, the potential exists for a large earthquake to induce strong to very strong ground shaking at the site during the life of the Project.

The Project would be required to be designed and constructed to meet applicable standards set forth by the City and CBC requirements. These codes are designed to reduce major structural damage and loss of life in the event of an earthquake. The seismic performance goals generally City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
expect that some property damage would be incurred in a moderate to large earthquake, but the damage would generally be reparable and not life threatening. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report)(see full condition of approval above), which ensures the recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical report are implemented. Adherence to these recommendations, along with all other relevant standards and requirements, would address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specification of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. All recommendations in the report must be implemented as part of the Project. Implementation of these recommendations would minimize any risk associated with exposure to potential seismic ground shaking in the Project area. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-1c Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed under Seismically Induced Ground Failure, portions of the Project site are susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction. According to data obtained in the geotechnical report, several potentially liquefiable layers underlie the Project site.

The Project would be required to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed applicable standards set forth by the City and the then-current CBC. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report) (see full condition of approval above), which would ensure the recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical report are implemented. Adherence to these recommendations, along with other applicable standards and requirements, would address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specification of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. Because the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and CBC requirements, and to implement recommendations provided in the geotechnical report, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-2a Result in substantial soil erosion.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. The Project site and surrounding areas are fully developed. Construction activities would include demolition, excavation, and grading, which would expose soils and result in accelerated erosion during Project construction. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, demolition activities are expected to generate approximately 21,513 cubic yards of demolished material, trees, concrete, asphalt, and aggregate. The removal of materials, including concrete and City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-14 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
asphalt, that currently cover the underlying soils would expose previously sheltered soils to the elements as well as construction activities on the site, which could accelerate erosion rates.

As required by Standard Condition of Approval FEP-03 (State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit) (see full condition of approval below), and described more fully in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, all Project construction activities would be required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, which contains standards to ensure that water quality is not degraded. As part of this permit, standard erosion control measures and best management practices (BMPs) would be identified in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation in waterways and the loss of topsoil. The SWPPP and BMPs would minimize erosion and runoff during construction to the extent feasible.

These BMPs could include, but would not be limited to, using drainage swales or lined ditches to control stormwater flow and protecting storm drain inlets (with gravel bags or catch basin inserts).

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation. Project operation would not result in increased rates or quantities of erosion. As described in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the site. The Project would include stormwater management measures, including designs for low-impact development, BMPs, and a media filtration system that would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 6 of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. These systems would reduce the amount of erosion by slowing and reducing the volume of runoff. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• FEP-03: State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit. A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.

Impact GEO-2b Result in the loss of topsoil.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
Soils at the Project site are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as UrbanlandElpaloalto complex, Urbanland-Campbell complex, and Urbanland-Cropley complex, as described in Section 3.5.2.4, Soils and Groundwater. Construction of the Project would include demolition, excavation, and grading, which could result in the loss of this topsoil. However, all of the soils present at the Project site include Urbanland and accordingly are not predominantly native soils.

Accordingly, the impact relating to loss of topsoil would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-15 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Discussion
As stated in Section 3.5.2.4, Soils and Groundwater, groundwater at the Project site is relatively shallow (encountered at a depth of 11.5 to 20 feet bgs, with historic high groundwater at 10 feet bgs). Excavation deeper than 10 feet would encounter groundwater. The proposed maximum depth of excavation for the Project is 35 feet bgs. Excavation, therefore, may require dewatering to avoid substantial water inflow into the excavation during construction and destabilization of the ground near excavation under construction equipment loads (Langan Treadwell Rollo 2015). Dewatering could result in settlement at adjacent structures, including buildings, sidewalks, streets, and utilities.

In addition, during Project operation, groundwater could exert hydrostatic pressure on subsurface levels; permanent dewatering could be required to relieve this pressure. Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, discusses water quality requirements for dewatering.

As discussed under Impact GEO-1c, the Project site is subject to liquefaction. Analysis suggests that up to 0.5 inch of liquefaction-induced settlement could occur. In addition, estimates suggest that up to 0.5 inch of differential settlement could be anticipated. Differential settlement is expected between most independent Project foundation elements. Differential settlement may occur at places where Project improvements are supported both on grade (i.e., on the ground) and on other Project structures that extend into the subsurface. As discussed under Seismically Induced Ground Failure, the risk of settlement as a result of seismic densification is low.

As discussed under Seismically Induced Ground Failure, there are no free faces within or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, the risk of lateral spreading is low.

The Project would be required to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed applicable standards set forth by the City and the then-current CBC. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report) (see full condition of approval above), which would ensure the recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical report are implemented. Because the Project would comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (which require implementation of recommendations provided in the geotechnical report) and all other CBC and City requirements and standards, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-4 Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed under Section 3.5.2.4, Soils and Groundwater, the Project site is underlain by soil with low to moderate expansion potential. In areas with moderately expansive soil, there is potential for damage to foundations, utilities, and other structures built in or on this soil. Such damage could include cracking, buckling, and dislocation during cycles of soil wetting and drying.

To ensure impacts from expansive soils remain less than significant, the Project would be required to be designed and constructed to meet or exceed applicable standards set forth by the City as well as the then-current CBC. Furthermore, the Project would be required to adhere to Standard Condition of Approval PL-48 (Geotechnical Report) (see full condition of approval above), which ensures the City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-16 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
recommendations in the Project’s geotechnical report are implemented. Because the Project would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (which require implementation of recommendations provided in the geotechnical report) and also be mandated to adhere to applicable City and CBC, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact GEO-5 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
The potential for impacts on paleontological resources is related to the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units involved in ground disturbances (i.e., their potential to produce significant [scientifically important] fossil materials). Holocene Santa Clara alluvium, which has yielded scientifically important fossil finds, underlies the Project site. The Project would excavate to a maximum depth of approximately 35 feet below ground surface. The ground-disturbing activity associated with construction of the Project would have the potential to unearth and damage significant paleontological resources or previously unknown unique geologic features. The Project would be required to adhere to the Standard Condition of Approval PL-203 (Discovery of Paleontological Resources), which requires that excavations within 50 feet of a fossil discovered during construction be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. Adherence to Standard Condition of Approval PL-203 would ensure that the Project would not damage significant paleontological resources or previously unknown unique geologic features. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Standard Conditions of Approval
• PL-203: Discovery of Paleontological Resources. In the event that a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50’ of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

City of Mountain View
Section 3.5. Geology, Soils, and Paleontological
Resources
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.5-17 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.5.4.4 Summary of Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Impacts
Impact
Significance before
Mitigation Mitigation Measure
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact GEO-1a: Directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving
rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-1b: Directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving
strong seismically induced ground
shaking.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-1c: Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving seismically
related ground failure, including
liquefaction.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-2a: Result in substantial
soil erosion.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-2b: Result in the loss of
topsoil.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-3: Be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable,
or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-4: Be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Section
1802.3.2 of the California Building
Code (2007), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property.

Less than Significant None required —
Impact GEO-5: Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic
feature.

