Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
November 2021
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Prepared by the
In Consultation with
Attachment 1
CEQA Guidelines Appendices Association of Environmental Professionals 2021 329
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impactas indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology /Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have apotentially significant impactor potentially significant unless mitigatedimpact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
10/15/2021
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project i Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction and Purpose ................................................................................................ 1 Section 2.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 2 Section 3.0 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 8 Section 4.0 Environmental Setting, Checklist, and Impact Discussion ........................................... 14 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 15 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 21 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 24 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 38 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 44 Energy ................................................................................................................................... 50 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 55 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................... 63 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 69 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 77 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................... 86 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................ 88 Noise ..................................................................................................................................... 90 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 100 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 103 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 110 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 112 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 119 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 123 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 130 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 131 Section 5.0 References ................................................................................................................... 134 Section 6.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 138 Section 7.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 139
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project ii Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures
Figure 2.6-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2.6-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2.6-3: Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2.6-4: El Camino Real Precise Plan Boundary ........................................................................... 6 Figure 3.3-1: Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3.3-2: Conceptual Building Elevations (East) .......................................................................... 10 Figure 3.3-3: Conceptual Building Elevations (South and Latham Street) ......................................... 11 Figure 3.3-4: Conceptual Landscape Plan ........................................................................................... 12 Figure 4.3-1: Location of Off-Site MEI ............................................................................................... 35 Figure 4.17-1: Residential VMT Heat Map ....................................................................................... 117
Tables
Table 4.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants ...................................................................................... 24 Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 29 Table 4.3-3: Construction Period Emissions ........................................................................................ 30 Table 4.3-4: Operational Period Emissions ......................................................................................... 31 Table 4.3-5: Construction Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Residential MEI ................................ 33 Table 4.3-6: Health Risk Impacts from Combined Sources at Off-Site Construction MEI ................ 36 Table 4.3-7: Health Risk Effects from El Camino Real on Project Residents ..................................... 37 Table 4.6-1: Annual Project Energy Demand ...................................................................................... 54 Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons and Per Capita ........................ 67 Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ........................................................................ 91 Table 4.13-2: Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines ....................................................................... 92 Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................. 97 Table 4.14-1: Population and Housing in Mountain View ................................................................ 101
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project iii Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Appendices
Appendix A: Air Quality and GHG Report
Appendix B: Arborist Report
Appendix C: Historic Resource Evaluation
Appendix D: Phase I ESA
Appendix E: Noise Assessment
Appendix F: Limited Transportation Study
Appendix G: Utility Impact Study
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 1 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Initial Study for the Escuela Mixed- Use Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and the regulations and policies of the City of Mountain View, California. This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts that might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Publication of this Initial Study marks the beginning of a 20-day public review and comment period .
During this period, the Initial Study will be available to local, state, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals for review. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Initial Study during the 20-day public review period should be sent to:
Ellen Yau, Senior Planner
500 Castro Street, Planning Division, 1st Floor
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650) 903-6036
[email protected]
CONSIDERATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND PROJECT
Following the conclusion of the public review period, the Mountain View City Council will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project at a regularly scheduled meeting . The City shall consider the Initial Study/MND together with any comments received during the public review process . Upon adoption of the MND, the City may proceed with project approval actions.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
If the project is approved, the City will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office for 30 days .
The filing of the NOD starts a 30 -day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15075(g)).
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 2 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT TITLE
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project
LEAD AGENCY CONTACT
Ellen Yau, Senior Planner
500 Castro Street, Planning Division, 1st Floor
Mountain View, CA 94041
(650) 903-6036
[email protected]
PROJECT APPLICANT
Kurt Anderson Architects
120 West Campbell Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 371-1269
[email protected]
PROJECT LOCATION
The 0.45-acre site is located on the southeast corner of Escuela Avenue and Latham Street. The project site addresses include 601 - 643 Escuela Avenue and 1873 Latham Street . A re gional map, vicinity map, and an aerial photograph of the project site of the site are shown on Figure 2.6-1, Figure 2.6-2, and Figure 2.6-3, respectively.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
154-35-013 & 154-35-014
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT
General Plan: The western 0.30-acre portion of the project site (Assessor Parcel Number [APN]: 154- 35-013) has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed -Use Corridor. The eastern 0.15 -acre portion of the site (A PN: 154-35-014) has a General Plan Land Use designation of Medium-Density Residential (see Figure 2.6-4).
Zoning: The western 0.30-acre portion of the project site is zoned Planned Community/Precise Plan, specifically located within the El Camino Real Precise Plan (Precise Plan) in the Low -Intensity Corridor Character Area. The eastern 0.15 -acre portion of the site is zoned R3 -2.5, Multiple Family Residential, which is outside the Precise Plan area.
101
101
82 82
35 84
85 237
280
280
280
Foothill Expressway
Central Expressway
Woodside Road
Sunnyvale
Los Altos
Mountain View
Menlo Park
Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Woodside
Stanford
Project Site
FIGURE 2.6-1REGIONAL MAP
San Francisco Bay
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
0 1 2 3 4.5 5 Miles
San José
Fremont
Menlo Park
Sunnyvale
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
Project Site
0 400 800 1,200 1,600200
Feet
California Street
Chiquita Avenue
Chiquita Avenue
Latham Street
Latham Street
Mt Vernon Ct
Gamel Way
Escuela Avenue
Toft Street
Leksich Ave
Clark Avenue
Ednamary Way
Marich Way
Solana Ct
El Camino Real
El Camino Real
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 2.6-2
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 50’ 200’ 400’ 600’
Project Site
Residential
Park
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
School
Escuela Avenue
Latham Street
Leksich Avenue
El Camino Real
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2.6-3 Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, May 13, 2021 Photo Date: Sep. 2020 0 10’ 100’ 200’
Project Boundary
0 400 800 1,200 1,600200
Feet
Leksich Avenue
Escuela Avenue
El Camino Real
Latham Street
L CAMINO REAL PRECISE PLAN BOUNDARY FIGURE 2.6-4
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 50’ 100’ 200’
Project Site
Multiple Family
Precise Plan
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 7 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS
The discretionary actions for the project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• General Plan Map Amendment
• Zoning Map Amendment
• Precise Plan Amendment
• Lot Line Adjustment
• Planned Community Permit
• Development Review Permit
• Provisional Use Permit
Ministerial permits from the City, such as grading permits and building permits, would also be required.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 8 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OVERVIEW
The project proposes a General Plan Map amendment, Zoning map amendment, Precise Plan amendment, lot line adjustment, Planned Community Permit, Provisional Use permit, and development review permit in order to include the eastern 0.15 -acre portion of the site (APN: 15 4-35-014) within the Precise Plan area and develop the proposed project.
The project proposes to demolish the existing improvements on -site (including a one -story, multi- tenant commercial building, associated surface parking, one -story single -family residence and associated landscaping) and construct a new 23,154-square foot mixed-use building (see Figure 3.3-1).
The proposed mixed-use building would be three-stories (up to 45 feet tall) (see Figure 3.3-2 and Figure
3.3-3) and include one-level of subterranean parking, approximately 2,329 square feet of ground floor retail space and 25 residential units on the second and third floors . The residential units would range from studios to two -bedroom units. Six units on the second floor would include private balconies approximately 77 to 216 square feet in size. In addition, common amenity space would be provided in the form of a n approximately 608-square foot courtyard on the second floor and a n approximately 7,044-square foot roof-top deck (see Figure 3.3-4). Overall, the project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.182.
GREEN BUILDING MEASURES AND FEATURES
The proposed project would meet the intent of the Green Point Rated system platinum certification (minimum 120 points) and implement all mandatory CALGreen requirements . The proposed project would incorporate green building measures including, but not limited to, the following:
• Resource Efficient Landscaping: The project would plant drought tolerant and native species for landscaping.
• Water-Efficient Fixtures: The project would install WaterSense showerheads, bathroom faucets, and toilets in residential u nits and common areas . Water submeters would also be installed for tenants.
• Renewable Energy: The project would be pre -plumbed for solar water heating and solar power generation.
LANDSCAPING
Existing landscaping on the project site includes one, non-heritage, ornamental tree and shrubs adjacent to the existing residence. Under the proposed project, all existing landscaping would be removed and 35 new ornamental trees and shrubs would be planted at ground level along the property perimeter and on the roof-top deck. The location of existing and proposed trees is shown on Figure 3.3-4.
Source: Anderson Architects, Inc., October 15, 2019.
UP
UP
DN
1 A4.1
2 A4.1
NO RTH
VISION TRIANGLE
35' - 0"
VISION TRIANGLE
35' - 0"
DRIVEWAY
24' - 0"
5' - 0"
REQUIRED 2ND SETBACK
10' - 0"
PLANTER 2' HIGH
PLANTER2' HIGH PLANTER
LANDSCAPE
WALKWAY
26' - 3 1/8"
10' - 3 3/8"
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
DRIVEWAY SAFETY TRIANGLE
25' - 0"
DRIVEWAY SAFETY TRIANGLE
25' - 0"
25' - 0"
5' - 0"
10' - 0"
STREET CENTER LINE
REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACK
15' - 0"
35' - 6 7/8"
5' - 0 1/4"
10' - 2" PROVIDED SURFACE PARKING SETBACK
5' - 0" REQUIRED EASEMENT
REQUIRED EASEMENT
10' - 0"
SEE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
5' - 0" STREET DEDICATION
10' - 0" STREET DEDICATION, SEE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. Title to the plans and specifications remains with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.
The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the
Client:
Project:
Status:
Issued For
File:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
Job:
Scale:
Checked By:
Drawn By:
Stamp:
As indicated
Z:\PROJECTS\ESCUELLA
AVENUE\Planning\Escuela
Ave.rvt10/30/2019 1:00:05 PM
Guggenheim Realty Group, Inc.
GEE Escuela Project
601-643 Escuela Ave
Mountain View, CA
792 Meridian Way
San Jose, CA
Planning Application- Formal Review
ANN
KA
GEE Escuela
Project
Site Plan
A1.1
No. Description Date
1 Planning Formal Review- 1st Revision 10/15/19
1 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.3-1
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
9' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
5' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 0"16' - 0"
4 4' - 6"3' - 6"
3' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
45.00°
5' - 6"9' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"16' - 0"
4' - 6"3' - 6"
Trash Enclosure roof
9' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
45.00°
16' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 9' - 0" 5' - 6"
1' - 6"4' - 6"3' - 6"12' - 0"
12' - 0"
Trash Enclosure roof
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. Title to the plans and specifications remains with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.
The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the
Client:
Project:
Status:
Issued For
File:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
Job:
Scale:
Checked By:
Drawn By:
Stamp:
1/8" = 1'-0"
Z:\PROJECTS\ESCUELLA
AVENUE\Planning\Escuela
Ave.rvt10/30/2019 1:01:07 PM
Guggenheim Realty Group, Inc.
GEE Escuela Project
601-643 Escuela Ave
Mountain View, CA
792 Meridian Way
San Jose, CA
Planning Application- Formal Review
Author
Checker
GEE Escuela
Project
Exterior Elevations
A3.2
1/8" = 1'-0"1 E AST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 S OUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING KEYNOTES
KEY # KEYNOTE TEXT
1 7/8" PAINTED STUCCO FINISH
(LIGHT GRAY)
2 HORIZONTAL COMPOSITION
SIDING/ RAIN SCREEN
3 PAINTED METAL-TUBE CANOPY
4 7/8" PAINTED STUCCO FINISH
(GRAY)
5 FLAT ROOF W/ WOOD FASCIA
PAINTED IN GRAY
6 GLASS WINDOW/ STOREFRONT W/
DARK GRAY FRAME/ MULLION
1/8" = 1'-0"3 L ATHAM ST. ELEVATION
No. Description Date
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS (EAST) FIGURE 3.3-2
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
9' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
5' - 6"10' - 0"10' - 0"16' - 0"
4 4' - 6"3' - 6"
3' - 6"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
4 5 .0 0 °
5' - 6"9' - 0"10' - 0"10' - 0"16' - 0"
4' - 6"3' - 6"
Trash Enclosure roof
9' - 0"
Level 1
0' - 0"
Level 2
16' - 0"
Level 3
26' - 0"
Level 4
36' - 0"
Roof
45' - 0"
Top of Elevator
50' - 6"
4 5 .0 0 °
16' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 9' - 0" 5' - 6"
1' - 6"4' - 6"3' - 6"12' - 0"
12' - 0"
Trash Enclosure roof
9' - 0"
9' - 0"
specific site for which they were prepared and publication thereof shall be expressly limited to such use. Reuse, reproduction or publication by any method, in whole or in part, is prohibited. Title to the plans and specifications remains with ANDERSON ARCHITECTS INC. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plans and specifications shall constitute prima facie evidence of the acceptance of the restrictions.
The use of these plans and specifications shall be restricted to the
Client:
Project:
Status:
Issued For
File:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
Job:
Scale:
Checked By:
Drawn By:
Stamp:
1/8" = 1'-0"
Z:\PROJECTS\ESCUELLA
AVENUE\Planning\Escuela
Ave.rvt10/30/2019 1:01:07 PM
Guggenheim Realty Group, Inc.
GEE Escuela Project
601-643 Escuela Ave
Mountain View, CA
792 Meridian Way
San Jose, CA
Planning Application- Formal Review
Author
Checker
GEE Escuela
Project
Exterior Elevations
A3.2
1/8" = 1'-0"1 E AST ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"2 S OUTH ELEVATION
BUILDING KEYNOTES
KEY # KEYNOTE TEXT
1 7/8" PAINTED STUCCO FINISH
(LIGHT GRAY)
2 HORIZONTAL COMPOSITION
SIDING/ RAIN SCREEN
3 PAINTED METAL-TUBE CANOPY
4 7/8" PAINTED STUCCO FINISH
(GRAY)
5 FLAT ROOF W/ WOOD FASCIA
PAINTED IN GRAY
6 GLASS WINDOW/ STOREFRONT W/
DARK GRAY FRAME/ MULLION
1/8" = 1'-0"3 L ATHAM ST. ELEVATION
No. Description Date
Latham St. Elevation
South Elevation
CONCEPTUAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS (SOUTH AND LATHAM STREET) FIGURE 3.3-3
L A T H A M S T
E S C U E L A A V E
PROPOSED
BUILDING
CAR TUM
(BIORETENTION AREA)
JUN PAT
(FLOW THROUGH
PLANTER)
LAU SAR
PRU CAR
CLI MIN
NAN GS
CAR TEX
LOR RAZ
LOR RAZ
NAN GS
CUP SEM
2-EXIST. LIQUIDAMBAR
STYRACIFLUA (SWEETGUM)
ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY
TO REMAIN. 8 IN DBH, 20 FT
HIGH X 12 FT SPREAD
GEI PAR
(STREET TREE)
ACE FRE
(STREET TREE)
JUN PAT
(FLOW THROUGH PLANTER)
JUN PAT
(FLOW THROUGH
PLANTER)
EXIST. TREE
TO BE REMOVED.
REFER TO
ARBORIST REPORT
CAR TEX
LAN MON
NAN GS
POL MUN
CAR TEX
SECTION A/L-7 SECTION B/L-7
SECTION C/L-7
SECTION D/L-7
L-1
SHRUB AND
GROUNDCOVER AREA
LEGEND
SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
5' 10'0 20'
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
GROUND LEVEL
DESCRIPTION:ISSUE: DATE:
SCALE:
PROJECT NUMBER: TLA#: 18019.000
1 02/20/19PLANNING SUBMITTAL
601-643 Escuela Ave
Mountain View, CA
94040
SHEET TITLE
SHEET NO.
c Copyright 2019 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
1" = 10'-0"
Taniguchi Landscape Architecture
1013 South Claremont St., Ste 1
San Mateo, CA 94402
v 650.638.9985 | f 650.638.9986
CLA #2942
ESCUELA
GEE
PROJECT
2 10/30/19PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
PROPOSED TREES
OFFSITE EXISTING
TREES TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREES
TO BE REMOVED
X
Source: Taniguchi Landscape Architecure, October 30, 2019.
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN FIGURE 3.3-4
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 13 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SITE ACCESS AND PARKING
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via one, two -directional driveway on Latham Street near the northeast corner of the project site . The project driveway on Latham Street would provide access to surface parking and a two-directional ramp located in the southwest corner of the project site would provide vehicular access to the subterranean parking garage.
Pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to access the site via an entrance along Escuela Avenue for the ground floor retail space and an entrance along Latham Street for the residential units.
Vehicle parking for the project would be provided in one level of below ground parking underneath the proposed building and at -grade. A total of 63 vehicle parking space s would be provided on -site, including 48 resident and guest parking spaces in the underground parking garage and 15 surface parking spaces for employees and visitors of the commercial space . A portion of the underground parking spaces would be on mechanical lifts with a parking pit extending approximately seven feet below the garage floor. A total of 35 bicycle parking spaces would also be provid ed, including 25 spaces in the underground parking garage and 10 ground -floor bike rack spaces. Access to the subterranean parking garage would be provided via a two-directional ramp in the southwest corner of the project site.
RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS
The project would require utility connections to existing utility systems in the project area. In addition, the project may require undergrounding of electric power lines. The project would also improve the existing sidewalks and street corner along Escuela Avenue and Latham Street by widening sidewalks, adding crosswalk and corner design features, and installing nighttime lighting.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Project construction activities include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. Project construction is estimated to take a total of 11 months. Excavation and removal of approximately 6,100 cubic yards of soil would be necessary to accommodate the proposed subterranean parking, building foundations, and footings.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 14 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST, AND
IMPACT DISCUSSION
This section presents the discussion of impacts related to the following environmental subjects in their respective subsections:
4.1 Aesthetics
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
4.3 Air Quality
4.4 Biological Resources
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.6 Energy
4.7 Geology and Soils
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.11 Land Use and Planning
4.12 Mineral Resources
4.13 Noise
4.14 Population and Housing
4.15 Public Services
4.16 Recreation
4.17 Transportation
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems
4.20 Wildfire
4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
The discussion for each environmental subject includes the following subsections:
• Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.
• Impact Discussion – This subsection 1) includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CE QA Guidelines to assess impacts and 2) discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions . For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified . “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a signi ficant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to c orrespond to the checklist question being answered. For example, Impact BIO -1 answers the first checklist question in the Biological Resources section .
Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM BIO -1.3 refers to the third m itigation measure for the first impact in the Biological Resources section.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 15 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
AESTHETICS
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to Level of Service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. Under SB 743, a project’s aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment if:
• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and • The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area.1
SB 743 also states that aesthetic impacts do not include impacts on historical or cultural resources.
Further, it clarifies that l ocal governments retain their abi lity to regulate a project’s transportation, aesthetics, and parking impacts outside of the CEQA process.
Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263 ) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment. There are no state -designated scenic highways in Mountain View. Interstate 280 (I-280) from the San Mateo County line to State Route (SR) 17, which includes segments in Mountain View, is an eligible, but not officially designated, State Scenic Highway.2
1 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public right-of- way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: Office of Planning and Research. “Changes to CEQA for Transit Oriented Development – FAQ.” October 14, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2020. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb-743/transit-oriented.html. 2 California Department of Transportation. “Scenic Highways.” Accessed November 20, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 16 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The City’s 2030 General Plan is a comprehensive update to the 1992 General Plan and was adopted in 2012. The General Plan guides growth in the City by identifying goals, policies, and actions that regulate land use and ensure compliance w ith state and local laws. General Plan policies related to visual and aesthetic resources applicable to the proposed project include the following listed below.
Policy Description
LUD 6.1 Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.
LUD 9.1 Height and setback transitions. Ensure that new development includes sensitive height and setback transitions to adjacent structures and surrounding neighborhoods.
LUD 9.3 Enhanced public space. Ensure that development enhances public spaces:
• Encourage strong pedestrian-oriented design with visible, accessible entrances and pathways from the street.
• Encourage pedestrian-scaled design elements such as stoops, canopies and porches. • Encourage connections to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. • Locate buildings near the edge of the sidewalk.
• Encourage design compatibility with surrounding uses. • Locate parking lots to the rear or side of buildings. • Encourage building articulation and use of special materials to provide visual interest. • Promote and regulate high-quality sign materials, colors and design that are compatible with site and building design.
• Encourage attractive water-efficient landscaping on the ground level.