Less than Significant None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.6 Energy

3.6.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for energy resources. It also describes impacts associated with energy resources that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section 3.6.4.4, Summary of Energy Impacts.

3.6.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to energy resources in California, Santa Clara County, and the Project site.

3.6.2.1 State Energy Resources and Use
California has a diverse portfolio of energy resources that produced 2,408.2 trillion British thermal units (BTUs) in 2018 (U.S. Energy Information Administration [U.S. EIA] 2020a). Excluding offshore areas, the state ranked seventh in the nation in crude oil production in 2018 (the most recent year for which data are available), producing the equivalent of 965.3 trillion BTUs (U.S. EIA 2020b). Other energy sources in the state include natural gas (228.9 trillion BTUs), nuclear power (190.4 trillion BTUs), and biofuel (35.5 trillion BTUs) (U.S. EIA 2020a and 2020b). No coal production occurs in California. In addition, because of the mild Mediterranean climate and strict energy-efficiency conservation requirements, California has lower energy consumption rates than most parts of the United States. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, California consumed approximately 7,966.6 trillion BTUs of energy in 2018 (U.S. EIA 2020c). California’s per capita energy consumption of 201.9 million BTUs is one of the lowest in the country, ranking 48th in the nation as of 2018 (U.S. EIA 2020d).

In 2018, natural gas accounted for the majority of energy consumption (2,207.4 trillion BTUs, or 28 percent), followed by gasoline (1,716.3 trillion BTUs, or 21percent); renewable energy, including nuclear electric power, hydroelectric power, and power from biomass and other renewables (1,344.9 trillion BTUs, or 17 percent); distillate and jet fuel (1,260.5 trillion BTUs, or 16 percent); and interstate electricity (865.7 trillion BTUs, or 11 percent), with the remaining 7 percent coming from a variety of other sources (U.S. EIA 2020e). Of the natural gas consumed, commercial uses consumed approximately 12 percent, followed by residential uses (20 percent), and industrial uses (37 percent), among many other uses (U.S. EIA 2020f).

The transportation sector consumed the most energy (3,170.0 trillion BTUs, or 40 percent), followed by the industrial (1,848.2 trillion BTUs, or 23 percent), commercial (1,509.2 trillion BTUs, or 19 percent), and residential (1,439.2 trillion BTUs, or 18 percent) sectors (U.S. EIA 2020c).

Per capita energy consumption, in general, is declining because of improvements in energy efficiency and designs. However, despite this reduction in per capita energy use, the state’s total overall energy consumption (i.e., non-per capita energy consumption) is expected to increase over the next several decades as a result of the growth in population, jobs, and vehicle travel.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.6.2.2 Regional Energy Resources and Use
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) provides natural gas services to the vast majority of Northern California, including Mountain View and the Project site. PG&E’s service extends from Eureka to Bakersfield (north to south) and from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean (east to west). PG&E purchases gas and power from a variety of sources, including other utility companies. PG&E obtains its energy supplies from power plants and natural gas fields in Northern California. PG&E operates a grid distribution system that channels all power produced at the various generation sources into one large energy pool for distribution throughout the service territory. PG&E has two plan options, known as Solar Choice options, in addition to its base plan, which gives customers the option to purchase energy from solar resources. The first Solar Choice option provides up to 50 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources, while the other option provides up to 100 percent of a customer’s energy from solar resources.

Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is Santa Clara County’s official electricity provider; therefore, it provides electricity to Mountain View and the Project site. SVCE’s power comes from various sources, including solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other energy generation resources. SVCE allows customers to choose between two different electricity product options, GreenStart, which provides 50 percent of a customer’s electricity from renewable resources, and GreenPrime, which provides 100 percent of a customer’s electricity from renewable resources (Silicon Valley Clean Energy 2019).

In 2018, SVCE provided approximately 55 percent of Mountain View’s electricity from eligible renewable energy resources under the GreenStart option and 100 percent of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources under the GreenPrime option (SVCE 2020).

In Santa Clara County, a total of 459.7 million therms of natural gas were consumed in 2019. In 2019, natural gas in Santa Clara County was consumed primarily by the residential sector (53 percent), followed by the non-residential sector (47 percent) (California Energy Commission n.d.). Table 3.6-1 outlines PG&E’s and SVCE’s power mix in 2018 compared to the power mix for the state.

3.6.2.3 Project Site Energy Resources and Use
The site currently has 402 multi-family residential rental units within 15 buildings (totaling approximately 310,263 square feet) as well as leasing/amenity space (approximately 7,493 square feet) and other improvements. In addition, approximately 670 surface parking spaces are located on the site. Table 3.6-2 shows the existing energy usage at the Project site in 2018.

As stated previously, PG&E and SVCE provide natural gas to Mountain View and, therefore, the Project site. There are five PG&E natural gas pipelines in proximity to the Project site: a 1-inch pipeline (ID NGL1532) approximately 0.3 mile north of the site, an 8-inch pipeline (ID NGL1565) approximately 0.9 mile west of the site, an 8-inch pipeline (ID NGL1567) approximately 0.5 mile east of the site, a 26-inch pipeline (ID NGL1123) approximately 0.6 mile north of the site, and a 30- inch pipeline (ID NGL1125) approximately 0.25 mile north of the site (California Energy Commission 2017). There are seven electric transmission lines in proximity to the Project site: six 115-kilovolt lines approximately 0.1 mile east of the site and one 60-kilovolt transmission line approximately 0.9 mile west of the site (California Energy Commission 2020).

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.6-1. PG&E, SVCE, and the State of California Power Mix in 2018 a) Energy
Resources
PG&E
Option:

Base
Plan
PG&E
Option: 50%
Solar
PG&E
Option:
100% Solar
SVCE Option:

GreenPrime
SVCE
Option:

GreenStart
2018 CA
Power
Mix
Eligible
Renewable 39% 69% 100% 100% 55% 31%
Biomass and
waste 4% 2% 0% 0% 1% 2%
Geothermal 4% 2% 0% 0% 8% 5%
Small
Hydroelectric 3% 1% 0% 0% 3% 2%
Solar 18% 59% 100% 23% 12% 11%
Wind 10% 5% 0% 77% 31% 11%
Coal 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
Large
Hydroelectric 13% 6% 0% 0% 46% 11%
Natural Gas 15% 7% 0% 0% 0% 35%
Nuclear 34% 17% 0% 0% 0% 9%
Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% < 1%
Unspecifieda 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: PG&E 2019; SVCE 2019.

Note:
a. Electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific generation sources is classified as an unspecified source of power.