LUD 9.6 Light and glare. Minimize light and glare from new development.
El Camino Real Precise Plan
Adopted in 2014, the Precise Plan governs development within the El Camino Real corridor in the City of Mountain View. The Precise Plan includes standards, guidelines, and implementation actions with the goal of focusing intensive development and public improvement along the corridor, wit h a focus on pedestrian ground-floor commercial uses. Precise Plan standards and guidelines related to visual and aesthetic resources applicable to the proposed project include the following listed below.
Design Guidelines
Site Design
1. Building length. To create human-scaled buildings with access to fresh air and daylight, and to allow pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the length of individual new buildings should not exceed 200 feet.
2. Separation between structures on the same lot. The separation betwee n structures on the same lot should be no less than 35 percent of the sum of opposing wall heights, with a minimum of 15 feet.
3. Parking frontage. Wherever possible, parking and vehicle areas should be located behind or under buildings. On shallower lots (ab out 150 feet deep or less), a site’s surface parking or above-grade structured parking may be located next to the building, but should not take up
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 17 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
more of the primary frontage than the building. On deeper lots, the vehicle areas along the primary frontage should be limited driveways and a few associated parking stalls. Parking should not be located on corners.
4. Placement of utilities. Utilities, including all “dry” utility access, above -ground equipment, and trash containers, should not be located within fro nt setback areas, along mid -block pedestrian connections, or within 50 feet of a corner. Utilities should be screened and integrated with the building architecture.
5. Loading and service access. Loading docks should be screened from the right -of-way and adjacent properties to address visual and noise impacts. Service access and loading docks should be located on side streets or alleys and away from the front of the building. Loading docks should be internal to the building envelope and equipped with closable doors.
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36 of the City Code) sets forth specific design guidelines, height limits, building density, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance promotes careful planning of development projects to enhance the visual environment. The City’s development review process includes the review of preliminary plans, the consideration of p ublic input at and by the Development Review Committee (DRC), Zoning Administrator, Environmental Planning Commission (EPC), and the City Council. The City’s Planning Division reviews private development applications for conformance with City plans, ordina nces, and policies related to zoning, urban design, subdivision, and CEQA.
The Zoning Administrator makes recommendations to the City Council for development projects located in some Precise Plan areas and makes final decisions for development, variance, and use permits. The DRC reviews the architecture and site design of new development and provides project applicants with design comments/direction. The development review process ensures the architectu re and urban design of new developments would protect the City’s visual environment.
Existing Conditions
The 0.45-acre project site is square shaped and located at the southeast corner of Escuela Avenue and Latham Street. The eastern 0.15 acres of the site (see Figure 2.6-4) is located within the Low Intensity Corridor Character Area of the El Camino Precise Plan area of Mountain View.
The western 0.30-acre portion of the site is currently developed with a rectangular-shaped multi-tenant commercial building that is one -story and approximately 6,791 square feet in size. This commercial building faces Escuela Avenue. A surface parking lot is located to the west of the larger commercial building ( see Figure 2.6-3). The eastern 0.15 -acre portion of the site is developed with a n approximately 989 square -foot single-family on e-story residence at the northeast corner. Surface parking is located south of the residence. Minimal landscaping, including one tree and a small lawn area, is limited in the front yard of the residence.
The 2030 General Plan does not specify discrete scenic vistas within the City. Rather, the General Plan identifies views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the south and west, as important to the visual character
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 18 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
of the City.3 There are no scenic resources located within the project site, however limited views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are visible to the southwest. The project area is not located within a scenic view corridor or State scenic highway.
Streetlights and other lighting are found throughout project site area. Sources of light and glare in the surrounding area are those typical in developed urban areas, including headlights, streetlights, parking lot lights, security lights, and reflective surfaces such as windows and vehicles.
4.1.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
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?
3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
public views of the site and its surroundings? 4
If the project is in an urbanized area, would
the project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic quality?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Impact AES-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions above, there are no scenic vistas in the project area. For this reason, the project would not impact a scenic vista. (No Impact)
3 LSA Associates, Inc. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report. November 2011.
4 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 19 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact AES-2: The project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. (No Impact)
As discussed in Sections 4.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework and 4.1.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no state scenic highways within the City of Mountain View and the nearest eligible highway is I -280, approximately 2.6 miles southwest of the project site . The project site is not visible from I -280; therefore, the project would not impact any scenic resources including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a scenic highway. (No Impact)
Impact AES-3: The project site is within an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
Under the proposed projec t, all existing landscaping , including the single on -site tree, would be removed, and 35 new ornamental trees and shrubs would be planted at ground level along the property perimeter and on the roof -top deck . Implementation of an approved landscape plan would further preserve and enhance the visual quality of the project site and its surroundings.
As discussed in Section 4.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework, Chapter 36 of the City Code sets forth specific design guidelines, height limits, building density, building design and landscaping standards, architectural features, sign regulations, and open space and setback requirements. The project would be subject to the City’s development review process prior to submittal of construction drawings for a building permit. This review process includes a DRC public meeting to provide recommendations on the project design , followed by an Environmental Planning Commission public hearing , and public hearings before the City Council. Th e City’s development review process would ensure that the proposed architecture, design, and construction materials are consistent with City’s visual environment.
Other regulations governing scenic quality include applicable General Plan policies. The project would be consistent with the General Plan and Precise Plan policies identified in Section 4.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework by meeting building height and setback guidelines and installing scale and use appropriate lighting.
Based on the above discussion , the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact AES-4: The project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Existing light sources on the project site includes exterior lighting from the buildings and streetlights.
Sources of daytime glare include building windows and vehicles. The proposed project would remove the existing uses and redevelop the site with a three-story mixed-use building, which would include exterior, night-time security lighting.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 20 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
There are existing residential uses to the north, east, and south of the project site . The El Camino Precise Plan design guidelines for ground floor commercial uses include standards for lighting scaled to pedestrian use and prohibits the use of mirrored glass along street frontages. At the time of building permit review, the project’s lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department to ensure th at lighting is directed downward and would not spill over onto adjacent properties or otherwise be highly visible, while providing adequate lighting for safety.
The level of lighting associated with proposed mixed-use development would be similar to the lighting for existing, surrounding residential and commercial developments . In addition, glare-producing or reflective materials are not proposed for the project exterior. Further, the project will be subject to the development review process prior to subm ittal of construction d rawings for a building permit. The review will ensure the proposed design and construction materials will not adversely affect the visual quality of the area, or create a substantial new source of light and glare. For these reasons, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 21 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
4.2.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time.
Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The best quality land is called Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on -site or in the project area.5
California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses.
In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses.6
Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources. 7 Programs such as CAL FIRE’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be af fected are located on or adjacent to a project site.8
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in an urban, developed area of the City of Mountain View. The project area is zoned Planned Community and Multiple Family Residential, and is designated Urban and Built-Up by the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map, which is defined as land occupi ed by
5 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed November 1, 2020. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 6 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. 7 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)).
8 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed November 1, 2020. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 22 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately six structures to a 10-acre parcel.9 The site and surrounding sites are currently developed with urban uses, and are not used for agricultural or forestry purpose s. It is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project site and surrounding sites do not contain any land designated forest land, timberland, or for Timberland Production.10
4.2.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
5) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
9 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map. September 2018. 10 “Forest Land” is defined as land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timer, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. “Timberland” refers to land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated as experimental forest land, which is available for and capable of growing a crop of commercial tree species used to produce timber or other products.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 23 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact AG-1: The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. (No Impact)
The project site is not designated as farmland of any significance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. As described in Section 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions above, the project site and surrounding sites are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land on the Santa Clara County Important Farmland Map. For these reasons, the proposed project would have no t convert designated farmland. (No Impact)
Impact AG-2: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
The project site is currently zoned Planned Community/Precise Plan and R -3-2.5 Multiple Family Residential. It is not zoned for agricultural use or subject to a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. (No Impact)
Impact AG-3: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (No Impact)
As stated previously in Section 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site and surrounding sites are not zoned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. For this reason, the proposed project would not conflict with forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production zoning. (No Impact)
Impact AG-4: The project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (No Impact)
The project site and surrounding land uses are developed with urban uses and are not used for forest land. For this reason, the project would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land. (No Impact)
Impact AG-5: The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use. (No Impact)
See discussions under Impact AG -1 through Impact AG-4 above. The project site and surrounding sites are not used for agricultural uses or forest land. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 24 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based in part on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., in December 2020. A copy of the report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
4.3.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed related to six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO x), and lead.11 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated health effects are summarized in Table 4.3-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.
Table 4.3-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
O3 Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function
impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high
temperature stationary combustion,
atmospheric reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5) and
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels,
construction activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric chemical
reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially diesel-
fueled; industrial sources, such as
chrome platers; dry cleaners and
service stations; building materials
and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive
disorders
11 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 25 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
High O 3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NO X.
These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O 3 levels.
Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels. The highest O3 levels in the Bay Area occur in the eastern and southern inland valleys that are downwind of air pollutant sources.
PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5). Elevated concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 are the result of both region-wide emissions and localized emissions.
Toxic Air Contaminants
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They include but are n ot limited to criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, ev en near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.
Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways.
The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or are deposited in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury). 12 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with car diovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care faci lities, and elementary schools.
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean
12 California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed January 12, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 26 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Air Act requires the EPA to set national ambient air quality st andards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead. CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act. The EPA and the CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means that a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.
Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on -road and off -road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in additional to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel fueled vehicles and equipment (including off -road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NOX.
Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Managem ent District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional air quality management districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the cl imate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To pro tect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super -greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.13
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Jurisdictions in the Sa n Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.
13 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality- plans/current-plans.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 27 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to air quality applicable to the proposed project include the following listed below.
Policy Description
INC 20.6 Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.
INC 20.7 Protect sensitive receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.
INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.
MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT.
MOB 10.2 Reducing travel demand. Promote effective Transportation Demand Management programs for existing and new development.
El Camino Precise Plan
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for on the Precise Plan EIR included two requirements related to air quality within the El Camino Real corridor:
• AIR-1: All new development projects, associated with implementation of the Precise Plan, which include buildings within 1,000 feet of a resident ial dwelling unit, shall conduct a construction health risk assessment to assess emissions from all construction equipment during each phase of construction prior to issuance of building permits. Equipment usage shall be modified as necessary to ensure tha t equipment use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million, an increased noncancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3.
• AIR-2: For residential or other sensitive use projects proposed within 500 feet of El Camino Real, SR 87 or SR 287, and/or any permitted stationary sources, including those identified in Table IV.B-6 of the EIR, the City o f Mountain View shall require an evaluation of potential health risk exposure. The applicant for a sensitive use project within the Precise Plan area shall prepare a report using the latest BAAQMD permit data and roadway risk estimates to determine impacts to future residents or sensitive receptors. The report shall outline any measures that would be incorporated into the project necessary to reduce carcinogenic health risk of to less than 10 in 1 million, reduce the non-cancer risk of to less than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), and ensure the annual average ambient PM2.5 increase is less than 0.3 μg/m 3.
Measures to reduce impacts could include upgrading air filtration systems of fresh air supply, tiered plantings of trees, and site design to increase distance from source to the receptor.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 28 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Existing Conditions
The Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3 and PM2.5 under both the federal Clean Air Act and state Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for PM 10 under the state act, but not the federal act. The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O 3 and PM10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors.
These thresholds are for O3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX), PM10, and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts.
4.3.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
4) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgment on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these thresholds to be based on the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality thresholds are identified in Table 4.3-2.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 29 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Table 4.3-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Daily
Emissions
(pounds/year)
Annual Average
Emissions
(tons/year)
Criteria Air Pollutants
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 10
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust
Dust Control
Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (within a 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) Health Hazard Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources Excess Cancer Risk >10 per one million >100 per one million Hazard Index >1.0 >10.0
Incremental Annual
PM2.5
>0.3 µg/m3 >0.8 μg/m3 (average)
Note: ROG = reactive organic gases, NOx = nitrogen oxides, PM 10 = course particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers (µm) or less, PM 2.5 = fine particulate matter or particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5µm or less. GHG = greenhouse gases. *BAAQMD does not have a recommended post-2020 GHG threshold.
Impact AIR-1: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would not conflict with the 2017 CAP because it is considered an urban infill development project, and would be served by existing multi-modal facilities including bicycle paths and transit with regional connections. In addition, the project would have emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds, as discussed below.
Construction Period Emissions
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computes annual emissions for construction of project s based on the project type, size, and acreage . CalEEMod provides emission estimates for both on -site and off -site construction activities. On-site activities are primarily made up of construction equipment emissions, while off-site activities include worker and truck traffic. The CalEEMod modeling of project-generated construction emissions was based on the applicant-provided schedule and equipment usage assumptions.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 30 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Table 4.3-3 below shows project’s estimated average daily construction emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10 exhaust, and PM2.5 exhaust.
Table 4.3-3: Construction Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Total Construction Emissions (tons) 0.3 tons 0.8 tons 0.04 tons 0.04 tons Average Daily Construction Emissions
(pounds/day)1 3.7 lbs./day 8.8 lbs./day 0.4 lbs./day 0.4 lbs./day BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 lbs./day 54 lbs./day 82 lbs./day 54 lbs./day Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Note: Assumes 187 construction workdays
As shown in Table 4.3-3, predicted construction period emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Additionally, the project would implement BAAQMD best management practices (BMPs) as a standard condition of approval, to reduce fugitive dust emissions.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• BASIC AIR QUALITY CONSTRUCTION MEASURES: The applicant shall requir e 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 sweeping is prohibited;
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 mph; e) All ro adways, 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 whe n 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 al l 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
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 31 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
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.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines consider s construction criteria air pollutant emissions impacts that are below BAAQMD thresholds to be less than significant with the incorporation of BAAQMD BMPs (listed above as a standard conditions of approval).
Operational Period Emissions
The proposed project would replace existing commercial and residential uses on-site with a mixed-use development. Operational air pollutant emissions from the project would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future retail employees and residents. Table 4.3-4 below shows the operational emissions of the project assuming occupancy in 2022.
Table 4.3-4: Operational Period Emissions
Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
Annual Emissions
2022 Project Operational Emissions 0.25 0.18 0.21 0.06 2022 Existing Emissions (tons/year) 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.05 2022 Net Increase in Emissions (tons/year) 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.01 BAAQMD Thresholds (tons/year) 10 10 15 10
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Daily Emissions
2022 Net Operational Emissions (tons/year) 0.07. 0.01 0.01 0.007 BAAQMD Thresholds (pounds per day) 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? No No No No
Note: Assumes 365-day operation.
As shown in Table 4.3-4, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for operational emissions and, therefore, are less than significant.
Based on the above discussion, the project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation of the 2017 CAP. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 32 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact AIR-2: The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.3.1.3 Existing Conditions, the Bay Area is considered a non-attainment area for ground-level O3, PM2.5, and PM10 under federal and/or state acts. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for O 3 and PM 10, BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. Th ese thresholds are for O 3 precursor pollutants (ROG and NO X), PM10, and PM 2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. The project’s construction and operational period air pollutant emissions were estimated and discussed unde r Impact AIR -1. As discussed under Impact AIR -1, the project’s construction and operational period emissions would be below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and, therefore, would have a less than significant increase in criteria pollutants with the implementation of the identified standard condition of approval (i.e., BAAQMD BMPs). (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact AIR-3: The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Health Effects from Project Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions In a 2018 decision ( Sierra Club v. County of Fresno ), the state Supreme Court determined CEQA requires that when a project’s criteria air pollutant emissions would exceed applicable thresholds and contribute a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative regional criteria pollutant impact, the potential for the project’s emissions to affect human health in the air basin must be disclosed. State and federal ambient air quality standards are health -based standards, and exceedances of those standards result in continued unhealthy levels of air pollutants. As stated in the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, air pollution by its nature is largel y a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. I n developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. If a project has a less than significant impact for criteria pollutants, it is assumed to have no adverse health effect.
As discussed under Impact AIR -1 and Impact AIR -2, the project would not generate significant amounts of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction or operation. For this reason, the project’s less than significant criteria air pollution emissions is concluded to have no adverse health effect. (Less than Significant Impact)
Community Health Risk
Projects may result in impacts due to increased community health risk by introducing new sources of pollutant emissions during either construction or operation, or by introducing new sensitive receptors,
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 33 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
including residents, to TAC emissions from existing sources. The latter is discussed under Section
4.3.3 Non-CEQA Effects.
Project operation is not expected to result in localized air pollutant emissions or TACs, due to the low daily truck traffic estimated for the project, and the absence of any stational emissions sources, such as generators. In addition, automobile traffic associated with the project would be sp read out geographically, and emissions would not be localized.
Construction Health Risk
Construction equipment and associated heavy -duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. The primary community risk impact issue associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM 2.5. Community risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased lifetime cancer risk, the increase in annual PM2.5 concentrations and computing the Hazard Index (HI) for non-cancer health risks. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations, which includes both the DPM and fugitive PM2.5 concentrations, were identified at nearby sensitive receptors, including the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The construction off-site MEI is shown on Figure
4.3-1
Table 4.3-5 summarizes the maximum cancer risks, PM 2.5 concentrations, and health hazard indexes for project related construction activities affecting the off-site MEI. The unmitigated maximum increased cancer risk and maximum PM 2.5 concentration from construction exceeds the BAAQMD single-source thresholds of greater than 10.0 per million and 0.3 µg/m 3, respectively. The maximum computed HI does not exceed the thresholds of greater than 1.0 for HI. The health risk as other nearby sensitive receptors would be lower than at the MEI. For example, the unmitigated maximum increased cancer risks and HI at the Children’s Learning Cottage Preschool are estimated to be 7.9 in a million and 0.05, respectively. Both are below BAAQMD single -source thresholds. However, unmitigated annual PM2.5 concentration would exceed the single-source threshold of 0.3 μg/m3.
Table 4.3-5: Construction Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Residential MEI
Source
Cancer
Risk* (per
million)
Annual
PM2.5*
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction - MEI
Unmitigated
Mitigated**
77.6 (infant)
4.1 (infant)
1.47 0.20
0.11 0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated**
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Project Construction – Children’s Learning Cottage Preschool Unmitigated
Mitigated**
7.9 (child)
0.4 (child)
0.52 0.07
0.05 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 34 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Table 4.3-5: Construction Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Residential MEI
Source
Cancer
Risk* (per
million)
Annual
PM2.5*
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated
Mitigated**
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Maximum cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 concentration occur at same receptor on different floors. ** Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 and standard conditions of approval listed in Impact AIR-1
Mitigation Measure: The project would implement the mitigation measures listed below to reduce TAC impacts to nearby sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.
MM AIR-3.1: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off -road equipment used onsite to constr uct the project would achieve a fleet -wide average 87 -percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
• All diesel -powered off -road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall meet U.S.
EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter emissions. Where Tier 4 equipment is not available, exceptions could be made for equipment that includes CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulat e Filters or equivalent.
Equipment that is electrically powered or uses non-diesel fuels would also meet this requirement.
• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel -powered stationary equipment, s uch as generators.
With implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ -3.1 and the City’s standard conditions of approval identified in the discussion under Impact AIR -2, maximum cancer risk and PM 2.5 concentration from construction at the off-site MEI was modeled and the results show that the project’s maximum cancer risk and PM 2.5 concentration from construction would no longer exceed their respective significance thresholds. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 23, 2020.
18 Figure 1. Project Construction Site, Locati ons of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors, and Locations of TAC Impacts
Combined Impact of All TAC Sources on the Off-Site Construction MEI
Community health risk assessments typically look at all substantial sources of TACs that can affect sensitive receptors that are located within 1,000 feet of the project site (i.e., influence area). These sources include railroads, freeways or highways, busy surface streets, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. A review of the project area indicates that tr affic on El Camino Real exceeds the ADT threshold of 10,000 vehicles. All other roadways within the area are assumed to be below the 10,000 ADT threshold. No stationary sources of TACs are located within the 1,000- foot influence area according to BAAQMD’s stationary source website map. Figure 2 shows the existing TAC sources affecting the project site. Community risk impacts from these sources upon the construction MEIs are reported in Table 6. Details of the modeling and community risk calculations are included in Attachment 4.
LOCATION OF PROJECT MEI FIGURE 4.3-1
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 36 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Cumulative Community Health Risk
The geographic area for cumulative health risk impacts to sensitive receptors is within 1,000 feet of the project site. This distance is recommended by BAAQMD because adverse effects are the greatest within this distance. At further distances, health risk diminishes. A review of the project area indicated existing sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site with the potential to a ffect the MEI include El Camino Real (a high -volume roadway). Table 4.3-6, below, summarizes the cumulative community risk at the off -site MEI from project construction and vehicles traveling on El Camino Real. No other sources of TACs are within 1,000 feet of the site. Cumulative community risk at the off-site MEI would exceed the cumulative-source threshold for PM2.5. With implementation of MM AIR-3.1 and the City’s standard conditions of approval identified under Impact AIR-1, annual PM2.5 concentrations were modeled and the results show that the cumulative health risk at the off -site MEI would be below BAAQMD significance thresholds. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Table 4.3-6: Health Risk Impacts from Combined Sources at Off-Site Construction MEI
Source Cancer Risk*
(per million)
Annual
PM2.5*
(μg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction Unmitigated Mitigated**
77.6 (infant)
4.1 (infant)
1.47 0.20
0.11 0.01
El Camino Real 3.0 0.12 <0.01
Cumulative Total Unmitigated Mitigated**
80.6 7.1
1.59 0.32
<0.12
<0.02
BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Threshold? Unmitigated Mitigated**
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
* Maximum cancer risk and maximum PM2.5 concentration occur at same receptor on different floors. ** Mitigation Measure AQ-3.1 and standard conditions of approval listed in Impact Air-1.
Impact AIR-4: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would generate localized emissions of diesel exhaust during construction equipment operation and truck activity. These emissions may be noticeable by adjacent receptors; however, the odors from these emissions would be localized and temporary a nd would not affect a substantial number of people. Additionally, the project would implement BAAQMD BMPs as a standard condition of approval under Impact AIR-1, which include measures that would reduce odor generated during construction. For these reasons , implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant odors affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 37 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.3.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Health Risk Effects to the Project
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD) , effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion about the exposure of project residents to existing TAC sources is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies (including General Plan Policies INC 20.6 and INC 20.7) that address existing air quality conditions affecting a proposed project.
In addition to evaluating health impacts from project construction and operation on existing sensitive receptors, a health risk assessment was completed to analyze the effect of existing TAC sources on future residents of the proposed project. The health risk to project residents from vehicles on El Camino Real was evaluated and the results are shown in Table 4.3-7. No other mobile or stationary sources of TACs were identified within the 1,000 feet of the project site.
Table 4.3-7: Health Risk Effects from El Camino Real on Project Residents Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)
Maximum
Annual PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Maximum
Hazard
Index
El Camino Real 2.1 0.09 <0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 >1.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold >100 >0.8 >10.0
Exceed Threshold? No No No
As shown in Table 4.3-7 above, cancer risk, PM2.5, and HI from El Camino Real does not exceed BAAQMD’s the single- or cumulative thresholds.
Construction Materials
The City requires the below standard condition of approval for all projects in the City to potentially reduce indoor air quality levels of formaldehyde:
Condition of Approval:
• INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE REDUCTIONS: If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved, no -added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 38 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on an Arborist Report prepared by Bo Firestone, certified arborist in November 2019. A copy of this report is included in Appendix B of this Initial Study.
4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened , or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special -status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture , or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include harm of a listed species.
In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Section s 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as par t of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capt ure, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.
Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. The taking and killing of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited by the MBTA when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds.14 Nesting birds are considered special-status species and are protected by the USFWS. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800.
The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.
14 United States Department of the Interior. “Memorandum M-37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Accessed November 22, 2020. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m- 37050.pdf.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 39 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the U nited State s Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.
Regional and Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to biological resources and are applicable to the project include the following.
Policy Description
INC 16.3 Habitat. Protect and enhance nesting, foraging and habitat for special-status species and other wildlife.
INC 16.6 Built environment habitat. Integrate biological resources, such as green roofs and native landscaping, into the built environment.
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View City Code includes a tree preservation ordinance to protect all trees designated as Heritage trees (Chapter 32, Article 2 of the City Code). A Heritage tree is defined as any one of the following:
• A tree which has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade;
• A multi-branched tree which has major branches below 54 inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork. • Any Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), or Cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; • A tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit.
A tree removal permit is required from the City of Mountain View for the removal of Heritage trees.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 40 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Existing Conditions
Special-Status Plants
According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there is one special -status plant species that has been recorded to occur within the Mountain View topographic quadrangle. 15 However, this federally endangered plant, the California seab lite (Suaeda californica), is unlikely to occur on - site due to a lack of suitable habitat, lack of quality soil, and high level of activity and disturbance within project boundaries.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
According to the CNDDB, there are seven special-status wildlife species that have been recorded to occur within the Mountain View topographic quadrangle. 16 All seven of these species are unlikely to occur on-site due to lack of suitable habitat. The site is located in a residential area that has been highly altered by development. Landscaping on the project site is sparse and does not serve as wildlife habitat to any special-status species. The property does not contain a wildlife nursery site, sensitive habitats, or waters/wetlands, nor is it suitable as a wildlife corridor. The nearest waterway is Permanente Creek and it is approximately 530 feet southeast of the project site.
Trees
There is one tree on -site. The tree is a Norway maple ( Acer platanoides), located along the Latham Street frontage at 1873 Latham Street. Per the arborist report completed for the site, t he tree is approximately 12-inches in diameter and is in good condition. The tree is not a Heritage tree.
4.4.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
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 the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS)?
15 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. “CNDDB Maps and Data.” Accessed November 17, 2020. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018410-cnddb-quickview-tool 16 Ibid.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 41 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
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 the CDFW
or USFWS?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
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?
Impact BIO-1: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Less than Significant Impact)
Special-Status Species
As discussed in Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, given the urbanized nature of the project site and surrounding area, there are no sensitive habitats or special-status animal or plant species on or adjacent to the project site. The project site contains one tree, which would be removed as part of the project.
The tree could provide nesting habitat for bird s, including migratory birds and raptors. Nesting birds are among the species protected under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 2800.
Construction of the project during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW. Any loss of fertile eggs, nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute an impa ct. Construction activities such
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 42 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
as tree removal and site grading that disturb a nesting bird or raptor on-site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would also constitute an impact.
In compliance with the MBTA and the CDFW code, the proposed p roject shall implement the following City standard conditions of approval, to reduce or avoid construction -related impacts to nesting raptors and their nests.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• 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:
o The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 5 00’ 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.
The project, with the implementation of the above standard condition of approval would reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than signif icant level by minimizing the potential for construction related disturbance of active bird nests within the project area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-2: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (No Impact)
The project site is located in a developed, urban area of the City of Mountain View. It is currently developed with commer cial and residential uses. There are no sensitive habitats, including riparian habitat or areas of high biological diversity, areas providing important wildlife habitat, or unusual or regionally restricted habitat types on the site. For these reasons, the proposed development of the project site would have no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 43 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact)
As described in Section 4.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, the site is located in an urban, developed area.
There are no state or federally protected wetlands on or adjacent to the project site. The proposed project, therefore, would not impact wetlands through direct removal, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact)
Impact BIO-4: The project would not 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. (No Impact)
Because the project site is surrounded by urban development, the site provides minima l dispersal habitat for native wildlife and does not function as a wildlife movement corridor. As discussed above, under Impacts BIO-2 and BIO-3, there are no riparian or wetland habitats on or adjacent to the site.
The project would, therefore, not interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species, nor interfere with established corridors or wildlife nursery sites. (No Impact)
Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project proposes the removal of one, non-heritage, ornamental tree on-site. The project would not result in the removal of any Heritage trees and therefore, not require a tree removal permit pursuant to City Code. Under the proposed project, 35 new ornamental trees and shrubs would be planted in the project site. The project would, therefore, result in a tree replacement ratio of 1 (removed ): 35 (replacement). The project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact BIO-6: 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. (No Impact)
The project site is not within the area of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 44 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on an archaeological literature review and Native American Consultation completed by Holman & Associates in January 2021, and a historic resource evaluation prepared by Urban Programmers in April 2021. A copy of the historic resource evaluation is included in Appendix C of this Initial Study.
4.5.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria.17
Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described previously and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.
The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the surv ival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance.” The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association. To be eligible for listing in the CRHR, the resource must be found significant under one of the following criterions:
17 California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” March 14, 2006.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 45 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. It has yielded, or has the pot ential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease and the county coroner be notified.
Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non -federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to cultural resources and applicable to the proposed pro ject include the following.
Policy Description
LUD 11.5 Protect important archaeological and paleontological sites. Utilize the development review process to identify and protect archaeological and paleontological deposits.
LUD 11.6 Protect Human Remains. Utilize the development review process to identify and protect human remains and follow the appropriate procedures outlined under Health and Safety Code Section7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 46 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Mountain View City Code
Division 15, Designation and Preservation of Historic Resources of the City’s Zoning Ordinance includes a process for recognizing, preserving, and protecting historical resources. Division 15, Section
36.54.55 establishes the Mountain View Register of Hist oric Resources as the City’s official list of historically significant buildings, structures, and sites that are considered during the development review process. The criteria of listing in the Mountain View Register is similar to the CRHR and is as follows:
A. Is strongly identified with a person who, or an organization which, significantly contributed to the culture, history or development of the City of Mountain View; B. Is the site of a significant historic event in the city’s past; C. Embodies distinctive characteristics significant to the city in terms of a type, period, region or method of construction or representative of the work of a master or possession of high artistic value; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the city's prehistory or history.
Existing Conditions
Prehistoric Resources
Mountain View is situated within territory once occupied by Costanoan (also commonly referred to as Ohlone) language groups. Mountain View lies on the approximate ethnolinguistic boundary be tween the Tamyen and Ramaytush languages. No cultural resources are recorded within the project area, according to the archaeological literature review and Native American consultati on report completed for the project.18 Areas that are near natural water sources, e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland, should be considered of high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits and associated human remains. The project site is approximately 530 feet northwest of channelized Permanente Creek and approximately 0.75 mile north of Hale Creek, and is not considered to be an archaeologically sensitive area.19
Historic Resources
Structures On-Site
The existing strip mall (601 to 649 Escuela Avenue) and residential building (1873 Latham Street) on the project site were built in 1955. The strip mall is an example of mid-century modern design and part of the automobile -oriented development in post -war Santa Clara Valley. The strip mall has stone veneer along the store fronts and columns facing Escuela Avenue. A cantilevered canopy with lights provides shade over the store fronts. The rear of the property is a service parking area and entrance for the st rip mall. The building shows deferred maintenance and alterations around the store fronts, canopy, and rear of the building. The strip mall has housed a variety of tenants ranging from
18 Holman & Associates. CEQA Archaeological Literature Search and Initial Native American Consultation for the Escuela Mixed Use Project, 601 to 643 Escuela Ave and 1873 Latham Street, Mountain View, Santa Clara County. January 21, 2021.
19 Ibid.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 47 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
commercial, retail, food services, and office uses. None of the uses we re unusual and incrementally contributed to the larger commercial sector of Mountain View. The residential building is an example of Ranch Style design; however, the front of the building has been heavily altered and is no longer representative of its original design. Neither building is listed on the NRHP, CRHR, or Mountain View Register as a historic resource.
The strip mall building is not significant to the era of automobile-oriented retail and is not individually representative of any important patterns of development within the City, nor are either of the buildings associated with significant events. Therefore, the buildings would not be eligible under Criterion 1 of the CRHR or Criteria B of the Mountain View Register. The buildings are not associated with persons of local significance; therefore, the buildings would not be eligible under Criterion 2 of the CRHR or Criteria A of the Mountain View Register. While the strip mall building retains some architectural characteristics of the mid-century modern style, it is not a distinguished example of this architectural style; therefore, it would not be eligible under Criterion 3 of the CRHR or Criteria C of the Mountain View Register. As discussed above, the front of the residential building was heavily altered and is no longer representative of its original design (i.e., Ranch Style); therefore, the residential building would not be eligible under Criterion 3 of the CRHR or Criteria C of the Mountain View Register. The buildings do not have the potential t o yield any prehistory or history of the area, therefore, both buildings would not be eligible under Criterion 4 of the CRHR or Criteria D of the Mountain View Register. The reasons for the building s’ ineligibility for listing in the CRHR would also render it ineligible for listing in the NRHP. For more detail about the historic analysis please refer to Appendix C.
Off-Site Historic Structures
The residential building directly west of the project site (1871 Latham Street) was built in 1946 and was originally an example of Ranch Style design. The building has been significantly altered with a covered porch and pop-out and shed style additions to the building. This property is not listed on the NRHP, CRHR, or Mountain View Register.
4.5.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 48 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact CUL-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (No Impact)
The proposed project would demolish the existing buildings on the site. As discussed in Section 4.5.1.2 Existing Conditions, the existing buildings on the project site and the adjacent residential building to the west are not listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or Mountain View Register . For these reasons, the demolition of these buildings and construction of the project would not impact historic resources. (No Impact)
Impact CUL-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant Impact)
Although the likelihood of encountering buried cultural resources is low, the disturbance of these resources, if they are encounte red during excavation and construction, could create an impact. The project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown cultural resources.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• 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 Amer ican 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 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 wa lls; 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.
In addition, the project would be required to implement the following conditions of approval.
Condition of Approval:
• NATIVE AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING: A Native American archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground -disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.
• CULTURAL SENSITIVITY TRAINING: As required during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 49 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
beginning of the project to aid those involved in the proj ect to become more familiar with the indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.
With implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to unknown archaeological resources by halting work if resources are discovered, notifying and consulting appropriate parties, and implementing measures to avoid significantly impacting the resource. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact CUL-3: The project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed under Impact CUL-2, the likelihood of encountering buried cultural resources (including human remains) is low. The project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, which include measures to avoid or reduce impacts to unknown human remains.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• 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.
With implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to unknown human remains by stopping construction in the vicinity of any found remains, initiating a formal process for final disposition of the remains, and requiring verification of the mitigation and monitoring process by the City’s Community Development Director. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 50 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
ENERGY
The following discussion is based in part on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., in December 2020. A copy of the report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
4.6.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.
Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010.
In 2008, Executive Order S-14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals. A key provision of SB 350 req uires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.
California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years, and the 2019 Title 24 updates will go into effect on January 1, 2020. 20 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmental ly responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. The most recent update to CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2020, and covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.
20 California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission.” Accessed November 13, 2020. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 51 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environm entally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings.21
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to energy and applicable to the proposed project include the following.
Policy Description
LUD 10.5 Building energy efficiency. Incorporate energy-efficient design features and materials into new and remodeled buildings.
LUD 10.9 Sustainable roofs. Encourage sustainable roofs to reduce a building’s energy use, reduce the heat island effect of new and existing development and provide other ecological benefits.
Mountain View Green Building Code
At the local level, the Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC includes energy efficiency standards that exceed th e California Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third -party organization, but requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third -party rating system. 22 For residential pr ojects proposing over five units, the MVGBC requires that those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CALGreen requirements.
Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7, 967 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2018, the most recent year for which this data was available. 23 Out of the 50 states, California is ranked second in total energy consumption and 46th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 18 percent ( 1,440 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19 percent (1, 510 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1, 847 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 40 percent
21 California Air Resources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed November 4, 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.
22 City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Green Building and Reach Code. 2019.” Accessed November 13, 2020. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mounta in_view_green_building_and_rea ch_codes.asp.
23 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2018.” Accessed January 28, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 52 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
(3,078 trillion Btu) for transportation. 24 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.
Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 201 9 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (7 6 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 2 4 percent. In 2019, a total of approximately 16,664 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.25
The community-owned Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View. SVCE sources the electricity and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers a re automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. GreenStart sources 50 percent of the provided electricity from renewable sources, while GreenPrime provides 100 percent of its power from renewable sources. Both options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free.
Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 20 20, approximately 1.4 percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in -state production, while the remaining supply was imported from other western states and Canada.26 In 2020, residential and commercial customers in California used 31 percent of the state’s natural gas, power plants used 22 percent, and the industrial sector used 19 percent. Transportation accounted for one percent of natural gas use in California. In 2019, Santa Clara County used approximately 3.5 percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.27
Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California.28 The average fuel economy for light- duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 24.9 mpg in 2019.29 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. That standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles
24 Ibid.
25 California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed November 13, 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. 26 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020 California Gas Report. Accessed January 4, 2021. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf . 27 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County”. Accessed November 12, 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
28 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed February 3, 2021. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 29 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” January 2021. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-01/documents/420r21003.pdf
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 53 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in March 2020 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 40.4 mpg by model year 2026. 30
The project site is currently developed with a single-family residence and one commercial building s.
Energy use associated with the uses on-site primarily consists of gasoline for vehicle trips to and from the site. Electricity is also used for lighting an d residential appliances, natural gas for heating and cooling, and operations within the commercial buildings and residence.
4.6.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to 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?
Impact EN-1: The project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (Less than Significant Impact)
Project Construction
Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take place over a period of approximately eight months. Project construction would require energy for the manufacture and transportation of building materials, site preparation, grading and excavation, trenching, paving, and building construction and interior finishing. Petroleum-based fuels such as diesel fuel and gasoline would be the primary sources of energy during construction. Energy would not be wasted or used inefficiently by construction equipment, as construction processes are generally designed to be efficient in order to avoid excess monetary costs. In addition, the project would implement BAAQMD BMPs as a standard condition of approval (as identified in Section 3.2 Air Quality ) of t his report. The BMPs include restricting equipment idling times and requiring the applicant to post signs on the project site reminding workers to shut off idle equipment, thus reducing energy waste. The project would also comply with the City’s requirements to reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, minimizing energy impacts from the creation of excessive waste. For these reasons, the project would not use fuel or energy in a wasteful manner during construction activities. (Less than Significant Impact)
30 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed March 11, 2021. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 54 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Project Operation
The proposed project would consume electricity and nat ural gas primarily for building heating and cooling, interior and exterior lighting, water heating, and resident and employee electronics use.
Vehicle trips by future residents, employees, and customers would also use gasoline and contribute to the project’s operational energy use. Table 4.6-1, below, summarizes operational energy use of the proposed project.
Table 4.6-1: Annual Project Energy Demand
Electricity
(kWh/yr)
Natural Gas
(kBTU/yr)
Gasoline*
(gallons/yr)
Project 219,297 260,564.2 22,036
Note: * Gasoline demand was calculated by dividing the project’s estimated VMT ( 548,699) by the average economy for light duty vehicles (24.9 mpg).
kWh/yr = Kilowatt-hour per year; kBTU/yr = kilo-British thermal unit per year Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 601 Escuela Mixed Use Project Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Assessment.
December 23, 2020 Attachment 2: CalEEMod Modeling Inputs and Outputs.
The proposed project would consume approximately 219,297 kWh per year of electricity and approximately 260,564.2 kBTU of natural gas per year. The project would be built to CALGreen requirements, Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and MVGBC, all of which would improve the efficiency of the overall project. T he MVGBC requires mixed-use projects, including the proposed project, to include GreenPoint Rated energy and emissions reduction features, such as:
• Low-water landscaping
• Water efficient plumbing fixtures
• Title 24 compliance
• Low-emission flooring material
• Use of recycled insulation material
• EnergyStar appliances
Given the proximity of the project to transit , infill location, and mix of proposed uses, the project facilitates reduced gasoline usage. That coupled with the project’s adherence to current building codes and efficiency standards, the proposed project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact EN-2: The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed p roject would be served by SVCE (which provides 100 percent carbon -free and is consistent with the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program and SB 350) and be constructed in compliance with current energy efficiency standards identified in the MVGBC, T itle 24, and CALGreen. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 55 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special s tudies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure that no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified groun d shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires that agencies only approve projects in seis mic hazard zones following site -specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake- related hazards.
California Building Standards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructin g safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years.
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relat ions, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability and collapse that could injure construction workers on the site.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 56 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies promote the use of appropriate design and construction to minimize the impacts of geologic hazards and are applicable to the project.
Policy Description
PSA 5.1 New development. Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.
PSA 5.2 Alquist-Priolo zones. Development shall comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City’s Code of Ordinances. The City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Geotechnical investigation reports, as required by the CBC, would be reviewed by the City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance.