Table 3.6-2. Existing Energy Resource Consumption at the Project Site in 2018 Energy Resources Consumption (approximate)
Electricity 1,793,200 kWh/year
Natural Gas 35,957 therms/year
Gasoline 245,055 gallons/year
Diesel 0 gallons/year
Source: The existing energy calculations are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Note:
kWh= kilowatt hour
City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.6.3 Regulatory Setting

3.6.3.1 Federal
Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was intended to establish a comprehensive, long-term energy policy for the United States. The Act addresses energy production, including various forms of renewable energy; energy efficiency; climate change technology; nuclear matters and security; and energy tax initiatives programs. Energy efficiency measures and tax incentive programs can include the production or purchase of energy-efficient appliances, credits for the construction of new energy-efficient hones, and loan guarantees for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the production of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Executive Order 13154, 2009—Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance
Executive Order 13514, signed in October 2009, sets sustainability goals for federal agencies. It focuses on improvements in environmental, energy, and economic performance within the agencies. In addition, the Order requires federal agencies to measure, report, and reduce their GHG emissions from direct and indirect activities.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Signed into law in December 2007 by President Bush, the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles; increase the production of clean renewable fuels; increase energy security in the United States; improve the energy performance of the federal government; and promote research on GHG capture and storage. In addition, the Act included a new energy grant program for use by local governments to implement energy-efficient initiatives in addition to green building incentives and programs.

Executive Order 13834—Efficient Federal Operations
Executive Order 13834, signed in May 2018, references the requirements set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The order sets the following requirements, among many others: implement cost-saving energy efficiency measures and reduce building energy use annually; use performance contracting to achieve energy, water, building modernization, and infrastructure goals; and ensure that new construction and major renovations meet building efficiency requirements and sustainable design principles.

3.6.3.2 State
California Energy Efficiency Standards (CALGreen) for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings—Green Building Code (2011), Title 24 Updates The California Green Building Standards, or CALGreen (proposed Part 11, Title 24), was adopted as part of the California Buildings Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

CALGreen applies to the planning, design, operation, construction, use, and occupancy of newly constructed buildings and requires the installation of energy- and water-efficient indoor City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
infrastructure for all new projects beginning January 1, 2011. CALGreen also requires newly constructed buildings to develop a waste management plan and divert at least 50 percent of construction materials generated during project construction.

The current 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020. Under the 2019 standards, homes will use about 53 percent less energy than homes constructed under the 2016 standards, while nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy. Later standards are expected to require zero-net energy for new commercial buildings.

Assembly Bill 32
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, was adopted in 2006 by California. The bill requires the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In addition, implementation of AB 32 will help to mitigate risks associated with climate change while simultaneously improving energy efficiency, expanding the use of renewable energy resources, reducing waste, and using cleaner modes of transportation.

Since AB 32 was adopted, the California Air Resource Board (CARB), the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Buildings Standards Commission have been developing regulations that will help meet the goals of AB 32.

Assembly Bill 1493, Pavley Rules (2002, amendments 2009)/Advanced Clean Cars (2011)
Known as Pavley I, AB 1493 provided the nation’s first GHG standards for automobiles. AB 1493 required CARB to adopt vehicle standards to lower GHG emissions from automobiles and lightduty trucks to the maximum extent feasible beginning in 2009. In 2012, strengthening of the Pavley standards (referred to previously as Pavley II but now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measures) was adopted for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. Together, the two standards are expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. The increase in fuel economy will help lower the demand for fossil fuels.

Senate Bill 350 (2015), Chapter 547, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
Senate Bill (SB) 350 (DeLeon), also known as the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, was approved by the legislature in September 2015 and signed by Governor Brown in October 2015. Its key provisions require the following by 2030: (1) achieving a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 50 percent and (2) doubling statewide energy efficiency savings in natural gas and electricity end uses. In order to help meet these provisions, the bill requires large utilities to develop and submit integrated resource plans that detail how the utilities will reduce GHG emissions and increase the use of clean energy resources while meeting customers’ needs.

Senate Bill 100—The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018 (2018) SB 100 builds on SB 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015. SB 100 increases the 2030 RPS target set in SB 350 to 60 percent and requires an RPS of 100 percent by 2045.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Senate Bill 1078, and Senate Bill 107
SB 1078, signed in 2002, and SB 107, signed in 2006, involve California’s RPS; the bills are enforced and implanted by the CPUC and CEC. These bills obligate investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to obtain additional retail sales from eligible renewable sources, with the long-range target of procuring 33 percent of retail sales from renewable resources by 2020.

3.6.3.3 Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for air quality planning within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), including projects in Mountain View.

The 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate, was adopted by the BAAQMD on April 19, 2017 (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017). The 2017 Clean Air Plan updates the prior 2010 Bay Area ozone plan and outlines feasible measures for reducing ozone; provides a control strategy to reduce particulate matter, air toxics, energy use, and GHGs in a single, integrated plan; and includes detailed measures to be adopted or implemented for each of these issues areas. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains the following measures that are applicable to energy use; consistency with these goals is evaluated in this section:
⚫ Decarbonize Electricity Production: Engage with PG&E, municipal electric utilities, and Community Choice Energy to maximize the amount of renewable energy used in the production of electricity within the Bay Area as well as the amount of electricity imported into the region. Work with local governments to implement local renewable energy programs.

Engage with stakeholders, including dairy farms, forest managers, water treatment facilities, food processors, public works agencies, and waste management facilities, to increase the use of biomass in electricity production.
⚫ Decrease Electricity Demand: Work with local governments to adopt additional energyefficiency policies and programs. Support local government energy-efficiency programs through best practices, model ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand during peak times.

PG&E Integrated Resource Plan
PG&E adopted the 2020 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on September 1, 2020, to provide guidance for serving the electricity and natural gas needs of residents and businesses within its service area while fulfilling regulatory requirements. The IRP contains the following objectives that are relevant to this analysis:
⚫ Clean Energy: In 2019, PG&E delivered nearly 30 percent of its electricity from RPS-eligible renewable resources, such as solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and small hydropower. In addition, PG&E’s GHG-free energy production, which encompasses renewable resources, large hydropower, and nuclear, satisfied all of PG&E’s bundled retail sales in 2019. ⚫ Reliability: PG&E’s IRP analysis includes PG&E’s contribution to system and local reliability, in compliance with the CPUC’s resource adequacy requirements, especially as California transitions toward higher shares of GHG-free generation resources.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
⚫ Affordability: PG&E’s IRP analysis selects resources to meet the state’s clean energy and reliability goals and provides a system average rate forecast in compliance with the CPUC’s requirements for investor-owned utilities.

SVCE 2020 Integrated Resource Plan
SVCE is a community choice energy program that serves the entirety of Santa Clara County, including Mountain View. SVCE adopted the 2020 IRP on September 1, 2020, to provide guidance for serving the electricity needs of the residents and businesses in Santa Clara County while fulfilling regulatory requirements over a 10-year planning period from 2021 to 2030. In the plan, SVCE identified three key goals: GHG reductions, affordability, and reliability.

City of Mountain View
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan) includes the following goals and policies related to energy production and consumption in Mountain View (City of Mountain View 2012):

Goal INC-13: Increased energy efficiency and conservation throughout the city.

Policy INC 13.1, Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Increase energy efficiency and conservation in public buildings and infrastructure.

Policy INC 13.2, Alternatives to Gasoline: Promote and increase the use of new technologies as alternatives and supplements to gasoline in vehicles throughout the community.

Policy INC 13.3, Coordinating Efforts: Support regional and local efforts and programs to reduce energy use.