Existing Conditions
The project site i s located in the Santa Clara Valley, an alluvial basin, bound by the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, the Hamilton/Diablo Range to the east, and the San Francisco Bay to the north.
The Santa Clara Valley was formed when sediments derived from the Santa Cr uz Mountains and the Hamilton/Diablo Range were exposed by continued tectonic uplift and regression of the inland sea that had previously inundated this area. Bedrock in this area is made up of the Franciscan Complex, a diverse group of igneous, sedimentar y, and metamorphic rocks of Upper Jurassic to Cretaceous age.
Overlaying the bedrock at substantial depths are marine and terrestrial sedimentary rocks of Tertiary and Quaternary age.
The project site is located in an urban, developed, infill area and uni que geologic features such as serpentine outcrops and boulders, pinnacles, or Tafoni sandstone are not located on-site.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 57 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Expansive Soils
During cycles of wetting and drying, some soils experience alternating swelling and shrinking in volume, respectively. Such changes in soil volume can result in structural damage to buildings and infrastructure if soil conditions are not appropriately reflected in design and construction measures.
According to the conclusions of the August 2014 Initial Study completed for the Precise Plan, soils in the Precise Plan area have shrink-swell potential ranging from moderate to high.31 As a result, soils in the project area are considered expansive.
Groundwater
According to the findings of a March 2015 groundwater monitoring report completed at a property (333 Escuela Avenue) approximately 0.3-miles northeast of the project site, groundwater is present in the project area at between 24.7 and 26 feet below ground surface (bgs). 32 Groundwater likely flows in a northerly direction in the project area, consistent with local topography.
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region but is not located within a currently designated Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The major earthquake faults in the project area are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately six miles southwest of the site, and the southeast extension of the Hayward Fault and the main Hayward Fault, which are located approximately 11 to 13 miles northeast of the site, respectively. These regional faults are capable of generating earthquakes of at least 7.0 in magnitude. The smaller Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is located approximately five miles southwest of the project site . A moderate to major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault is most likely to generate the strongest ground shaking at the site.
Liquefaction and Landslide Hazards
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of loose water- saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state during ground shaking. During ground shaking, such as during earthquakes, cyclically induced stresses may cause increased pore water pressures within the soil voids, resulting in liquefaction. Liquefied soils may lose shear strength that may lead to large shear deformations and/or flow failure under moderate to high shear stresses, such as beneath foundations or sloping ground.
The project site is not located within a state -designated liquefaction zone .33 Due to the level site topography and low liquefaction potential, the project site is not at risk of landslide hazards.
31 LSA Associates, Inc. “El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study – Section 4.6 Geology and Soils”. August 2014. 32 PIERS Environmental Services. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 601 -649 Escuela Avenue and 1873 Latham Street Mountain View, California.” September, 2016 33 California Department of Conservation. “CGS Information Warehouse”. Accessed November 30, 2020. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 58 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a type of ground failure related to liquefaction. It consists of the horizontal displacement of flat -lying alluvial material toward an open area, such as the steep bank of a stream channel. Due to the flat topography of the project site and surrounding area, t he potential for lateral spreading at the site during a seismic event is considered low.
Subsidence
Subsidence is a process by which the ground surface elevation is lowered, due to settlement or consolidation of underlying soil material. Generally, subsidence is caused by groundwater pumping and subsequent decline in aquifer volume. Settlement can also occur due to construction of buildings or infrastructure on fill soils with low-strength, or across soil types of differing strength.
According to the conclusions of the August 2014 Initial Study completed for the Precise Plan, subsidence risk posed by groundwater withdrawal is low, due to the absence of any significant agricultural or industrial pumping activity. 34 Potentially loose fill soils may contribute to subsidence and have the potential to occur randomly throughout the Precise Plan area.35
4.7.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault (refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
- Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
34 LSA Associates, Inc. “El Camino Real Precise Plan Initial Study – Section 4.6 Geology and Soils”. August 2014. 35 Ibid.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 59 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
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 the
current California Building Code, creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
5) Have soils 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
geological feature?
Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. The project site would experience intense ground shaking in the event of a large earthquake. No known faults occur beneath the project site. The project site is not located within an earthquake fau lt zone on an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map and, therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the site is low.
The project site is not located within a state -designated liquefaction hazard zone; thus, liquefaction susceptibility is very low, and no liquefiable soils are present on-site.36,37 Since the soils on site are not prone to liquefaction, and there are no free faces, steep slopes, or stream banks within or adjacent to the project site, the probability of lateral spreading is low.
As required by the CBC, and a City standard condition of approval, a site-specific, design -level geotechnical r eport would be prepared prior to construction in order to ensure project safety and compliance with local and state policies.
36 Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones Map, Map 53. Accessed Novembe r 30, 2020. 37 Association of Bay Area Governments Resilience Program. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Accessed November 30, 2020.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 60 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Standard Condition of Approval:
• GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: The applicant shall have a design -level geotechnical investigation prepa red 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.
By conforming to standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques outlined in the City of Mountain View’s Build ing Division and California Building Code (CBC) and identified in the project’s design-level geotechnical investigation , the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects; nor would the project exacerbate existing ge ological hazards on the project site such that it would impact (or worsen) off-site geological and soil conditions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Less than Significant Impact)
During project demolition and construction, soil could be exposed to erosion from wind and surface water runoff. The project would be required to implement the following standard condition of approval to reduce soil erosion impacts during construction.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site ; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. The plan shall also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
With implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on soil erosion by requiring the installation of erosion controls consistent with the submitted sediment and erosion control plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 61 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact GEO-3: The project would not 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 Impact)
As described in Section 4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions and discussed under Impact GEO -1, the project site and area are not subject to landslides and have a low potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading.
Groundwater, which is potentially present bene ath the site a t depths of 24.7 feet bgs, may be encountered during excavation of the single level of below grade parking. However, excavation would extend approximately 24 feet bgs at the greatest depth, and, therefore, would not extend substantially into the water table.
With the implementation of the standard engineering and seismic safety design techniques (including those to prevent indirect effects of dewatering during construction) outlined in the CBC (refer to the standard condition of approval listed under Impact GEO -1), the project site would not be located on an unstable geological unit that would result in subsidence or collapse of the proposed project.
Therefore, compliance with standard conditions of approval would ensure that the project would not exacerbate existing geological hazards on the site such that it would impact on- or off-site geological and soil conditions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. (Less than Significant Impact)
Fluctuations in soil moisture can cause expansive soils to shrink and swell, thereby compromising the integrity of foundations, pavements, and exterior flatwork. As stated in Section 4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, the on-site soils have moderate to high shrink swell potential, and therefore are considered expansive. The project would comply with standard condition of approval listed under Impact GEO-1 of implementing the recommendations in a design -level geotechnical investigation, which would include standar d engineering and design measures to ensure that the project would be designed properly to account for soils -related hazards (including expansion potential) on the site. With implementation of the standard condition of approval identified under Impact GEO-1, expansive soils on-site would not exacerbate risks to life and property, and the project would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GEO-5: The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (No Impact)
The project site is located within an urbanized area of Mountain View and currently served by the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. The proposed development would include local connections to the City’s sanitary sewer system, therefore, t he project would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 62 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.7.1.2 Existing Conditions, unique geologic features are not located on-site.
No paleontological resources have been identified within the project site. The proposed project would excavate to a depth of approximately 24 feet below ground surface to construct the garage parking.
While discovery of any paleontological resource i s unlikely, it is always a possibility during excavation. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered during construction activities, implementation of standard condition of approval would reduce the project’s impacts to a less than significant level.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• DISCOVERY OF PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCE: 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 stand ards. 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.
The project, with the implementation of the above standard condition of approval, would reduce the project’s impact to paleontological resources (if found on -site) to a less than significant level by stopping work in the finding vicinity and allowing for examination, and if necessary, recovery by a qualified paleontologist. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 63 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following discussion is based in part on an Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., in December 2020. A copy of the report is included in Appendix A of this Initial Study.
4.8.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. In GHG emission inventories, the weight of each gas is multiplied by its global warming potential (GWP) and is measured in units of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor but there are also several ot hers, most importantly methane (CH 4), nitrous oxide (N 2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities.
Sources of GHGs are generally as follows:
• CO2 and N2O are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. • N2O is associated with agricultural operations such as fertilization of crops. • CH4 is commonly created by off -gassing from agricultural practices (e.g., keeping livestock) and landfill operations.
• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were widely used as refrigerants, propellants, and cleaning solvents, but their production has been stopped by international treaty. • HFCs are now used as a substitute for CFCs in refrigeration and cooling. • PFCs and SF6 emissions are commonly created by industries such as aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing.
An expanding body of scientific research sup ports the theory that global climate change is currently causing changes in weather patterns, average sea level, ocean acidification, chemical reaction rates, and precipitation rates, and that it will increasingly do so in the future. The climate and several naturally occurring resources within California are adversely affected by the global warming trend. Increased precipitation and sea level rise will increase coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion, and degradation of wetlands. Mass migration and/or loss of plant and animal species could also occur. Potential effects of global climate change that could adversely affect human health include more extreme heat waves and heat-related stress; an increase in climate-sensitive diseases; more frequent and intense natural disasters such as flooding, hurricanes and drought; and increased levels of air pollution.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 64 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.
In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying Executive Order B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of CO2E (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.
Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.
Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 establishes a course for reducing per -capita GHG emissions through the promotion of compact, high -density, mixed-use neighborhoods near transit, pa rticularly within identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs).
Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super -GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analy ses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG impacts developed by BAAQMD within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 65 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
General Plan policies related to GHGs and applicable to the proposed project include the following.
Policy Description
MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita vehicle miles traveled.
INC 12.1 Emissions reduction target. Maintain a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012. The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the long -range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction stra tegy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emission reductions, to meet the requirements of AB
32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030.
Implementation of the policies in the 2030 General Plan programmatically, and as a part of the City’s development permitting process, also provide for meet ing standards for energy efficiency, recycling, and water conservation, consistent with laws and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.
A project that is consistent with the General Plan and GGRP is assumed to have a less than significant GHG impact.
Existing Conditions
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have regional and local impacts, emissions of GHGs have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the upper atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth and changes in weather patterns. GHG emissions from the site are mainly produced by resident, worker, and customer vehicle trips to and from the project site.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 66 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.8.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of GHGs?
Impact GHG-1: The project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would result in GHG emissions over the short -term, from construction related equipment exhaust and vehic le trips, and over the long -term, from project associated vehicle trips, energy and water usage, and solid waste disposal. The emissions of the proposed project were estimated using CalEEMod and analyzed using the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recomme nded methodology, and are discussed below.
Construction Period Emissions
For the total construction period, associated GHG emissions were predicted to be 139 MT of CO 2e.
These emissions are due to on-site operation of construction equipment, vendor and hauling truck trips, and worker trips. Neither the City nor BAAQMD have an adopted threshold of significance for construction related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD recommends quantifying emissions and disclosing that project construction would involve GHG emissions, and encourages the incorporation of GHG reduction best management practices where feasible and applicable. The project would restrict construction equipment i dling (see the standard condition of approval under Impact AIR -1), which would in turn reduce GHG emissions from construction equipment. In addition, there is nothing atypical or unusual about the project’s construction. For these reasons, the project’s construction GHG emissions are less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Operational Period Emissions
Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions primarily from natural gas use at the building and fossil fuel combustion from vehicle trips to and from the project site. Since the project requires a General Plan Map amendment, it is not con sistent with the land use and development assumptions in the City’s General Plan and GHGRS. For this reason, the project’s operational GHG emissions were calculated.
Annual GHG emissions were modeled and are shown in Table 4.8-1 below. The proposed project is predicted to generate approximately 211 MT of CO2e for the year 2030.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 67 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
In order for a project’s GHG emissions to be significant, a project must ex ceed both the bright -line threshold and the efficiency metric threshold in the year 2030. As shown in Table 4.8-1, operation emissions from the project would not exceed the 2030 “Substantial Progress” bright-line threshold of 660 MT of CO2e/year. The project’s per service population emissions for the year 2030 is predicted to be 3.1 MT of CO2e/year/service population , which exceeds the efficiency threshold of 2.8 MT of CO2e/year/service population.38
Table 4.8-1: Annual Project GHG Emissions (CO2e) in Metric Tons and Per Capita
Source Category
Existing Use
(MT CO2e/year)
Proposed Project
(MT CO2e/year)
2030 2030
Area 0.1 1.3
Energy Consumption 13.1 35.1
Mobile 150.6 165.3
Solid Waste Generation 5.3 7.0
Water Usage 1.0 2.4
Total (MT CO2e/yr) 170.1 211.1
Net Emissions Increase (MT CO2e/yr) 41.1
Bright-Line Significance Threshold 660 MT CO2e/year
Service Population Emissions
(MT CO2e/year/service population) 3.1
Per Service Population Threshold 2.8 in 2030
Significant (exceed both thresholds)? No
38 BAAQMD adopted GHG emissions thresholds of significance to assist in the review of projects under CEQA.
These thresholds were designed to establish the level at which BAAQMD has determined that GHG emissions would cause significant environmental impacts. The GHG emissions thresholds identified by BAAQMD are 1,100 MT of CO2e per year or 4.6 MT of CO2e per service population per year.
The numeric thresholds set by BAAQMD were calculated to achieve the state’s 2020 target for GHG emissions levels (and not the SB 32 specified target of 40 percent below the 1990 GHG emissions level). CARB has completed a Scoping Plan, which will be utilized by BAAQMD to establish the 2030 GHG efficiency threshold. BAAQMD has yet to publish a quantified GHG efficiency threshold for 2030. For the purposes of this analysis, a “Substantial Progress” bright-line threshold of 60 MT of CO2e per year and a “Substantial Progress” efficiency metric of 2.8 MT of CO2e/year/service population has been calculated for 2030 based on the GHG reduction goals of SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15, taking into account the 1990 inventory and the projected 2030 statewide population and employment levels.
To be considered an exceedance, the project must exceed both the bright -line threshold of 660 MT of CO2e per year and the efficiency threshold of 2.8 MT of CO2e/year/service population.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 68 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
As shown in Table 4.8-1 above, the project would exceed the per capita threshold of 2.8 MT CO2e/year/service population in 2030, but would not exceed the 660 MT CO 2e/year bright -line threshold. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in significant GHG emissions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact GHG-2: The project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Less than Significant Impact)
Since the project would not exceed the GHG emissions thresholds identified for the purposes of achieving the GHG emissions target pursuant to AB 32 (see discussion under Impact GHG -1), the project would not conflict with AB 32. Further, the project is cons istent with Plan Bay Area and the GGRP by being located within a PDA , meeting applicable green building codes (i.e., Green Point Rated Platinum, CALGreen, MVGBC, Title 24), and the project’s electricity would come from SVCE, which provides 100-percent carbon free energy. For the above reasons, the project would be consistent with state and local plans and policies pertaining to GHG emission reductions. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 69 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) completed by PIERS Environmental Services in September 2016. A copy of the Phase I ESA is included in Appendix D of this Initial Study.
4.9.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. Federal regulations and policies related to development include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program.
Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials.
Proper handling and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction.
Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities.
Regulations include exposure limits, requirements for protective clothing, and training requirements to prevent exposure to hazardo us materials. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.
Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures an d minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.
Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese Li st includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Santa Clara County.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 70 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property.
Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and flammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off -site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP risk management plans as the CUPA.
Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been foun d to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non-friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement. Th e EPA phased out use of friable asbestos products between 1973 and 1978. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.
CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.
Removal of older structures with lead -based paint is subject to requirements outlined by Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Stand ard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.
Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead -based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticize rs, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demoli tion of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.
With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Fra ncisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment protocol methodology for managing materials with PCBs in applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.39 Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are currently modifying demolition permit processes and implementing PCB screening protocols to comply with Provision C.12.f. Mountain View requires the completion of a PCB Screening
39 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 71 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Assessment Package prior to approval of a demolition permit. As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Local
Certified Unified Program Agency
The routine management of hazardous materials in California is administered under the Unified Program. The CalEPA has granted responsibilities to the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD) for implementation and enforcement of hazardous material regulations under the Unified Program as a CUPA. Through a formal agreement with the HMCD, the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) implements hazardous materials programs for the City of Mountain View as a Participating Agency within the Unified Program. The MVFD coordinates with the HMCD to implement the Santa Clara County Hazardous Materials Management Plan and to ensure that commercial and residential activities involving classified hazardous subst ances are properly handled, contained, and disposed.
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies related to hazards and hazardous materials and would be applicable to the proposed project.
Policy Description
PSA 3.2 Protection from hazardous materials. Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials through prevention and enforcement of fire and life safety codes.
PSA 3.3 Development review. Carry out development review procedures that encourage effective identification and remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.
INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from environmental contamination.
Existing Conditions
On-Site Contamination
The project site is developed with a commercial building, paved parking lot, single -family residence and associated structures. The commercial structure was built in 1955 and the residence was built in 1946. Based on the age of these buildings, it is possible that ACMs, lead-based paint, and PCBs are present. Prior to these structures, the project site was used as an orchard. There is potential for residual agricultural chemicals in the soil (i.e., pesticides and fertilizers). Between 1962 and 1973, a dry cleaner business (Budget Cleaners) was located on the project site at 625 Escuela Avenue and could have
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 72 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
released hazardous materi als during its operation. This dry cleaner business is a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). The project is not on the Cortese List.40
Off-Site Sources of Contamination
The project area consists of commercial and residential land use s. There are no recorded hazardous materials releases on the project site.41 The closest hazardous material sites are a closed (as of January 1994) leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case approximately 0.2 mile south of the project site, and a closed (as of October 2015) clean-up site for a former auto garage approximately 0.3 mile north of the project site.
Airport Safety
The proposed project is approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield, the closest airport to the project site. The project site is not within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) for Moffett Federal Airfield, as described in the airfield’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). Projects located within the AIA would be subject to development policies and approval by the CLUP.42
Wildland Fire Hazards
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone or the Wildland Urban Interface.43,44
4.9.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
40 CalEPA. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed November 14, 2020. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.
41 Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Envirostor Database”. Accessed January 28, 2021. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=301+escuela+ave+mountain+view . 42 Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
November 18, 2016.
43 CAL FIRE. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. November 6, 2007. 44 CAL FIRE. Santa Clara County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 8, 2008.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 73 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
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, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
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
or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
6) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires?
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed development would routinely use limited amounts of fuels, oils, and cleaning materials and would not generate substantial hazardous emissions from hazardous materials use or transport. No other routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would occur with the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
On-Site Soils and Groundwater
The project site was previously developed with orchards and the commercial buildings contained a dry-cleaning business from 1962 to 1973. While there are no recorded hazardous materials releases from these uses, contaminants could be found in the soil during construction. As discussed in Section
4.7 Geology and Soils, groundwater at the project site is estimated to be approximately 25 feet below
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 74 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
ground surface (bgs). The proposed project would include one level of below grade parking extending approximately 24 feet bgs; thus, groundwater is unlikely to be encountered. The project would implement the City’s standard conditions of approval, described below, to ensure the project does not result in significant hazardous materials impacts from on-site contamination (if present).
Standard Conditions of Approval
• TOXIC ASSESSMENT: A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction activities and the proposed use of this site are app roved by: the City’ Fire Department (Fire and Environmental Protection Division) ; the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction. No building permits will be issued until each a gency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.
• DISCOVERY OF CONTAMINATED SOILS: If contaminated soils are discovered, the applicant will ensure the contractor employs engineeri ng controls and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize human exposure to potential contaminants. Engineering controls and construction BMPs will include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) C ontractor employees working on -site will be certif ied in OSHA ’s 40 -hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training; (b) C ontractor will stockpile soil during redevelopment activities to allow for proper characterization and evaluation of disposal options;
(c) Contractor will m onitor area around construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation;
(d) C ontractor will water/mist soil as it is being excavated and loaded onto transportation trucks;
(e) Contractor will place any stockpiled soil in areas shielded from prevailing winds; and (f) Contractor will cover the bottom of excavated areas with sheeting when work is not being performed.
• SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN: A qualified professional shall prepare a soil and groundwater management p lan for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH). Proof of approval or actions for site work required by the SCCDEH must be provided to the Building Inspection Division prior to the issuance of any demolition or building permits.
With the implementation of the City ’s above standard conditions of approval, the impacts would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Asbestos, Lead Based Paint, PCBs, and Formaldehyde
Based on the estimated age of the existing on -site buildings, asbestos containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint, and PCBs, may be present in some building materials. Building demolition could result in the release of these materials to the environment. The project would, however, be required to implement the below City’s standard condition of approval.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 75 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Standard Condition of Approval:
• HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTAMINATION: To reduce the potential for construction workers and adjacent uses to encounter hazar dous materials contamination from ACMs and lead-based paint, the following measures are to be included in the project:
a) In conformance with local, State, and Federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on the structures proposed for demolition.
The surveys shall be completed prior to demolition work beginning on the structures. b) A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos -containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building demolition that may disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1 percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.
During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Titl e 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead -based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.
• BUILDING DEMOLITION PCB CONTROL: Nonwood-frame buildings constructed before 1981 that will be completely demolished are required to conduct representative sampling of priority building materials that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sample results of o ne or more priority building materials show PCBs concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm, the applicant is required to follow applicable Federal and State notification and abatement requirements prior to demolition of the building. Submit a complete d “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Applicant Package” with the building demolition plans for the project. A demolition permit will not be issued until the completed “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” is submitted and approved by the City Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD). Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations regarding notification and abatement of PCBs - containing materials. Contact the City’s FEPD at 650-903-6378 to obtain a copy of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” and related guidance and information.
With implementation of the above City standard condition of approval, impacts from ACMs, lead based paint, and PCBs would be less than significant by identifying and removing hazardous materials encountered during building demolition. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 76 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant Impact)
Mariano Castro Elementary School and Gabriela Mistral Elementary School are located approximately 370 feet northwest of the project site at 500 Toft Street. While the proposed project would be within
0.25-mile of a school, the project (with the implementation of the standard condition of approval identified under Impact HAZ -2) would not emit substantial hazardous emission or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-4: The project would not 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. (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not on the Cortese List (i.e., the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 ). (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-5: The project would not be 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. (No Impact)
The proposed project is located 2.7 miles southwest of the Moffett Federal Airfield and is not located within the AIA identified in the CLUP. Thus, the project would have not result in any airport hazards. (No Impact)
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not interfere with an y adopted emergency response or evacuation plan because the project would incorporate relevant fire code requirements and is not located along specified evacuation or emergency routes such that an impact would occur. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (No Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.9.1.2, the project site is not located in a fire hazard zone or the Wildland Urban Interface. In addition, t he project site is located in a developed urban area . For these reasons, the project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 77 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regu lations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100 - year flood.
Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre o r more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction -related st orm water discharges.
Regional
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3.
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re -issued the MRP in 2015 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co -permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.45 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP,
45 MRP Number CAS612008
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 78 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post -construction stormwater runoff. LID -based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g., rainwater harvesting for non -potable uses) . The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.
In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development-related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause increased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimized size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
Provision C.12.f of the MRP requires co-permittee agencies to implement a control program for PCBs that reduces PCB loads by a specified amount during the term of the permit, thereby making substantial progress toward achieving the urban runoff PCBs wasteload allocation in the Basin Plan by March 2030.46 Programs must include focused implementation of PCB control measures, such as so urce control, treatment control, and pollution prevention strategies. Municipalities throughout the Bay Area are updating their demolition permit processes to incorporate the management of PCBs in demolition building materials to ensure PCBs are not discharged to storm drains during demolition. As of July 1, 2019, buildings constructed between 1955 and 1980 that are proposed for demolition must be screened for the presence of PCBs prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.
Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration, and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance.
2016 Groundwater Management Plan
This 2016 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes the Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable ground water management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water,
46 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, Provision C.12. November 19, 2015.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 79 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes the District’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies. A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.
Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by the District’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local s urface water and in‐lieu recharge through the provision of treated surface water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.47
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies related to hydrology and water quality and would be applicable to the proposed project.
Policy Description
INC 8.4 Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
INC 8.5 Site-specific stormwater treatment. Require post-construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.
INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.
POS 9.1 Sustainable design. Promote sustainable building materials, energy- efficient and water-efficient designs, permeable paving and other low-impact features in new public buildings.
Existing Conditions
Site Hydrology and Drainage
The project site is located in the Permanente Creek watershed. Stormwater runoff from developed areas of the watershed, including the project site, enters Permanente Creek by way of the City’s stormwater system. The project site is approximately 97 percent impervious (19,096 square feet).
Stormwater and sewer system infrastructure in the project area is maintained by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Existing stormwater infiltration on -site is due to landscaping areas within the single-family residential property, there are no stormwater treatment features on-site, and
47 Valley Water. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins.November 2016.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 80 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
stormwater runoff from existing impervious surfaces is conveyed directly to the City storm drain system.
The project site is located within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, Santa Clara Subbasin .
The regional topographic gradient is generally northeast towards the San Francisco Bay. 48 Groundwater in the project area at between 24.7 and 26 feet below ground surface (bgs).49
Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as non- point source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been f ound to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.
Flooding and Other Hazards
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located within Zone X.50 Flood Zone X consists of areas of 0.2 percent chance flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile; and areas of protected levees from one percent annual chance flood.
A seiche is an oscillation of the surface of a lake or landlocked sea varying in period from a few minutes to several hours. There are no landlocked bodies of water near the project site tha t, in the event of a seiche, would affect the site.
A tsunami is a series of water waves caused by the displacement of a large volume of a body of water, such as an ocean or a large lake. The project site does not lie within a tsunami inundation hazard area.51
48 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. Adopted November 22, 2016. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes-from/groundwater.
Groundwater recharge area = Area that supplies water to an aquifer in a groundwater basin. 49 PIERS Environmental Services. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report for 601-649 Escuela Avenue and 1873 Latham Street Mountain View, California.” September, 2016 50 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #06085C0038H. May 18, 2009.
51 California Emergency Management Agency. California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 81 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.10.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site;
- substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. (Less than Significant Impact)
During Construction
Implementation of the project would require demolition, paving, and grading of the site. These are activities that would temporarily increase the amount of unconsolidated materials and disturb potential pollutants. Grading and excavation activities could increase erosion and sedimentation , resulting in sediment, soil, and associated pollutants that could be carried by runoff into natural waterways possibly
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 82 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
increasing sedimentation impacts to local creeks or the San Francisco Bay. The project is less than one acre; therefore, a SWPPP would not be required. The project, with implementation of the following measures (which are required by the City as standard conditions of approval and are based on RWQCB requirements), would reduce impacts to water quality during construction to a less than significant level.
Standard Conditions of Approval:
• BUILDING DEMOLITION PCB CONTROL: Nonwood-frame buildings constructed before 1981 that will be completely demolished are required to conduct representative sampling of priority building materials that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sample results of one or more priority building materials show PCBs concentrations greater than or equal to 50 ppm, the ap plicant is required to follow applicable Federal and State notification and abatement requirements prior to demolition of the building. Submit a completed “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Applicant Package” with the building demolitio n plans for the project. A demolition permit will not be issued until the completed “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” is submitted and approved by the City Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD). Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations regarding notification and abatement of PCBs - containing materials. Contact the City’s FEPD at 650-903-6378 to obtain a copy of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” and related guidance and information.
• CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN: The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that will be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events. The plan should include installation of the following items where appropriate: (a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter f abric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high-erosion areas. T he plan shall also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
The project, with the implementation of the above standard conditions of approval, would reduce construction-related water quality impacts to a less than significant level by limiting the release of PCBs and reducing construction related erosion. (Less than Significant Impact)
Post-Construction
Construction of the project would result in the replacement of more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. As a result, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of the MRP. In order to meet these requirements, the proposed project would include LID -based stormwater treatment controls (e.g., bioretention treatment areas).
The project would decrease the amount of impervious surfaces from 19,096 square feet to 16,195 square feet compared to existing conditions. The decrease in impervious surfaces results in a corresponding decrease in surface runoff . Stormwater runoff from the site would drain in to the stormwater treatment controls. The proposed treatment controls would be numerically sized and would
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 83 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
have sufficient capacity to treat the runoff from the roofs, podium decks, hardscape, and driveway areas entering the storm drainage system consistent with the NPDES requirements.
The project would be required to include the following measures, based on RWQCB requirements, to reduce stormwater runoff impacts from project implementation:
Standard Conditions of Approval:
• STORMWATER TREATMENT (C.3) : This project will create or replace more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet of impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwate r Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” The City’s guidelines also describe the requirement to select Low -Impact Development (LID) types of stormwater treatment controls; the types of projects that are exempt from this requirement; and the Infeasibility and Special Projects exemptions from the LID requirement.
The “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects” document requires applicants to submit a Stormwater Management Plan, including information such as the type, location, and sizing calculations of the treatment controls that will be installed. Include three stamped and signed copies of the Final Stormwater Management Plan with the building plan submittal.
The Stormwater Management Plan must include a stamped and signed certifi cation by a qualified Engineer, stating that the Stormwater Management Plan complies with the City’s guidelines and the State NPDES Permit. Stormwater treatment controls required under this condition may be required to enter into a formal recorded Maintena nce Agreement with the City.
• LANDSCAPE DESIGN : Landscape design shall minimize runoff and promote surface filtration. Examples include: (a) No steep slopes exceeding 10 percent; (b) Using mulches in planter areas without ground cover to avoid sedimentation runoff; (c) Installing plants with low water requirements; and (d) Installing appropriate plants for the location in accordance with appropriate climate zones. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.
• EFFICIENT IRRIGATION: Common areas shall employ efficient irrigation to avoid excess irrigation runoff. Examples include: (a) Setting irrigation timers to avoid runoff by splitting irrigations into several short cycles; (b) Employing multi-programmable irrigation controllers; (c) Employing rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation after significant precipitation; (d) Use of drip irrigations for all planter areas which have a shrub density that will cause excessive spray interference of an overhead system; and (e) Use of flow re ducers to mitigate broken heads next to sidewalks, streets and driveways. Identify which practices shall be used in the building plan submittal.
• OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS (INCLUDING GARBAGE ENCLOSURES) : Outdoor storage areas (for storage of equipment or materials which could decompose, disintegrate, leak or otherwise contaminate stormwater runoff), including garbage enclosures, shall be designed to prevent the run-on of stormwater and runoff of spills by all of the following: (a) Paving the area with concrete or other nonpermeable surface; (b) Covering the area; and (c) Sloping the
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 84 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
area inward (negative slope) or installing a berm or curb around its perimeter . There shall be no storm drains in outdoor storage areas.
With the implementation of the standard conditions of approval, based on RWQCB requirements, the project’s post -construction water quality impacts would be less than significant by treating and reducing surface runoff. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is located in a confined area of the Santa Clara Subbasin. The project does not include installation of groundwater wells and , therefore, would not deplete groundwater supplies. The proposed project would result in 16,195 square feet (8 3 percent) of impervious surfaces and 3,387 square feet (1 7 percent) of pervious surfaces , resulting in a net decrease of 14 percent impervious surfaces. Further, there are no groundwater recharge facilities on -site managed by Valley Water . For these reasons, impacts related to groundwater recharge would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Less than Significant Impact)
There are no existing waterways on the site; therefore, t he proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the alteration of any waterway. The project would result in a decrease in imperv ious surfaces compared to existing conditions, therefore, it is assumed that the existing storm sewer system has sufficient capacity to serve the project. In addition, the project would comply with stormwater treatment requirements and implement erosion an d sedimentation controls as described under Impact HYD-1. As a result, the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation, flooding , or additional sources of polluted runoff . (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in Section 4.10.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area or subject to tsunamis or seiches. In addition, the proposed project is anticipated to use only small quantities of cleaning chemicals that would be properly stored. For these reasons, the
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 85 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
project would not risk release of substa ntial pollutants due to inundation. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact HYD-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would comply with the City’s Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Low Impact Development and Post -Construction Requirements. Valley Water prepared a GWMP for the Santa Clara Plain subbasin in 2016, describing its comprehensive groundwater ma nagement framework including objectives; strategies, programs, and activities to support those objectives; and outcome measures to gauge performance. The GMP is the guiding document for how Valley Water will ensure groundwater basins within its jurisdictio n are managed sustainably. The Santa Clara Plain subbasin has not been identified as a groundwater basin in a state of overdraft. The project site is not located within, or adjacent to, a Valley Water groundwater recharge pond or facility. Implementation of the proposed project, therefore, would not interfere with any actions set forth by Valley Water in its GMP in regards to groundwater recharge, transport of groundwater, and/or groundwater quality. For these reasons, the project would not conflict with i mplementation of a water quality or groundwater management plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 86 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
LAND USE AND PLANNING
4.11.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies were adopted to promote the quality of life in neighborhoods by preserving their character in the City of Mountain View.
Policy Description
LUD 6.1 Neighborhood character. Ensure that new development in or near residential neighborhoods is compatible with neighborhood character.
El Camino Real Precise Plan
Adopted in 2014, the Precise Plan governs development within the El Camino Real corridor in the City of Mountain View. The Precise Plan includes standards, guidelines, and implementation actions with the goal of focusing intensive development and public im provement along the corridor, with a focus on pedestrian ground-floor commercial uses.
Mountain View City Code
Chapter 36 of the City Code is t he Zoning Ordinance, which serves as an implementing tool for the General Plan by establishing detailed, parcel -specific development regulations and standards in each area of the City. Although the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are distinct documents, the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are closely related, and state law mandates that zoning regulations be consistent with the General Plan maps and policies.
Existing Conditions
The western 0.30-acre portion of the project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed- Use Corridor and is zoned Planned Community/Precise Plan, specifically located within the Precise Plan in the Low -Intensity Corridor Character Area .52 This portion of the project site is currently developed with one commercial building.
The eastern 0.15-acre portion of the project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Medium- Density Residential and is zoned R3-2.5, Multiple Family Residential.53 This portion of the project site is currently developed with a single-family residence.
52 The Mixed-Use Corridor designation allows for a variety of office, commercial, and residential uses. The Planned Community/Precise Plan requires projects to follow the development standards in their respective Precise Plans. 53 The Medium Density Residential designation allows for a mix of single- and multi-family housing with a density of 13 to 25 dwelling units per acre. The R3-2.5 zoning sets development standards and minim lot areas for multi- family housing, as outlined in Chapter 36, Article IV, Division 5 of the City Code.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 87 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.11.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due
to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact LU-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. (Less than Significant Impact)
Examples of projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community include ones that physically construct a feature (such as new freeways and highways, major arterial streets, and railroad lines ) or remove a means of access (such as a local roadway or bridge), which would impair mobility. The project proposes to construct a three-story mixed-use development with uses similar to the surrounding land uses, and would not include the construction of features that would divide the community. Thus, development of the project would not physically divide an established community. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact LU-2: The project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact)
In order to develop the proposed project, the eastern 0.15-acre portion of the project requires a General Plan Map amendment to change the land use designation from Medium Density Residential to Mixed- Use Corridor, a rezoning from R3-2.5 to Planned Community/Precise Plan, and amend the Precise Plan to include the eastern 0.15 -acre portion of the site within the Precise Plan area. While the project requires amendments to the General Plan and Precise Plan, and rezoning, the project is consistent with applicable land use General Plan and Precise Plan policies by proposing a mixed-use project consistent with the development standards outlined in Chapter 2 of the Precise Plan . In addition, the proposed project is subject to mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval to minimize environmental impacts and would be consistent with General Plan policies adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects as described in the individual resource sections of this Initial Study. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 88 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
MINERAL RESOURCES
4.12.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.
Existing Conditions
Based on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) map of mines and mineral resources, the project site is not comprised of known mineral resources or mineral resource production areas. 54 Mineral resource recovery activities do not occur on or near the project site.
4.12.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan, or other land use plan?
54 United States Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data: Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Mineral Resources. Accessed November 16, 2020. Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 89 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. (No Impact)
As discussed above in Section 4.12.1.2 Existing Conditions, there are no known mineral resources on- site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the residents in the state or region. (No Impact)
Impact MIN-2: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (No Impact)
See discussion for Impact MIN-1. (No Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 90 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
NOISE
The following discussion is based on a noise assessment completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. in December 2020. A copy of the noise assessment is included in Appendix E of this Initial Study.
4.13.1 Environmental Setting
Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, includ e the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel scale , which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a d oubling of loudness. Because the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.
Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects.
Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including Leq, DNL, or CNEL.55 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or w hen a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A -weighted noise level during a measurement period.
Vibration
Ground vibration cons ists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground -borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.
55 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL or Ldn) is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 91 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 4.13-1 below. There are established criteria for frequent events (more than 70 events of the same source per day), occasional events (30 to 70 vibration events of the same source per day), and infrequent events (less than 30 vibration events of the same source per day). These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.
Table 4.13-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45 Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA DNL noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The purpose of the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan Noise Element is to guide policies for addressing exposure to curre nt and projected noise sources in Mountain View. The Noise Element includes a land use compatibility section which outlines acceptable outdoor noise environment standards for land use categories, as shown below in Table 4.13-2.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 92 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Table 4.13-2: Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines
The following General Plan policies are intended to reduce noise impacts an d would be applicable to the proposed project.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 93 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Policy Description
NOI 1.1 Land Use Compatibility. Use the Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines as a guide for planning and development decisions.
NOI 1.3 Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.
NOI 1.4 Site planning. Use site planning and project design strategies to achieve the noise level standards in NOI 1.1 (Land Use Compatibility) and in NOI 1.2 (Noise Sensitive Land Uses). The use of noise barriers shall be considered after all practical design- related noise measures have been integrated into the project design.
NOI 1.5 Major roadways. Reduce the noise impacts from major arterials and freeways.
NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.
NOI 1.7 Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.
Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations and goals in the zoning chapter of the City Code. The City’s codes help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. Noise is also regulat ed through standard project conditions of approval, and the Mountain View Police Department and the City Attorney’s office enforce noise violations. The condition is:
• WORK HOURS: No work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00 a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, nor shall any work be permitted on Saturday or Sunday or any holiday unless prior approval is granted by the Chief Building Official. At the discretion of the Chief Building Official, the general contractor or the developer may be required to erect a sign at a prominent location on the construction site to advise subcontractor and material suppliers of the working hours. Violation of this condition of approval may be subject to the penalties outlined in Section 8.6 of the City Code and/or suspension of building permits.
Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise -sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), the construction occu rs in areas immediately adjoining noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residences), and/or when construction duration lasts over an extended period of time. Section 8.70.1 of the City Code restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City. Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.
The City of Mountain View also identifies limits on noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 94 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operations) in Section 21.26 of the City Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), unless it has been demonstrated that such operation would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the Zoning Administrator.
Existing Conditions
Noise levels in the project area are dominated by tra ffic along El Camino Real, Escuela Avenue, and Latham Street. Due to the regional shelter in place order, traffic levels in the project area have been reduced and not representative of “normal” conditions. Thus, the noise assessment for this project does not include a noise monitoring survey. Instead, the noise levels in the project area were predicted using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model, version TNM 2.5. The predicted existing noise levels at the project site would range from 54 to 62 dBA DNL.
4.13.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in:
1) Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
3) For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
Impact NOI-1: The project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. (Less than Significant Impact)
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Construction-related noise levels are normally highest during demolition, grading, and excavation phases, including installation of project infrastructure, such as underground utility lines. These phases of construction require heavy equipment (e.g., earth moving equipment and impact tools) that normally
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 95 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
generate the highest noise levels during site redevelopment. Construction -related noise levels are normally less during building erection, finishing, and landscaping phases.
A significant noise impact would be identified if construction-related noise would temporarily increase ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors. Hourly average noise levels exceeding 60 dBA Leq, and the ambient by at least five dBA Leq, for a period of more than one year would constitute a significant temporary noise increase at adjacent residential land uses. Hourly average noise levels generated by construction at the residence directly east of the project site are estimated to be about 73 to 86 dBA Leq measured at a distance of 80 feet from the center of the construction site. Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six dBA per doubling of the distance between the source and receptor.
Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in lower construction noise levels at distant receptors; however, ambient levels at the surrounding uses would potentially be exceeded by five dBA L eq or more during the anticipated 11 months o f construction. The project would implement the following standard condition of approval during construction to ensure that impacts from construction noise would be less than significant.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• CONSTRUCTION NOISE REDUCTION: The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: (a) comply with manufacturer ’s muffler requirements on all c onstruction equipment engines; (b) turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; (c) locate stationary equipment as far as practical from receiving properties; (d) use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; and (e) shroud or shield impact tools and use electric-powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment.