Policy INC 13.4, Education: Educate the public about energy conservation and efficiency best practices.

Policy INC 13.5, Smart Utility Meters: Encourage utility meter technologies that provide feedback about energy usage to customers.

Goal INC-14: Sufficient renewable sources of energy to meet current and future demand.

Policy INC 14.1, Renewable Energy: Promote the deployment of renewable energy technologies throughout the city.

Policy INC 14.2, Solar Energy: Encourage active and passive solar energy use.

Policy INC 14.3, Regional Renewable Energy: Participate in regional initiatives to encourage and develop renewable energy sources.

Policy INC 14.4, Renewable Energy Advocacy: Support legislation to facilitate and increase renewable energy choices for community residents such as green utility power options or distributed generation.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Mountain View Green Building Code
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the California Green Building Code (CALGreen) to include local green building standards and requirements for private development.

The MVGBC applies green building requirements according to building type and thresholds for new construction, residential additions, and commercial/industrial tenant improvements. Furthermore, it includes energy efficiency standards that exceed the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third-party organization; instead, it requires projects to be designed and constructed to “meet the intent” of a third-party rating system.

3.6.4 Impact Analysis

3.6.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Appendix G (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) identify the significance criteria to be considered in determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing energy resources.

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

1. Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation.

2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

3.6.4.2 Methods
According to Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if analysis of a project’s energy use reveals that the project may result in significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption use of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, the environmental impact report must mitigate the energy use. Guidance for such an analysis is presented in CEQA Guidelines Appendix F.

Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, the goal of conserving energy implies the wise and efficient use of energy. This means that achieving the goal includes:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption;
• Decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil; and • Increasing reliance on renewable energy sources.

Based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix F, environmental considerations may include the following:
• A project’s energy requirements and its energy efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project, including construction, operation, maintenance, and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. • The effects of a project on local and regional energy supplies and requirements for additional capacity.
• The effects of a project on peak- and base-period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
⚫ The degree to which a project complies with existing energy standards. ⚫ The effects of a project on energy resources.
⚫ A project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives.

Energy impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project were assessed and quantified, where applicable, using standard accepted software tools and techniques and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Appendix F considerations, as appropriate.

Construction
Construction of the Project would result in energy consumption from equipment, employee vehicles and haul trucks, and electricity consumption. Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in May 2023 and end in August 2028, lasting a total of approximately 64 months. Based on currently available information, following is the anticipated construction phasing schedule. First, the tennis and basketball facilities and parking structure on the Park Parcel would be demolished and the land would be graded (approximately 3 months). Then, the existing leasing office and amenity building, pool, and spa would be demolished and the proposed new leasing office and amenity building, outdoor amenities, and below-grade parking garage on Block A would be constructed (approximately 15 months). Next, following occupancy of Block A, the existing surface parking lot on proposed Block B would be demolished and the proposed new building and below-grade parking garage on Block B would be constructed (approximately 21 months). Then, the existing surface parking lot on Block C would be demolished and the proposed new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C would be constructed (approximately 25 months). While the new building and below-grade parking garage on Block C are being constructed, the proposed minor enhancements to the exterior of existing residential buildings would also be made. The construction schedule (i.e., start and end dates), the types of construction equipment, the number of pieces of equipment, the amount of material imported and exported, and the number of acres to be graded and paved at the Project site were provided by the applicant and are based on available information.

The construction modeling inputs and CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2, output files are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Operation
Energy use and consumption was estimated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. Energy sources include the combustion of natural gas as well as the use and generation of electricity. Energy usage was quantified for existing (2018) and buildout (2028) conditions with the Project. The 2028 modeling reflects implementation of state measures to reduce GHG emissions (e.g., SB 100, Pavley) and, consequently, energy usage. The CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Operational electricity consumption under full Project buildout (2028) was drawn from the modeling performed to support the GHG analysis, which was based on default electricity, natural gas, and water consumption factors from CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. For ease of comparison, electricity consumption was converted to BTUs, assuming an energy intensity of 3,416 BTU per kilowatt hour (Argonne 2015). Natural gas consumption is presented in CalEEMod in thousand BTU (kBTU) format.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.6.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides a discussion of each impact as it corresponds to the significance criteria presented in Section 3.6.4.1, Criteria for Determining Significance. Impacts and required mitigation measures are summarized at the end in Section 3.6.4.4, Summary of Energy Impacts.

Impact EN-1 Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Project construction or operation.

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

Level of Impact
after Mitigation
Less than Significant
Discussion
Construction. Construction associated with the new residential development under the Project would result in the temporary usage and consumption of energy resources within the Project site.

Construction associated with the Project would consume gasoline and diesel fuel through operation of heavy-duty construction equipment and vehicles. Construction-related energy usage and consumption would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, and number of personnel. The type of development envisioned under the Project would involve construction activities typical of development within an urbanized planning area on an infill location. No land uses are expected to require an extraordinary amount of energy consumption during construction, as compared to those that might occur with large industrial facilities, such as new power plants or dams, because no such land uses are proposed or permitted within the Moffett/Whisman Plan Area, and are not proposed as part of the Project.

Upon Project completion, the total amount of development at the site would have an area of approximately 713,161 square feet, including the approximately 310,263 square feet of existing uses to remain at the Project site and the approximately 402,898 square feet of new uses to be constructed under the Project by 2028. This could result in a significant energy impact if best management practices are not implemented. Estimated construction-related energy consumption is provided in Table 3.6-3. Project construction would consume approximately 54,345 million BTUs over the approximate 64-month construction period.

Table 3.6-3. Estimated Construction Energy Consumption from the Project Source Million BTUs
Electricity 85
Fuel: Gasoline b) 49,021
Fuel: Diesel c) 5,239
Total d) 54,345
Source: The CalEEMod model outputs and construction energy calculations are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed during construction activities (e.g., ensuring that 15 percent of construction vehicles/equipment use alternative fuels such as biodiesel or electricity).

This mitigation measure would also reduce the energy intensiveness associated with new building materials and discarded construction and demolition waste by requiring construction contractors to implement BAAQMD’s recommend best management practices—specifically, those associated with alternative fuel and recycling. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, Project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Operation. Once operational, the Project would generate vehicle trips, which would consume gasoline and diesel. The residential development would also result in the consumption of electricity and natural gas for operational uses such as power, emergency generators, heating, cooling, and landscaping activities. The Project’s energy consumption is evaluated under existing (2018)1 and buildout year (2028) with the Project. The analysis reflects implementation of quantifiable measures to reduce energy usage (e.g., SB 100). Table 3.6-4 presents the results of the analysis regarding operational energy consumption. The Project’s net energy consumption is determined by taking the difference in operational energy consumption between 2028 with-Project conditions and existing (2018) conditions at the Project site.

Table 3.6-4. Estimated Operational Energy Consumption for the Project Site Analysis Condition/Source Million BTUs/Year
Existing (2018)
Electricity 6,126
Natural Gas 3,596
Mobile: Gasoline 30,387
Mobile: Diesel 0
Total Existing 40,109
2028 with Project Development
Electricity 12,936
Natural Gas 350
Mobile: Gasoline 18,805
Mobile: Diesel 0
Total 2028 with Project Development 32,091
Net Change with Project Development
2028 with Project Development vs. Existing (2018) -8,018 Source: The CalEEMod model outputs and energy calculations are included in Appendix 3.2-1.