The project, with the implementation of the above standard condition of approval, would not result in significant short-term construction-noise impacts. (Less than Significant Impact)
Permanent Ambient Noise Impacts
Traffic
A significant noise impact would be occur if traffic generated by the project would substantially increase noise levels at sensitive receivers in the vicinity. A substantial increase would occur if the noise level increase is three dBA DNL or greater, as existing noise levels are projected to exceed 60 dBA DNL. Traffic volumes must double to result in a perceptible (three dB) noise increase. Based on the project’s net increase in vehicle trips, the permanent noise level increase was estimated to be less than one dBA DNL along local roadways in the project area; therefore, project-generated traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by three dBA DNL or more.56 For this reason, the project-generated traffic noise would result in a less than significant impact. (Less than Significant Impact)
56 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Escuela Mixed Use Noise Assessment. December 23, 2020.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 96 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Mechanical Equipment
Residential mixed-use structures such as the one proposed for the project typically include mechanical equipment such as air conditioning, heating systems, and exhaust fans. The project would implement the following standard condition of approval to ensure that impacts from mechanical equipment noise would be less than significant by meeting stationary equipment noise limits identified in City Code Section 21.26 . During the building permit process , a project -specific a coustical analysis that demonstrates compliance with day and nighttime noise limits at the adjoining residentially used property shall be required as part of the permit application.
Standard Condition of Approval:
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT: The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB (A) during the day or 50 dB (A) during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.
With implementation of the above s tandard condition of approval, project mechanical equipment would not substantially increase noise levels in the project area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Truck Delivery Noise
The proposed ground-floor commercial uses would include occasional truck deliveries. Based on the limited size of the commercial space, deliveries are not expected to exceed more than twice per week.
Given the traffic along Escuela Avenue and Latham Street and other existing commercial uses in the project area, two additional truck deliveries would not measurably increase noise levels in the project area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact NOI-2: The project would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Less than Significant Impact)
The construction of the project may generate perceptible vibration when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) are used. The proposed project is not expected to require pile driving, which can cause excessive vibration.
For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation recommends a vibration limit of
0.5 in/sec PPV for buil dings designed to modern engineering standards, and 0.3 in/sec PPV for buildings where structural damage is a major concern. For the purpose of this analysis, groundborne vibration levels exceeding the conservative 0.3 in/sec PPV limit at the existing adja cent residences would have the potential to result in a significant vibration impact.
Table 4.13-3 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction equipment at a distance of 25 feet. Project construction activities, such as drilling, the use of jackhammers, rocks drill, and other high -power or vibratory tools, and rolling stock equipment (tracked vehicles, compactors, etc.) can generate substantial vibration. The nearest residential structure is adjacent to the project site, approximately 30 feet to the east. At the distance of approximately 30 feet, vibration levels would not exceed the state’s 0.3 in/sec PPV limit (see vibration levels expected at 25 feet in Table 4.13-3). Thus,
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 97 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
the proposed project would have a less than significant vibration impact. (Less than Significant Impact)
Table 4.13-3: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)
Clam Shovel Drop 0.202
Hydromill (slurry wall)
in soil 0.008
in rock 0.017
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Hoe Ram 0.089
Large Bulldozer 0.089
Caisson Drilling 0.089
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small Bulldozer 0.003
Note: VdB is the term used for vibration decibels. in/sec = inches per second Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 20 18, as modified by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 2020.
Impact NOI-3: The project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project is located 2.7 miles southw est of the Moffett Federal Airfield. While aircraft flyovers from Moffett Federal Airfield would at times be audible in the project area, the project site is outside of the Airfield’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour area. 57 For these reasons, the proposed projec t would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. (Less than Significant Impact)
4.13.3 Non-CEQA Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD) , effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies (including General Plan Policies NOI 1.1 and NOI 1.2) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.
57 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Escuela Mixed Use Noise Assessment. December 23, 2020.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 98 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Future Exterior Noise Environment
The “normally acceptable” exterior noise threshold established in the City’s General Plan for multi - family residences is 60 dBA DNL. This noise standard would apply to the common open space areas proposed as part of the residential development. The project proposes two common open space areas, a courtyard on the second floor and rooftop deck . Future noise levels in the project area are conservatively calculated to increase by up to one dBA by the year 2040; therefore, the future exterior noise levels would be up to 63 dBA DNL. Given the estimated future noise levels (up to 63 dBA DNL in the project area), noise levels at the common open space areas could exceed the City’s 65 dBA DNL exterior noise standard.
Future Interior Noise Environment
Residential Uses
General Plan policies and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA DNL apply to the residential portion of the proposed project. Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected constructi on materials and methods. Standard residential construction provides 15 dBA of exterior -to-interior noise reduction, assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. Given the estimated future noise levels of up to 6 3 dBA DNL in the project area, the interior noise levels of the building could exceed 45 dBA DNL when windows are partially open. In order t o reduce the interior noise at the proposed residential units, the project shall implement the following condition of approval.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• SITE-SPECIFIC BUILDING ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS: A qualified acoustical consultant will review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations. Project-specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that t he design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dB(A)Ldn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary will be completed on a unit -by-unit basis.
Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, will be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. Building sound insulation requirements will include the provision of forced- air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise.
Special building techniques (e.g., sound -rated windows and building facade treatments) will be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments will include, but are not limited to, sound -rated windows and doors, sound -rated wall construction, acoust ical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 99 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Commercial Uses
The CalGreen Code requires that interior noise levels be maintained at 50 dBA L eq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at the proposed commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses would be located on the first floor of the proposed building, along the façades facing Escuela Avenue and Latham Street.
The setbacks of the commercial retail uses would be the same as the residential units on floors two and three, approximately 40 feet from the centerline of Escuela Avenue and approximately 35 feet from the centerline of Latham Street. At these distances, the retail uses would be exposed to future exterior noise levels ranging from 62 to 63 dBA DNL.
Standard construction materials for commercial uses would provide at least 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced -air mechanical ventilation systems is normally required so windows may be kept closed at the occ upant’s discretion. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA Leq(1-hr).
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 100 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.14.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the state - mandated proce ss to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inven tory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non -governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis. 58 The City of Mountain View Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in 2014.
Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long -range transportation, land -use, and housing plan in tended support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed -use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified PDAs.59
ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. ABAG also develops forecasts for population, households, and economic activity in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC, and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Regional Forecast of Jobs, Population, and Housing, which is an integrated land use and transportation plan through the year 2040 (upon which Plan Bay Area 2040 is based).
Existing Conditions
Table 4.14-1 below, summarizes the existing and projected population and housing data for Mountain View. The population and housing numbers are anticipated to increase through 2040.
58 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed November 16, 2020. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/index.shtml.
59 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Project Mapper. Accessed November 16, 2020. http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 101 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Table 4.14-1: Population and Housing in Mountain View
California
Department of
Finance, 20191
General Plan
2030 Estimate2
Plan Bay Area
2030 Estimate3
Plan Bay Area
2040 Estimate4
Population 81,992 88,570 90,500 N/A
Households/Dwelling
Units 36,422 42,240 38,510 58,500
1 California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, for January 1, 2011-2019. May 2019
2 Based on 2030 General Plan Draft EIR. September 2012. 3 Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area 2040 Draft Preferred Land Use Scenario. September 2, 2016.
As discussed in Section 4.11.1.2 Existing Conditions, 0.30 acres of the site within the Precise Plan has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed-Use Corridor. Buildout of the Precise Plan area would result in a total of 1,872 residential units (existing plus new), with an estimated population of approximately 5,370 residents by 2030 .60 Based on the Mixed-Use Corridor land use designation on the 0.30 acres, the development of up to 60 residential units per acre is allowed. The remaining 0.15 acres of the site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Medium-Density Residential , which allows the development of up to 13 to 25 residential units per acre on the 0.15-acre portion.
The project site is currently developed with a single -family residence , as well as two commercial buildings.
4.14.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
60 LSA, Inc. El Camino Precise Plan Initial Study. August 2014.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 102 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact POP-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would demolish the existing single -family residence on -site and construct 25 multi-family residential units, resulting in a net increase of 24 residential units. As discussed above, portions of the project site are allowed up to 60 or 13 to 25 residential units per acre under the General Plan. The net increase of 24 units would be consistent with what is planned for the site and would not result in substantial population growth in the area, especially given the citywide growth planned a nd projected in the City (refer to Table 4.14-1). In addition, the project does not propose expansion of any roads or other infrastructure. Therefore, the project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact POP-2: The project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Less than Significant Impact)
There is one single-family residence located on the project site which would be demolished t o allow for construction of the proposed project. However, the project would result in a net increase of 24 residences on-site. As the project would result in a net increase of residential units, the project would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 103 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.15.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quim by Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.
Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65 995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by “mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur (as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property” (Section 65996[a]). The legislation s tates that the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).
Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.
Regional and Local
Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the county’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub-regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 104 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Local
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policy relates to public services and would be applicable to the project.
Policy Description
PSA 1.1 Adequate staffing. Maintain adequate police and fire staffing, performance levels and facilities to serve the needs of the community.
PSA 1.2 Design for safety. Support and promote crime prevention and fire safety strategies in the design of new developments.
POS 7.5 Library Service. Provide quality library service and resources that address community needs and goals.
Mountain View City Code
Chapter 41.3 of the City Code requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of park land for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented) or pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities.
Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection to the project site is provided by the City of Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD), which serves a population of over 80,000 and an area of 12 square miles. 15F The MVFD provides fire suppression and rescue response, hazard prevention and education, and disaster preparedness. In fiscal year 2018/2019, out of 9,682 emergency calls made to the MVFD, 6,571 of the calls were for medical aid, and 304 were for fire.16F
61 The City of Mountain View also participates in a mutual aid program with neighboring cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Through this program, one or more of the mutual aid cities would provide assistance to Mountain View in whatever capacity was needed. The nearest fire station to the project site is MVFD Fire Station 1, approximately 0.6 miles east of the project site at 251 S. Shoreline Boulevard.
Police Protection Services
Police protection services are provided to the project site by the Mountain View Police Department (MVPD). The MVPD conducts an active volunteer program (non-officers). Officers patrolling the area are dispatched from police headquarters, located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately 0.8 miles east of the project site.
61 MVFD. “Stats/Response/Annual Report”. Accessed November 17, 2020. http://mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 105 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
The MVPD has a goal to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls in less than four minutes at least 55 percent of the time. Priority E and Priority 1 calls are considered the highest priority calls and signal emergency dispatch from the MVPD. MVPD ha s a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies would assist the MVPD in responding to calls, when needed.
Schools
The project site is located within the Mountain View Whisman and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District s. The Mountain View Whisman School District serves grades kindergarten through eighth grade and the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District serves high-school age students. Students in the project area attend Gabriel Mistral Elementary School located at 505 Escuela Avenue (approximately 500 feet northeast of the site), Graham Middle School located at 1175 Castro Street (approximately one mile south of the site), and Los Altos High School located at 201 Almond Avenue (approximately 0.9 miles southwest of the site).
Parks and Open Space
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages 993.07 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The urban parks include 18 mini-parks, 13 neighborhood/school parks (under joint-use agreements with local school districts), five neighborhood parks not associated with school sites, two community parks, and one regional park (Shoreline at Mountain View).62
Castro Park is the nearest public park to the project site, approximately 240 feet east of the site on Latham Street, and includes children’s play equipment. Other nearby park facilities include Gemello Park approximately 0.3-mile southwest of the site and Mariposa Park on Mariposa Avenue approximately 0.4-mile northeast of the site.
Rengstorff Park, approximately one mile north of the project site, is one of two large community parks in the City. The park is 16.92 acres in size and includes the City’s Community Center and a number of sports fields and other facilities.
Libraries
The Mountain View Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street , is the City’s only library. It is located approximately 0.7-mile southwest of the project site.
62 City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762 .
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 106 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.15.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1) Fire Protection?
2) Police Protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other Public Facilities?
Impact PS-1: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site is in an area currently served by the MVFD. The MVFD does not anticipate the need to construct a new fire station to accommodate growth anticipated in the General Plan.63 As discussed in Section 4.14 Population and Housing, the project would result in a net increase of 24 residential units compared to what is planned in the City’s Gener al Plan. However, any incremental increase in demand for fire protection services would not require the expansion or construction of new fire facilities. In addition, t he project would be constructed to current Fire Code standards. (Less than Significant Impact)
63 City of Mountain View. Draft General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, Draft EIR . November 2011. Page 502-503.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 107 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact PS-2: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services. (Less than Significant Impact)
The proposed project would not substantially increase demand for police services in the project area.
MVPD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. The General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the General Plan would increase the demand for police services; however, the City has policies would ensure that the City maintains adequate police staffing to serve the needs of the community. While the proposed project would intensify the use of the site, the project would result in a net increase of 24 residences compared to what is planned from the buildout of the General Plan. This incremental increase in units, however, would not require the construction or expansion of police facilities. In addition, the project design shall be reviewed by MVPD to ensur e safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-3: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools. (Less than Significant Impact)
The construction of the proposed housing units would generate approximately nine students : eight elementary/middle school students and one high school student.64
As required by state law (Governmen t Code Section 65996), the project proponent shall pay the appropriate school impact fees to offset and mitigate the increased demands on school facilities caused by the project. No expansion of existing school facilities or construction of new school facilities would be needed for local schools to accommodate the nine additional students generated by the proposed project. (Less than Significant Impact)
64 (Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School student generation rate) 0.046 x (number of proposed dwelling units) 25 = approximately 1 student.
(Los Altos Elementary School District student generation rate) 0.3 x (number of proposed dwelling units) 25 = approximately 8 students.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 108 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact PS-4: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. (Less than Significant Impact)
To meet the Mountain View’s demand for parks and open space, the City uses the Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477), which allows cities to require builders of residential subdivisions to dedicate land for parks and recreational areas, or pay an open space fee to the City.
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an increase in demand for parkland because it would add new residents to the City compared to existing conditions . The increased population associated with the proposed project could contribute to the increase in use of existing parks near the project site that would potentially lead to physical deterioration of park facilities and overcrowding. To offset the project’s impacts on neighborhood parks and recreational facilities, the project includes an approximately 1,197-square foot courtyard on the second floor and an approximately 7,044-square foot roof-top deck on-site, and would implement the following measures, as required by City standard conditions of approval.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• PARK LAND DEDICATI ON FEE: Prior to issuance of any building permits and prior to approval of the parcel map, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication Fee (approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per unit) for each new residential unit in accordance with Chapter 41 of the City Code prior to the issuance of the building permit. No credit against the Park Land Dedication Fee shall be allowed for private open space and recreational facilities. Provide the most current appraisal or escrow closing statement of the property with the following information to assist the City in determining the current market value of the land: (1) a brief description of the existing use of the property; (2) square footage of the lot; and (3) size and type of each building located on the property at the time the property was acquired.
With the implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact PS-5: The project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to an incremental increase in demand for other public facilities, such as libraries, because it would add new residents to the City. As discussed in Section 4.14 Population and Housing, the project re sult in a net increase of 24 residential units
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 109 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
compared to what is planned for in the City’s General Plan. This incremental demand would not trigger the City to build or operate a new library in the project area; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially contribute to the increase in use of library facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 110 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
RECREATION
4.16.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication to help mitigate the im pacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of parkland dedication, or perform a combination of the two.
Local
Mountain View City Code
Chapter 41.3 of the City Code requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of park land for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented) or pay an in-lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities.
Existing Conditions
As described in Section 4.15.1.2 , the City of Mountain View owns or manages 993.07 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. Castro Park is the nearest public park to the project site, approximately 240 feet east of the site on Latham Street, and includes children’s play equipment. Other nearby park facilities include Gemello Park approximately
0.3-mile southwest of the site and Mariposa Park on Mariposa Avenue approximately 0.4 -mile northeast of the site.
Rengstorff Park, approximately one mile north of the project site, is one of two large community parks in the City. The park is 16.92 acres in size and includes the City’s Community Center and a number of sports fields and other facilities.
4.16.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 111 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
2) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Impact REC-1: The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
As discussed in Section 4.15 Public Services, the proposed project would include development of residential units that would increase demand on parks. To offset the project’s impacts on neighborhood parks and recreational facilities, the project includes an approximately 1,197-square foot courtyard on the second floor and an approximately 7,044-square foot roof-top deck on-site, and would implement the following measures, as required by City standard conditions of approval.
Standard Condition of Approval:
• PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE : Prior to issuance of any building permits and prior to approval of the parcel map, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication Fee (approximately $20,000 to $40,000 per unit) for each new residential unit in accordance with Chapter 41 of the City Code prior to the issuance of the building permit. No credit against the Park Land Dedication Fee shall be allowed for private open space and recreational facilities. Provide the most current appraisal or escrow closing statement of the property with the following information to assist the City in determining the current market value of the land: (1) a brief description of the existing use of the property; (2) square footage of the lot; and (3) size and type of each building located on the property at the time the property was acquired.
With the implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on park and recreational facilities by paying in lieu fees to maintain the City’s park land. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact REC-2: The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would include private common open space recreational facilities for project residents. The project includes a 1,197-square foot courtyard on the second floor and an approximately 7,044-square foot roof-top deck, totaling approximately 8,241 square feet of open area. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the project which includes the construction of these on-site recreational facilities would comply with existing regulations and implement standard conditions of approval to reduce adverse physical effect on the environment to a less than significant level. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 112 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
TRANSPORTATION
The following discussion is based on a Limited Transportation Study comple ted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. in November 2020. The report is included in this document as Appendix F.
4.17.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transport ation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in July 2017, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2040.
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires the replacement of automobile delay—described solely by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion —with VMT as the recommended metric for determining the significance of transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) approved the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 on December 28, 2018. Local jurisdictions are required to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.
SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, proj ects located within 0.50 mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.
Regional and Local
Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is ai med at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax revenues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic LOS standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element. VTA has
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 113 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to a ffect CMP-designated intersections.
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following transportation-related policies from the General Plan are applicable to the project.
Policy Description
LUD 3.1 Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within
0.5 mile of public transit service and along major commute corridors.
LUD 8.5 Pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Encourage attractive pedestrian and bicycle amenities in new and existing developments, and ensure that roadway improvements address the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.
LUD 17.2 Transportation Demand Management strategies. Require development to include and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.
MOB 8.3 Multi-modal transportation monitoring. Monitor the effectiveness of policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population by establishing transportation mode share targets and periodically comparing travel survey data to established targets.
City of Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan
The Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan Update summarizes goals for improving the bicycle network, existing and proposed facilities, and programs involving education, enforcement. The plan was developed in conformance with several other plans including the General Plan, VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Bicycle Plan, the Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan, and Caltrans Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2.
City of Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan
The City of Mountain View Pedestrian Master Plan summarizes goals for the pedestrian network, existing and proposed facilities, and priority of pedestrian improvements. The plan was developed in conformance with the Mountain View 2030 General Plan.
El Camino Real Precise Plan
The strategy of the Precise Plan focuses on increased development intensity and public improvements at key intersections. The Precise Plan strategy identifies Corridor Areas as having improvements to pedestrian accessibility, such as new street crossings and widened sidewalks, to improve bicycle access and facilities within the plan area, and to promote connectivity for bicycle travel to neighborhoods adjacent to El Camino Real.
Mountain View VMT Policy
On June 30, 2020, the City adopted its VMT Policy in response to SB 743. The VMT Policy establishes screening criteria for projects that are expected to cause a less -than-significant transportation impact under CEQA based on the land use and/or location. P rojects that meet the screening criteria are not
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 114 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
required to prepare further VMT analysis. For a project that does not meet the screening criteria, a project’s VMT impact is determined by comparing the project VMT to the appropriate thresholds of significance based on the type of development. For residential developments, the threshold of significance is 15 percent below the regional average daily VMT per capita.
Existing Conditions
The project site is currently developed with an approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial uses and one single-family residence.
Vehicle Access
Vehicle access to the project site is provided via Latham Street and Escuela Avenue. The primary arterial streets that provide access to the project site are California Street, and El Camino Real. These roadways are described below.