Note: Gallons of gasoline converted to BTUs, assuming an energy intensity of 124,000 BTU per gallon of gasoline.

From: Environment and Ecology. 2020. Energy Units and Calculators. Available: http://environmentecology.com/what-is-energy/90-energy-units-and-calculators.html. Accessed: November 23, 2020. 1 2018 is the most recent year for which PG&E emission factor data are available.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Estimated Project operational energy consumption in 2028 will be 32,091 million BTUs. This represents a decrease of 8,018 million BTUs compared to existing conditions due to the increased energy efficiency and design of the proposed development, as described in more detail below. As discussed previously, California’s total system energy generation in 2018 was 2,408.2 trillion BTUs.

The Project’s energy consumption represents less than 1 percent of this total, and energy efficiency technology, such as zero-net energy buildings, renewable energy technologies, and microgrids, would help to ensure that electricity demands at the Project site and in the state would be adequately met in the future.

The Project would achieve additional reductions in energy consumption and usage through sustainability features that encourage alternative transportation and passive heating and cooling. It would be compliant with the MVGBC, CALGreen, and all energy efficiency policies and requirements.

In addition, The applicant intends to pursue Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies, which may include low volatile organic compound (VOC) materials, low-flow plumbing fixtures, Energy Star appliances, light-emitting diode (LED) lighting, drought-tolerant landscaping, low-flow irrigation systems, landscape bio-filtration planters for stormwater management, a highly efficient building envelope that mitigates solar heat gain, lightcolored surfaces, and/or the installation of all new parking below grade (which reduces heat island effect). In addition, 5 percent of the proposed total vehicle parking spaces would be designated for electric vehicles, with power outlets for recharging.

The Project proposes the following transportation demand management (TDM) features, which are anticipated to reduce peak-hour traffic by approximately 6 percent for both the existing and new residential units and thereby decrease mobile gasoline and diesel energy consumption at the Project site:
⚫ On-site carshare spaces
⚫ Secure bicycle parking
⚫ Bicycle repair stations
⚫ Convenient delivery storage space
⚫ Site enhancements to encourage walking to facilities on-site and nearby ⚫ Adhering to minimum parking requirements to reduce parking supply as compared to Institute of Transportation Engineers recommendations
⚫ Real-time transit information screens
⚫ Collaborative workspace
⚫ TDM coordinator
⚫ Affordable housing
With the incorporation of the above sustainability and TDM features, the Project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during Project operation. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of Mountain View Section 3.6. Energy
555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.6-13 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Impact EN-2 Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Level of Impact Less than Significant
Discussion
As discussed above, the Project would include energy-efficiency components that would support implementation of applicable plans related to renewable energy or energy efficiency. The Project would also include various features to reduce water consumption, increase recycling and organic waste diversion, and promote electric vehicle usage. In addition, as discussed above, the applicant intends to pursue LEED for Homes certification for the Project, which would involve the incorporation of a multitude of feasible sustainable strategies. As discussed in Section 3.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would be consistent with applicable plans related to renewable energy or energy efficiency. Specifically, the Project would be consistent with relevant provisions of the General Plan as well as the City’s Climate Protection Roadmap Plan, Bay Area 2010 Climate Action Plan, Plan Bay Area, AB 32, and SB 100. Accordingly, the Project would not impede implementation of any of these plans. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

3.6.4.4 Summary of Energy Impacts
Impact
Significance
before Mitigation Mitigation
Significance
after Mitigation
Impact EN-1: Result in potentially
significant environmental impact due
to the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during Project construction
or operation.

Significant MM GHG-1: Implement
BAAQMD’s best
management practices
to reduce GHG emissions
from construction.

Less than
Significant
Impact EN-2: Conflict with or obstruct
a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

Less than
Significant
None required —
City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-1
June 2021
ICF 00214.20

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.7.1 Introduction
This section describes the environmental and regulatory setting for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. It also describes impacts from GHG emissions that would result from implementation of the Project and mitigation for any identified significant impacts where feasible and appropriate. A summary of impacts and mitigation measures is presented at the end in Section

3.7.4.4, Summary of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Impacts.

3.7.2 Environmental Setting
The unique chemical properties of GHGs enable them to become well mixed within the atmosphere and transported over long distances. Consequently, unlike other resource areas that are concerned primarily with localized Project impacts (i.e., within 1,000 feet of the Project site), the global nature of climate change requires a broader analytic approach. Although this section focuses on GHG emissions generated at the Project site as a result of construction and operation, the analysis considers potential regional and global GHG impacts.

3.7.2.1 Greenhouse Gases
The principal anthropogenic (human-made) GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included in this list because its natural concentrations and fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources.

Given the nature of the Project, the primary GHGs of concern associated with the Project are CO2, CH4, and N2O. The principal characteristics of these pollutants are discussed below.

Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through fossil fuel (e.g., oil, natural gas, coal) combustion, solid waste decomposition, plant and animal respiration, and chemical reactions (e.g., from cement manufacturing). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock operations and other agricultural practices s well as the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.

Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as the combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Methods have been set forth to describe emissions of GHGs in terms of a single gas to simplify reporting and analysis. The most commonly accepted method for comparing GHG emissions is the global warming potential (GWP) methodology defined in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reference documents. IPCC defines the GWP of various GHG emissions on a normalized scale that recasts all GHG emissions in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-2
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
compares the gas in question to that of the same mass of CO2 (CO2 has a global warming potential of 1 by definition).

Table 3.7-1 lists the global warming potential of CO2, CH4, and N2O and their lifetimes in the atmosphere.

Table 3.7-1. Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming Potential
(100 years)
Lifetime
(years)
CO2 1 50–200
CH4 25 12
N2O 298 114
Source: California Air Resources Board 2019a.

CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
N2O = nitrous oxide
All GWPs used in the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) GHG inventory and its assessment of attainment of the state’s 2020 and 2030 reduction targets are considered over a 100-year timeframe (as shown in Table 3.7-1). However, CARB recognizes the importance of short-lived climate pollutant (SLCPs) and the need to reduce such emissions to achieve the state’s overall climate change goals. SLCPs have atmospheric lifetimes on the order of a few days to a few decades. Their relative climate-forcing impacts, when measured in terms of how they heat the atmosphere, can be tens, hundreds, or even thousands of times greater than that of CO2 (California Air Resources Board 2017a). Because of their short lifespan and warming impact, SLCPs are measured in terms of CO2e using a 20-year time period. The use of GWPs with a time horizon of 20 years better captures the importance of the SLCPs and gives a better perspective on the speed at which SLCP emission controls affect the atmosphere relative to CO2 emission controls. The SLCP Reduction Strategy, discussed in Section 3.7.3, Regulatory Setting, addresses the three primary SLCPs, CH4, HFC gases, and anthropogenic black carbon. CH4 has lifetime of 12 years and a 20-year GWP of 72. HFC gases have lifetimes of 1.4 to 52 years and a 20-year GWP of 437 to 6,350. Anthropogenic black carbon has a lifetime of a few days to weeks and a 20-year GWP of 3,200 (California Air Resources Board 2017a).