• Escuela Avenue – Escuela Avenue is a two-lane street that exten ds southwest from Crisanto Avenue to its terminus at El Camino Real.
• Latham Street – Latham Street is a two-lane street that extends southeast from Showers Drive to Shoreline Boulevard.
• El Camino Real – El Camino Real is a six-lane road from Clark Avenue to El Monte Avenue within the project area. It is generally aligned northwest-southeast within the project area. • California Street – California Street is a four-lane road from Rengstorff Avenue to Chiquita Avenue within the project area. It is generally aligned northwest -southeast within the project area.
Transit Facilities
The closest transit services to the project site are bus stops located north of the project site on Escuela Avenue at California Street (Route 21 and 40), and south of the project site on Escuela at El Camino Real (Route 522 and 22). The Mountain View Transit Station is located approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the project site at 600 Evelyn Avenue, and provides access to Caltrain and VTA light rail service from the project site.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks along all of the surrounding streets.
Crosswalks with pedestrian signal heads are located at all of the signalized intersections in the project area.
Bicycle Facilities
Although Latham Street and Escuela Avenue are not designated as bike routes , these local streets are conducive to bicycle usage due to their low traffic volumes. Currently, bicycle facilities exist along California Street. While El Camino Real is wide enough to accommodate bikes, traveling on El Camino Real is not recommended due to heavy traffic volumes.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 115 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
4.17.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and
pedestrian facilities?
2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
3) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
4) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact TRN-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Roadway Network
The project proposes 25 residential units and approximately 2,329 square feet of retail space, which would result in a net increase of 17 daily vehicle trips and eight new a.m. peak hour trips compared to existing conditions (see Appendix F). A net decrease of four p.m. peak hour trips would occur with implementation of the proposed project . Consistent with General Plan Policy LUD 17.2, the project includes Transportation Demand Management strategies such as on-site bicycle parking that promote alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle trips. The addition of project ’s incremental trips would not affect traffic operations on the surrounding roadways and would not be significantly no ticeable on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any roadway plans, ordinances, or policies. (Less than Significant Impact)
Transit Facilities
The project site is located in a transit rich area with existing bus stops and the Mountain View Transit Station (which provides access to Caltrain and VTA light rail service) in proximity to the project site, as discussed in more detail in Section 4.17.1.2 Existing Conditions . The proposed project would incrementally increase the number of residents, employees, and customers on -site from existing conditions, and could result in a slight increase in transit use. This increase, however, would be minimal and existing transit services would be able to accommodat e the additional riders. For this reason, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing transit . (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 116 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Bicycle Facilities
As described in Existing Conditions, existing bicycle facilities within the project area are limited. One goal of the Precise Plan is to improve bicycle access and facilities within the plan area, and to promote connectivity for bicycle travel to neighborhoods adjacent to El Camino Real. The proposed project would be consistent with the goals of the Precise Plan by including bicycle access to the site via an entrance along Escuela Avenue for the ground floor retail space and an entrance along Latham Street for the residential units, as well as installing a total of 35 bicycle parking spaces (including 25 spaces in the underground parking garage and 10 ground -floor bike rack spaces ) on -site, which is also consistent with General Plan LUD 8.5. For these reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, or any other program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the bicycle lanes facilities. (Less than Significant Impact)
Pedestrian Facilities
Existing sidewalks on Lath am Street and Escuela Avenue provide safe pedestrian rout es to all surrounding land uses, including local transit access. The proposed project would improve the existing sidewalks and street corner along Escuela Avenue and Latham Street by widening sidewal ks, adding crosswalk and corner design features, and installing nighttime lighting. These improvements would be consistent with General Policy LUD 8.5 and Pedestrian Master Plan. For these reasons, t he proposed project would not result in demands on pedestrian facilities that would conflict with the General Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, or Precise Plan. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact TRN-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Less than Significant Impact)
The City of Mountain View adopted a VMT policy in June 2020. The City policy includes screening criteria based on project area VMT per capita to determine whether residential developments will result in VMT impacts, and whether project impacts can be mitigated. Project area VMT is measured against regional average VMT, with a threshold of significance of 15 percent below regional average VMT. If the project area VMT is below the threshold of significance, the project VMT impact i s presumed to be less than significant. The project area VMT is shown in Figure 4.17-1 below. The project site is located in an area that is between 25 p ercent and 15 percent below the regional average VMT. Thus , the residential component of the proposed project would screen out of further VMT analysis, and the impact is presumed less than significant.
Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., November 18, 2020.
Figure 4
Residential VMT Heat Map
Escuela Mixed Use Project
Project Site Location
RESIDENTIAL VMT HEAT MAP FIGURE 4.17-1
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 118 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
The City’s VMT policy includes alternative thresholds of significance for retail land uses. Impacts of retail projects are considered less than significant if the retail use is local -serving and consists of less than 50,000 total square feet. The proposed ground-floor commercial use is local-serving as it would redistribute local trips rather than generate new trips. In addition, the project proposes approximately 2,329 square feet of ground -floor retail use, which is well below the 50,000 square foot threshold established by the City ’s VMT policy. Thus, the commercial component of the project is considered less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact TRN-3: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Less than Significant)
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via one, two -directional driveway on Latham Street near the northeast corner of the project sit e. A two -directional ramp located in the northwest corner of the project site would provide vehicular access to the subterranean parking garage. Vehicle parking for the project would be provided in one level of below ground parking underneath the proposed building and at-grade. The project would be required to comply with Caltrans sight distance standards. For example, the project driveway would be designed to free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance (thereby ensuring that exiting vehicles have adequate site distance and can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street ) a nd a ny landscaping and signage would be located in such a way as to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers entering and exiting the site. The project , therefore, would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature . In addition, the project does not propose incompatible uses. The proposed residential and commercial uses are consistent with the existing land uses in the project area. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact TRN-4: The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project site would be required to meet the standards set forth by the Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) to ensure the project includes the appropriate fire building safety design features and adequate emergency a ccess. The project would be reviewed by the MVFD for compliance with emergency access and design requirements under the City’s fire code. As a result, the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 119 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on an archaeological literature review and Native American Consultation completed by Holman & Associates in January 2021.
4.18.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 52
AB 52, effective July 2015, established a new category of resources for consideration by public agencies called Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs). AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice of projects to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliate d with the geographic area if they have requested to be notified. Where a project may have a significant impact on a tribal cultural resource, consultation is required until the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect on a tribal cultural resource or until it is concluded that mutual agreement cannot be reached.
Under AB 52, TCRs are defined as follows:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are also either:
o Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources, or
o Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).
o A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.
Senate Bill 18
The intent of SB 18 is to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places through local land use planning by requiring city governments to consult with California Native American tribes on projects which include adoption or amendment of general plans (defined in Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code Section 65450 et seq.). SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the planning process.
Existing Conditions
The project site is within the territory of the Tamien Nation, who had settlements along creeks in the area. The project site is approximately 530-feet northwest of Permanente Creek.
As discussed in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, based on a site specific records search and literature review, there are no known archaeological sites on the project site or nearby. The NAHC was contacted on December 15, 2020, per SB 18, to initiate tribal consultation and a Sacred Lands File search . On December 28, 2020, the NAHC responded and determined there were no known sacred lands on the
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 120 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
project site or within the project area. The NAHC provided a list of nine Native American organizations to reach out to for additional information. These organizations were contacted on January 4, 2021 and no responses have been received.
On May 28, 2021, the Tamien Nation sent a written request for notification of projects in the City of Mountain View under AB 52. The City sent notification to representatives of Tamien Nation on June 28, 2021 and received a request for consultation from the Tam ien Nation on July 15, 2021. The City and Tamien Nation concluded tribal consultation on October 8, 2021.
4.18.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
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 that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
2) 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 Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). (Less than Significant Impact)
There are no known TCRs on -site. Based upon the discussion above and in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources, the likelihood of encountering buried tribal cultural resources is low. The project, however, would be required to implement the standard conditions of approval described in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources and the following standard condition of approval.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 121 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Standard Condition of Approval:
• DISCOVERY OF TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: If indigenou s or historic -era archaeological resources are encountered during construction activities, all activity within 100’ of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City , a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. S ecretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, and a Native American representative shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert - flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -era materials might include building or structure footings and walls, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
If the City determines, based on recommendations from the qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative, that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5), or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC Section 21074), the resource shall be avoided if feasible.
Avoidance means that no activities as sociated with the Project that may affect cultural resources shall occur within the boundaries of the resource or any defined buffer zones. If avoidance is not feasible, the City of Mountain View shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if t he resource is indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery or other measures.
Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the ai m to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource.
The resource and treatment method shall be documented in a professional-level technical report to be filed with the California Historical Resources Information System. Work in the area may commence upon completion of approved treatment and under the direction of the qualified archaeologist and the Native American representative.
With implementation of the above standard condition of approval and the conditions of approval identified in Section 4.5 Cultural Resources , the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on tribal cultural resourc es by preserving and documenting any encountered tribal resources . (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 122 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact TCR-2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is 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 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. (Less than Significant Impact)
Please refer to the discussion under Impact TCR-1 above. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 123 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following discussion is based on a Utility Impact Study completed by Schaaf & Wheeler in December 2020. A copy of this report is included as Appendix G of this Initial Study.
4.19.1 Environmental Setting
Regulatory Framework
State
State Water Code
Pursuant to the State Water Code, water suppliers providing water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet (approximately 980 million gallons) of water annually must prepare and adopt an urban water management plan (UWM P) and update it every five years. As part of a UWMP, water agencies are required to evaluate and describe their water resource supplies and projected needs over a 20 -year planning horizon, water conservation, water service reliability, water recycling, opportunities for water transfers, and contingency plans for drought events.
The City of Mountain View adopted its most recent UWMP in June 2021.
Assembly Bill 939
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of solid waste generated (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. Projects that would have an adverse effect on waste diversion goals are required to include waste diversion mitigation measures.
Assembly Bill 341
AB 341 sets forth the requirements of the statewide mandatory commercial recycling pr ogram.
Businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of garbage per week and multi -family dwellings with five or more units in California are required to recycle. AB 341 sets a statewide goal for 75 percent disposal reduction by the year 2020.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The bill grants CalRecycle the regulatory authority required to achieve the organic waste disposal reduction targets and establishes an additional target that at least 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025.
California Green Building Standards Code
CALGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. CALGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to s tate
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 124 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
environmental directives. The most recent update to CALGreen went into effect on January 1, 2020, and covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. CAL Green requires projects to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste.
Local
The City of Mountain View promotes the sustainable use of its water resources t hrough outreach and education programs, financial incentive programs, and by implementing water conservation measures at City properties. Many of the City’s water conservation measures are implemented in partnership with Valley Water and the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). Some of the City’s conservation measures include incorporating water waste prohibitions into the City Code, monitoring water losses, providing public information and outreach programs, and implementing plumbing and rebate and retrofit programs for residential and business customers.
City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The following General Plan policies are related to utilities, water supply, solid waste disposal, sewer and wastewater infrastructure, and are applicable to the proposed Precise Plan.
Policy Description
INC 1.3 Utilities for new development. Ensure adequate utility service levels before approving new development.
INC 1.4 Existing capital facilities. Maintain and enhance existing capital facilities in conjunction with capital expansion.
INC 5.5 Landscape efficiency. Promote water-efficient landscaping including drought-tolerant and native plants, along with efficient irrigation techniques.
INC 5.6 Indoor efficiency. Promote the use of water-efficient fixtures and appliances.
INC 7.4 Recycled water and trees. Promote appropriate tree and landscape species irrigated by recycled water.
INC 8.4 Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.
INC 10.1 Zero waste. Pursue a citywide goal of zero waste.
INC 10.4 Construction waste reuse. Encourage building deconstruction and reuse and construction waste recycling.
INC 11.1 Waste diversion and reduction. Meet or exceed all federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning solid waste diversion and implementation of recycling and source reduction programs.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 125 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Existing Conditions
The project site is located in a developed area within the City of Mountain View and is currently served by existing phone, electrical, water, stormwater, wastewater, and solid waste service systems and facilities.
Water Supply
The City of Mountain View municipal water system serves the majority of the City of Mountain View, including the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area in which it serves and purchases water from both Valley Water and San Francisco Publi c Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which are water wholesalers . In 2020, approximately 84 percent of the City’s water came from SFPUC, 10 percent from Valley Water, two percent from groundwater, and four percent from recycled water.
The City of Mountain View’s UWMP forecasts that water supplies will be available to meet the City’s projected future water demands during normal and wet years through at least 204 5, based on General Plan growth estimates and supplier projections. During single - and multiple-drought years, the City expects reductions in available supply from the SFPUC. This decrease in imported water is anticipated to be made up through implementation of drought -year water conservation measures, the potential increased use of recycled water, and an increase in groundwater production (as the groundwater basin allows).
As described in the 2020 UWMP, recent updates to the plumbing code (which include requiring more water-efficient features) are expected to reduce Mountain View’s water use by five percent in 2025, and up to 11 percent in 204 5. Additionally, the UWMP projects that implementation of new conservation measures would reduce water use by up to five percent in 2045, from the base -case scenario.
Current and near-term water conservation measures, as identified in the UWMP, include water waste prohibitions in the City Code, water system audits, leak detection and repair, metering with commodity rates and conservation pricing, public information and education programs. Other City of Mountain View water conservation programs include residential water surveys, rebates and free equipment, turf audits, plumbing retrofits, and washing machine incentives.
The project site is currently developed with commercial uses and one single-family residential unit. It is estimated the project site currently uses approximately 2,330 gallons per day (gpd) of water or 2.6 acer-feet per year (AFY).
Wastewater Services
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary and storm drains in the City of Mountain View are operated and maintained by the Wastewater Section of the Public Works Department. The City pumps its wastewater to the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 million gallons per day (mgd) average annual treatment capacity. The City of Mountain View has an average annual flow capacity right of 15.1 mgd at the PARWQCP. As of 2015, approximately nine mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PARWQCP. The terms of Mountain View’s Basic Agreement with the City of Palo Alto require that when the City of Mountain View reaches 80 percent
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 126 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
of the 15.1 mgd allowed by the agreement (approximately 12.08 mgd), an engineering study would be required of the City to redefine the future needs of the PARWQCP and potentially assist in future plant expansions or upgrades outlined in the Long Range Facilities Plan.
Mountain View’s sanitary sewer system is a gravity system with two sewer lift stations; one located in Shoreline Park and the other on Pastel Lane. The system consists of gravity pipelines, pressure pipelines, and pump stations. The Shoreline Sewer Pump Station, located within the North Bayshore area, conveys the majority of sanitary sewer flow generated within the City to the PARWQCP. The remaining flow not received at the S ewer Pump Station is discharged to the Los Altos’ San Antonio Interceptor.
The total wastewater generated on-site from the existing development is approximately 1,890 gpd (or
2.1 AFY).
Stormwater Drainage
The project site is located in the Permanente Creek watershed. Stormwater runoff from developed areas of the watershed, including the project site, enters Permanente Creek by way of the City’s storm sewer system. Nearly all of the project site is paved. There are no stormwater treatment facilities on the site.
The project site is served by an existing 45-inch storm sewer line that runs along both Escuela Avenue and Latham Street.
Solid Waste
Solid waste and recycling collection services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the SM ART station in Sunnyvale for sorting and commercial com postables (food scraps) are transported to a composting facility located in Vernalis, California. Non-recyclable waste is transported to Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José. The City has a contract to dispose of solid waste at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill through December 2021.
4.19.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
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?
2) Have insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably foreseeable
future development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 127 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Would the project:
3) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it does not have adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Impact UTL-1: The project would not 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. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would connect to existing utilities in Latham Street. The UIS analysis of the City’s water and sewer systems (refer to Appendix G) determined there are no deficiencies in the existing water system pre- and post-project conditions. The analysis found that there is insufficient sewer capacity downstream of the project in both pre- and post-project conditions. One pipe downstream of the project site in Escuela Avenue does not meet the City’s maximum flow depth/pipe diameter performance criteria. However, Capital Improvement Project #18 (CIP P-18), as outlined in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (GPUUIS), would mitigate this deficiency . Separate environmental review would be required once the design of CIP P-18 has been completed. The proposed project would contribute to less than one percent of the existing deficiencies and would not significantly change them.
As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces. For this reason, it is assumed that the storm sewer sy stem would continue to have adequate capacity to convey surface runoff under the proposed project. The project would require local connections to the existing electrical, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities in the area .
The construction impacts of the proposed project, including the utility connections, is discussed in Sections 4.3 Air Quality, 4.4 Biological Resources, 4.5 Cultural Resources, 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, 4.13 Noise and Vibration in this Initial Study, and standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures are required for the project to reduce construction -related impacts to a less than significant level. The project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities that would result in significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 128 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact UTL-2: The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Less than Significant Impact)
Under normal conditions, the City is not projected to experience supply shortfalls. Shortfalls of up to 20 percent are projected during dry years. Under all dry conditions, the City may need to impose water conservation measures, to achieve 20 percent reductions, per Mountain View City Code, Section 35.28.
The proposed project would use approximately 2,847 gpd (or 3.2 AFY) of water, a net increase of 517 gpd (or 0.6 AFY) of water over existing conditions. In 202 5, the City of Mountain View projected to have a water supply and water demand of approximately 12,058 AFY.65 The net new demand generated by the proposed project represents approximately 0.00005 percent of the City’s total projected demand for 202 5. The proposed project would comply with Mountain View policies and regulations that promote water efficiency, including the Mountain View City Council adopted CalGreen. These regulations include water efficiency requirements for new and renovated landscapes and construction.
Since the project intends to incorporate GreenPoint Rated energy and emissions reduction features, water efficiency would be achieved through the use of low -water landscaping and water efficient plumbing fixtures.
Based on the incremental increase in water demand anticipated by the project on the overall water demand citywide and the conservation measures required of the project, the project would not result in a significant impact on water supply. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact UTL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Less than Significant Impact)
Sanitary sewer services would be provided for the project by connecting new sanitary sewer laterals to the existing eight-inch public sanitary sewer main located in Latham Street. The project would generate approximately 2,517 gpd of wastewater (or 0.00250 mgd). Given the overall capacity at PARWQCP (40 mgd), the City’s treatment allocation at PARWQCP (15.1 mgd), and the existing wastewater generated from the City (nine mgd), there is sufficient capacity at the PARWQCP and within the City’s existing treatment allocation to serve the project. (Less than Significant Impact)
65 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 8, 2021.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 129 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact UTL-4: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Solid waste generated by the project would be transported to Kirby Canyon Landfill, where the City of Mountain View has secured landfill disposal capacity for the Ci ty’s solid waste until 20 21. The landfill is permitted to receive a maximum disposal of 2,600 tons of garbage per day. According to CalEEMod solid waste generation rates66, the project would generate approximately 0.04 tons of solid waste per day.
The City of Mountain View is working to maintain a waste diversion goal of 50 percent. In addition, 65 percent of construction and demolition waste must be diverted in compliance with the Green Building Code. The proposed project would comply with the City’s diversion requirements and Green Building Code construction debris diversion requirements.
Because the project can be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations, the project’s impacts related to solid waste and landfill capacity and attainment of solid reduction goals would be less than significant. (Less than Significant Impact)
Impact UTL-5: The project would not be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. (Less than Significant Impact)
The project would be served by a landfill with capacity and would be required to comply with existing local and state programs and regulations regarding solid waste reduction (refer to those listed in Section
4.19.1.1 Regulatory Framework); therefore, the project is consistent with solid waste management and reduction regulations. (Less than Significant Impact)
66 CalEEMod assumes a per capita disposal rate of 0.42 (tons/unit/year) for residential uses in Santa Clara County.
0.42 tons/unit/year x 25 units ÷ 365 days/year = 0.03 tons/day. For strip malls CalEEMod assumes 1.05 tons/1,000 square feet/year. 2.668 x 1.05 ÷ 365 days/year = 0.01 tons/day.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 130 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
WILDFIRE
4.20.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Conditions
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant facto rs. Referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), these maps influence how people construct buildings and protect property to reduce risk associated with wildland fires. The project site is not located in a FHSZ.67
4.20.2 Impact Discussion
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby
expose project occupants to pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
3) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines,
or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk
or that may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?
4) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones; therefore, the project would not result in wildfire impacts. (No Impact)
67 California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps. Accessed November 30, 2020. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-building- codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 131 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
1) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
2) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.)
3) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Impact MFS-1: The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. (Less than Significant Impact)
As discussed in the previous sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with implementation of identified standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures. As discussed in Section 3.4 Biolog ical Resources, with implementation of the identified standard conditions of approval, the project would not significantly impact sensitive habitats or species. As discussed in Section 3.5 Cultural Resources, with implementation of the identified standard conditions of approval, the project would result in a less than significant impact on archaeological resources. The project would have no impact on historic or tribal cultural resources. (Less than Significant Impact)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 132 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Impact MFS-2: The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Under Section 15065(a) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where there is substantial evidence that the project has potential environmental effects “that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable.” As defined in Section 15065(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, cumulatively considerable means “that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This Initial Study evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed mixed -use development at 601 Escuela Avenue and takes into account other past, pending, and probable future projects whose impacts could combine to produce cumulative impacts.
The project would res ult in no impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, or wildfire; therefore, the project has no potential to combine with other projects to result in cumulative impacts to those resources. In addition, there are no projects in proxim ity to the project site that the project would contribute to cumulative impacts to aesthetics, construction -related air quality, and construction-related noise.
The cumulative projects (including the proposed project) would comply with existing regulations and implement City standard conditions of approval to reduce cumulative impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology or water quality , land use and planning, noise and vibration, popul ation and housing, public services , recreation, and utilities and service system to a less than significant level . The project would implement mitigation measure MM AIR-3.1 to reduce its contribution to a significant cumulative health risk impact to a less than significant level (see discussion in Section 4.3 Air Quality). For this reason, the project would have a less than significant cumulative health risk impact.
For the project’s other individual air quality impacts (criteria air pollutant emissions during construction and operation), as well as the project’s individual impact on energy, GHGs, and VMT , are evaluated at a cumulative level. That is, if a project res ults in a significant impact to air quality, energy, GHGs, and VMT, the project would be considered to have a significant cumulative impact to those resources. The thresholds for a significant impact is the same for the project individually and cumulatively. As discussed in Sections 4.3 Air Quality , 4.6 Energy, 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and 4.17 Transportation, the project would not result in significant (cumulative) impacts to those resources with the implementation of the identified standard condition s of approval and mitigation measure MM AIR -3.1. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable Contribution to a Significant Cumulative Impact)
Impact MFS-3: The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Consistent with Section 15065(a)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment where ther e is substantial evidence that the project
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 133 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
has the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly .
Pursuant to this standard, a change to the physical environment that might otherwise be minor must be treated as significant if people would be significantly affected. This factor relates to adverse changes to the environment of human beings generally, and not to effects on particular individuals . While changes to the environment that could indirectly affect human beings would be represented by all of the designated CEQA issue areas, those that could directly affect human beings include air quality pollutants, geological hazards, hazardous materials, and noise. As discussed in Section 4.3 Air Quality,
4.7 Geology a nd Soils, 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.13 Noise, the project with the implementation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures and adherence to existing regulations, would avoid significant impacts. No other direct or indirec t adverse effects on human beings have been identified. (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 134 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 5.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this Initial Study is based on the professional judgement and expertise of the environmental specialists preparing this document, based upon review of the site, surrounding conditions, site plans, and the following references:
Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Project Mapper.
Accessed November 16, 2020 http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District . Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-plans.
California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed November 14, 2020. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist.
California Air Resources Board. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed January 12, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm.
---. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed January 4, 2020. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.
California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps . Accessed November 30, 2020. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-prevention-planning- engineering/wildland-hazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/.
California Building Standards Commission. “Welcome to the California Building Standards Commission.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.bsc.ca.gov/.
California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed November 1, 2020. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.
California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 Map .
September 2018.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. CNDDB Maps and Data. Accessed November 17, 2020.
Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data#43018410-cnddb- quickview-tool.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed November 1, 2020. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.
California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed November 16, 2020. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 135 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/MVF_10_Year_Report.pdf.
California Department of Transportation . “ Scenic Highways.” Accessed November 20, 2020 . https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap- liv-i-scenic-highways.
California Emergency Management Agency. California Official Tsunami Inundation Map. Accessed January 4, 2020. https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps.
California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas C onsumption by County.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Accessed January 4, 2020.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
California Energy Commission. Energy Consumption Data Management System. “Electricity Consumption by County.” Acc essed January 4, 2020.
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx.
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020 California Gas Report. Accessed January 4, 2020.
California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” March 14, 2006.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Green Building Code. 2017.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/mvgbc.asp.
City of Mountain View. “Mountain View Green Building Code. 2017.” Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/mvgbc.asp.
City of Mountain View. 2014 Parks and Open Space Plan. Accessed January 14, 2020. http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14762.
City of Mountain View. Draft General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program, Draft EIR .
November 2011.
City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 8, 2021.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel #06085C0038H. May 18, 2009.
https://www.pge.com/pipeline_resources/pdf/library/regulatory/downloads/cgr18.pdf.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 136 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Limited Transportation Study for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 601 -642 Escuela Avenue and 1873 Latham Street in Mountain View, California. November 18, 2020.
Holman & Associates. CEQA Archaeological Literature Search and Initial Native American Consultation for the Escuela Mixed Us e Project, 601 to 643 Escuela Ave and 1873 Latham Street, Mountain View, Santa Clara County. January 21, 2021.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 601 Escuela Mixed Use Project Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment. December 23, 2020.
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Escuela Mixed Use Noise Assessment. December 23, 2020.
Mountain View Fire Department . “Stats/Response/Annual Report”. Accessed November 17, 2020. http://mountainview.gov/depts/fire/about/report.asp.
Office of Planning and Research. “Changes to CEQA for Transit Oriented Development – FAQ.” October 14, 2014. Accessed November 20, 2020 . http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/updates/sb- 743/transit-oriented.html.
Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW- 110publ140.pdf.
Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan . Adopted November 22, 2016.
Accessed January 4, 2020. https://www.valleywater.org/your-water/where-your-water-comes- from/groundwater.
Schaaf & Wheeler. 601 Escuela Avenue Utility Impact Study. December 11, 2020.
Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed January 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.
United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed January 4, 2020. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
United States Department of the Interior. “Memorandum M -37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Accessed November 2 2, 2020 . https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.
United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2018.” Accessed November 20, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” March 2019.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 137 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
United States Geological Survey. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data: Interactive maps and downloadable data for regional and global Geology, Geochemistry, Geophysics, and Mineral Resources. Accessed November 16, 2020. Available at https://mrdata.usgs.gov/.
Urban Programmers. DPR Evaluation Form 523A 601-649 Escuela Avenue. April 29, 2021.
Urban Programmers. DPR Evaluation Form 523A 1871 Latham Street. April 29, 2021.
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 138 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 6.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS
LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager
Ellen Yau, Senior Planner
CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Principal Project Manager
Tyler Rogers, Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist
Bo Firestone, Certified Arborist
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transportation Consultants
Gary Black, President
Daniel Choi, Engineer
Holman & Associates
Archaeological Consultants
Sunshine Psota, Senior Associate
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Air Quality Consultants
James Reyff, President
Jay Witt, Senior Consultant
Schaaf & Wheeler
Civil Engineers
Leif Coponen, Vice President
Fidel Salamanca, Senior Engineer
Urban Programmers
Architectural Historian
Bonnie Bamburg, President
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 139 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
SECTION 7.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACM Asbestos Containing Material
AIA Airport Influence Area
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Btu British Thermal Unit
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalGreen California Green Building Standards Code
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs Chlorofluorocarbons
CH4 Methane
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalents
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
DOT United States Department of Transportation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
GHGs Greenhouse Gases
LID Low Impact Development
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MMTCO2e Million Metro Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project 140 Initial Study
City of Mountain View November 2021
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SOx sulfur oxides
SR State Route
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
EIR Environmental Impact Report
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NOD Notice of Determination
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project
State Clearinghouse #2021100335
Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 1 of 3 November 2021
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Air Quality Impacts
Impact AQ-3: Construction of
the proposed project would
temporarily result in cancer
risk and PM2.5 exposure at the
Maximally Exposed Individual
(MEI) at levels above the Bay
Area Air Quality Management
District’s (BAAQMD)
significance threshold based
on combined exhaust and
fugitive dust emissions.
MM AQ-3.1: The project shall develop a plan
demonstrating that the off-road equipment used onsite
to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide
average 87-percent reduction in DPM exhaust
emissions or greater. One feasible plan to achieve this reduction would include the following:
• All diesel-powered off-road equipment,
larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the
site for more than two days continuously
shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for
particulate matter emissions. Where Tier 4
equipment is not available, exceptions could
be made for equipment that includes CARB-
certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or
equivalent. Equipment that is electrically
powered or uses non-diesel fuels would also
meet this requirement.
• Provide line power to the site during the early
phases of construction to minimize the use of
diesel-powered stationary equipment, such as
generators.
Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project
All measures will be required
as part of demolition and
development permits. All
measures will be printed on all
construction documents,
contracts, and project plans
prior to issuance of permits.
Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department.
Prior to and during
any construction
activities, as
specified.
Escuela Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 2 of 3 November 2021
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
El Camino Real Precise Plan EIR Mitigation Measures
Air Quality Impacts
AIR-1: Construction of new
projects associated with
implementation of the El
Camino Real Precise Plan
could result in exposure of
sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations.
AIR-1: All new development projects, associated
with implementation of the Precise Plan, which
include buildings within 1,000 feet of a residential
dwelling unit, shall conduct a construction health risk assessment to assess emissions from all construction
equipment during each phase of construction prior to
issuance of building permits. Equipment usage shall
be modified as necessary to ensure that equipment
use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of
more than 10 in 1 million, an increased noncancer
risk of greater than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic
or acute), or an annual average ambient PM2.5
increase greater than 0.3 μg/m3.
Project applicants Method of Compliance:
Preparation of a Health Risk
Assessment and
implementation of any
identified measures
Implementation Oversight:
City of Mountain View Public
Works Department and
Community Development
Department
Prior to
demolition, site
preparation, or
construction
activities
AIR 2: Implementation of the
ECR Precise Plan could result
in exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
AIR-2: For residential or other sensitive use projects
proposed within 500 feet of El Camino Real, SR 87
or SR 287, and/or any permitted stationary sources,
including those identified in Table IV.B-6 of the EIR,
the City of Mountain View shall require an evaluation
of potential health risk exposure. The applicant for a
sensitive use project within the Precise Plan area shall prepare a report using the latest BAAQMD permit
data and roadway risk estimates to determine impacts
to future residents or sensitive receptors. The report
shall outline any measures that would be incorporated
into the project necessary to reduce carcinogenic
health risk of to less than 10 in 1 million, reduce the non-cancer risk of to less than 1.0 on the hazard index (chronic or acute), and ensure the annual average
ambient PM2.5 increase is less than 0.3 μg/m3.
Measures to reduce impacts could include upgrading
Project applicants Method of Compliance:
Preparation of a Health Risk
Assessment and
implementation of any
identified measures
Implementation Oversight:
City of Mountain View Public
Works Department and
Community Development
Department
Prior to project
approval
Escuela Mixed-Use Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 3 of 3 November 2021
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
air filtration systems of fresh air supply, tiered
plantings of trees, and site design to increase distance from source to the receptor.
SOURCE: City of Mountain View. Escuela Avenue Mixed-Use Project Initial Study. October 2021.
Memorandum
Date: November 18, 2020
To: Ms. Carolyn Neer, David J. Powers & Associates
From: Gary Black
Daniel Choi
Subject: Limited Transportation Study for the Proposed Mixed-Use Development at 601-642 Escuela Avenue and 1873 Latham Street in Mountain View, California
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a limited transportation study for the proposed mixed-use development at 601-642 Escuela Avenue in Mountain View, California. This analysis describes the proposed project’s impact to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Additionally, a review of site access, on-site circulation, and parking was conducted.
Project Description
The project site location is shown on Figure 1. The proposed project is a 3-story building with 25 apartment units and 2,700 square feet (s.f.) of ground-floor commercial space. The existing 6,075 s.f. commercial strip center and single-family residence would be demolished as part of the project.
Parking would be provided in an underground garage accessed via a driveway along Latham Street. The project site plan is shown on Figures 2 and 3.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
The Mountain View VMT Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact under CEQA and are not required to prepare further VMT analysis. To identify whether a project would result in VMT impacts and whether the impacts can be mitigated, the City has created heat maps for residential developments that show the current VMT per capita based on the locations of residences. Based on the heat map for residential developments (see Figure 4), the project site is in a low VMT area that generates VMT per capita more than 15 percent below the regional average. The VMT threshold of significance for residential development in Mountain View is 15 percent below the regional average. Therefore, the VMT generated by the residential portion of the project would be below the threshold of significance.
The proposed ground-floor commercial use is not screened out with a presumption of less-than- significant impact on VMT. However, the City’s VMT policy has established CEQA thresholds of significance for retail land use projects. Smaller commercial and retail uses that are local-serving and are under 50,000 s.f. are exempt from a detailed CEQA VMT analysis, and their impacts are considered less than significant. Local-serving retail projects would redistribute existing trips instead of creating new ones. Since the commercial portion of the project is less than 50,000 s.f., the project is exempt from a VMT analysis.
Escuela Mixed Use November 18, 2020
P a g e | 2
Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data have been collected that indicate the amount of traffic that can be expected to be generated by many types of land uses. The standard trip generation rates can be applied to predict the future traffic increases that would result from a new development. The standard trip generation rates come from the publication titled Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition.
The average trip generation rates for Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) (Land Use 220) and Shopping Center (Land Use 820) were applied to the project. ITE defines Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) as residential uses that are 3-stories or less. Since the ground floor commercial use has not been identified, trip generation rates for shopping center are typically used to estimate general retail uses.
A mixed-use development with complementary land uses such as office, residential, and commercial (food/beverage establishment), will result in internal trips. The percent reduction is based on the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (October 2014). Housing and retail mixed uses can reduce the number of trips generated by 15% of the smaller trip generator. A 15% trip reduction, based on the retail portion of the project, was taken for trip credits.
Trip credits were also taken for the existing uses on site. Existing trip credits were based on ITE trip generation rates for Shopping Center (Land Use 820) and Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210). The existing strip mall measures approximately 6,075 square feet (s.f.).
Table 1 shows that after subtracting the trips generated by the existing buildings on the site, the project is estimated to generate 17 net new daily trips, with 8 net new trips (1 inbound and 7 outbound) during the AM peak hour and -4 net new trips (0 inbound and -4 outbound) during the PM peak hour.
Table 1
Project Trip Generation
ITE Land Reduction
Land Use Use Code % Rate Trip Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Uses
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 220 25 Dwelling Units 7.32 183 0.46 3 9 12 0.56 9 5 14 Housing & Retail 15% -15 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2
Shopping Center 820 2,700 Square Feet 37.75 102 0.94 2 1 3 3.81 5 5 10 Housing & Retail 15% -15 0 0 0 -1 -1 -2
Total Project Trips 255 5 10 15 12 8 20
Existing Uses
Shopping Center 820 6,075 Square Feet 37.75 229 0.94 4 2 6 3.81 11 12 23 Single-Family Detached Housing 210 1 Dwelling Unit 9.44 9 0.74 0 1 1 0.99 1 0 1 Net Project Trips 17 1 7 8 0 -4 -4
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017
Daily
Size
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip Trip
Escuela Mixed Use November 18, 2020
P a g e | 3
Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA)
The project proposes 25 multifamily residential units, which exceeds the City’s definition of a small project. However, the project would generate only 17 new daily trips and 8 new peak hour trips, which is consistent with a small project. The addition of project generated trips would not affect traffic operations on surrounding roadways and intersections. Additionally, the small number of net project trips would not result in a noticeable effect on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities or services within the project vicinity. A discussion of site access, on-site circulation, and parking is included below.
Site Access and Driveway Operations
The project proposes a 24-foot two-way driveway along Latham Street. Table 1 shows the project would generate a maximum of 10 outbound gross project trips and 12 inbound gross project trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. This is equivalent to approximately one vehicle exiting the project site every 6 minutes during the AM peak hour and one vehicle entering the project site every 5 minutes during the PM peak hour. Queuing either into or out of the driveway would not occur.
The project driveways should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance per the City’s Standard Details A-22 and A-23, thereby ensuring the exiting vehicles can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street. Any landscaping and signage within 35 feet of the face of curb at the driveway should be no taller than 3 feet and in such a way to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers exiting the site. The speed limit on Latham Street is 25 mph. According to the City’s Standard Detail A-22, the stopping sight distance for a 25-mph roadway is 150 feet.
The landscaping features shown on the site plan are not expected to obstruct the vision of exiting drivers provided the landscaping is also kept at a low level within 35 feet of the curb face on Latham Street. Since on-street parking is allowed on Latham Street, red curb should be striped equal to a car length on both sides of the driveway to ensure exiting drivers have adequate vision of oncoming vehicles.
Truck Access and Circulation
The project would provide a trash collection enclosure on the ground floor. Since the vertical clearance is 12 feet at the driveway entrance, trash bins would be wheeled out to the street on trash pickup days.
Vehicle On-Site Circulation
The project would provide 90-degree uniform parking stalls throughout the ground level for commercial parking. The project proposes residential parking in an underground garage consisting of 36 spaces within two mechanical stackers and 6 regular stalls. The project also proposes 6 regular stalls for residential guest parking. All parking spaces are shown to be a minimum of 8.5 feet by 18 feet, which meets the City’s requirements for parking space dimensions. Additionally, the site plan shows one van-accessible ADA parking space for commercial parking and three van- accessible ADA parking spaces for residents and guests.
The slopes of the parking garage ramp to the underground garage would be approximately 18 percent with 10 percent transition slopes. Transition slopes at the two ends of the ramps prevent vehicles from bottoming out. The site plan shows adequate circulation for drivers.
Escuela Mixed Use November 18, 2020
P a g e | 4
The project site plan shows 24 to 25-foot drive aisles throughout the project site, which provides adequate space for vehicles to back out of parking spaces. Since the project proposes two mechanical stackers, those who are assigned a space in a mechanical stacker should be provided with instructions on how to operate the mechanical stacker prior to move-in.
Vehicle Parking
The project proposes 10 studios, 11 one-bedroom units, and 4 two-bedroom units for a total of 25 units. Based on the City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance, the project is required to provide a minimum of 1.5 spaces for each studio and 1-bedroom apartment and 2 spaces for each two- bedroom apartment. The project is required to provide a minimum of 40 parking spaces. The zoning ordinance states that 15 percent of the parking required shall be for guest parking.
Therefore, the project would need to provide a minimum of 6 guest parking spaces. Since the project would provide 48 stalls, with 6 stalls for guest parking, it would meet the required parking.
Since the commercial use has not been identified, it will be assumed that one space will be required for each 180 s.f. of gross floor area. The project would be required to provide 15 spaces for the commercial portion of the project. Since the site plan shows 15 spaces for the commercial use on the ground level, the project would provide adequate parking for the commercial use.
Bicycle Parking
The bicycle parking requirements for the project were calculated based on the City of Mountain View Zoning Ordinance. The bicycle parking requirement is one secure bicycle parking space per unit for residents and one short-term space per 10 units for guests. The commercial portion is required to provide bicycle parking spaces equal to 5 percent of the vehicle parking. Therefore, the project requires 25 long-term spaces, and 4 short-term spaces.
The project would provide a total of 25 bicycle spaces for residents in a key-accessed bicycle parking room in the basement and 10 short-term bicycle racks near entrances along Latham Street. It is recommended the bicycle storage be relocated to the ground level.
Mountain View
Latham StLatham St
Latham St
W El Camino
Real
Escuela Ave
California St
Marich Way
Clark Ave
Mariposa Ave
N El Monte Ave= Site Location
LEGEND
Chiquita AveChiquita Ave
Chiquita Ave
Escuela Mixed Use Project
Figure 1
Site Location
Escuela Mixed Use Project
Figure 2
Site Plan
Escuela Mixed Use Project
Figure 3
Basment Site Plan
Figure 4
Residential VMT Heat Map
Escuela Mixed Use Project
Project Site Location