3.7.2.2 Greenhouse Gas Reporting
A GHG inventory is a quantification of all GHG emissions and sinks1 within a selected physical and/or economic boundary. GHG inventories can be performed on a large scale (e.g., for global and national entities) or on a small scale (e.g., for a building or person). Although many processes are difficult to evaluate, several agencies have developed tools to quantify emissions from certain sources. Table 3.7-2 outlines the most recent global, national, statewide, and local GHG inventories to help contextualize the magnitude of potential Project-related emissions. 1 A GHG sink is a process, activity, or mechanism that removes a GHG from the atmosphere.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-3
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Table 3.7-2. Global, National, State, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories Emissions Inventory CO2e (metric tons)
2010 IPCC Global GHG Emissions Inventory 52,000,000,000 2018 EPA National GHG Emissions Inventory 6,676,600,000 2018 CARB State GHG Emissions Inventory 425,300,000
2015 BAAQMD GHG Emissions Inventory 85,000,000
Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2020; California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2020; Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 2017b.

In 2012, the City of Mountain View (City) adopted its Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) to reduce GHG emissions. As part of the GGRP analysis, the City’s GHG emissions in 2005, 2020 (forecast), and 2030 (forecast) were quantified. A business-as-usual forecast was prepared for 2020 and 2030 to determine the level of emissions reductions the City would need to achieve to meet its GHG emissions reduction goal. GHG emissions produced by the community in 2005 and the expected levels of emissions in 2020 and 2030 are shown in Table 3.7-3. The inventory and forecast data indicate that transportation sources in Mountain View represent the largest sources of community emissions in each analysis year.

Table 3.7-3. City of Mountain View Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories and Forecasts (metric tons CO2e)
Emission
Sector
2005 Inventory 2020 Forecast 2030 Forecast
Metric Tons
CO2e Percent
Metric Tons
CO2e Percent
Metric Tons
CO2e Percent
Energy 295,562 37.1% 349,663 38.3% 392,715 39.2%
Transportation 474,180 59.5% 533,013 58.4% 576,318 57.6% Waste 11,183 1.4% 11,307 1.2% 11,391 1.1%
Water 9,502 1.2% 10,577 1.2% 11,362 1.1%
Off-road Mobile 6,561 0.8% 8,054 0.9% 9,236 0.9%
Total 796,987 100% 912,614 100% 1,001,022 100%
Source: City of Mountain View 2012.

3.7.2.3 Climate Change
Global Climate Change
The process known as the greenhouse effect keeps the atmosphere near Earth’s surface warm enough for the successful habitation of humans and other life forms. The greenhouse effect is created by sunlight that passes through the atmosphere. Some of the sunlight striking Earth is absorbed and converted to heat, which warms the surface. The surface emits a portion of this heat as infrared radiation, some of which is re-emitted toward the surface by GHGs. Human activities that generate GHGs increase the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, thereby enhancing the greenhouse effect and amplifying the warming of Earth.

Increases in fossil fuel combustion and deforestation have exponentially increased concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-4
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Change 2007). Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess of natural levels result in increasing global surface temperatures—a process commonly referred to as global warming. Higher global surface temperatures, in turn, result in changes to Earth’s climate system, including increased ocean temperatures and acidity, reduced sea ice, variable precipitation, and increased frequencies and intensities for extreme weather events (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018).

Large-scale changes to Earth’s system are collectively referred to as climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IPCC estimates that humaninduced warming reached approximately 1°C above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C per decade. Under the current nationally determined contributions of mitigation from each country until 2030, global warming is expected to rise to 3°C by 2100, with additional warming to continue afterward (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018). Large increases in global temperatures could have substantial adverse effects on the natural and human environments in California and worldwide.

Potential Climate Change Effects
Climate change is a complex process that has the potential to alter local climatic patterns and meteorology. Although modeling indicates that climate change will result in sea-level rise (both globally and regionally) as well as changes in climate and rainfall, among other effects, there remains uncertainty about characterizing precise local characteristics of the climate and predicting precisely how various ecological and social systems will react to changes in the existing climate at the local level. Regardless of this uncertainty, it is widely understood that substantial climate change is expected to occur in the future, although the precise extent will take further research to define.

Specifically, significant impacts from global climate change worldwide and in California include:
⚫ Declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea-surface evaporation rates, with a corresponding increase in atmospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures (California Natural Resources Agency 2018);
⚫ Rising average global sea levels, due primarily to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018);
⚫ Changing weather patterns, including changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic occurrences of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and intense tropical cyclones (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013);
⚫ Declining snowpack levels in the Sierra Nevada, which provides approximately half of the surface water storage in California; snowpack could decline by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years (California Natural Resources Agency 2018); ⚫ Increase in the number of days that are conducive to ozone formation (i.e., clear days with intense sun light); increase of 25 to 85 percent, depending on the future temperature scenario, predicted by the end of the 21st century in high ozone areas (California Natural Resources Agency 2018); City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-5
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
⚫ Increased potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento Delta and associated levee systems due to the rise in sea level (California Natural Resources Agency 2018); and
⚫ Exacerbated drought conditions in California such that durations and intensities are amplified, ultimately increasing the risk of wildfires and consequential damage (California Natural Resources Agency 2018).

Under changing climate conditions, agricultural operations are projected to experience lower crop yields because of extreme heat waves, heat stress, and increased water needs for crops and livestock (particularly during dry and warm years), along with new and changing threats from pests and diseases (California Natural Resources Agency 2018).

The impacts of climate change, such as increases in heat-related events, droughts, and wildfires, pose direct and indirect risks to public health, with people experiencing earlier deaths and worsening illnesses. Indirect impacts on public health include increases in vector-borne diseases, stress and mental trauma due to extreme weather events and disasters, economic disruptions, and residential displacement (California Natural Resources Agency 2018).

3.7.3 Regulatory Setting
This section summarizes the relevant federal, state, and City laws, regulations, policies, and plans related to GHG emissions.

3.7.3.1 Federal
There is currently no federal overarching law specifically related to climate change or reductions in GHG emissions. During the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been developing regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). There have also been settlement agreements between EPA, several states, and nongovernmental organizations to address GHG emissions from electric generating units and refineries. In addition, EPA issued an “Endangerment Finding” and a “Cause or Contribute Finding.” EPA has also adopted a Mandatory Reporting Rule and Clean Power Plan. Under the Clean Power Plan, EPA issued regulations to control CO2 emissions from new and existing coal-fired power plants. However, on February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a stay for these regulations, pending litigation. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also signed a measure to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The fate of the proposed regulations is uncertain, given the change in federal administrations and the pending deliberations in federal courts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to improve average fuel economy and reduce GHG emissions generated by cars and light-duty trucks. NHTSA and EPA have proposed amendments to the current fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks and new standards for model years 2021 through 2026. Under the SAFE Vehicles Rule, current 2020 standards would be maintained through 2026. California, 22 other states, the District of Columbia, and two cities filed suit against the proposed action on September 20, 2019 (California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation et al., 1:19-cv-02826, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). The lawsuit requests a “permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from implementing or relying on the preemption regulation” but does not stay its implementation during legal deliberations. Part 1 of the SAFE Vehicles Rule went into effect on November 26, 2019. Part 2 of the rule was finalized on March 30, 2020. The rule will decrease the stringency of the CAFE standards by 1.5 percent each year City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-6
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
through model year 2026; the standards issued in 2012 would have required annual fuel efficiency increases of about 5 percent.

3.7.3.2 State
California has taken proactive steps, briefly described in this section, to address issues associated with GHG emissions and climate change. Much of this legislation establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. Of particular importance are Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, which outline the state’s GHG reduction goals (i.e., achieving 1990 emissions levels by 2020 and a level 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030).

In the absence of federal regulations, GHGs are generally regulated at the state level. This is typically approached by setting emissions reduction targets for existing sources of GHGs, setting policies to promote renewable energy and increase energy efficiency, and developing statewide action plans.

The following state regulations, polices, and programs are applicable to the Project.

Assembly Bill 1493
In 2002, with the passage of AB 1493, also known as Pavley I, California launched an innovative and proactive approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks. The stricter emissions standards applied to automobiles and light trucks beginning with model year 2009. However, litigation challenged the regulations and a waiver was granted, although EPA initially denied California’s request for a waiver. In 2012, additional strengthening of the Pavley standards (previously referred to as Pavley II and now referred to as the Advanced Clean Cars measure) was adopted for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. Together, the two standards are expected to increase average fuel economy to roughly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Executive Order S-3-05
California governors have issued several executive orders (EOs) related to evolving climate change policy. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed EO S-3-05, the goal of which was to reduce California’s GHG emissions to (1) 2000 levels by 2010 (achieved), (2) 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. EO S-3-05 also called for the California Environmental Protection Agency to prepare biennial reports on the potential impact of continued global warming on certain sectors of California’s economy. As a result of the scientific analysis presented in these biennial reports, a comprehensive climate adaptation strategy was developed in December 2009, following extensive interagency coordination and stakeholder input. The latest report, the Climate Action Team Biennial Report, was published in December 2010.

Cap-and-Trade Program (2011 and 2017)
CARB adopted the Cap-and-Trade Program in October 2011. The California Cap-and-Trade Program is a market-based system with emissions limits for specific emissions sources. Affected sources include in-state electricity generators, hydrogen production facilities, petroleum refineries, and other large-scale manufacturers, fuel suppliers, and distributors. The original Cap-and-Trade Program set a compliance schedule that ran through 2020. AB 398 extended the program until 2030 and required CARB to make refinements, including establishment of a price ceiling. Revenue City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-7
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
generated from the Cap-and-Trade Program is used to fund various programs. AB 398 established post-2020 funding priorities that include (1) air toxics and criteria pollutants, (2) low- and zerocarbon transportation, (3) sustainable agricultural practices, (4) healthy forests and urban greening, (5) SLCPs, (6) climate adaptation and resiliency, and (7) climate and clean energy research.

Green Building Standards Code and Title 24 Updates
The California Green Building Standards Code (proposed Part 11, Title 24) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (24 California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Part 11 established voluntary standards that became mandatory under the 2010 edition of the code. These involve sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminant standards.

The current energy efficiency standards were adopted in 2019 and took effect on January 1, 2020.

The standards are revised every 3 years, with the next update taking effect on January 1, 2023.

Assembly Bill 32
EO S-03-05 was reinforced by AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which required the state to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Since AB 32 was adopted, CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Building Standards Commission have been developing regulations to help meet the goals of AB 32. Under AB 32, CARB is required to prepare a scoping plan and update it every 5 years. The original scoping plan was approved in 2008, the first update was approved in 2014, and an additional update was approved in 2017 (see discussion of SB 32, below). The scoping plan identifies specific measures to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB and other state agencies to develop and enforce regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHGs. Specifically, the scoping plan articulates a key role for local governments. It recommends that they establish GHG reduction goals for both municipal operations and the community consistent with those of the state. In 2018, CARB announced that inventory-year 2016 emissions had dropped to a level below 1990 levels, indicating achievement of the AB 32 goal if emissions continue on the current trajectory.

Assembly Bill 939 (1989) and Assembly Bill 341 (2011)
To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of in landfills, the legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990.

According to AB 939, cities and counties were required to divert 25 percent of solid waste from landfills by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. Through other statutes and regulations, this 50 percent diversion rate was also applied to state agencies. In order of priority, waste reduction efforts must promote source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

In 2011, AB 341 modified the California Integrated Waste Management Act and directed the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) to develop and adopt regulations for mandatory commercial recycling. The resulting Mandatory Commercial Recycling Regulation (2012) required businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week to arrange recycling services by July 1, 2012. To comply with this requirement, businesses may either separate recyclables and haul them to a recycling facility or hire a recycling service that processes mixed waste. AB 341 also established a statewide recycling goal of 75 City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-8
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
percent; the 50 percent disposal reduction mandate still applies for cities and counties under AB 939.

Executive Order S-01-07
In 2007, with EO S-01-07, Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low-carbon fuel standard for California. Under EO S-01-07, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2008, became effective January 1, 2009. This law requires the state’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop sustainable communities strategies (SCSs) as part of their regional transportation plans (RTPs) through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the GHG emissions reduction targets that the CARB established for the region by 2020 and 2035. This would be accomplished through either a financially constrained SCS, as part of the RTP, or an unconstrained alternative planning strategy. If regions develop integrated land use, housing, and transportation plans that meet the SB 375 targets, new projects in these regions can be relieved of certain California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review requirements.2 Senate Bills 1078, 107, and 2
SBs 1078 (2002), 107 (2006) and 2 (2011), California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), obligate investor-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators to procure additional retail sales from eligible renewable sources each year, with a long-range target of procuring 33 percent of retail sales from renewable resources by 2020. The CPUC and CEC are jointly responsible for implementing the program.

Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197
SB 32 (2016) requires CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to at least 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030, consistent with the target set forth in EO B-30-15. The companion bill to SB 32, AB 197, creates requirements to form a Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies, requires CARB to prioritize direct emission reductions and consider social costs when adopting regulations to reduce GHG emissions beyond the 2020 statewide limit, requires CARB to prepare reports on sources of GHGs and other pollutants, establishes 6-year terms for voting members of CARB, and adds two legislators as non-voting members of CARB. CARB adopted the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan in November 2017 to meet the GHG emissions reduction requirement set forth in SB 32. It proposes continuing the major programs of the previous scoping plan, including programs concerning cap-and-trade regulations; low-carbon fuel standards; improved efficiency for cars, trucks, and freight movement; the RPS; and reductions in CH4 emissions from agricultural and other waste products.
2 The Project does not quality for streamlined CEQA review because it is not a mixed-used or transit priority project.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-9
June 2021
ICF 00214.20
Senate Bill 605 and Senate Bill 1383
SB 605 directed CARB, in coordination with other state agencies and local air districts, to develop the comprehensive SLCP Reduction Strategy. SB 1383 directed CARB to approve and implement the SLCP Reduction Strategy to achieve the following reductions in SLCPs:
⚫ 40 percent reduction in CH4, below 2013 levels, by 2030; ⚫ 40 percent reduction in HFC gases, below 2013 levels, by 2030; and ⚫ 50 percent reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, below 2013 levels, by 2030.

The bill also establishes the following targets for reducing organic waste in landfills and CH4 emissions from dairy and livestock operations:
⚫ 50 percent reduction in organic waste disposal, below 2014 levels, by 2020; ⚫ 75 percent reduction in organic waste disposal, below 2014 levels, by 2025; and ⚫ 40 percent reduction in CH4 emissions from livestock manure management operations and dairy manure management operations, below the dairy sector’s and livestock sector’s 2013 levels, by 2030.

CARB and CalRecycle are currently developing regulations to achieve the organic waste reduction goals under SB 1383. In January 2019 and June 2019, CalRecycle proposed new and amended regulations in Titles 14 and 27 of the CCR. Among other things, the regulations set forth minimum standards for organic waste collection, hauling, and composting. The final regulations will take effect on or after January 1, 2022.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy
CARB adopted the SLCP Reduction Strategy in March 2017 as a framework for achieving the CH4, HFC, and anthropogenic black carbon reduction targets set by SB 1383. The SLCP Reduction Strategy includes 10 measures to reduce the levels of SLCPs. The measures fit within a wide range of ongoing planning efforts throughout the state, including CARB’s and CalRecycle’s proposed rulemaking on organic waste diversion (discussed above).

Senate Bill 100
The state’s existing RPS requires all retail sellers to procure a certain amount of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources for resale to end users so that the total number of kilowatt hours amounts to 25 percent of retail sales by December 31, 2016 (achieved); 33 percent by December 31, 2020; 40 percent by December 31, 2024; 45 percent by December 31, 2027; and 50 percent by December 31, 2030. SB 100 revises and extends these renewable resource targets to 50 percent by December 31, 2026; 60 percent by December 31, 2030; and 100 percent by December 31, 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18
EO B-55-18 acknowledges the environmental, community, and public health risks posed by future climate change. It further recognizes the climate stabilization goal adopted by 194 states and the European Union under the Paris Agreement. Although the United States was not party to the agreement, California is committed to meeting the Paris Agreement goals and going beyond them wherever possible. Based on worldwide scientific agreement that carbon neutrality must be City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-10 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
achieved by midcentury, EO B-55-18 establishes a new state goal for achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieving and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. EO B-55-18 charges CARB with developing a framework for implementing and tracking progress toward these goals and extends EO S-3-05; however it is binding only on state agencies.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 requires revisions to the CEQA Guidelines to establish new impact analysis criteria for the assessment of a project’s transportation impacts. The intent behind SB 743, and the revisions to the CEQA Guidelines, is to integrate and balance requirements for congestion management, infill development, active transportation, and GHG emissions reduction. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recommends that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) serve as the primary analysis metric, replacing the existing criteria of delay and level of service. In 2018, OPR released a technical advisory, outlining potential VMT significance thresholds for different project types. For example, according to the advisory, it would be reasonable to conclude that residential and office projects with a VMT level that is 15 percent less than existing (2015–2018 average) levels would be consistent with statewide GHG reduction targets. With respect to retail land uses, any net increase in VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.

The Mountain View Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to result in a less-than-significant transportation impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA. Projects that meet the screening criteria are not required to prepare further VMT analyses. Development of the “proximity to transit” screening criterion was based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states that lead agencies should presume that certain projects within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail or bus rapid transit station or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency-of-service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. The Project site is within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop.

Senate Bill X7-7
SB X7-7, the Water Conservation Act of 2009, sets an overall goal of reducing per capita urban water use by 20 percent by December 31, 2020. The state is required to make incremental progress toward this goal by reducing per capita water use by at least 10 percent by December 31, 2015. This in an implementing measure of the water sector of the AB 32 scoping plan and will continue to be implemented beyond 2020. Reductions in water consumption reduce the amount of energy necessary to convey, treat, and distribute water; associated emissions are also reduced, as are emissions from wastewater treatment.

3.7.3.3 Local
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the nine counties within the San Francisco Bay Area and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which includes Mountain View. The first per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for the SFBAAB were 7 percent by 2020 and 15 percent by 2035 compared with 2005 levels. In 2013, the MTC adopted an SCS, known as Plan Bay Area, as part of its RTP for the SFBAAB. The plan increased regional per capita targets and called for 10 and 16 percent reductions in per capita GHG City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-11 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
emissions by 2020 and 2035, respectively (Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission 2013). On July 26, 2017, a strategic update to Plan Bay Area, known as Plan Bay Area 2040, was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the MTC.

As a limited and focused update, Plan Bay Area 2040 builds upon the growth patterns and strategies developed in the original Plan Bay Area but with updated planning assumptions that incorporate key economic, demographic, and financial trends that developed since 2013. As required by SB 375, CARB updated per capita GHG emissions reduction targets in 2018. The new targets, which will be addressed in the MTC’s forthcoming RTPs, call for per capita GHG reductions of 10 percent by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 compared with 2005 levels (California Air Resources Board 2018). The next update to Plan Bay Area, Plan Bay Area 2050, is currently in its planning stages, and as of the date of this writing, is anticipated to be considered for adoption sometime around the summer of 2021. The update will outline strategies for growth and investment through 2050.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District
As discussed in Section 3.2, Air Quality, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for air quality planning within the SFBAAB, including projects in Mountain View.

BAAQMD has adopted advisory emissions thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of GHG emissions for projects, including long-range plans (e.g., general plans, specific plans) and specific development proposals. The advisory thresholds are outlined in BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act: Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines) (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017a). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines outline methods for quantifying GHG emissions as well as developing potential mitigation measures.

Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program The City of Mountain View certified the GGRP environmental impact report and adopted the Mountain View 2030 GGRP in July 2012. The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the Mountain View 2030 General Plan (General Plan). It implements the GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG emissions reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reductions and meeting the requirements of AB 32. The GGRP is also intended to meet the mandates outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the recent standards for “qualified plans” set forth by BAAQMD. A determination can be made that individual development projects that comply with the GGRP would not have cumulatively considerable GHG emissions impacts under CEQA for emissions generated prior to 2020 (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)).

3.7.4 Impact Analysis

3.7.4.1 Criteria for Determining Significance
The CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), identify the significance criteria to be considered for determining whether a project could have significant impacts on existing GHG emissions and climate change.

City of Mountain View Section 3.7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 555 West Middlefield Road
Draft Environmental Impact Report 3.7-12 June 2021
ICF 00214.20
An impact would be considered significant if construction or operation of the Project would cause either of the following: