ATT 1 - Resolution to Certify Supplemental EIR — Mountain View City Council, November 15, 2022 (part 2 of 3)

VTA Light Rail Transit
The light rail transit Orange Line serves the project area with the Middlefield Light Rail Station adjacent to the project site. The Orange Line travels between the Mountain View Transit Center and Alum Rock.

Mountain View Community Shuttle
The Mountain View Community Shuttle is a free shuttle service with 50 stops within Mountain View operating during the weekdays from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and on weekends and holidays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. The community shuttle has 50 stops, the closest of which is located at the intersection of Whisman Road and Middlefield Road approximately 0.3 miles west of the project site.

Mountain View Transportation Management Association Shuttles The MVTMA operates the MVgo shuttle system. This shuttle system is provided through the collection of TMA member dues. MVgo operates four shuttle routes that provide service to employment areas from the Mountain View Transit Center. Three routes serve the North Bayshore area, and one route serves the East Whisman area. The shuttles are timed to meet Caltrain arrivals during the a.m. and departures during p.m. commute periods. MVgo shuttle Route A provides service to the project area, with two bus stops within the vicinity of the project site, with the closet at the VTA Middlefield Station.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., March 11, 2022. 21 21
51 21,
MVgo
MVgo
MVgo
MVgo
MVCS
Red, MVgo
MVCS
Gray,
MVgo
21,
MVgo
21 21
21 Middlefield
LRT Station
Whisman
Whisman
LRT StationLRT Station
Whisman
LRT Station
Bayshore/NASA
LRT Station
Mountain
View
101
85 237
Central Expy
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Macon Rd
N Mary Ave
N Whisman Rd
Central Expy
Easy St
Tyrella Ave
Leong Dr
N Bernardo Ave
Logue AveLogue Ave
Clyde AveClyde Ave
Logue Ave
Clyde Ave
= East Whisman Precise Plan Boundary
= Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
LEGEND
= VTA Local Bus Route
= MVGO Shuttle Route A
= MV Community Shuttle
= Bus Stop
XX
= Light Rail: Mountain View-Alum Rock
EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES FIGURE 3.16-1
I I
I I
•
0-
NORTH Not•-

Middlefield Park Master Plan 203 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities that exist within one mile of the project site (see Figure 5.16-2) include a multi - use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), and shared bike routes/boulevards (Class III bikeway).205

Striped bike lanes are present along the following street segments:
• Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue • Maude Avenue, except for a short segment between Clyde Avenue and SR 237 eastbound frontage road
• Part time on Middlefield Road west of Whisman Road, between Old Middlefield W ay and Bernardo Avenue
• Whisman Road, for the entire street
• Ellis Street, for the entire street
• Clyde Avenue, for the entire street
• Evelyn Avenue, east of Hope Street
• Mary Avenue, for the entire street
• Mathilda Avenue, south of Ahwanee Street
• Moffett Boulevard, north of Leong Drive

The City’s Bike Map shows that Leong Drive and Fairchild Drive are designated as existing bike routes, however, there are no signs or sharrows on either street to indicate a bike route. The City’s Bike Map shows that Central Avenue and Gladys Avenue are designated as existing bike boulevards and these streets are designated with signs.

Other bicycle facilities include:

• Hetch Hetchy /TOD Trail. The Hetch Hetchy /TOD Trail extends from Ellis Street and connects to the Stevens Creek Trail. The trail can be accessed from Ellis Street, approximately 65 feet west of the site.
• Stevens Creek Trail. The Stevens Creek Trail extends from the Bay, under US 101 and Middlefield Road, and ends at Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Avenue. The trail can be accessed from Easy Street at the Gladys Avenue intersection, approximately one mile from the project site, or from the Hetch Hetchy/TOD Trail.
• A VTA Multi-Use Path also exists along the west side of the light rail tracks between the northwest corner of the proposed Building O2 and Whisman Station. The path can be accessed by Middlefield Road and by Ellis Street and Logue Avenue through pedestrian walkways that run between these streets and the Middlefield Light Rail Station.

205 Bike paths or multi -use trails are shared between pedestrians and bicyclists and separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists. Bike boulevards are modified bike routes with additional treatments that offer convenient and efficient through-routes for bicyclists of all skill levels.

Source: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., March 11, 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 205 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks and crosswalks, which are present along most project area roadways, and at signalized and unsignalized study intersections. Pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are present at the signalized study intersections. Crosswalks are present along the north leg of the unsignalized study intersection of Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue and along the north leg of Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue. A high-visibility midblock crosswalk curb extension exists on Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue to access the Middlefield Light Rail Station and a midblock crosswalk on Clyde Avenue less than 100 feet north of the plan area boundary.

Two enhanced midblock crosswalks with rapid rectangular flashing beacons exist on Ellis Street: one less than 100 feet north of the project site and another adjacent to the project site about 460 feet north of Middlefield Road. Sidewalks are missing on the north side of Maude Avenue between the SR 237 westbound frontage road and Macara Avenue and on the south side of Maude Avenue between Logue Avenue and the SR 237 westbound frontage road. Sidewalks are also missing along the west side of Logue Avenue near the cul-de-sac.

Within a typical walking distance (a half mile or 10 minutes), pedestrian facilities are present between the project site and the surrounding land uses, including bus stops in the area.

5.16.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on transportation, 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?

5.16.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact TRN-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Roadway Network
The Precise Plan EIR found that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes development of the project under either option) would result in LOS deficiencies under existing LOS policies, improvements to address select deficiencies would be implemented, and select deficiencies would be significant and unavoidable.206 However, as noted above, consistent with SB 743, beginning on July

206 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 224.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 206 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
1, 2020, impacts to LOS can no longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA.

The project includes the construction of six new service streets and two project driveways to provide access to parking for each adjacent building, which is consistent with the standards and design requirements of the Precise Plan. Additionally, the project includes the relocation and reconstruction of the terminus of Logue Avenue as an interim improvement until the remainder of Street D in the Precise Plan can be constructed at a future time. This reconstruction would be required to comply with Chapter 27 of the City Code, as well as meet fire turnaround access per the Fire Code.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Policy
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that future development and transportation improvements consistent with the Precise Plan would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing bicycle lanes, and pedestrian facilities. As described in Section 3.2 Project Description, t he project (under either option) include s pedestrian improvements such as construction of new multi -modal paths throughout the site; dedication of park land for a future bicycle and pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the light rail tracks to extend an existing trail; installation of new midblock crossings and enhancements to existing crossings; construction of wider sidewalks with landscaping along project frontages , new driveways, new service streets and paseos; and bicycle improvements such as new buffered bike lanes on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, and protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road. These improvements are consistent with the planned improvements, standards, and guidelines for pedestrian and bicycle facilities included in the Precise Plan . T he project is a mixed-use development that would increase the variety and density of uses within walking distance of each other and construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements, resulting in an overall improvement of PQOS and BLTS on area roadways. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with the Precise Plan or Access MV policies addressing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Transit Facilities
The Precise Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable effect on transit vehicle operations at intersections with a deficient LOS ( see Precise Plan EIR Impact TRA -3) and found that transit operational improvements such as signal coordination and transit vehicle preemption could reduce the magnitude of congestion on transit operations and improve the overall reliability of transit in congested areas.
207 However, these improvements would not fully mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. Pursuant to SB 743, LOS is no longer a significant impact under CEQA.

Additionally, the Precise Plan EIR identified that a significant impact associated with increased light rail service delay due to gate operations at the proposed Street C at -grade crossing of the light -rail tracks between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue (see Precise Plan EIR Impact TRA-4). The Precise Plan includes mitigation measure EIR MM TRA-4.1, requiring the removal of the Street C from the Precise Plan. Consistent with Precise Plan EIR mitigation measure EIR MM TRA-4.1, Street C was removed from the Precise Plan and replaced with a grade -separated multi-use path. As noted in Section 3.2.7 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking, the proposed project (under either option) would include dedication of land for future development of bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing of the light rail tracks between Ellis Street and Logue Street. With implementation of the proposed project (under either

207 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 212.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 207 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
option) land would be dedicated for a development of a future grade-separated crossing of the light rail tracks as described in EIR MM TRA -4.1, and impacts associated with light rail transit vehicle delay would be eliminated because pedestrian and vehicle traffic could cross the light rail tracks without disrupting light rail service or increasing delays.

As discussed in Section 5.16.1 Environmental Setting, the project area is served by VTA Route 21 and MVgo Route A, with the closest bus stops located on Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue. The site is also served by Middlefield Light Rail Station which is considered a major transit stop. The project (under either option) would enhance and provide shorter access to the transit stops by providing pedestrian and multi -use paths within the Precise Plan area and enhancing a bus stop on project frontage with a shelter and benches (refer to Section 3.2 Project Description). Google currently operates an existing GBus employee shuttle system with an existing stop within the Quad office campus at 369 N orth Whisman Road/464 Ellis Street, located on the west side of Ellis Street. The project (under either option) would add a second GBus stop in the plan area within the proposed service street between Buildings O3 and O4 to better serve the project.

In order to accommodate a fire and emergency access lane for the project and accommodate a new midblock crossing on Middlefield Road, the project would be required to modify the existing VTA bus stop on Middlefield Road along the project frontage. The preferred design has not been selected by VTA, CPUC, or the City and would require permits and approval from all three parties. The bus stop improvements would include:

• A new midblock pedestrian crossing to connect the north and south ends of an existing VTA multi-use path along the west side of the light rail tracks; • A new bus shelter and bench;
• A driveway with bollards to restrict access to emergency vehicles; • A 120-foot in-lane bus stop or bus duck-out (out-of-lane) stop (to be decided); • A raised protected bike lane along the bus stop or buffered on-street bike lane (to be decided); • A bus island for loading/unloading passengers (to be decided); and • Maintaining the existing stop location or shifting the stop westward toward Ellis Street intersection (to be decided).

The General Plan and Precise Plan include policies to encourage an increase in the City’s transit ridership, decrease dependence on motor vehicles, and reduce transit delays. The City and VTA have not established policies or significance criteria related to transit vehicle delay. An analysis of the project’s contribution to the transit vehicle delay disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR was completed.

According to the MTA, the project (under either option) would generate approximately 59 new riders during the a.m. peak hour and 71 new riders during the p.m. peak hour. However, because the applicant operates a shuttle service for employees, the number of office workers that would take VTA transit would likely be minor and the increased transit ridership from the project (under either option) could be accommodated by the existing transit routes. To assess the project’s effect on transit vehicle delay, the delay experienced by each route running through the study intersections was estimated based on the average vehicle delay that is calculated as part of the intersection level of service analysis. The results show the project would result in a less than 60 second delay per transit vehicle for the bus routes

Middlefield Park Master Plan 208 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
in the study area. 208 Therefore, consistent with the Precise Plan EIR, the project would result in increased transit vehicle delay at intersections with identified LOS deficiencies , however, implementation of project (which is consistent with the Precise Plan development assumptions) would not disrupt existing or interfere with planned transit facilities and services. Based on the above discussion, the project would result in the same impact to transit facilities as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

In summary, the project would be consistent with roadway, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit programs, plans, ordinances, and policies disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact TRN-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Same Impact as Approved Project [Significant, Unavoidable Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR identified a project-level and cumulative-level VMT impact due to Precise Plan project-generated VMT on both a citywide and countywide basis. Project- level VMT per service population was calculated in the Precise Plan EIR to be 35.93. The MPMP project’s VMT was included in the VMT calculation in the Precise Plan EIR for the Precise Plan as a whole. For this reason, the project would contribute to the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Significant, Unavoidable Impact])

As noted in Section 5.16.1 Environmental Setting above, since adoption of the Precise Plan and certification of the Precise Plan EIR, City Council adopted the Mountain View VMT Policy, which establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less than significant transportation impact under CEQA and for which further VMT analysis is not required. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, adoption of new policies and/or regulations is not considered substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR because it does not result in a new significant environmental impact, increase the severity of an environmental impact, or alter an existing mitigation measure or alternative. Additionally, projects approved prior to adoption of the Mountain View VMT Policy (such as the Precise Plan, of which the current project is a part) are considered exempt from the new policy. Nevertheless, the project (under either option) is consistent w ith the VMT policy as described below.

The site is located within a half-mile of the Middlefield Light Rail Station (which is considered a major transit stop), would have a total FAR of 1.46 (which is greater than 0.75 FAR), and would provide fewer parking spaces than required by the Precise Plan . Consistent with Plan Bay Area, the project (under either option) would provide more housing and pedestrian and bicycle improvements within the Precise Plan area, be within walking distance to Middlefield Light Rail Station and implement a TDM program to promote alternative modes of transportation and reduce vehicle trips and GHG emissions.

The project (under either option) would also construct affordable housing units on two sites with no existing housing. For these reasons, the project ’s individual VMT (under either option) would be consistent with the Mountain View VMT Policy and impacts would be less than significant.

208 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA. April 13 , 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 209 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
While the MPMP project would be consistent with the City’s recently adopted VMT policy and thresholds to comply with SB 743, because this EIR analysis is tiering off the prior Precise Plan EIR, this analysis concludes that the MPMP project would contribute to the same significant unavoidable VMT impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR.

Impact TRN-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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). [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that future development under the Precise Plan would not result in project- or cumulative-level impacts due to hazards from geometric design features because the Precise Plan would result in greater connectivity of the street and multimodal network and all proposed structures would be reviewed by MVFD for compliance with emergency access and design requirements under the City’s fire code.

Site access is described in detail in Section 3.2.7 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking and shown on Figure 3.2-7. Access to the site under either project option would be provided via multiple service streets and driveways on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. The proposed driveway/service street access (under either option) was evaluated and found to meet the design requirements identified in the City’s zoning ordinance and sight distance requirements. The project (under either option) would also include multiple service roads. All of the proposed service roads would be designed in accordance with the Precise Plan requirements, all private driveways would be designed per City Code Section 36.32.80 (e), and the Logue Avenue cul-de-sac reconstruction would be done in accordance with Chapter 27 and Fire Code requirements. The proposed driveways and service roads, therefore, would meet all required standards and not create design hazards (refer t o Appendix H for more detail). Additionally, the existing public street network layout is not being modified by the project (under either option).

The project (under either option) proposes office, residential, retail, civic /community uses and open space consistent with the mix of uses envisioned for the area in the Precise Plan. The project (under either option) does not propose a new use or a use that is incompatible with the existing mix of uses in the project vicinity. For these reasons, with implementation of the recommendations outlined in the project-specific MTA (which includes relocating some of the loading (flex) zones to service roads and removing on-street parking on the north side of Maude Avenue, the east side of Clyde Avenue, and the east side of Logue Avenue), the project (under either option) would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use (refer to Appendix H ). This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Middlefield Park Master Plan 210 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact TRN-4: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in inadequate emergency access. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As shown in Figure 3.2-8 Conceptual Circulation Plan, emergency vehicles would be able to access the site from Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, Clyde Avenue, all project driveways and service roads , and an emergency fire lane/multi-use path along the west side of the Middlefield Light Rail Station under either project option.

According to the Precise Plan, if emergency vehicle access is required for residential paseos and multi- use paths, a greenway or multi-use path design typology should be used. Additionally, buildings greater than 30 feet in height require a minimum of two emergency vehicle access roads. All proposed buildings would be greater than 30 feet in height, and all buildings would have at least two emergency vehicle access roads. In addition, the final site design would be reviewed by the MVFD for consistency with applicable fire department standards. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in inadequate emergency access. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact])

5.16.3 Non-CEQ
A Effects
Vehicle Queuing
Although the City does not have an adopted queuing significance threshold, a vehicle queuing analysis was completed at project driveways and at key intersections in the project vicinity and included here for informational purposes. The queuing analysis at study intersections under background plus project conditions found the following movements and peak hours would exceed the storage capacity of the turn lane:.

• Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive, southbound left turn lane during a.m. peak hour • Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue, northbound left turn during a.m. peak hour • Whisman Road and Middlefield Road, westbound left turn during p.m. peak hour • Ellis Street and Middlefield Road, eastbound left turn during a.m. and p.m. peak hour • Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road, eastbound left turn p.m. peak hour • Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue, southbound movement during p.m. peak hour

Pursuant to SB 743, LOS and corresponding vehicle queuing are no longer a significant impact under CEQA, therefore, improvements that increase vehicle queuing capacity are not required under CEQA.

In addition, as noted above, the City of Mountain View does not have adopted significance thresholds for assessing vehicle queuing impacts. The queuing analysis for these movements is discussed in detail in Appendix H. The project can, however, pay a proportional fair-share contribution to the necessary roadway improvements as a condition of approval. Otherwise, the City is currently undergoing a nexus study for the East Whisman Precise Plan to determine a new development impact fee that contributes towards roadway and other transportation improvements in the area, anticipated to be considered by the City Council in mid -2022. If adopted, the project could provide proportional fair-share with payment of the impact fee.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 211 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Bicycle Parking
The project (under either option) proposes to provide bicycle parking in accordance with the bicycle parking requirements identified in the Pr ecise Plan. The requirements for neighborhood commercial uses would apply to the proposed civic/community uses. Table 5.16-1 summarizes the Precise Plan bicycle parking requirements. The project would meet the requirements by providing 2,569 long-term and 362 short-term bicycle parking spaces.

Table 5.16-1: Required Bicycle Parking
Land Use
Short-Term Long-Term
Requirement Proposed Requirement Proposed
Residential
1 space per 10
units
(190 spaces)
190 1 space per unit
(1,900 spaces)
1,900
Office
1 space per 20,000
square feet or
minimum 4 spaces,
whichever is
greater
(66 spaces)
132 1 space per 2,000
square feet or
minimum 4 spaces,
whichever is
greater
(659 spaces)
659
Neighborhood
Commercial Uses
(Retail/Community/Civic
Uses)
4 per 5,000 square
feet or minimum 2
spaces, whichever
is greater
(40 spaces)
40 1 per 5,000 square
feet or minimum 2
spaces, whichever
is greater
(10 spaces)
10 Total 296 spaces 362 2,569 spaces 2,569
Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 2019. P. 90.

Vehicle Parking
The project site is located in a transit proximity area and within a half-mile of the Middlefield L ight Rail Station. Based on the State Density Bonus Law, the project can provide a maximum of 0.5 spaces per affordable unit within Buildings R4 AFF and R6 AFF.209 The remaining residential and non - residential uses proposed are required to meet the residential and commercial parking requirements included in the Precise Plan , unless a parking study has been prepared demonstrating an alternative parking ratio is sufficient. Table 5.16-2 summarizes the project’s maximum required and proposed vehicle parking ratios. Given the project’s proposed mixed -use design, proximity to the Middl efield Light Rail Station, TDM programs, the project proposes reduced parking supply ratios as shown in Table 5.16-2.

209 Per Assembly Bill 1763 (Density Bonus Law), if a development is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 2115 of the Public Resources Code, and there is unobstructed access to major transit stops from the development, the parking ratio for the development shall not exceed 0.5 spaces per unit.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 212 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 5.16-2: Maximum Vehicle Parking1
Land Use Required Precise Plan
Parking
Proposed
Parking
Parking Spaces
Provided
Office
Max. 2.9 spaces per
1,000 gross square feet
(Max. 3,819 spaces)

2.0 spaces per
1,000 gross
square feet
2,634 spaces
Retail, restaurants, fitness
and other permitted uses
in neighborhood
commercial areas (includes
community and civic uses)
Min. 4 spaces per 1,000
gross square feet
(Min. 200 spaces)

3.68 spaces per
1,000 gross
square feet
184 spaces
Residential (Market Rate)
Studio/1 Bed - Max. 1
space per unit
2+ Bed – Max. 2 space
per unit
( Max. 2,120 spaces)
1 space per unit 1,520 spaces
Residential (Affordable) 0.5 spaces per unit
(Max. 190 spaces) 190 spaces
1 The proposed parking could be reduced with the implementation of additional parking strategies such as unbundled and shared parking. This EIR assumes the maximum parking proposed.

5.16.4 Conc lusion
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TRN-1:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with a program, plan, ordinance or
policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, bicycle
lanes, and pedestrian facilities.

Yes LTS None LTS
TRN-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision
(b).

Yes S None SU
TRN-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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).

Yes LTS None N/A
TRN-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
inadequate emergency access.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: S – Significant, SU – Significant, Unavoidable, LTS – Less than Significant

Middlefield Park Master Plan 213 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.17 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

5.17.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for tribal cultural resources has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.17.1.1 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 affiliated 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).
• A resource determined by the lead agency to be a TCR.

5.17.1.2 Existing Conditions
On May 28, 2021, Tamien Nation requested noti fication from the City of all non- exempt projects within the City of Mountain View. The tribal representatives for the Tamien Nation was sent the Notice of Preparation for the proposed project on September 30, 2021. Consultation was requested by Tamien Nation on October 28, 2021 and a subsequent meeting was held between staff and the Tamien Nation Chairwoman on November 22, 2021. Following consultation, subsequent email correspondence was received by the City from Tamien Nation on December 20, 2021. In addi tion, the City completed a Sacred Lands File Search for the site on November 2, 2021. No known tribal cultural resources were identified on the project site through the file search or consultation with Tamien Nation. The consultation was concluded on January 12, 2022, with both the City and Tamien Nation agreeing the site is archeologically sensitive and cultural sensitivity training and monitoring during excavation phases would be required.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 214 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.17.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on TCRs , would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, 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 Publi c 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.

5.17.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact TCR-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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). (Same Impact as Approved Project [
Less than
Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that build out of the Precise Plan (which included the project under either option) would result in less than significant impacts to TCRs with implementation of standard conditions of approval identified under Impact CUL-2 in Section 5.4 Cultural Resources.

As noted in 5.17.1 Environment al Setting above, no known TCRs are located on -site. As noted in Section 5.4 Cultural Resources under Impact CUL-2, the project would implement the same conditions of approval as identified in the Precise Plan EIR, with the addition of cultural sensitivity training and monitoring during excavation (as agreed upon with Tamien Nation), to reduce potential impacts to TCRs, should they be identified during ground disturbing activities, to a less than significant level .

This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. 210 (Same Impact as Approved Project
[Less than Significant Impact])

210 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. Pp 256 – 257.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 215 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact TCR-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Refer to discussion under Impact TCR-1. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.211 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

5.17.3 Conc lusion
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
TCR-1 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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).

Yes LTS None N/A
TCR-2 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviation: LTS – Less than Significant.

211 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 255.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 216 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The following discussion is based, in part , on a Utilities Impact Stu dy (UIS) completed by Schaaf & Wheeler. This report is attached as Appendix I.

5.18.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for utilities and service systems has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.18.1.1 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 (UWMP) 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, including 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 program .

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.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 217 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Senate Bill 610
SB 610 requires projects subject to CEQA to comply with Part 2.10 of the Water Code and demonstrate the availability and reliability of water supplies required to serve their projected demand. The bill also requires that Urban Water Management Plans include service reliability assessments.

California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the CalGreen, establishing mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resources efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include the following mandatory set of measures, as well as more rigorous voluntary guidelines, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
• Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent;
• Reducing wastewater by 20 percent;
• Recycling and/or salvag ing 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris; and
• Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupants.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to utilities impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 1.3 Utilities for new development. Ensure adequate utility service levels before approving new development.

INC 1.5 Utility service. Coordinate with all utility providers to ensure safe and adequate utility services.

INC 5.2 Citywide water conservation. Reduce water waste and implement water conservation and efficiency measures throughout the city.

INC 5.3 Water reuse. Remove barriers and provide guidance for the use of rainwater and graywater as alternative water supplies.

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 11.1 Waste diversion and reduction. Meet or exceed all federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning solid waste diversion and impleme ntation of recycling and source

Middlefield Park Master Plan 218 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Policy Description
reduction programs.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 128, 130-132.

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan includes utility-related standards and guidelines for new construction. These include meeting indoor and outdoor water performance standards as defined by LEED BD+C and CalGreen, installing dual plumbing for potable and recycled water use in all new construction per City codes, and connecting new construction to recycled water infrastructure when the recycled water system is adjacent to the property.

5.18.1.2 Existing Conditions
Water Supply and Demand
The City of Mountain View provides water service to the project site. The City is the water retailer for the area and purchases water from two wholesale water supplie rs, the SFPUC and Valley Water. In 2020, the City’s water supply production was 84 percent SFPUC, 10 percent Valley Water, two percent groundwater, and four percent recycled water. The City’s existing water supply is 10,456 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the City’s water demand is approximately 10,000 AFY.212 The UWMP has a projected citywide water demand of 12,058 AFY in 2025 and 14,163 AFY in 2045.213

The existing industrial/office land uses in the project site have an existing water demand of approximately 61,736 gallons per day (gpd) or 69 AFY.214

Water System and Fire Flow
The City’s municipal water system services three pressure zones and consists of three wholesale water turnouts, four reservoirs, three pump stations, four active groundwater supply wells, and buried pipelines. The City serves 17,543 potable water service connections and 58 active recycled water service connections. The project is located in pressure zone two. The project site is served by 12-inch water lines in Ellis Street, East Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue.

Wastewater Treatment/Sanitary Sewer System
The City of Mountain View maintains its own wastewater collection system. Sanitary and storm drains in the City 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 (PA RWQCP) for treatment. The PARWQCP has an overall 40 mgd average annual treatment capacity. The City has an average annual flow treatment allocation of 15.1 mgd at the PA RWQCP. In 2020, approximately

6.9 mgd of wastewater from Mountain View was collected and treated by the PA RWQCP. 215
Compared to the average wastewater flow of previous years (18.4 mgd in 2015 and 22.0 mgd in 2010),

212 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. P. 34. 213 Ibid. P. 18.
214 Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Park Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 18, 2022. Pp. 2-4. 215 City of Mountain View. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021. P. 31.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 219 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
the average wastewater flow in 2020 was substantially lower. 216,217 This decrease could be the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to fewer people traveling to Mountain View for work and working remotely instead. The project site is served by 10- to 18-inch sewer mains in Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, and Clyde Avenue.

Existing uses on the project site generate approximately 60,530 gallons per day of wastewater. 218

Storm Drain System
The City of Mountain View Public Works Department operates and maintains the storm drainage system in the City. As discussed in Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site consists of 83 percent impervious (or 31.7 acres) and 17 percent of pervious surfaces (or 6.5 acres). Runoff from the project site flows into 12- to 36-inch storm drain lines in the surrounding streets, which flows to the west to Stevens Creek and eventually the San Francisco Bay.

Solid Waste
Solid waste collection and recycling services for residents and businesses in Mountain View are provided by Recology Mountain View. Once collected, solid waste and recyclables are transported to the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale for sorting, and commercial compostable are transported to a composting facility in Vernalis, California. Non-recyclable waste is transported and landfilled at Kirby Canyon Sanitary Landfill in south San José. Kirby Canyon Landfill has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 14.6 million tons, and a closing date of approximately January 1, 2071. 219

Telecommunications Systems
The project site is served by existing phone and electrical services. Phone service is provided to the site by AT&T, and electrical service is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and/or SVCE.

5.18.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on utilities and service systems, 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? 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

216 City of Mountain View. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. P. 40. 217 City of Mountain View. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. P. 5 -10. 218 Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Park Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 18, 2022. Pp. 4-5. 219 Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal communications. December 27, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 220 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 5) Be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statu tes and regulations related to solid waste?

5.18.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact UTL-1: Both Project Options: 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. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that future large -scale development allowed under the Precise Plan could result in impacts to existing water, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure and require upsizing and/or improvements to nearby water distribution, sewer, and storm drainage infrastructure. The Precise Plan EIR concluded that this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level with payment of necessary fees , compl iance with the standards and guidelines of the Precise Plan , and implementation of Precise Plan EIR MM UTL-1.1, listed below.220

East Whisman Prec
ise Plan EIR Mitigation Measure:

Precise Plan EIR MM UTL-1.1: Both Project Options: The City shall require, determined on a project-by-project basis, the preparation of a site -specific utility analysis of applicable water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure systems adjacent to and downstream of the project site to identify capacity issues. The utility impact analysis will be submitted to the Planning Division as part of future project applications. The analysis will determine the proportional utility impact fees to be paid under the nexus study and will identify any other utility infrastructure improvements required as a result of individual projects.

To comply with Precise Plan EIR MM UTL-1.1, a site-specific analysis UIS was prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler for the project. The results of the study are summarized below and discussed in detail in Appendix I.

Project
Water System and Fire Flow
The project (under either option) would have a total water demand of approximately 384,460 gpd and a fire flow requirement of 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm), an increase of 322,697 gpd above existing conditions.221 The total water demand includes both potable and non-potable water demands. Under the project (without District Utilities System Option), in order to serve the project’s non-potable

220 City o f Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 264.
221 Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Park Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 1 8, 2022 . Table 2 -1: Proposed Building Estimated Water Demand. Pp. 2-2 through 2-3.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 221 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
demands with non-potable recycled water, the City’s existing recycled water system would need to be extended to the project site.

As mentioned in 5.18.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project is located in pressure zone 2, which is supplied by two SFPUC turnouts. The UIS include d modeling which determined that demand in pressure zone 2 can be sufficiently supplied by the turnouts and that the additional project demand would not impact the City’s ability to meet the total system demand. 222

Furthermore, the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water requires storage equal to eight hours of maximum day demand plus fire flow storage in each pressure zone. T he existing maximum active water storage in the City is 17 million gallons (MG) and the City operates with an operational storage of 14.3 MG. Thus, the City has the storage volume available to meet the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water requirements and the project (without District Utilities Option) would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts beyond what was previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR and Precise Plan EIR. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Wastewater/Sewer System
The project (without District Utilities System Option) would incrementally increase wastewater generation on-site by approximately 231,170 gpd. Based on the UIS, the sewer system does not have sufficient capacity to support the estimated increase in wastewater flow from the project (without District Utilities System Option), consistent with the analysis in the Precise Plan EIR . However, implementation of improvements identified in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study and Precise Plan Utility Impact Study included upsizing of the 10-inch pipe along Ellis Street to 15-inches, upsizing the 10-inch pipe between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue to 15-inches, upsizing the 18-inch pipe along Fairchild Drive to 21-inches, and upsizing the 10-inch pipe between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue to 15 -inches. With these improvements, there would be sufficient capacity to support the increased wastewater generated by the project (without District Utilities Systems Option). The project (without District Utilities System Option) would pay the impact fee toward these planned improvements. No other utility infrastructure improvements would be required as a result of the project (without District Utilities System Option).223 The environmental impacts associated with construction of these improvements were previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the Precise Plan EIR.224, 225 For these reasons, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects beyond what was previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR and General Plan EIR. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

222 Ibid.
223 Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Park Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 18, 2022. 224 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 265.
225 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. September 2012. P. 528.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 222 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Stormwater Drainage
The project would pay impact fees to fund stormwater drainage improvements included as part of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) and improvements identified in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study to provide adequate storm drain service for the buildout of the General Plan (which includes the project under either option) . The environmental impacts associated with construction of these improvements were previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR and the Precise Plan EIR. The project (without District Utilities System Option) would, therefore, pay a proportional utility impact fee toward these planned improvements. No other utility infrastructure improvements would be required as a result of the project (without District Utilities System Option). 226 Thus, the
project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects beyond those already disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project (without District Utilities System Option) would connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications lines. The project would be adequately served and existing overhead facilities would be relocated and undergrounded. The existing nitrogen gas line that runs approximately 50 feet south of the SFPUC Hetch-Hetchy right-of -way would be relocated to accommodate the proposed buildings. The project (without District Utilities System Option) would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects and have a less than significant impact. This is the same impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR.

For the reasons discussed above , the project (without District Utilities Option) 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 relocatio n of which could cause significant environmental effects. A site-specific UIS was prepared for the project consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM UTL-1.1, which confirmed the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with District Utilities System Option would construct a private district utilities system with underground utility lines to serve buildings within the MPMP with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy, and electric power service.

Water System and Fire Flow
As discussed above, the total w ater demand for the project (under either option) would be approximately 384,460 gpd and have a fire flow requirement of 1,500 gpm. Fire water service would be supplied by the existing City system. The total water demand includes both potable and non-potable water demands. Operation of the on-site wastewater treatment plant under the project with District

226 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 223 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Utilities System Option would offset water demands by up to 250,000 gpd, as all of the project’s non- potable water demands would be met using non-potable recycled water produced onsite, resulting in a lower potable water demand than the project without the District Utilities System Option. The net increase in potable w ater demand for t he project with District Utilities System Option would be approximately 72,697 gpd compared to existing conditions on-site.

Because the project with District Utilities System Option would result in a lower potable water demand than the project without the District Utilities System Option, and t he UIS determined that adequate water pressure and storage are available to meet the added demand of the project without the District Utilities System Option , the project with the District Utilities System Option would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities resulting in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant , and lesser than those disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Wastewater/Sewer System
Since the CUP would allow for direct treatment of wastewater at the project site, the project with District Utilities System Option would result in a net negative demand of -18,830 gpd on the City’s wastewater system. With a net decrease in demand, the sewer system would have sufficient capacity downstream and would not require upsizing of pipes 227; therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and lesser than those disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Stormwater Drainage
As discussed above for the project without District Utilities System, the project (with District Utilities System) would pay impact fees to fund stormwater drainage improvements included as part of the CIPs identified in the 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study (GPUUIS ). Implementation of these CIPs would ensure adequate storm drain and water service are provided. No other utility infrastructure improvements would be required as a result of the project (without District Utilities System Option).228 The environmental effects associated with constructing these improvements were previously disclosed in the General Plan EIR and Precise Plan EIR . For these reasons, construction of the project with District Utilities System Option would result in less than significant impacts. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Electric Power, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
The project without District Utilities System Option would connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications lines, and would be adequately served by them. Because the project with District Utilities System Option would also incorporate thermal energy and microgrid system that would provide independent sources of heating, cooling, and electricity (as described in Section 3.2 Project Description), the project with District Utilities System Option would result in less demand than the project without District Utilities System Option , resulting in a lesser impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

227 Ibid.
228 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 224 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
For the reasons discussed above, 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. A site-specific UIS was prepared for the project consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM UTL-1.1, which confirmed the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact UTL-2: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan (including the project under either option) would result in an increase in water demand within the City of Mountain View; however, the City’s available potable and non-potable water supplies were expected to be sufficient to meet the demands of existing and future uses during normal years through 2035. The Water Supply Assessment completed for the Precise Plan EIR projected shortfalls of 18 percent for single dry years and 20 percent for multiple dry years with implementation of the Precise Plan. 229 The City’s UWMP includes a Water
Shortage Contingency Plan that can mitigate for shortfalls of up to 50 percent. Therefore, with implementation of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, adequate water supplies would be available to meet the City’s demand including development allowed under the Precise Plan (including the proposed project under either option) in normal, single -dry, and multiple-dry years. This is the same impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR. 230 (Same Impact as Appr oved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact UTL-3:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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 . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Precise Plan EIR determined that implementation of the Precise Plan would not prevent the RWQCP from meeting wastewater treatment requirements or generate wastewater above the City’s allocated treatment capacity.231 The RWQCP has an overall treatment capacity of 40 mgd and the City of Mountain View is allocated 15.1 mgd of treatment capacity at the RWQCP. Given the City’s current wastewater generation (6.88 mgd), the City’s remai ning available treatment capacity at the RWQCP (2.49 mgd), and the estimate net increase of wastewater generated from implementation of the Precise Plan (753,034 gpd or 0.75 mgd), the Precise Plan EIR concluded impacts would be less than significant.

The project (under either option) is consistent with the development assumptions identified for the site

229 City of Mountain View. East Whi sman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 265.
230 Ibid.
231 Ibid. P. 266.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 225 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
in the Precise Plan and development of the project (under either option) was accounted for within the Precise Plan EIR . T herefore, the project (under either option) would result in the same impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact UTL-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) 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. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that buildout of the Precise Plan 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.
232 New developments within the Precise Plan would be
required to comply with the California mandated 50 percent waste diversion and Cal Green standards (including a construction waste recycling requirement and readily accessible areas for recycling). Solid waste and recyclables would be transported to the Sunnyvale SMaRT S tation for sorting, and commercial compostable are transported to a composting facility in Vernalis. Non-recyclable solid waste generated within the Precise Plan would be collected by Waste Management and disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill. The Precise Plan EIR determined the Kirby Canyon Landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from the buildout of the Precise Plan , including that of the proposed project (under either option).

The project (under either option) would comply with the same requirements for recycling and solid waste reductions identified in the Precise Plan EIR, and would not adversely affect the City’s compliance with the waste diversion requirem ents and would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity. This is the same impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact UTL-5: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not be noncompliant with federal, state, or local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that buildout of the Precise Plan would not adversely affect the City’s compliance with the waste diversion requirements under state law because all future developments within the Precise Plan would be required to comply with state and local policies and standards.233 The project (under either option) would comply with CalGreen standards for construction waste recycling and would divert at least 50 percent of construction waste. Furthermore, solid waste from the project site would be disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in San José, as discussed under Impact UTL -

4. The project (under either option) would not result in a substantial increase in waste landfilled at Kirby Canyon, nor would it be served by a landfill without sufficient capacity. In compliance with the

232 Ibid.
233 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 226 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
City Code, General Plan policies, and Precise Plan guidelines, the project (under either option) would not conflict with state and federal solid waste regulations and statutes. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

5.18.3 Conclusi on
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
UTIL-1 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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.

Yes S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM
UTIL-1.1
LTS
UTIL-2 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not have
insufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTIL-3 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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.

Yes LTS None LTS
UTIL Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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.

Yes LTS None N/A
UTIL-5 Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not be
noncompliant with federal, state, or local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviation: S – Significant, LTS – Less than Significant.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 227 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.19 WILDFIRE

5.19.1 Envir onmental Setting
An analysis of wildfire impacts associated with implementation of the Precise Plan was included in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section of the Precise Plan EIR. The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for wildfire has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.19.1.1 Existing Conditions
The project site is not classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone. 234

5.19.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on wildfire, 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?

5.19.2.1 Project Impacts
The Precise Plan area (including 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 (under either option) would not result in wildfire impacts. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. 235
(Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

234 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed February 1 5, 2022. https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
235 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 114.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 228 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.19.3 Conclusion
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
WLD-1:

Both Project Option s: The project
(under either option) would not result
in wildfire impacts.

Yes NI None N/A
Abbreviation: NI – No Impact.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 229 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 6.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, a project is considered to be growth inducing if it would “foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment” (Section 15126.2[e]). This section of the EIR is intended to evaluate the impacts of such growth in the surrounding environment. Examples of projects likely to have significant growth inducing impacts include removing obstacles to population growth, for example extending or expanding infrastructure beyond what is needed to serve the project. O ther examples of growth inducement include increases in population that may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.

The Precise Plan EIR concluded implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed development) would not significantly induce growth for the following reasons:

• The growth is already planned and accounted for in the City’s General Plan, and implementation of the General Plan and Precise Plan would focus growth near transit nodes , which would minimize traffic and associated environmental effects (e.g., air pollution and GHG emissions);
• Although the Precise Plan has the potential to incrementally increase development pressure for additional housing within Mountain Vie w and nearby cities, this additional residential development would be generally located in developed, urban areas, and in accordance with local and regional plans for those cities; and
• The Precise Plan would not result in the expansion of urban services or result in pressure to expand beyond the City’s existing boundaries or sphere of influence because it would intensify and diversify uses in a low-density area in an existing, urban setting. 236

The project (under either option) is implementing the Precise Plan and is consistent with the planned growth and identified strategies and policies of the Precise Plan and General Plan . Additionally, construction of the CUP under the District Systems O ption would only meet project-specific demand and would not serve the broader Precise Plan area or expand services to any area outside of the project area. For these reasons, the project would not result in a significant growth inducing impact. Therefore, the project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant growth inducing impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

236 City of Mountain View. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report, East Whisman Precise Plan, SCH# 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 271 – 272.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 230 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 7.0 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL

CHANGES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must identify significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project being analyzed. Significant irreversible changes include the 1) irreversible use of nonrenewable resources, 2) commitment of future generations to similar use, 3) irreversible damage resulting from environmental accidents associated with the project and 4) irretrievable commitments of resources.

7.1 IRREVERSIBLE USE AND IRRETRIEVABLE C OMMITMENTS OF

NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES
As discussed in the Precise Plan EIR, implementation of Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option), would require the use of nonrenewable resources during construction and operation of development projects. Nonrenewable resources used would include fossil fuels, metals, concrete, plastics, and water. Renewable resources, such as lumber and energy from renewable sources (e.g., solar and wind), would also be used. The City of Mountain View encourages the use of building materials that include recycled materials and requires new development to meet minimum green building design standards. The project (under either option) would be built to current codes, which require insulation and design to minimize wasteful energy consumption. The project would comply with the City’s Reach Code requirements for all electric building operations, include rooftop solar panels, and electric vehicle infrastructure, implement a TDM plan designed to reduce residential and nonresidential vehicle trips, meet the intent of LEED Platinum standards on all proposed non- residential buildings, and achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points or better for proposed residential buildings. In addition, the site is an infill location currently served by public transportation. Although the district utilities system option would include construction of new utility lines on-site, these utility lines would be designed to maximize the efficiency of energy and water resources on-site and would only deliver energy and wet utilities to the project buildings. Therefore, as concluded in the Precise Plan EIR, the implementation of Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy and would represent a more efficient allocation of nonrenewable resources than other types or patterns of growth.

7.2 COMMITMENT OF FUTURE GENERATIONS TO SIMILAR USES
The project (under either option) would redevelop a site located within an urban area. Development of the project (under either opti on) would commit resources to prepare the site, construct the buildings, and operate the building, but it would not result in development of undeveloped land.

As concluded in the Precise Plan EIR, implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would intensify development and increase the diversity of land uses near existing transit stations and would not commit future generations to changes in land use that are substantial. 237

237 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 274.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 231 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

7.3 IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL ACCIDENTS
Without mitigation, irreversible changes to the physical environment could occur from accidental release of hazardous materials associated with development. Compliance with hazardous materials regulations and policies, and remediation of contamination, wou ld reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As discussed in Section 5.8 Hazardous Materials of this EIR, the project (under either option) would not result in significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts.

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that there would be no significant unmitigable hazards and hazardous materials conditions that would substantially affect the public and surrounding environment. 238

238 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 274.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 232 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 8.0 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 4.1 Air Quality, the project would result in new significant, unavoidable impacts related to operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions).

• Impact AQ-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pla n by resulting in operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of BAAQM D thresholds (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated]) • Impact AQ-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would 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. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated]) • Impact AQ-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 233 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 9.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives discussion is to determine whether there are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6).

In order to comply with the purposes of CEQA, it is important to identify alternatives that reduce the significant impacts anticipated to occur if the project is implemented and try to meet as many of the project’s objectives as possible. The CEQA Guidelines emphasize a commonsense approach – the alternatives should be reasonable, “foster informed decision making and public participation,” and focus on alternatives that avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. The range of alternatives selected for analysis is governed by the “rule of reason” which requires the EIR to discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

The three cri tical factors to consider in selecting and evaluating alternatives are, therefore: (1) the significant impacts from the proposed project which could be reduced or avoided by an alternative, (2) the project objectives, and (3) the feasibility of the alterna tives available. These factors are discussed below.

9.1 FACTORS IN SELECTING AND EVALUATING ALTERNATIVES

9.1.1 Sign
ificant Impacts of the Project
As explained above, the CEQA Guidelines state alternatives analysis in an EIR should be limited to alternatives that are feasible and would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and achieve most of the basic project objectives. In addition to those identified in the Precise Plan EIR, the project would result in a new, significant, unavoidable impacts due to operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions):

• Impact AQ-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan by resulting in operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of BAAQMD thresholds. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated]) • Impact AQ-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated]) • Impact AQ-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would expos e sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 234 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

9.1.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the basic objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. As identified in Section 3.4 Project Objectives, the applicant’s objectives for the project are as follows:

a) Develop the project area with residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR (consistent with the Character Areas development targets in the Precise Plan) near public transit and major roadways, providing a more efficient use of available land and increased pedestrian and bicycle access to transit.
b) Redevelop the project site with approximately 1,900 new residential units to better balance the City’s jobs-housing ratio.
c) Provide approximately 1.3 million square feet of office uses consistent with the Precise Plan and the following General Plan policies:
o LUD 3.1: Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within a half-mile of public transit service, and along major commute corridors;
o LUD 3.8: Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base; o LUD 9.2: Compatible transit-oriented development. Encourage transit-oriented development that is compatible with surrounding uses and accessible to transit stations; and
o LUD 14.3: Business attraction. Attract innovative and emerging technology businesses.
d) Develop the appropriate number of residential units prior to the corresponding commercial uses consistent with the Precise Plan’s Jobs-Housing Linkage Program. e) Implement a robust TDM plan with trip-reduction measures and on-site amenities that promote walking, bicycling, use of shuttles, transit and other transportation alternatives, consistent with the requirements of the Precise Plan.
f) Support VTA’s investment in light rail transit by providing transit-oriented residential and commercial development that facilitates pedestrian and bicycle access to and ridership of transit.
g) Implement sustainable building practices promoting energy and water efficiency consistent with the Precise Plan.
h) Dedicate approximately seven acres of land to the City for the creation of new public parks to serve the existing uses, the proposed project, and the broader community. i) Support both Precise Plan goals and City Council and staff guidance through the delivery of people-centric community benefits that help people live, work, play, and stay in Mountain View, including measures that support:
o Housing opportunities and anti-displacement;
o Ret
ention and growth of small businesses and workforce development; o Safe and expanded connections for pedestrians and bicyclists, while consolidating infrastructure for vehicles; and
o Quality open space for recreation, relaxation and entertainment.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 235 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

9.1.3 Feasibility of Alternatives
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and case law interpreting CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have found that feasibility can be based on a wide range of factors and influences. The CEQA Guidelines state that such factors can include (but are not limited to) the suitability of an alternate site, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, consistency with a general plan or with other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can “reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (Section 15126.6[f][1]).

9.1.4 Align
ment with Precise Plan Guiding Principles
To provide additional context, each alternative discussed below is evaluated against the Precise Plan’s Guiding Principles,
239 which support and establish the vision for growth in the plan area and are used as a reference point for stakeholders and decision- makers in evaluating projects. These principles include:

1. Transform East Whisman into a mixed-income community with a balance of renters and owners

2. Create a complete neighborhood

3. Focus activity and development around Middlefield Light Rail station

4. Respect North Whisman Area Neighborhood Character

5. Enhance the Middlefield/Whisman Village Center

6. Integrate new housing harmoniously with office uses

7. Maximize land use flexibility while balancing jobs and housing

8. Minimize vehicle trips

9. Build complete streets for active transportation

10. Create a highly-sustainable community

9.2 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

9.2.1 Project
Alternative Considered But Rejected From Further Analysis

9.2.1.1 Location Alternative
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project. An alternative site may be considered when impacts of the project might be avoided or substantially lessened, and the project proponent can feasibly attain control of the site. Only alternative locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the impacts of the project and meet most of the basic project objectives need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.6[f] and 15126.6[f][2][A]).

239 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan : Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051.January 2020. Pp. 17-26.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 236 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
As described previously, the project proposes to implement a large portion of the City’s adopted Precise Plan, which prescribes the land uses to be developed within the Plan. Therefore, decisions regarding the appropriate land use types and densities in this location have recently been made by the City. Because this EIR tiers off the prior certified Precise Plan EIR, the alternatives analysis completed for the Precise Plan, is hereby incorporated by reference.

An alternative location for the project would need to:
• Avoid or substantially lessen the project’s significant operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) impacts; • Be of similar size as the project site (approximately 40-acres) and be able to accommodate the project’s buildout, density, and mix of uses;
• Served by available infrastructure (including transportation and utilities); • Have the appropriate General Plan designation that would allow for high intensity commercial office, residential, retail, and community uses at an intensity over 1.0 FAR; and • Be, or able to be, under control of the applicant.

In consideration of an alternative location in an EIR, the CEQA Guidelines advise the key question is “whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location.”
240 Any project of similar size and intensity as the proposed project (under either option) within the City of Mountain View would have similar construction and operational air quality impacts. An alternate location that meets most of the above listed characteristics is the approximately 40- acre San Ant onio Shopping Center located at the southwest corner of California Street and Showers Drive (2550 West El Camino Real/350 Showers Drive); however, it is currently developed and not under the control of the applicant. Additionally, if the applicant were to gain control over this site (which has sensitive receptors approximately 85 feet east of the site and future residential units under construction 140 feet northwest of the site at 2580 California Street ), development of the project (under either option) on this alternative site would result in similar construction health risk impacts to those receptors as the project would have sensitive receptors of similar proximity to the project site. No other alternative locations in the City would meet the above listed criteria, nor are any isolated from sensitive receptors. Therefore, an alternative infill location in Mountain View would not substantially lessen the project’s identified significant and unavoidable impacts.

Case law interpreting CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), supports the conclusion that an EIR need not include a potentially feasible alternative location in every instance, based on the rule of reason and considerations of feasibility.
241 For the reasons described above, an alternative site was not considered further.

240 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A)
241 California Native Plant Society v City of Santa Cruz (2009) and Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004)

Middlefield Park Master Plan 237 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

9.2.1.2 Alternative Site Design, Smaller Project Site Alternative As discussed in Section 4.1 Air Quality, the project site is adjacent to an approved residential project at 400 Logue Avenue and project construction activities would expose those future residents to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD health risk thresholds. Health risk impacts are due, in part, to the proximity of sensitive receptors to construction activities. Therefore, an alterna tive site design and smaller project site alternative were considered in order to avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable health risk impact.

Generally, project construction activities would result in less than significant health risks to sensitive receptors located 1,000 feet or greater from construction activities. However, as shown in Figure 9.2-1 below, most of the project site is located within a 1,000-foot radius of 400 Logue Avenue . N o rearrangement of land uses or developing the project on a smaller portion of the project site located 1,000 feet from the 400 Logue site is feasible . For this reason, an alternative site design or small er project site alternative were not considered further.

9.2.2 Selec ted Alternatives
The selected alternatives for analysis are the No Project A lternatives, Reduced Development Alternatives, and Rescheduled Construction Alternative. A breakdown of the development assumptions for each of the selected alternatives is provided in Table 9.2-1 below. A summary comparison of the mitigated environmental impacts of the project (under either option) and the project alternatives is provided in Table 9.2-2 at the end of this section.

9.2.2.1 No Project, No New Development Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project versus the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6(e)(2).18. Under the No Project Alternative, therefore, the project site could remain as it is today or the site could be redeveloped with uses consistent with the existing Precise Plan and General Plan land use designation.

For this reason, there are two logical No Project alternatives: 1) a No Project, No New Development Alternative (which is described below) and 2) a No Project , Redevelopment Alternative (which is described under Section 9.2.2.2 below).

Under the No Project, No New Development Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today.

Under existing conditions, the site is developed with a total of 684,645 square feet of office, R&D, and light industrial uses.

West Maude Avenue
M
acara
Avenue
Logue Avenue
Ellis Street
West Maude Avenue
M
acara
Avenue
Clyde Avenue
Clyde
Avenue
C
lyde Court
C
lydeCourt
Logue Avenue
Ellis Street
237
237
VTA L
ight Rail
Maude Avenue
MaudeAvenue
VTA Light Rail
East Middlefield RoadEast Middlefield Road
North Whisman RoadNorth Whisman Road
~1,000 Foot Buffer Around 400 Logue Avenue Receptor
~1,000 Foot Buffer Around 400 Logue Avenue Receptor
~1,000FootBufferAround400 Logue Avenue Receptor
~1,000FootBufferAround400LogueAvenueReceptor
REARRANGED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 9.2-1
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 29, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2020 0 100 600 800 1,200 Feet
MPMP Site Boundary
400 Logue Avenue Receptor
Hetch Hetchy TOD Trail
Off-site Construction
Staging Areas
San Francisco Public
Utilities Land

Middlefield Park Master Plan 239 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 9.2-1: Summary of Alternatives Development Assumptions Land Use Project (under
either option)1
Project Alternatives
No Project, No
New Development
No Project,
Redevelopment
Mitigated 19%
Reduced
Development
31% Reduced
Development
Rescheduled
Construction
Light Industrial
Square Footage 0 684,645 0 0 0 0
Office Square
Footage 1,317,000 0 691,285 1,066,770 908,730 1,317,000 Residential Dwelling
Units 1,900 0 0 1,539 1,311 1,900
Retail Square Feet 30,000 0 5,000 24,300 20,700 30,000
Community/ Civic
Square Footage 20,000 0 0 16,200 13,800 20,000
Park land acres 10.15 0 0 7.8 6.6 10.15
1 The project with District Utilities System Option includes a CUP not reflected as a land use in the table.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 240 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable air quality impacts related to operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions), as w ell as avoid all other impacts disclosed in Section 5 .0 Previously Identified Effects because it would not change existing conditions (see Table 9.2-2).

Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project, No New Development Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives because it would not redevelop the site with a high-density mix of uses (including residential) at a density consistent with the Precise Plan (objectives a through d, f, and h) or implement sustainable building practices (objective g). Additionally, because the No Project, No New Development Alternative would not involve a change in the square footage of development on-site, it would not be required under the Precise Plan to implement a TDM program and would, therefore, not meet objective e nor would it provide community benefit , housing, multi -modal connections, and open space identified in objectives h and i.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
This alternative would not meet any of the Precise Plan’s guiding principles because it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan.

Conclusion
The No Project , No New Development Alternative would avoid the project’s impacts (under either option) but would not meet any of the project objectives. This alternative would not meet any of the Precise Plan’s guiding pr inciples because it would not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan.

9.2.2.2 No Project, Redevelopment Alternative
Given the site’s land use designation, it is reasonable to assume that if the proposed project were not approved, an office development could be developed on the project site at the base FAR allowed with a minimum amount of retail. The proposed project (under either option) is consistent with and allowed by the City’s General Plan and Precise Plan . The site is identified for high -density, mixed-use development. This policy decision was made when the City’s General Plan and Precise Plan w ere adopted; a specific development proposal need not trigger ad hoc reconsideration of this policy. 242

Nonetheless, for purposes of this EIR, an alternative redevelopment of the site is considered that would meet the base FAR allowed on the site, which is 0.4 FAR for non-residential uses across the Precise Plan Mixed Use and Employment Area North Character Areas , and include the minimum amount of retail uses required without triggering the City’s housing requirements . Assuming the whole site (40 acres) is developed with non-residential uses, the No Project , Redevelopment A lternative would redevelop the site with up to 696,285 square feet (0.4 FAR) of non-residential uses , including a minimum 5,000 square feet of retail required by the Precise Plan. It is also assumed this Alternative

242 Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 241 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
would implement sustainable building practices and a TDM program consistent with the requirements of the Precise Plan.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
Given the scale of development under this alternative , it is assume d that construction air quality emissions and health risks impacts would be less than the project (under either option) because the amount of development is reduced, providing only a small increase from existing square footage but the proximity to sensitive receptors is the same . As discussed in Section 4.0, the project’s significant operational ROG emissions are primarily attributed to architectural coatings, which is directly related to the amount of building surface area. For this reason, a reduction in building surface area requiring architectural coatings would result in a proportional reduction in ROG emissions. Based on the reduced size of development under this alternative, it is assumed that operational ROG emissions would be less than significant. T his alternative would require a project -specific VMT analysis because it does not meet the City’s density screening criteria of 0.75 FAR for projects located near transit. Therefore, this alternative could result in a significant VMT impact requiring mitigation.

Other impacts identified in Section 5.0 Previously Identified Effect for this alternative, would be similar to the proposed project due to its consistency with the development evaluated in the Precise Plan EIR and existing site conditions, but would not include housing or as much office square footage as proposed by the project (under either option). This a lternative would provide approximately 0.5 percent of the planned office square footage in the Precise Plan . 243 Additionally, because this
alternative does not include Bonus FAR (i.e., this alternative is less dense), the required sustainable building practices that would apply to this alternative would be less than those required of the proposed project. For example, this alternative would be required to meet LEED Gold standards whereas the project (with about twice as much office development) is required to meet LEED Platinum standards.244

Relationship to Project Objectives
The No Project, Redevelopment Alternative partially meets objectives a, c, and f because it does not include residential uses and proposes a little over half of the desired office square footage . The alternative would not meet objective b because it does not include housing and, thus, does not require park land. Objectives d and i, pertaining to the City’s Jobs-Housing Program and community benefits, are not applicable because the project would not be subject to the program or be required to provide community benefits.

The No Project , Redevelopment Alternative would implement sustainable building practices and a TDM program consistent with Precise Plan requirements and, therefore, meet objectives e and g.

Additionally, while the Redevelopment Alternative does not include transit -oriented residential development (as identified in objective f), it could deliver safe and expanded pedestrian and bicycle connections in accordance with the Precise Plan (refer to objectives f). The Redevelopment Alternative

243 Calculated as a percent of net new office square footage assumed in Precise Plan EIR (2.3 million square feet of office planned in Precise Plan EIR). Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Page 11 244 United States Green Building Council. “How LEED Works.” https://www.usgbc.org/leed Accessed Mar ch 23, 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 242 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
would not include park land dedication, Bonus FAR, community benefits or housing, ther efore, objectives h and i would not be met.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
The No Project Redevelopment Alternative could align with some portions of the Precise Plan’s guiding principles 8 , 9, and 10, by incorporating a TDM program for trip reductions and providing active transportation improvements (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks) and green building design as required per the Precise Plan. This alternative can partially align with principle 3, as it provides some increased development near transit, but not at the highest intensities. However, this alternative would not align with principles 1, 2, 6, and 7 as it does not establish a mix of new land uses (residential, retail and open space) and balancing jobs and housing opportunities with greater intensity nea r transit. Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the No Project Redevelopment Alternative would result in less or similar impacts as the proposed project. In regards to the project objectives, the No Project Redevelopment Alternative would:
• Meet objectives e and g
• Partially meet objectives a, b, c, and f
• Not meet objective h and i

In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would:
• Align with principles 8, 9, and 10
• Partially align with principle 3
• Not align with principles 1, 2, 6, and 7.
• Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

9.2.2.3 Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative The purpose of the Mitigat ed 19% Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable operational ROG emissions impacts with the incorporation of the air quality mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). To reduce the project’s ROG emissions during operations, the overall development would have to be reduced by approximately 19 percent to achieve less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. This alternative, therefore, assumes approximately 1,066,770 square feet of office uses, 1,539 residential units, 24,300 square feet of retail uses, 16,200 square feet of community/civic uses , and 7.8 acres of park land. This alternative would have a total FAR of approximately 1.29.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
As discussed in Section 4.0, the project’s significant operational ROG emissions are primarily attributed to architectural coatings, which is directly related to the amount of building surface area. For this reason, a reduction in building surface area requiring architectural coatings would result in a proportional reduction in ROG emissions. The project’s operational ROG emissions with mitigation are approximately 19 percent above the significance threshold. Therefore, reducing the project’s

Middlefield Park Master Plan 243 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
building surface area by 19 percent would reduce the project’s operational ROG emissions by 19 percent. For the purposes of this analysis, a reduction in building surfa ce area equates to an equal reduction in the amount of development. For these reasons, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable operational ROG impact with incorporation of the same mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). This alternative would meet the City’s density screening criteria of 0.75 FAR for projects located near transit. Therefore, as with the proposed project, this alternative would have a less than significant VMT impact under the City’s current VMT policy.
245 All other impacts would be the same or similar to the proposed project because the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would be consistent with the development evaluated in the Precise Plan EIR and subject to the same existing site conditions as the project.

Relationship to Project Objectives
This alternative would develop the site with residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR consistent with the Character Areas and would therefore, meet objective a. T he Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would provide 19 percent less office square footage and residential dwelling units than identified in objectives b (1,900 dwelling units) and c (1.3 million square feet), therefore, it would partially meet these objectives. The Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would develop residential units prior to the corresponding commercial uses consistent with the Precise Plan and implement a TDM program consistent with the requirements of the Precise Plan, therefore, it would meet objectives d and e. Because this alternative would develop transit-oriented residential and office uses and could include on-site amenities to promote multi-modal tra nsportation options, it would meet objective f. The Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would implement sustainable building practices consistent with the Precise Plan, thus it would meet objective g. Because this alternative would include development of residential units on-site, it would be required to dedicate 7.8 acres of land to the c ity for development of future parks pursuant to the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Therefore, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would meet objective h. Additionally, because this alternative would develop a mix of uses on-site, it could include community benefits such as those identified in objective i, although to a lesser extent than the project.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
This alternative aligns with Precise Plan principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as it promotes a new mixed- use neighborhood with residential, commercial, retail, and open space uses in greater intensities near transit. However, the alternative’s alignment with guiding principle 7 would be substantially lessened by reduced development. In particular, the Precise Plan’s Jobs-Housing Linkage program establishes a minimum requirement of housing units to new office development, such that a 19 percent reduction in office square footage would directly impact the number of residential units delivered by a factor of three units per 1,000 square feet of net new office. For this alternative, the project applicant would be minimally required to construct 1,146 residential units (754 units or 40 percent fewer than the proposed project). Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

245 This alternative would also contribute to the significant unavoidable VMT impact identified in the Precise Plan EIR for development allowed under the Precise Plan prior to adoption of the City’s VMT policy.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 244 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
It should be noted that the City is currently preparing its required Housing Element update and is allocating and projecting the future development of residential units on the project site.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable operational ROG emissions with the implementation of the same mitigation measures as identified for the project (under either option) and lessen the project’s mitigable construction criteria pollutant emissions and health risk impacts with implementation of the same mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). All other impacts disclosed would be the same or similar as the proposed project. In regards to the project objectives, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would:
• Meet objectives a, d, e, f, g, h, and i; and
• Partially meet objective b and c.

In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would:
• Align with principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but alignment with principle 7 would create a significant reduction in residential units.
• Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

9.2.2.4 31% Reduced Development Alternative
The purpose of the 31% Reduced Development Alternative is to avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable operational ROG emissions impacts without requiring mitigation. To reduce the project’s ROG emissions during operations to the extent that mitigation is not required, the overall development would have to be reduced by approximately 31 percent. This alternative, therefore, assumes approximately 908,730 square feet of office uses, 1,311 residential units, 20,700 square feet of ground floor retail space, 13,800 square feet of community/civic uses , and 6.6 acres of park land. This alternative would have a total FAR of approximately 1.10.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The 31% Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the project’s significant , unavoidable operational ROG impact to a less than significant level with no mitigation measures required. All other impacts would be similar as described for the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative above, though construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions, and health risks would be lesser than disclosed for the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative because this alternative assumes less development on-site.

Relationship to Project Objectives
The 31% Reduced Development Alternative would develop residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR consistent with the Character Areas and would therefore meet objective a. The 31% Reduced Development Alternative would provide 31 percent less office square footage and less residential dwelling units than identified in objectives b (1.3 million square feet), and c (1,900 dwelling units), therefore, it would only partially meet these objectives. The 31 % Reduced Development Alternative would develop the appropriate number of residential units prior to the corresponding commercial uses consistent with the Precise Plan and implement a TDM program consistent with the requirements of the Precise Plan, therefore, it would meet objectives d and e. Because this alternative

Middlefield Park Master Plan 245 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
would develop the same mix of uses on-site as the proposed project (under either option), it would support light rail transit and meet objective f. The 31% Reduced Development Alternative would implement sustainable building practices consistent with the Precise Plan, thus it would meet objective g. Because this alternative would include development of residential units on-site, it would be required to dedicate land to the City for development of future parks at a similar rate as the proposed project (under either option). Therefore, the 31% Reduced Development Alternative would dedicate 6.6 acres of parkland and meet objective h (which calls for up to seven acres of parkland). Additionally, because this alternative would develop the same mix of uses on-site as the proposed project (under either option), it could include community benefits such as those identified in objective i, although to a lesser extent than the project.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
This alternative would have the same alignment with the Precise Plan principles as the Mitigated 19% Alternative but would result in an even greater reduction in housing units in relation to guiding principle 7 and the Jobs -Housing Linkage Program as outlined above for the Mitigated 19% Alternative. For this a lternative, the project applicant would be minimally required to construct 672 residential units (1,228 units or 65 percent fewer than the proposed project). Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

It should be noted that the City is currently preparing its required Housing Ele ment update and is allocating and projecting the future development of residential units on the project site.

Conclusion
As discussed above, the 31% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable construction (with mitigation required) and lessen the project’s mitigable construction criteria pollutant emissions and significant and unavoidable health risk impacts with the incorporation of the same mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option) . All other impacts disclosed would be the same or similar as the proposed project. In regards to the project objectives, the Mitigated 31% Reduced Development Alternative would:
• Meet objectives a, d, e, f, g, h, and i
• Partially meet objectives b and c

In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would be:
• Alignment with principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but alignment with principle 7 would create a significant reduction in residential units.
• Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

9.2.2.5 Rescheduled Construction Alternative
The project would result in significant , unavoidable construction health risk impacts at the approved 400 Logue Avenue residential project due to the location of Phase II construction activities (under either option) adjacent to these future receptors. The purpose of this alternative is to avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable health risk impact. According to the Initial Study of Environmental Significance prepared for the approved 400 Logue Residential project, it would be constructed and operational in 2025. Rescheduling Phase II construction activities to occur first would ensure pollutants

Middlefield Park Master Plan 246 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
associated with health risks from the project (under either option) are emitted before the approved 400 Logue Residential project is occupied, reducing the project’s health risk impacts on residents at 400 Logue Avenue. Under this altern ative, Phase II construction would begin in November 2022 and extend until approximately October 2026, with the heavy construction activities (demolition, site preparation, grading, excavation, and trenching) being completed by approximately July 2024.

Comparison of Environmental Impacts
The Rescheduled Construction Alternative would likely reduce the project’s significant, unavoidable health risk impacts to a less than significant level with implementation of the same mitigation measures as identified for the proposed project because the project’s largest health risks would occur prior to occupation of the 400 Logue Avenue project. All other impacts would be the same as the proposed project with all identified mitigation measures and conditions of approval because this alternative would include the same development on the same site.

Relationship to Project Objectives
The Rescheduled Construction Alternative would meet all of the project objectives to the same extent as the project (under either option), except objective d as the residential units would not be delivered prior to the office development. Implementing the Rescheduled Construction Alternative, per the Precise Plan, would result in constructing office buildings that cannot be occupied until the residential units have been constructed per Precise Plan requirements for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program.

Consistency with Precise Plan Principles
This alternative aligns with the Precise Plan principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as it promotes a new mixed-use neighborhood with residential, commercial, retail, and open space uses in greater intensities near transit. In the alternative’s aligning with guiding principle 7, it would impact the development since the Precise Plan requires new office built under the Job-Housing Linkage program to obtain occupancy only once the associated residential development obtains occupancy . This would result in the office buildings remaining vacant for multiple years, which is not a typical development or business practice. Additionally, the applicant has indicated advancing the office development in the project first would be logistically and physically challenging as the Phase II development sites are used for construction staging of Phase I development, which is immediately adjacent; there are no alternative sites immediately adjacent to Phase I to locate construction staging. Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

Conclusion
The Rescheduled Construction Alternative would avoid the project’s significant , unavoidable health risk impacts. All other impacts would be the same as the proposed project. The alternative would meet all of the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project, except for objective d. This would result in a period of time when office buildings on the site would remain vacant while residential units are constructed, based on Precise Plan requirements. This alternative would align with Precise Plan principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, but aligning with principles 7 would create a challenging pattern of development with vacant office buildings. Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 247 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

9.2.2.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. Based on the discussion of project alternatives, the environmentally superior alternative to the project is the No Project, No New Development Alternative because it would avoid all of the project’s significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (e )(2) states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Therefore, in addition to the No Project alternatives, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative, 31% Reduced Development Alternative, and Rescheduled Construction Alternative would be environmentally superior alternative s because they would each avoid one of the project’s significant , unavoidable impacts (operational ROG emissions and/or health risks primarily from construction operations ). Of these three alternatives, the 31% Reduced Development is the most environmentally superior because it avoi ds one of the project’s significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and would have the least amount of development (which would result in less energy use, noise generation, and utility demand) compared to the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative and Rescheduled Construction Alternative.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 248 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 9.2-2: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives Impacts
Proposed Project
(under either
option)
Alternatives
No Project, No
New Development
No Project,
Redevelopment
Mitigated 19%
Reduced
Development
31% Reduced
Development
Rescheduled
Construction
Aesthetics LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Agricultural and Forestry
Resources NI NI NI NI NI NI
Air Quality
• Operational
Criteria Air
Pollutant
Emissions

SU NI LTS LTSMM LTS SU
• Health Risk SU NI SU SU SU LTSMM
• Odor LTS/LTSMM* NI LTS/LTSMM* LTS/LTSMM* LTS/LTSMM* LTS/LTSMM* Biological Resources LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Cultural Resources LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Energy LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Geology and Soils LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials LTSMM NI LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM
Hydrology and Water
Quality LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS

Middlefield Park Master Plan 249 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 9.2-2: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives Impacts
Proposed Project
(under either
option)
Alternatives
No Project, No
New Development
No Project,
Redevelopment
Mitigated 19%
Reduced
Development
31% Reduced
Development
Rescheduled
Construction
Land Use LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Mineral Resources NI NI NI NI NI NI
Noise LTSMM NI LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM
Population and Housing LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Public Services LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Recreation LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Transportation LTS NI LTSMM** LTS LTS LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources LTS NI LTS LTS LTS LTS
Utilities and Service
Systems LTSMM NI LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM LTSMM
Wildfire NI NI NI NI NI NI
Meets Project’s
Objectives?
Objective a
Objective b
Objective c
Objective d
Objective e
Objective f

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
No

Partially
No
Partially
N/A
Yes
Partially

Yes
Partially
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Middlefield Park Master Plan 250 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 9.2-2: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives Impacts
Proposed Project
(under either
option)
Alternatives
No Project, No
New Development
No Project,
Redevelopment
Mitigated 19%
Reduced
Development
31% Reduced
Development
Rescheduled
Construction
Objective g
Objective h
Objective i
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Notes: Bolded text indicates impacts that would be less than the proposed project. *The project without District Utilities System Option would have less than significant odor impacts, the project with District Utilities System Option would have less than significant odor impacts with incorporation of mitigation measures. ** Assumes mitigation may be required to reduce VMT impacts from No Project Redevelopment Alternative.

NI = No Impact, LTS = Less than Significant Impact, LTSMM = Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 251 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 10.0 REFERENCES
The analysis in this E IR 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.” http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/. Accessed September 24, 2021.

---. “Resilience Program.” Accessed September 24, 2021. Available at:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4a6f3f1259df42eab29b35dfcd08 6fc8

Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal communications. January 1, 2019.

Azevedo, Becky. Waste Management Technical Manager. Personal communications. December 27, 2021.

BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-clima te/air-
quality-plans/current-plans.

---. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. Page 2- 1. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-researc h/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-
pdf.pdf?la=en

---. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Accessed April 2019.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-re
search/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-
justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en.

California Air Resources Bo ard. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

---. “Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health.” Accessed August 19, 2021. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health.

---. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

---. “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics (2018-2020), Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php

California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification:

Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco Monterey Bay Area: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas: South San Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. Map. 1987.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 252 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed September 8, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

---. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed September 8, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/

---. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed August 24, 2021. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx.

---. “Williamson Act.” Accessed September 8, 2021. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed August 24, 2021. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

California Department of Housing and Comm unity Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 24, 2021. http://hcd.ca.gov/community - development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist.

California Department of Water Resources. Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin.

February 2004. and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016.

California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of Southern California. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning – Mountain View Quadrangle. 2009.

California Energy Commission (CEC). “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-effi ciency-
standards/2019-building-energy-efficiency.

---. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 30, 2021. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed September 8, 2021. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020 California Gas Report. Accessed August 30, 2021.

California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/regulatorymaps/

California Office of Historic Preservation. “CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3) and California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6.” Accessed August 31, 2020. http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/technical%20assistance%20bulletin%206%202011 %20update.pdf.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 253 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.

California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. California Register of Historical Resources.

Accessed November 12, 2021. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238

City of Mountain View. “Environmental Projection.” Accessed November 18, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp

---.2020 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2021.
https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobID=35844

---.400 Logue Avenue Residential Project Consistency Checklist. May 2021.

---.City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR . SCH #2011012069. September 2012.

---. Code of Ordinances. Section 32.25 Heritage tree preservation. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://library.municode.c
om/ca/mountain_view/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_ CH32TRSHPL_ARTIIPRURFO_S32.25HETRPR

---. East Whisman Precise Plan. Adopted November 5, 2019. Amended October 13, 2020. Page 38.

---.East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environment al Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020.

---. Mountain View Green Building Code . 2019. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_green _building_and_reach_codes.asp

City of Mountain View. Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0. February 2021. P

47. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33964

---. Municipal Code Chapter 32 Article II. May 24, 2021.

---. Municipal Code Chapter 8, Article VI, Section 8.70. October 26, 2021.

---. Register of Historic Resources. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.livablemv.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/MV-Local-Historic-Registry-List.pdf

Cornerstone Earth Group. Chemical Use Summary Middlefield Park Master Plan District Systems Mountain View, California. August 27, 2021.

County of Santa Clara. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Moffett Federal Airfield. December 19, 2018.

Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation .

Map. 2019.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 254 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Re: Middlefield Park Master Plan Project -Specific Agency Submittal for: Google Planned Horizontal Work. October 1, 2021.

EMG. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 420 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043.

September 23, 2015.

ENGEO. East Whisman Phase 1. Geotechnical Report for Horizontal Improvements at R1 and R2.

January29, 2021. Revised February 8, 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0045H. Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA. April 13, 2022.

HortScience Bartlett Consulting. Revised Preliminary Arborist Report. E. Whisman, Mountain View, CA.

January 26, 2022.

Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 405 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California.

April 18, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 433 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California. October 3, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 440 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California. February 3, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 485 & 495 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California. May 17, 2013.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 440 Logue Avenue, Mountain View, California. June 9, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 441 Logue Avenue, Mountain View California. February 3, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 800, 830, and 840- 850 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. October 22, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 880 Maude Avenue and 420 Clyde Avenue. April 18, 2016.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 885 -889 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. July 3, 2014.

---. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 891 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. May 19, 2014.

IVI Assessment Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountain View Gateway 401 Ellis Street and 500 E. Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California. May 16, 2013.

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. April 19, 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 255 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Lee, Alana. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Person Communication. November 24, 2021.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). Map. July 2020. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-development-areas- plan-bay-area-
2050/explore?location=38.618077%2C-121.005390%2C6.90

National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm

Ninyo & Moore. Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation. East Whisman: 440 Clyde Avenue. April 3, 2020. Page 10.

Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, Mountain View Technology Park, Mountain View, California. November 19, 2007.

Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ 140/pdf/PLAW-
110publ140.pdf.

Public Resources Code Section 21009. Accessed September 3, 2021. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public- resources-code/prc-sect-21099.html.

Santa Clara County, Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan:

Moffett Federal Airfield. Accessed November 16, 2021.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf

Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016.

San Joaquin Valley Air Protection Control District. Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014.

San José, City of . Downtown West Mix ed-Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2019080493). October 2020. P. 3.1-120.

Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Park Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 18, 2022.

Schlumberger. 2020 Annual Progress Report – Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Fairchild and Regional Groundwater Remediation Programs, Mountain View, California. April 15, 2021. Accessed October 11, 2021. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100023585.pdf

Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.

---.“Your Choices – SVCE.” Accessed October 25, 2021.
https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/#GreenStart

Middlefield Park Master Plan 256 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno. 2014.

---. “Super- Compliant Architectural Coatings.” Accessed December 20, 2021. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-comp liance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super- compliant-coatings

Talon LPE. “Using mud rotary drilling for your next environmental drilling project.” Accessed October 7, 2021. https://www.talonlpe.com/blog/why-choo
se-mud-rotary-drilling-for-your-environmental-
drilling-project

United States Green Building Council. “How LEED Works.” https://www.usgbc.org/leed Accessed March 23, 2022.

U.S. E
nvironmental Protection Agency. Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area, Mountain View and Moffett Field, California. August 16, 2010.

---. Statement of Work Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Address the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area. 2011.

United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed October 14, 2021. 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 August 19, 2021. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.

United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2019.” Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Report on the Environment, Indoor Air Quality, What are the trends in indoor air quality and their effects on human health?” Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality

---. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act.

---.“Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund- cercla-overview.

---. “The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” January 2021.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf

---. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Ozone Disinfection. September 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ozon.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 257 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. Map.

November 2019.

Valley Water. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2016.

Valley Water. Annual Groundwater Report 2019. July 2020. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/2020-
09/2019_Annual_Groundwater_Report_Web_Version.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 258 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 11.0 LEAD AGENCY AND CONSULTANTS

11.1 LEAD AGENCY
City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager/ Community Development Director Stephanie Williams, Planning Manager
Lindsay Hagan, Deputy Zoning Administrator
John Schwarz, Contract Environmental Planner

11.2 CONSULTANTS
David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants and Planners
Kristy Weis, Principal Project Manager
Carolyn Neer, Project Manager
Maria Kisyova, Associate Project Manager
Ryan Osako, Graphic Artist

Cornerstone Earth Group
Geotechnical Consultants
Kurt Soenen, Principal Engineer
Stason Foster, Senior Project Engineer

Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc.

Geoboring Study
John McLaughlin, President

EMG
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Jennifer Upchurch, Senior Environmental Consultant

ENGEO
Geotechnical Analysis
Uri Eliahu, Principal Advisor
Bofei Xu, Project Manager
Anne Robertson
Brooks Ramsdell
Pedro Espinosa

ESA
Historic Resources Survey Report

Middlefield Park Master Plan 259 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Multi Modal Transportation Analysis
Gary Black, AICP, Pr esident
Kai-Ling Kuo, Senior Associate
Jocelyn Lee, EIT, Engineer

HortScience Bartlett Consulting
Arborists and Urban Forestry Consultants
Maryellen Bell, Certified Arborist
Pam Nagle, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester

Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Air Quality Analysis
James Reyff, Principal
William Popenuck, Consultant
Casey Divine, Consultant

Iris Environmental
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Robert Balas, Principal
Karen Smith, Manager
Daniela Hamann-Nazaroff, Scientist

IVI Assessment Services, Inc.

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Tony Lau, Vice President
Michael Kennedy, Environmental Professional

Ninyo & Moore
Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants
Ransom Hennefer, Senior Project Engineer
David Seymour, Principal Engineering Geologist
Sam Guha, Principal Engineer
Terence Wang, Principal Engineer

Schaaf & Wheeler
Utilities Impact Analysis
Leif Coponen, Vice President
Brett Crews, Assistant Engineer

PaleoWest, LLC.

Historic Resources Consultant
Alex Bethke, Director Federal Programs

Middlefield Park Master Plan 260 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 12.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ACM Asbestos-containing materials
AFY Acre feet per year
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Airport Land Use Commission
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
bgs Below Ground Surface
BMP Best Management Practice
2017 CAP 2017 Clean Air Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Improvement Projects
CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan
CNEL Community Equivalent Noise Level
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB Decibel
dBA A-weighted Decibel
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESL Environmental Screening Level
EWPP East Whisman Precise Plan
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

Middlefield Park Master Plan 261 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
GHG Greenhouse Gas
General Plan City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan
Gpd Gallon per day
Gpm Gallons per minute
GPUUIS 2030 General Plan Update Utility Impact Study
Leq Noise Equivalent Level
LID Low Impact Development
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG Million gallons
MGD Million Gallons per Day
mpg Miles per Gallon
MPMP Middlefield Park Master Plan
MRP
Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
NAHC California Native American Heritage Commission
NOD Notice of Determination
NOI Notice of Intent
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
PGE Pacific Gas & Electric
Precise Plan EIR East Whisman Precise Plan EIR
PM Particulate Matter
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
RWQCP Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant
SB Senate Bill
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SR State Route
SVCE Silicon Valley Clean Energy
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC Toxic Air Contaminants

Middlefield Park Master Plan 262 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
TOD Transit Oriented Development
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
Valley Water Santa Clara Valley Water District
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VTA Valley Transportation Authority

Middlefield Park Master Plan
Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
SCH No.: 2021100026
August 2022
Prepared by
In Consultation with

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project i FINAL SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Section 2.0 Draft SEIR Public Review Summary ............................................................................. 2 Section 3.0 Draft SEIR Recipients .................................................................................................... 3 Section 4.0 Responses to Draft SEIR Comments .............................................................................. 4 Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions ........................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Draft SEIR Comment Letters

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 1 FINAL SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document, together with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft S EIR), constitutes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project.

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL SEIR
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines, this Final SEIR provides objective information regarding the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The Final SEIR also examines mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. The Final SEIR is intended to be used by the City and any Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the project.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090(a), prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that:

1. The Final SEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

2. The Final SEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the F inal SEIR prior to approving the project; and

3. The Final SEIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.

1.2 CONTENTS OF THE FINAL SEIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specify that the Final SEIR shall consist of:

1. The Draft SEIR or a revision of the Draft;

2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft SEIR either verbatim or in summary;

3. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft SEIR;

4. The Lead A gency’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and

5. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code Section 21092.5[a] and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088[b]), the City shall provide a written response to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying the SEIR. The Final SEIR and all documents referenced in the Final SEIR are available for public review at the Community Development Department, City Hall offices at 500 Castro Street, 1 st Floor, on weekdays during normal
business hours and the Mountain View Public Library at 585 Franklin Street during normal business hours. The Final S EIR is also available for review online at the City’s website www.mountainview.gov/CEQA and on the State Clearinghouse website www.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 2 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
SECTION 2.0 DRAFT SEIR PUBLIC REVIEW SUMMARY
The Draft S EIR for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project, dated April 2022, was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period from April 25, 2022 through June 9, 2022. The City undertook the following actions to inform the public of the availability of the Draft SEIR:

• A Notice of Availability of Draft S EIR was published on the City’s website at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA and in the Daily Post newspaper on April 25, 2022. • Notification of the availability of the Draft S EIR was mailed to property owners and tenants within a 750 foot radius of the project boundary and other members of the public who had indicated interest in the project;
• Email notification of the availability of the Draft SEIR was sent on April 25, 2022, to all subscribed recipients on the City’s project website at
www.mountainview.gov/googlemiddlefieldpark.
• Notification of the availability of the Draft SEIR was sent on May 4, 2022 to all subscribed recipients on the City Hall Connection e-newsletter.
• The Draft SEIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse on April 25, 2022 (posted on April 26, 2022), as well as sent to various governmental agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals (see Section 3.0 for a list of agencies, organizations, businesses, and individuals that received the Draft SEIR); and
• Copies of the Draft S EIR were made available on the City’s web site at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 3 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
SECTION 3.0 DRAFT SEIR RECIPIENTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15086 requires that a local lead agency consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR prepared for a project of this type from responsible agencies (government agencies that must approve or permit some aspect of the project), trustee agencies for resources affected by the project, adjacent cities and counties, and transportation planning agencies.

The NOA for the Draft SEIR was sent to owners and occupants within 750 foot of the project site and to adjacent jurisdictions. The following agencies and organizations received a copy of the Draft SEIR from the City or via the State Clearinghouse:

• Bay Area Air Quality Management District
• California Air Resources Board
• California Department of Conservation
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• California Department of Housing and Community Development • California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery • California Department of Transportation, District 4
• California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics • California Department of Transportation, Division of Transportation Planning • California Department of Water Resources
• California Energy Commission
• California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
• California Highway Patrol
• California Native American Heritage Commission
• California Natural Resources Agency
• California Public Utilities Commission
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region • California State Lands Commission
• Carpenters Local Union 405
• Department of Toxic Substances Control
• Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco Office • Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District
• Mountain View Whisman School District
• Office of Historic Preservation
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission • San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water • State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality • Valley Transportation Authority

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 4 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
SECTION 4.0 RESPONSES TO DRAFT SEIR COMMENTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, this document includes written responses to comments received by the City of Mountain View on the Draft SEIR.

Comments are organized under headings containing the source of the letter and its date. The specific comments from each of the letters and /or emails are presented with each response to that specific comment directly following. Copies of the letters and ema ils received by the City of Mountain View are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this document. All comments received on the Draft SEIR are listed below and will be considered by the City Council prior to making a decision on the project.

A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft S EIR for public review, but before certification. Information can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data. However, new information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement.

None of the comments raised on the Draft SEIR represent new significant information that would warrant recirculation of the Draft SEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

Comment Letter and Commenter Page of Response

A. California Public Utilities Commission (dated June 13, 2022) .......................................... 5 B. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated June 8, 2022) ..................................................... 7 C. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated June 9, 2022) ................................. 13 D. Mountain View Whisman School District (dated June 9, 2022) ...................................... 24

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 5 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
A. California Public Utilities Commission (dated June 13, 2022)

COMMENT A.1: The California Public Utilities Commission's (Commission) Rail Crossing Engineering Branch (RCEB) is taking this opportunity to address the City of Mountain View (City) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan. RCEB staff offers the following comments:

Commission Requirements and Policy
The Commission has jurisdiction over the safety of highway -rail crossings (crossings) in California.

The Commission has exclusive power over the design, alteration, and closure of crossings, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1201 et al. Based on Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule

3.9, an application to the Commission is required to construct a railroad across a public road. The Diridon Station Area Plan is subject to several other rules and regulations involving the Commission.

The proposed project's design criteria must comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Commission General Orders (GO's). The following GO's, among others, may be applicable:

• GO 26-D (regulations governing clearances on railroads and street railroads with reference to side and overhead structures, parallel tracks, and the crossing of public roads, highways, and streets)
• GO 72-B (rules governing the construction and maintenance of crossings at grade of railroads with public streets, roads, and highways)
• GO 75 -D (r egulations governing standards for warning devices for at -grade highway-rail crossings)
• GO 88-B (rules for altering public highway-rail crossings) • GO 95 (rules for overhead electric line construction) • GO 118 (regulations governing the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of walkways adjacent to railroad trackage and the control of vegetation adjacent thereto).

Response A.1: The project evaluated in the Draft S EIR is the proposed Middlefield Park Master Plan, which is not located in the Diridon Station Area Plan in San José as referenced in the above comment. As noted on page 33 of the Draft S EIR, the project would require approval of permits (potential GO-88B process) from California Public Utilities Commission for the midblock crossing of Middlefield Road at the Middlefield Light Rail Station, and safety upgrades. The City and applicant will coordinate with CPUC to obtain all necessary permits and comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and Commission Ge neral Orders, as noted and applicable. This comment does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT A.2: Specific Project Comments
RCEB recommends that the City add language to the Addendum so that any future development adjacent to or near the light rail right-of-way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes on streets and intersections and at at -grade

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 6 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares with no at-grade rail crossings as that configuration provides the most extensive safety considerations to the public, improvements to existing at -grade crossings due to increase in traffic volumes, and continuous vandal-resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW.

Field Diagnostic meetings are required at all impacted or potentially new crossings. The Field Diagnostic Team consists of staff and representatives from the City, the CPUC, VTA, or Caltrans, and other stakeholders. This review includes a detailed analysis of the crossing. During the field diagnostic review, the Field Diagnostic Team evaluates appropriate hazard elimination recommendations and determines whether the project's development is feasible.

Response A.2: The development of the Master Plan would increase traffic volumes on streets and intersections in the project vicinity, including those near at-grade crossings of the light rail tracks. An analysis of the project’s effects on pedestrian access and circulation systems in the project vicinity is included on pages 94 through 96 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR. A discussion of existing and proposed ADA facilities within the project vicinity is included on page 96 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR. As noted on this page of Appendix H, most corners in the project vicinity meet current ADA curb ramp designs. Text has been added to clarify that the project (under either option) would include installation of ADA -compliant ramps at the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue and Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersections (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). Refer to Response C.11 for a discussion of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design considerations.

The City will take into consideration the measures suggested in the above comment when applications for zoning permits are made at which time specific building and site design details will be available. Additionally, the City will require the design of future development comply with all relevant safety standards including those in the City’s Streets Design Standards and Guidelines, VTA’s LRT Design Criteria Manual, VTA’s LRT Standard Detail Manual, and California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Some development and/or improvements may require permits from CPUC and/or VTA whom can further confirm compliance with these standards.

The project includes dedication of land for a future bicycle and pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the light rail line. No other new crossings of the light rail tracks are proposed. Future development in the Master Plan, such as, but not limited to, roadway improvements at the light rail crossing on Middlefield Road and safety upgrades around the light rail station would be subject to the Commission General Orders and, when those improvements are detailed, field diagnostic meeting (s) can be held to determine complete design requirements. The City and applicant will continue to engage CPUC and appropriate stakeholders during the permitting process for new development adjacent to the light rail. This comment does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 7 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
COMMENT A.3: The Commission is the responsible agency under CEQA section 15381 regarding this project. As such, we appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to work with the City to improve public safety regarding crossings in Mountain View. We request that RCEB be informed of all developments associated with the Middlefield Park Master Plan. Meetings should be arranged with the Commission's RCEB staff to discuss relevant safety issues and conduct diagnostic reviews of any proposed and impacted crossing locations within the proposed Park Master Plan.

Response A.3: As noted in Response A.1 above, the project would require approval of permits (potential GO-88B process) from California Public Utilities Commission for midblock crossing of Middlefield Road at Middlefield Light Rail Station, and safety upgrades (refer to page 33 of the Draft SEIR). The City and applicant will coordinate with CPUC and obtain all necessary permits. This comment does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

B. Santa Clara Valley Water District (dated June 8, 2022)

COMMENT B.1: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Supplemental Environmental Import Report (SEIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan (MPMP), received on April 2, 2022. Valley Water has the following comments:

The East Whisman Precise Plan EIR concluded that proposed development could result in water supply shortfalls of 18% in a single dry year and 20% in multiple dry years. Given this impact to water supply, Valley Water appreciates the City requiring new development to be dual plumbed and the project’s commitment to the use of recycled water. In addition to the use of recycled water, the City should require the project to install individual water submeters for each unit to encourage the efficient use of water. Studies have shown that adding submeters can reduce water use 15% - 30%.

Response B.1: This project is subject to the building code, which requires every tenant within a multi-unit development to have their own water submeter. This comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Draft S EIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT B.2: Section 3.2.3.2, Building Heating and Cooling (Page 19): The paragraph on page 19 states that “…approximately 2,820 vertical bores of six inches in diameter, spaced 18 feet apart, would be drilled approximately 85 to 110 feet bgs of each proposed building." Valley Water recommends that this sentence be modified to clarify if there would be 2,820 borings for each building or 2,820 borings for the entire project site. Valley Water is also concerned about the number of borings in an area with significant groundwater contamination. The bottom of each boring should be completed within the regional aquitard to minimize the potential for cross contamination.

Response B.2: Page 19 of the Draft SEIR was revised to clarify that up to 2,820 bores would be drilled across the entire project site (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). Analysis of potential groundwater cross-contamination was completed and summarized on page 141 in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft SEIR. A copy of the technical report is included in Appendix G of the Draft SEIR. The

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 8 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
analysis concluded that the use of the mud rotary drilling technique would prevent migration of groundwater along the vertical bore holes, thereby preventing any cross - contamination. Additionally, the applicant submitted a Project-Specific Agency Submittal (PSAS) with a Site Management Plan (SMP) dated November 9, 2021 to the EPA and RWQCB for preliminary review, which included information on the proposed borings, including the planned procedures for minimizing the potential for migration of shallow zone contamination to deeper groundwater. The EPA raised no concerns regarding the installation approach , and the RWQCB declined review of both documents. This comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT B.3: Section 3.5 (Page 32): The list of permits that may be required includes “Review and permits may be required if wells or soil borings are required (for environmental clean-up, for example) or if abandoned wells or septic tanks are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project” under the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health. Well construction and destruction permits, including soil borings greater than 45 feet in depth, are reviewed and issued by Valley Water. This table should be updated accordingly. Please note that well construction/destruction permits may also be required if it is necessary to destroy or move existing wells due to the project.

Response B.3: The text on page 33 of the Draft S EIR has been revised to clarify that Valley Water is the agency responsible for review and issuance of well construction, relocation, and destruction permits including any soil borings greater than 45 feet in depth (refer to Section 5.0 Draft S EIR Text Revisions). This comment does not raise questions regarding the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT B.4: Section 5.6.1.2 (Page 111) states the project is located within the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin and that the subbasin is 225 square miles in area. The name of the subba sin and size are incorrect. The project is located within the Santa Clara Subbasin (DWR Basin 2-9.02) and it covers a surface area of 297 square miles.

Response B.4: The text on pages 111 and 150 of the Draft SEIR has been revised with the basin name and size identified in the above comment (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions ). This text revision does not change the analysis , adequacy, or the findings of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.5: Section 5.6.1.2 (Page 111) states, soil borings were performed at select properties within the site and ranged between six and 16 feet below ground surface. Valley Water recommends clarifying and expanding this sentence to more clearly state the depths of the borings and note if groundwater was encountered. The following revision is suggested, “Soil borings, completed at depths ranging from 6 to 16 feet below ground surface, were performed at select properties within the site.”

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 9 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Response B.5: The text on pa ge 111 of the Draft SEIR has been revised for clarity (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). The text revision does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the findings of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.6: Impact GEO-3 (Page 114): This section states that 57,600 to 115,200 gallons of shallow groundwater will be pumped each day during construction dewatering. These are large volumes of shallow groundwater that will be pumped. Valley Water recommends that dewatering be minimized to the greatest extent possible during construction. Valley Water also recommends that potential impacts to contaminant plumes, nearby creeks, and shallow groundwater be evaluated.

Relevant best management practices from the City of Mountain View or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board should also be considered, including reusing the water produced during construction dewatering for dust control, landscape irrigation, or other appropriate uses if possible.

Response B.6: As noted on pages 113 and 114 of the Draft S EIR, the project would be required (through COA GEO-1.1) to implement project-specific recommendations from a design level geotechnical investigation including measures such as shoring walls and waterproofing to minimize the amount of dewatering required during construction and prevent substantial impacts to aquifers and existing wells.

Additionally, as discussed on page 22 of the Draft SEIR, project construction (including dewatering activities) would occur over four phases spanning approximately eight years and would not occur at one time.

The impacts to existing contaminated plumes are disclosed on pages 137 through 140 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, as well as summarized on page 153 in Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft SEIR. Potentially polluted dewatered groundwater would be dealt with as part of the Site Management Plan (SMP) required by Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1. The SMP, along with any other required materials, will be reviewed by the EPA or the RWQCB via subsequent s ubmittals of PSAS’s by the applicant to the oversight agency. With the implementation of Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1, as well as EPA-required Record of Decision (ROD) measures, impacts associated with the contaminated plumes would be reduced to less than significant with proper management and remediation.

An analysis of impacts to nearby surface water bodies including creeks is described in Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality under Impact HYD -1 (pages 151 through 152 of the Draft SEIR) and Impact HYD-3 (pages 154 through 155 of the Draft SEIR).

In these impact discussions, there are no waterways on-site that will directly be impacted by the project and the project would comply with existing regulations (including the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] General Construction Permit, Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit [MRP], and Precise Plan design guidelines and standards pertaining to green infrastructure and stormwater management), implement construction best management practices that protect stormwater quality, and prepare and implement a Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan and Stormwater Management Plan to reduce stormwater runoff (which flows to Stevens Creek) water quality impacts to a less than significant level.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 10 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
In addition, a s required by COA A Q-1.1 on pages 42 and 43 of the Draft S EIR, the project would implement BAAQMD recommended best management practices to control fugitive dust and erosion during construction (as described in COA AQ -1.1), which would also reduce runoff water quality impacts . The text of COA AQ -1.1 on pages 42 and 43 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to allow for the reuse of dewatering effluent for dust suppression purposes, when appropriate (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions).

The project’s i mpacts to groundwater, including shallow groundwater, is discussed under Impact HYD-2 on pages 152 through 153 of the Draft SEIR. The project would result in an increase in pervious surfaces on- site compared to existing conditions, therefore, allowing more rainfall to percolate into the ground (instead of flowing to the storm drain system). The project would implement COA GEO-1.1 described on pages 113 through 114 of the Draft SEIR (and mentioned earlier in this response) to minimize the volume of groundwater removed during project construction. Refer to Response B.2 regarding the prevention of cross -contamination of aquifers. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.7: HAZ-2 (Page 137): HAZ-2 states that soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies shall be conducted as warranted based on the findings of the property-specific Phase I ESAs.

Furthermore, it states, a Site Management Plan (SMP) will be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or other materials during construction activities, which will be submitted to appropriate regulatory agency(s).

Valley Water would like to be copied on all reports related to soil and groundwater quality.

Response B.7: As noted on page 131 of the Draft S EIR, a Phase II Subsurface Investigation was completed for the project site by Elevate Environmental Consulting in February 2021. The Phase II Subsurface Investigation included soil, soil vapor, and groundwater testing. A summary of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater testing results is included on pages 132 and 133 of the Draft S EIR and in Appendix G to the Draft SEIR. Furthermore, as noted in Response B.2 above, an SMP has already been prepared in accordance with Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1. Should any additional soil or groundwater quality reports be completed for the project, the applicant shall provide these reports to Valley Water and the City. The City will a lso maintain copies of the reports, which Valley Water can request to review during normal business hours. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.8: Section 5.9.1.1 (Page 147) and Section 5.9.1.2 (Page 150): This section includes a subsection on Valley Water’s 2016 Groundwater Management Plan. The subsection should be updated to reference Valley Water’s updated 2021 Groundwater Management Plan which was adopted by the Board of Directors on November 21, 2021. The updated plan can be found at https://s 3.us-west-

2.amazonaws.com/assets.valleywater.org/2021_GWMP_web_version.pdf. It should be noted that the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has renewed the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit on May 11, 2022 (Order No. R2-2022-0018, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008).

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 11 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Response B.8: CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 defines the baseline as the conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published. The Board of Directors of Valley Water adopted the 2021 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) on November 21, 2021, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) renewed the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) on May 11, 2022, subsequent to the release of the NOP for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project on October 1, 2021. Nevertheless, text has been added to pages 147 and 148 of the Draft SEIR to acknowledge the recent adoption of the 2021 GWMP and renewed MRP .

However, the renewed MRP does not materially change the analysis or impacts associated with the project as identified in the Draft SEIR. This text revision does not change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.9: Section 5.9.1.1 (Page 147): Under the Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Well Ordinance section, the text should be revised as follows: “Valley Water operates as the flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and i s the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program.”

Response B.9: The text on page 147 of the Draft SEIR has been revised per the above comment. The text revision does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the findings of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.10: Section 5.9.1.1 (Page 147): Well construction and deconstruction permits, including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ord inance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required to obtain encroachment permits.

Response B.10:

In the event that project would involve work on land owned by or land subject to an easemen t of Valley Water, the project applicant will coordinate with Valley Water to obtain an encroachment permit. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.11: Section 5.9.1.2 (Page 150). This section states, “The 225 square mile Santa Clara groundwater basin provides municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply to the area.

Valley Water recommends that this sentence be re-written as follows: “The 297 square mile Santa Clara Subbasin provides municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply to the area.”

Response B.11: This comment is addressed in Response B.4 above. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT B.12: Section 5.9.1.2 (Page 150): Under the Flooding section, the definition of Flood Zone X should be re -written as follows to reflect the FEMA definition: “Flood Zone X is defined as an area of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 12 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood.”

Response B.12: The Draft S EIR summarizes the flood conditions at the project site.

The text on page 150 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to define Flood Zone X verbatim per the FEMA flood map. This text revision does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the findings of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 13 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

C. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (dated June 9, 2022)

COMMENT C.1: VTA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan (MPMP) project, as well as the Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) report provided as Appendix H to the DSEIR. VTA has reviewed the documents and has the following comments:

Land Use
VTA supports the proposed land use intensification and mix of land uses that the Middlefield Park Master Plan project would bring to the East Whisman Precise Plan Area, close to the Middlefield Light Rail Station. This project represents a prime opportunity to implement shared City -VTA goals to intensify land use near transit and improve sustainable travel options. VTA encourages the City and applicant to explore opportunities to increase the density of the proposed uses in the Master Plan area beyond the current proposal over time, given the long duration of the project buildout.

Response C.1: This comment suggests support for additional densification on the site but does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT C.2: Safety and Hazards
As VTA noted in our comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this environmental document, the 2019 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist, Section XVII, calls for an analysis of potential hazards and safety issues. VTA has reviewed the safety analysis contained in the DSEIR and the MTA and we have the following comments:

Middlefield Light Rail Grade Crossing and Proposed Midblock Crossing B As noted in our NOP comment letter, it is critical to determine the extent of queueing from nearby signalized intersections and if these queues will conflict with the light rail crossing at Middlefield Road. This is particularly important given the midblock pedestrian crossing of Middlefield Road (“midblock crossing B”) proposed next to the light rail crossing, and the additional motor vehicle trips the project will generate. Under California law and other regulatory requirements, traffic signal pre - emption is a requirement when a traffic signal is within 200 feet of a railroad crossing, to minimize the possibility of any vehicles being on the trackway when a train approaches a crossing. Although the Logue Avenue intersection (228 feet away) and Ellis Street intersection (445 feet away) are more than 200 feet away from the crossing, the large size of this development may increase the queuing from these signalized intersections and possibly lead to hazards at the Middlefield Road light rail crossing.

Regarding queuing on the eastbound left turn approach to the Middlefield / Logue intersection, t he MTA report states that “The project would increase the 95th percentile queue to 225 feet during the PM peak hour, which would extend past the storage lane by one vehicle… The extended queue is not expected to create any conflicts with the VTA rail safety operations as there are gate arms at the rail to prevent vehicles from approaching the crossing. However, to minimize the possibility of the eastbound vehicle queue extending to the LRT tracks, a signal should be installed for the midblock crossing B at the LRT tracks with preemptive signals that are interconnected and coordinated with the signal at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road. A separate queuing analysis should be conducted to confirm

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 14 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
traffic signal coordination/operations” (MTA pp. 55-56). These recommendations are reiterated in the MTA section that discusses proposed midblock crossing B (MTA p. 60).

However, the DSEIR Transportation section makes no mention of the addition of a signal at midblock crossing B or the addition of signal preemption, interconnection and coordination. This omission is of concern given the chance of conflicts between vehicles and light rail operations at this crossing. To address safety impacts at the Middlefield Road light rail crossing, a mitigation measure should be added requiring the project to provide the necessary signal at the new mid-block crossing, and modifications to the Middlefield / Logue intersection to provide pre -emption, interconnection and coordination.

Response C.2: The text on page 207 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to mirror the language in the MTA as noted in the comment above. The project will be required to implement the midblock crossing improvements recommended in the MTA, including the signalization at the Middlefield Road rail crossing. Additionally, as noted on page 33 of the D raft SEIR, the project would be required to obtain permits and submit applications pursuant to General Orders from VTA/CPUC on these i mprovements.

These improvements would be reviewed pursuant to those General Order applications and any additional traffic, vehicle queuing, safety, and signal pre-emption requirements would be evaluated at the time of those General Order applications. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.3: Any modification to the Middlefield light rail crossing including the addition of a new parallel midblock crossing shall comply with CA MUTCD Section 8 guidance and with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 75 and 88 requirements. The potential mid-block crossing would require a thorough safety analysis and potential addition of new gates, channelization, and warning devices for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Additional gate arms and push gates may be needed to prevent “wrong way” entrance from the sidewalk and bike lanes when the crossing protections are activated.

Response C.3: The project shall comply with all applicable regulations, including the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Orders referenced in the above comment, for the proposed midblock crossing on Middlefield Road near the Middlefield Light Rail Station. Also, refer to Responses A.1 and C.2 for additional responses regarding compliance with the above referenced regulations and Response A.2 pertaining to safe design and safety standards. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.4: VTA Bus Duck-out on Middlefield Road West of Light Rail Crossing As noted in the DSEIR (p. 207) and MTA (pp. 60 -64), the City and VTA have had discussions about potential changes to the current duck-out bus stop on Middlefield Road west of the light rail crossing, due to the MPMP project. VTA has provided preliminary feedback on early proposals. As noted in the MTA report, modifications to this bus stop could have safety implications for pedestrians, bicyclists, or vehicles depending on the distance of the stop from the light rail crossing and proposed midblock

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 15 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
crossing B, whether buses stop in-lane or in a duck-out, whether a bus boarding island is provided, and whether a raised protected bicycle lane or buffered in-street bike lane is provided. To address safety impacts of modifying the VTA bus duck-out, a mitigation me asure should be added requiring the project to provide necessary safety measures determined via coordination between the City, VTA and CPUC and through the CPUC GO 88-B process. In addition, VTA requests that the City coordinate with VTA regarding potential relocation of the bus stop on eastbound Middlefield Road east of Ellis Street to ensure safe operations with changes to the westbound duck-out and proposed midblock crossing B.

Response C.4: As stated on page 207 of the Draft S EIR, the preferred design of the bus stop on eastbound Middlefield Road (east of Ellis Street) along the project frontage has not been selected by VTA, CPUC, or the City and would require permits and approval from all three parties. The City and applicant will continue to coordinate with VTA (as well as the CPUC) regarding future modifications to the bus stop to ensure safe operations with changes to the westbound duck-out and proposed midblock crossing B. No mitigation is included or required as no CEQA impact has been identified. Also refer to Responses A.1, A.2 and C.2 that pertain to project compliance with the CPUC General Orders and safety standards. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.5: Bus Stop Safety Considerations
VTA Local Route 21 and the MVGo shuttle operate through the MPMP project area, and their routes and stop locations may be impacted by construction. Any route detours, stop closures or temporary stop relocations should be coordinated with VTA, and bus stop locations just before driveways or intersections should be avoided due to hazards from vehicles driving around a stopped bus and making a right hook turn.

The eastbound VTA Route 21 bus stop on Maude Avenue before Clyde Avenue has no paved boarding area and no sidewalk or crosswalk access. While the DSEIR and MTA state that the project would include pedestrian improvements such as “construction of wider sidewalks with landscaping along project frontages” (DSEIR p. 206), the documents do not address providing safe pedestrian access to this bus stop, which appears to be just beyond a parcel in the MPMP project area. VTA recommends that the City require the applicant to provide an accessible bus stop boarding area, sidewalk connection to the Maude / Clyde intersection, and crosswalk on the western leg of this intersection.

Response C.5: If project construction would temporarily affect VTA Local bus route 21 or MVGo shuttle operations or stop locations, the applicant shall coordinate with VTA. As part of subsequent site and building design review in the Master Plan, conflicts with driveways and bus stop locations will be reviewed by the City to ensure safe design.

The City cannot require the applicant to install a sidewalk or upgrade the eastbound VTA 21 bus stop on a property outside of the Master Plan area . However, with any permits for redevelopment or major improvement s, the City can require the property owner of the parcel in front of where the stop is located to install a new sidewalk and comply with VTA bus stop requirements in place at that time. Additionally, as new

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 16 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
development occurs in the area, City staff can coordinate with VTA on whether the bus stop should be relocated and subsequently upgraded. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.6: Safety at Bus Stops with Boarding Islands
The MTA states that “The project would implement Class IV protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road and Class II buffered bike lanes on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue along the project frontages” (MTA p. 97). The Master Plan document states that “Subject to approval by the City of Mountain View and the VTA, the VTA bus stops on westbound Middlefield Road (just west of the VTA tracks) and westbound Maude Avenue (just west of Clyde Avenue) may be designed with floating passenger loading islands to eliminate conflicts between buses and bicyclists, following best practices for bike safety” (Master Plan p. 111). VTA supports improvements to bicycle accommodations at these locations, and notes that design of boarding islands needs to consider access and circulation for patrons with disabilities along with bus ramp deployment, and potential impacts to following traffic (i.e., waiting vehicles behind a stopped bus encroaching on the opposing lane to go around). Railings may be needed to separate bus patrons from the bike lanes. Please refer to VTA’s Design Guidance for Bike Lanes and Cycle Tracks at Bus Stops and latest Transit Passenger Facilities Standards for in-lane stopping and cycle track configurations at bus stops. In addition, VTA requests that the City provide more information and coordinate with VTA regarding how bus stops will be treated at all locations planned for Class IV protected or Class II buffered bike lanes, including other stops on Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue.

Response C.6: Figures 15 through 17 on pages 61 through 64 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR show possible design configurations for bus stop treatments and Class IV protected bike lanes along Middlefield Road. Design-level details of bus stops and Class IV and Class II bike lanes are not available at this time. When more design-level details are available, t he City and applicant will continue to coordinate with VTA during design development of the bike lane and bus stops to ensure compliance with VTA’s Design Guidance for Bike Lanes and Cycle Tracks at Bus Stops and Transit Passenger Facilities Standards where feasible. Design details for any bus stop enhancement on Maude Avenue are not available at this time, and the applicant will coordinate with VTA once design-level details are available for development in that area of the Master Plan. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.7: Safety Near Middlefield Light Rail Station and Along Light Rail Right-of-Way It is likely that the pedestrian crossings of the tracks at the north end of the Middlefield station platform will need to have additional safety features (such as automatic swing gates and warning devices) added due to the increased volume of pedestrians generated by the development. Similar to the proposed mid- block crossing at the south end of the station, any modifications to grade crossings would require authorization through the CPUC General Order 88-B process, which VTA would be closely involved in.

Response C.7: The project shall comply with all applicable regulations, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 88-B process

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 17 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
referenced in the above comment, for the proposed midblock crossing on Middlefield Road near the Middlefield Light Rail Station. Refer to Response s A.2 and C.2 pertaining to safe design and safety standards. The comment does not raise any issues with the adequacy of the Draft SEIR; therefore, no further response is required.

COMMENT C.8: Currently the light rail Right-of-Way (ROW) has fencing protecting the ROW from unauthorized intrusion. Given the land use intensification and the linear open space proposed along the corridor, the development design should include clear and direct pedestrian paths and wayfinding to the station platform to prevent trespassing on the trackway. Whenever possible, pedestrian travel between the two sides of the trackway must be channeled towards the authorized crossings. The fencing along the western side of the light rail ROW should be raised if ball courts or other recreational uses are included in the linear park. Location of playgrounds and dog parks should be placed suffi ciently away from the station entrance to prevent unattended children or pets from wandering onto the track zone. If trees are to be located outside the light rail ROW fencing, the City and applicant should consult with VTA to select species that are manageable for debris removal, to prevent overgrowth, and to ensure that their mature canopy does not come within 10 feet of the Overhead Contact System (OCS).

Response C.8: The project applicant will take into consideration the safety of the VTA light rail track bed, traction power, and railroad signal operations when planning and constructing any utility improvements near the VTA light rail tracks and performing any nearby excavation. As mentioned in the above comment, and identified on page 33 of the Draft SEIR, permits are required from VTA for any work within the VTA right- of-way or in proximity to the light rail station , where verification of the measures identified can be confirmed by VTA. Refer to Response A.2 pertaining to safety design and standards applicable to the project.

In addition, as mentioned in the above comment and on page 23 of the Draft SEIR, the project would include dedication of land for future development of a grade -separated bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing of the VTA light rail tracks. When this future overcrossing is proposed and designed, it would require review and approval from VTA and CPUC for encroachment over the light rail tracks. Separately, the Master Plan includes an optional private district utility system, which would require review and approval from VTA for encroachment of utilities under the VTA light rail lines .

Additionally, VTA is required to inspect bus stop modifications at any VTA bus stop within the project boundary, including on Middlefield Road, and requires applicable permits for the proximity of construction activity to the light rail station, including safety upgrades such as those identified in the comment above. These future approvals and permits are identified on page 33 of the Draft S EIR. As required as part of the City’s Conditions of Approval, prior to building permit issuance, the project applicant shall demonstrate that approval has been obtained from VTA, which includes incorporating design recommendations during the permit process to ensure safety near the light rail tracks and station. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 18 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
COMMENT C.9: A pathway should be included for emergency vehicles and maintenance personnel along the light rail ROW, and authorized gate access to the trackway and other VTA equipment must be preserved. If there is parking alongside the fence line, bollards or other solid barriers need to be installed to prevent vehicles from impacting the fence into the trackway. The DSEIR notes that the proposed modifications to the bus duck-out west of the light rail crossing would include “a driveway with bollards to restrict access to emergency vehicles” (DSEIR p. 207). These bollards should be placed far enough to allow multiple emergency units to wait for the bollards to be unlocked and moved, and still be clear of the track zone, and preferably also clear of the bike lane and the bus stop. A turn around location should be included to prevent the need for emergency vehicles to reverse into traffic and onto the track zone.

Response C.9: As described on page 23 in Section 3.2.7 Site Access, Circulation, Transit, and Parking of the Draft S EIR, vehicle (including emergency vehicle) access to the project site would be provided to the site from Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, Clyde Avenue . In addition, emergency vehicles can access the site via all service streets and via an emergency vehicle access path, doubling as a multi-use path, on the west side of the light rail tracks north of Middlefield Road.

The emergency access road west of the light rail tracks is a 26-foot-wide driveable surface.
1 Non-emergency vehicle traffic would be prohibited within this emergency access road adjacent to the light rail tracks and no parking is proposed or would be allowed along the light rail fence line. Consistent with City fire requirements for emergency vehicle access, bollards o r a similar alternative solid barrier would be installed at the entrance to prevent non-emergency vehicle access to the emergency access road. The bollards (or alternative barrier) would be designed to allow emergency vehicles to unlock and remove them in the event of an emergency and would be placed in a location clear of the track zone, bike lane, and bus stop. The emergency vehicle access is proposed to include th rough-access to prevent the need for emergency vehicles to reverse into traffic and onto the track zone. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.10: Northbound US101 Off-Ramp / Ellis Street Intersection The MTA report indicates that the MPMP project “would add 92 and 137 trips to the US 101 southbound off-ramp during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, and 79 and 52 trips to the US 101 northbound off-ramp during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively… The project trips would contribute to the ramp operational/queueing issues identified in the EWPP EIR” (MTA p. 56). The Northbound US 101 Off- Ramp / Ellis Street intersection has an existing issue with the proximity of the crossing gates and stop bar limit line on the off-ramp approach. When the gates come down at this location, occasionally a vehicle on the off-ramp approach travels beyond the stop bar limit and gets hit by the closing gate. An increase in traffic due to the MPMP project would exacerbate this hazard. A reconfiguration of the striping and/or adjustment to the far-side clear out signal programmed visibility is needed at this location. VTA recommends that a mitigation measure be added to the DSEIR for the project to provide a fair share contribution to improvements to the striping and/or equipment at this

1 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 2019. P. 152.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 19 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
location. In addition, it is VTA’s understanding that other improvements to the US 101/Ellis Street interchange area are being considered by the City and Google; VTA recommends that the City work with the applicant to provide a fair share contribution to any feasible improvements.

Response C.10: The City’s recently adopted Nexus Fee Study (adopted by City Council on May 24, 2022) includes installation of new buffered bike lanes and undercrossing improvements to the Northbound US 101 Off-Ramp/Ellis Street intersection. VTA and the City can coordinate to determine if the suggested reconfiguration of the striping and adjustment to the far-side clear out signal could be completed with these improvements (which are currently anticipated to start construction in 2024-25). All projects within East Whisman Precise Plan, including the proposed project, are required to pay their proportional fair-share nexus fee that would fund improvements included in the Nexus Fee Study. This comment does not provide new information that would change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions disclosed in the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.11: Other Safety and Hazards Considerations
The MPMP project development should take into account the following other considerations regarding safety and hazards:
• Any utilities that are being proposed under the VTA light rail trackway and any nearby excavation need to consider the safety of the track bed, traction power and railroad signals and provide protection from improper shoring, localized flooding, and stray electrical currents. As noted in DSEIR Section 3.5, encroachment of utilities below the VTA trackway will require VTA review and approval, and permits for construction activity in proximity to the rail right- of-way.
• The design of the future pedestrian -bicycle overcrossing must preserve emergency and maintenance access to the light rail crossover switches, be high enough to clear the OCS, and prevent objects from being thrown down the trackway.
• Appropriate accommodations for shared and personal bike and micro mobility devices should be located in convenient locations to prevent parking/abandonment of these conveyances inside the light rail station, bus stops or anywhere that can impede the track zone, bike lanes, pedestrian access or EVA lane.
• The design of the MPMP project should utilize Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles to make the area defensible and give users a sense of safety and security.

Response C.11: As noted on page 15 of the Draft SEIR, the proposed project includes dedication of land for future construction of a pedestrian-bicycle overcrossing of the light rail tracks . When this future overcrossing is proposed, the City will coordinate with VTA during design development of the bike -ped overcrossing to ensure compliance with requirements. Other design recommendations, to ensure safety within and adjacent to the light rail tracks, will be considered and incorporated into the proposed project, as feasible. Furthermore, during the design review process of each zoning permit under the proposed project, the City will consider designated locations for shared and personal bike and micro mobility devices and incorporation of Crime

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 20 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Prevention Through Environmental Design principles. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or findings of the Draft S EIR; therefore, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

COMMENT C.12: Bicycle Accommodations
The DSEIR and MTA both state that the project will implement a Class IV bikeway on Middlefield Road. However, these documents differ from the Master Plan, which identifies more roads as receiving Class IV bikeways. The Master Plan says Class IV bikeways will be built on “both sides of Maude Avenue west of SR 237” (p. 99) and “The Middlefield Park Project further proposes the implementation of Class IV separated bikeways along select segments of Middlefield Road, Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues” (p. 100). VTA requests that the DSEIR and MTA be revised to clarify which roadway segments will have Class IV bikeways implemented by the project.

Response C.12:

Figure 7.5.1 on page 99 of Appendix A to the Draft SEIR has been revised for correctness. The description of the proposed Class IV bikeways is correct as described in the Draft SEIR and MTA an d the current (August 2022) Master Plan matches. Refer to Section 5.0 Draft S EIR Text revisions for a revised figure showing the location of these proposed improvements.

COMMENT C.13: The DSEIR, MTA and Master Plan summarize the quantity of office building short-term bicycle parking provided by the MPMP project by referencing the standard in the East Whisman Precise Plan, which is based on square footage of office space. VTA recommends that the City and the applicant also reference VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines r ecommendations (a minimum of 4 short -term spaces per office building entrance, and a goal of 10 spaces per building entrance), and consider increasing the amount of short-term bicycle parking provided.

Response C.13:

As noted on pages 25 and 211 of the Draft SEIR (as well as on page 91 and 93 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR), the project, at minimum, would provide bicycle parking in accordance with the City’s adopted East Whisman Precise Plan bicycle parking requirements. A comparison of the East Whisman Precise Plan bicycle parking requirements and the recommendations in the VTA’s bicycle technical guidelines shows areas of similarity and overlap between the bicycle parking ratios .

For example, the two guidelines share the same requirements for long-term bicycle parking for multi -family residential developments, while the East Whisman Precise Plan requirements are greater for short -term spaces for multi -family residential and retail sales/shopping center/financial institutions/supermarkets developments than VTA’s guidelines . VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines for short -term office bike parking will be considered by the applicant and City at zoning permit review, when details on office building designs are available . This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 21 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
COMMENT C.14: Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
VTA recognizes that the DSEIR finds that the MPMP project is consistent with the City’s June 2020 VMT policy and its impacts would be less than significant in the area of VMT. However, VTA notes that the project will still generate a considerable amount of VMT and motor vehicle trips, so implementation of a robust TDM program will be important to address Greenhouse Gas reduction goals as well as to minimize impacts on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) system, including roadways, transit services, bike routes and pedestrian facilities.

VTA commends the applicant for proposing a robust TDM Plan for the MPMP project (documented in Appendix J to the MTA report) which builds on the TDM requirements established by the City in the East Whisman Precise Plan. VTA particularly supports the inclusion of strong TDM monitoring and data-sharing requirements, as this will be important as residential development is introduced to the East Whisman area, to demonstrate the effects of balancing jobs and housing in close proximity to each other. The DSEIR st ates that Residential TDM Monitoring “shall include parking counts to measure the peak parking demand and resulting parking rate” (DSEIR p. 27); VTA recommends that Residential TDM Monitoring should also include other measures such as surveys of residents, and collection of empirical data by third parties.

Response C.14:

As noted on page 519 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR and on page 93 of the East Whisman Precise Plan, the residential portion of the project (under either option) would be required to complete annual TDM monitoring conducted by a third- party including parking counts. The residential TDM monitoring, therefore, includes collection of empirical data by a third-party, as suggested by the above comment. No survey of residents is currently required as part of the East Whisman Precise Plan TDM monitoring requirements. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.15: Congestion Management Program (CMP) System Effects and Offsetting Improvements
While VTA fully supports the City’s use of VMT as the primary as metric for CEQA Transportation analysis in conformance with SB 743, and accompanying efforts to reduce VMT through land use mix and TDM requirements, as VTA noted in our comment letter on the NOP for this proje ct, the City is still required to analyze the project’s impacts on the CMP system using the adopted VTA Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. While the MTA report does include analysis covering most topic areas in VTA’s TIA Guidelines, the MTA does not identify specific improvements or contributions that would be required of the MPMP project in a number of areas with adverse effects.

Response C.15: The comment pertains to vehicle level of service which is not an impact on the environment under CEQA. Nonetheless, a n analysis of the project’s effects on study intersections, including those within VTA’s Congestion Management Program is included on pages 31 through 66 of Appendix H to the Draft S EIR and summary of improvements identified and the project’s contribution to those improvements is included on page 109 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 22 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
The analysis confirmed that the project (which is consistent with the East Whisman Precise Plan) would contribute to and result in the same intersection level of service deficiencies identified and disclosed in the certified 2020 East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final EIR (Precise Plan EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2017082051). No new level of service deficiencies would result from the proposed project.

As noted on pages v and 2 of the Draft SEIR, the project tiers from the certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR. The project would contribute to the LOS deficiencies identified in the Precise Plan EIR to the intersections (CMP and non- CMP) identified in Table 30 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR. The percentage of the project’s contributions to these deficiencies were calculated based on the proportion of trips generated by the project to the total E ast Whisman Precise Plan trips as shown in Table 30 of Appendix H to the Draft SEIR.

The environmental impacts of the identified improvements were previously evaluated in the certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR. As discussed in Response C.10 above, this SEIR tiers off the EWPP EIR, and the project would implement a large portion of the adopted EWPP. The project would be required to pay its proportional fair-share nexus fee that would fund improvements located within the City limits and included in the City’s recently adopted Nexus Fee Study (adopted by City Council on May 24, 2 022). The other intersections are not located within the City of Mountain View jurisdiction and therefore, improvements at these intersections would not be funded by the project. The text of the Draft SEIR on page 210 has been revised to include a discussion of the project’s payment of this nexus fee (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions).

This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT C.16: The East Whisman Precise Plan EIR disclosed that the buildout of the Precise Plan area would lead to adverse effects (at the time considered significant and unavoidable CEQA impacts) to numerous freeway segments near the plan area, as well as some CMP and local intersections. As noted in the ‘Project Contributions to the EWPP’ section of the MTA report (pp. 108- 109), the MPMP project will contribute a considerable percentage of the overall trips expected from the buildout of the East Whisman Precise Plan. T herefore, VTA recommends that the project should provide voluntary, fair share contributions to nearby projects on the regional/CMP transportation system, as discussed in Attachment B to the East Whisman Precise Plan FEIR. Contributions could be directed to:
• Modifications to the SR 237/Maude/Middlefield ramps (which would include pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements at the ramp intersections)
• Improvements along SR 237 between US 101 and Mathilda Avenue which would help relieve a bottleneck affecting the Express Lanes segments east of Mathilda • Ellis Street Shared Use path - future shared-use path planned on the west side of the Ellis Street at the US 101 undercrossing (a project led by the City of Mountain View) • Bernardo Undercrossing of Caltrain and Central Expressway - joint effort by Sunnyvale, Mountain View, VTA, and Caltrain; this undercrossing will provide a vital future bike/ped

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 23 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
connection between the MPMP project and neighborhoods south of Central Expressway/Caltrain tracks

Response C.16: The certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR disclosed that the buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the proposed project) would result in level of service deficiencies that conflicted with level of service policies, however these policy conflicts were not identified in the Precise Plan EIR as CEQA impacts pursuant to SB 743.

Appendix B to the East Whisman Precise Plan FEIR (Draft East Whisman Precise Plan) identified a new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of SR 237 between Middlefield and Central Avenue, and enhancement and widening of existing pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing of Highway 101 at the intersection of Ellis Street as planned transportation improvements to support growth in the Precise Plan area. Improvements along SR 237 between Highway 101 and Mathilda Avenue, and development of an undercrossing of Caltrain and Central Expressway at Bernardo Avenue, as noted in the comment letter , were not included in the East Whisman Precise Plan as planned transportation improvements. The Bernardo Avenue undercrossing identified in the last bullet in the above comment, however, is a joint project with the City, City of Sunnyvale, VTA and Santa Clara County Roads and Airports with multi-source funding reserved for the project.

The City recently adopted a Nexus Fee Study which presents a maximum allowable fee for all land uses to fund part of the costs of East Whisman Potable Water, Local Transportation, Sewer, and Recycled Water Improvements and requires the project (and other future development in the Precise Plan area) to pay a proportional fair-share contribution to identified roadway improvements. The undercrossing of SR 237 and enhancement and widening of the existing Highway 101 undercrossing are not included in the Nexus Fee Study. The City cannot require the project pay fees due to its contribution to level of service deficiencies because level of service is no longer an impact under CEQA. Additionally, some of the listed projects do not have identified improvements and/or associated cost estimates for the improvements with a fair-share contribution structure identified. Therefore, the project does not propose to pay voluntary contributions to these improvements. As discussed in Response C.16 above, the project would contribute to and result in the same level of service deficiencies that were identified in the certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR. The project would not result in any additional traffic above what was already accounted for in the Precise Plan EIR.

This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 24 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
D. Mountain View Whisman School District (dated June 9, 2022)

COMMENT D.1: The Mountain View Whisman School District (“District”) hereby submits its comments on the City of Mountain View’s (“City”) Draft Supplemental EIR (“Draft EIR”) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan (“Project”). The District’s comments concern the need to provide assurances that funding for new schools to serve the area will be in place and the unstudied impacts of the project on the District’s schools will be an alyzed. As a result, the Draft EIR needs revision and recirculation to disclose the significant new information to the public and allow comment on the new information.

Although this letter is technical in nature due to the subject matter, the District wishes to emphasize that its comments are meant to help the City fully evaluate and mitigate the potential impacts to the schools – not to be critical or confrontational. Instead, the District desires to continue cooperating and collaborating with the City to ensure the continued high quality of life in the City and education in its schools.

Draft EIR Comments
Although the Project will generate almost 6 00 new students to the District’s schools, the Draft SEIR fails to analyze any impacts on the District’s schools except to say that the Developer Fees will mitigate any impacts. Since school facilities are a critical part of any residential development and are a critical part of this development, impacts on the District’s schools should have been considered, and need to be considered, throughout the Draft SEIR impact categories.

Response D.1: The project’s impact to school s was previously disclosed in the certified 2020 East Whisman Precise Plan Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2017082051) (Precise Plan EIR). The Precise Plan EIR concluded that the elementary school students generated by the buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes development of the proposed project) would exceed the capacity of the local elementary schools and the payment of school impact fees would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h).

The discussion on page 185 of the Draft SEIR estimated that the project would generate 247 elementary, 153 middle, and 190 high school students for a total of 590 students.

The number of students estimated to be generated by the project is consistent with the estimated number of students projected in the Precise Plan EIR. The project is required to pay school impact fees, which constitutes full and complete mitigation, pursuant to Government Code Section 65995(h).

No new or expanded school facilities are proposed; therefore, it is speculative to analyze the enviro nmental impacts of additional school facilities. CEQA prohibits speculative analyses. A general discussion of potential impacts from construction of additional school facilities has been included on page 187 of the Draft S EIR (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). Based on previous analyses for new or expanded public school facilities on developed South Bay Area locations, typical measures are required to reduce potential effects to a less than significant level. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 25 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
COMMENT D.2: I. Air Quality
The Air Quality analysis fails to analyze potential air quality impacts on the District’s Jose Vargas Elementary School (“Jose Vargas”), which is only 0.38 miles from the Project site. The air quality analysis acknowledges that ROG emissions would exceed BAAQMD thresholds due to construction emissions. Thus, since Jose Vargas is in very close proximity to the project site and students will be walking, biking, and traveling to and from Jose Vargas, the ROG emissions’ impacts on Jose Vargas and its students need to be analyzed and presented in a revised, recirculated draft EIR.

Response D.2: An analysis of the project’s air quality impacts is included on pages 41 through 70 of the Draft SEIR (as well as detailed in Appendix C to the Draft SEIR). A discussion of the health effects associated with the project’s significant ROG emissions is included on pages 49 through 53 of the Draft S EIR and concludes that the project would not cause a measurable increase in health effects associated with the project’s ROG emissions.

Furthermore, the community health risk from project construction and operation emissions is discussed on pages 56 through 58 of the Draft S EIR. The analysis found that the health risks would be significant at the maximally exposed individual (MEI ) (i.e., future residences located at 400 Logue Avenue within approximately 50 to 100 feet of the project site) and less than significant at all other sensitive receptors located further aw ay (including receptors at Jose Vargas Elementary School located approximately 2,000 feet from the project site ) with the implementation of standard conditions of approval and mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1. The Jose Vargas School is well beyond the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s ( BAAQMD) 1,000- foot area of influence where potential impacts would be highest. In addition, students traveling to and from the school would either be outdoors or in automobiles when in route, and therefore, would not be exposed to significant construction-related air emissions for these short periods of time. This assessment was based on the BAAQMD 2017 Air Quality Guidelines, which are the latest guidance for assessing construction health risk impacts and operational ROG impacts. While new GHG emissions thresholds were adopted by BAAQMD on April 20, 2022 (after the NOP was released for this SEIR), those changes did not affect the 2017 criteria pollutant and health risk guidelines and thresholds.

This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT D.3: II. Public Services
The Draft EIR states that the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities and that there is sufficient capacity at the schools to accommodate Project -generated students. (Draft EIR, p. 187) However, the Project would generate 247 elementary school students, 153 middle school students, and 190 high school students, an additional nearly 600 students to the District’s schools.

Table 5.14-1 presents enrollment and capacity data for the District’s Jose Vargas and Edith Landels Elementary (“Landels”) Schools, Graham Middle School, and Mountain View High School

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 26 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
(“Receiving Schools”). The analysis assumes that half of the new elementary school students would attend Jose Vargas and the other half would attend Landels. The District has its own process for determining which students attend which schools, and it is incorrect to assume that the students would be evenly split between Jose Vargas and Landels. Landels can only accommodate an addition 62 students without being over capacity, which means the other 185 students must attend Jose Vargas.

The addition of 185 students would put Jose Vargas very near capacity. Similarly, Mountain View High School is already over capacity, and the Project will increase capacity at the high school by an additional 190 students. Thus, the Project actually exacerbates the impacts to the District’s school facilities. The District is not equipped to house these excess students, and additional analysis is needed to analyze housing options for these students.

Accordingly, this section of the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated in a new draft EIR.

Response D.3: Table 5.14-1 and page 185 of the Draft SEIR has been revised to reflect the distribution of elementary school students per the above comment (refer to Section

5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). As shown in the revised Table 5.14-1 and noted in the above comment, based on current school capacity, current student enrollment, and the assumption th at the project would be constructed and fully occupied immediately, Edith Landels Elementary School would be at capacity, Vargas Elementary School would be near capacity, and Mountain View High School would be above capacity with implementation of the proj ect. However, the project would not be fully constructed or occupied immediately. The project would be constructed over a period of at least 8.5 years with residential buildings being constructed in Phases I and III (as noted on page 22 of the Draft SEIR). It is expected that student enrollment will fluctuate during the timeframe the project is built -out and that the estimated student generation from the project would not be realized immediately.

Refer to Response D.1 regarding how the project’s impact to school is the same impact that was disclosed in the certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR. Pursuant to state law (California Government Code Section 65996 (h), as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR and the Draft SEIR for this project, payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation for developments’ impact on schools. As stated on page 182 of the Draft SEIR, per state law, the school district is responsible for implementing specific methods for mitigating school impacts . The City has no authority under state law to require additional contributions for this impact. As mentioned in Response D.1, a general discussion of potential impacts from construction of additional school facilities has been included on page 187 of the Draft SEIR (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions).

As noted at the beginning of Section 4.0 of this document (on page 5), recirculation of an EIR is required when significant new information is added after public notice of the availability of the Draft SEIR for public review, when there are changes to the EIR in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project. Recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required in this case because there is no change in environmental impacts. These comments do not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 27 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

COMMENT D.4: The Draft EIR also states that payment of Developer Fees will fully and completely mitigate all school impacts and that the Project would contribute to the repayment of local general obligation bonds that would provide financing for capital projects at the schools assigned to the Project.

Even though payment of Developer Fees legally mitiga tes capacity needs at schools, the reality is Developer Fees are sorely lacking to construct new classrooms. Further, payment of Developer Fees does not mitigate the Project’s significant impacts on the District’s schools concerning air quality, noise, pedestrian safety, utilities, and other environmental impact. These must be analyzed and provided for in a recirculated draft EIR.

Response D.4: Refer to Response D.3 above. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65996(h), payment of school impact fees constitutes full and complete mitigation of a project’s effect on school facilities under CEQA.

It is unclear what the commenter is referring to as “the Project’s significant impacts on the District’s schools concerning air quality, noise, pedestrian safety, utilities, and other environmental impact.” Section 4.1 Air Quality in t he Draft S EIR includes a n air quality analysis that describes emissions generated by the project during construction and operation as well as the health effects associated with these emissions (refer to pages 36 through 69 of the Draft SEIR). A discussion of the project’s noise impacts is included in Section 5.12 Noise on pages 165 through 178 of the Draft S EIR. A discussion of the project’s transportation impacts are discussed in Section 5.16 Transportation on pages 195 through 212 of the Draft SEIR, with a detailed analysis of the project’s effects on pedestrian and bicycle safety included on pages 96 through 101 of Appendix H to the Draft S EIR. The project’s impacts to utilities are discussed in Section 5.18 Utilities and Service Systems on page 216 through 226 of the Draft SEIR.

This comment does not provide substantial evidence that the project would result in a significant air quality, noise, pedestrian safety, or utility impact on schools not already disclosed in the Draft SEIR. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT D.5: The City’s General Plan Policy POS 5.2 states the City will collaborate with the District on new school development and intensification to accommodate population growth while preserving and protecting public parks and playgrounds; POS 5.3 states that the City will ensure school facilities are constructed to serve community needs to the extent allowed by state law; and POS 5.4 states that the City will collaborate with local school districts on their facility needs and provide information on development and growth trends. Because the District’s schools are at or near capacity, and the project will increase capacity, in line with the above policies, the City should consult with the District to ensure that school facilities that need to be expanded as a result of the Project are adequately funded to meet these General Plan policies.

Response D.5: The City coordinates with local school districts on opportunities to support needs for facilities, open space, and programs, and has developed opportunities for assistanc e consistent with the General Plan policies noted in the comment.

However, state law limits the extent by which a city can provide direct assistance to a

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 28 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
school district, as the school district is the entity responsible for implementing specific methods for mitigating school impacts. The City will continue discussions with the MVWSD on any opportunities to further support and assist. Refer also to Responses D.1 and D.3 above for additional responses pertaining to project impacts on school facilities. This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT D.6: III. Recreation
Although the Recreation section discusses various General Plan policies to avoid significant i mpacts due to recreation impacts and discusses the City’s recreational facilities, it omitted a discussion and analysis of the Project’s impacts on the District’s recreational facilities. Per the General Plan, the District owns about two -thirds of the City’s park acreage, 85 out of 133 acres to be exact (General Plan, p. 145), and joint use agreements with the City allows use of 12 school park sites for recreational use outside of school hours. Further, Policy POS 5.2 requires the City to collaborate with t he District on new school development and intensification to accommodate population growth while preserving and protecting public parks and playgrounds. Thus, with an increased population to the area, which deteriorates facilities, the Draft EIR needs to include an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on the recreational facilities at Jose Vargas since the site is less than half a mile from the Project site.

Response D.6: Using the City’s park land requirement for new residential development in Chapter 41 of the City Code, the project is required to provide approximately 9.12 acres of parkland. As discussed on pages 188 and 192 through 194 of the Draft SEIR, although the project would increase demand for and use of existing parks and recreational facilities, the project includes 10.15-acres of new park land (2.87 acres of privately owned and publicly accessible open space to be developed by the applicant and 7.28 acres to be dedicated to the City for future parks). Text has been added to the Draft S EIR on pages 188 and 192 to clarify that the project would be subject to the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance. Therefore , it was concluded in the Draft SEIR that the project would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities including open space facilities at Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School, as the project is providing the required amount of open space for new residential development closer to residents than the Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School open space. Given the distance from the site and the limited function of the open space at the Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School, any additional use of the Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School open space by project residents would not be substantial.

Furthermore, this same impact was disclosed in the certified 2020 Precise Plan EIR.

This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT D.7: IV. Transportation
Although CEQA no longer considers vehicle delay as a significant impact, potential educational disruption and safety impacts are still required where increased traffic and congestion causes secondary impacts to students’ education and safety hazards for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other traffic. The District is concerned with the Project’s potentia l addition to, and delay on, bus and automobile drop- off and pick-up activities at the Receiving Schools. The added delay could disrupt the educational

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 29 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
delay and contribute to more frequent absences. Such disruptions would detract from the most effective educational program.

Considering that the Project will generate almost 600 new students into the District, the Draft EIR needs to include analysis of the safety impacts of increased vehicle traffic and student pedestrian traffic to and from the District’s school sites. Specifically, impacts on the Receiving Schools should have been analyzed because these are the schools that would serve the Project site. Thus, the Draft EIR must be revised with an analysis of the Project’s impacts on the vehicle movement to and from the Receiving Schools, impacts on pedestrian traffic to and from the routes and safety of students traveling to and from the school during construction and Project operation. Without the additional analysis, there is no way to confirm whether the Project will have less than significant transportation impacts upon the Receiving Schools’ operations.

The General Plan’s MOB 6.1 and 6.2 policies promote Safe Routes to School programs for all schools serving the City and prioritizes projects to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools. Thus, the Draft EIR needs to include an analysis of the Project’s potential student pedestrian impacts to ensure that the Project does not compromise adequate, accessible sidewalks, bike lanes, and protected crosswalks for the students walking or biking to and from the Project site from Jose Vargas.

Response D.7: As noted in the comment above, vehicle (including bus) delay is not an impact under CEQA. Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, level of service is no longer an impact on the environment under CEQA. The purpose of CE QA is to evaluate the environmental impacts of a project. CEQA doe s not require the evaluation of social effects, such as school attendance. For these reasons, the suggested effects of vehicle delay on educational delay and school absences in the above comment are not evaluated as CEQA impacts in the SEIR.

The environmental impacts associated with the estimated number of vehicle trips generated by the project is accounted for in the Draft SEIR analysis and the estimated project trips include trips to and from area residences and other land uses (including places of work) to pick up and drop off students at school.

As mentioned in Response D.4, a summary of the project’s effects on pedestrian and bicycle safety is included on pages 195 through 212 of the Draft SEIR as revised (refer to Section 5.0 Draft SEIR Text Revisions). Although the project site is located adjacent to Middlefield Light Rail Station and bus stops, pedestrian access to some land uses would require crossing busy arterial streets which may be uncomfortable for some pedestrians. The project would increase pedestrian activity in the area and proposes wider sidewalks along the project frontages, as well as enhanced midblock crossings, and a network of multi -use paths through the site to enhance pedestrian safety within the project area. Similarly, bicycle activity in the area would increase as a result of the project as well. The project proposes new multi-use paths and buffered and protected bike lanes within the project area to provide for safer and more direct connections for bicycles between Ellis Street and Clyde Avenue and between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue. For these reasons, the project would not result in adverse effects on pedestrian or bicycle safety. Also refer to the discussion under Impact TRN-3 on page

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 30 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
209 of the Draft S EIR that explains that the project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use.

This comment does not change the analysis, adequacy, or the conclusions of the Draft SEIR.

COMMENT D.8: V. Conclusion
The District desires that the Project’s potential significant impacts to the students, parents, faculty, and staff of the District’s schools are fully analyzed and mitigated. Given the lack of analyses in the Draft EIR, the District respectfully requests that the Draft EIR be revised to include those analyses and mitigation measures, as set forth herein and recirculated per the requirements of the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act.

Response D.8: Refer to Responses D.1 through D.7 above. None of the comments provide new information, as defined by CEQA, that would change the analysis or conclusions disclosed in the Draft SEIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, recirculation of the Draft SEIR is not required.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 31 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
SECTION 5.0 DRAFT SEIR TEXT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text of the Middlefield Park Master Plan Draft SEIR dated April 25, 2022. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

Page ix The following row has been ADDED after the Impact AQ-4 row:

Impact AQ -C: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a
cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant air quality
impact. (New Impact [Less than
Significant Cumulative Impa ct
with Mitigation Incorporated])
Implementation of the 2017 CAP
Refer to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1

Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants
Refer to MM AQ-1.1

Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Refer to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1 and MM
AQ-1.2

Page ix The following text has been ADDED to the second column of the Impact HAZ-2 row:

Impact HAZ-2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) 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. (Same Impact as
Approved Project. [Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation])
Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1: Both Project Options:

Prior to the start of any redevelopment activity, a property- specific Phase I ESA shall be completed in accordance with ASTM Standard Designation E 1527-13 (or the standard that is effective at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions, evaluate the property history, and establish if the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies shall subsequently be conducted if warranted based on the findings of the property-specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if mitigation measures are needed to protect the health and safety of construction workers, the environment, and area residents.

At properties identified as being impacted or potentially impacted by Recognized Environmental Conditions pertaining to contaminated soils, soil vapor and/or groundwater (based on the professional judgment of the environmental professional and/or determination by the City based on the project-specific Phase I ESA or subsequent studies), a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundw ater, or other materials during construction activities. The SMP shall be prepared by an

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 32 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Environmental Professional and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., EPA, RWQCB and/or County
Department of Environmental Health) for review and approval prior to commencing construction activities. Management of site risks during earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected, shall be described. Worker training requirements and health and safety shall be described. The SMP shall also be submitted to the City of Mountain View Planning Division for review.

The project developer shall also submit to the City agency approval of the SMP or provide documentation of a regulatory agency’s decision declining involvement in the project.

Page 5 ends

Implementation of the proposed project would allow for the demolition of the existing improvements (i.e., approximately 684,645 square feet of office uses, related surface parking areas, and landscaping) and development of:

• Up to 1,317,000 square feet of office uses (resulting in a net increase of 632,355 square feet of office square footage compared to existing conditions), • Up to 1,900 residential units (including up to 380 affordable units), and • Up to 30,00050,000 square feet of ground floor active uses (e.g., retail, community space, civic uses, neighborhood commercial, services, etc.) space, and. • Up to 20,000 square feet of community/civic uses.

Page 6 ends

The project includes the following buildings:

• Five office building locations (see buildings O1 through O5 on Figure 3.2-4) 2 • Two affordable residential building locations (see buildings R4 AFF and R6 AFF on Figure

3.2-4)
• SevenFive residential mixed-use building locations (see buildings R1 – R6R5 on Figure 3.2-4)3 • Two, shared district parking structures (see Figure 3.2-4) • One community/civic building located within Ellis Park

2 Up to two buildings could be constructed on each building location for a total of up to 10 office buildings on-site. 3 Up to two buildings could be constructed on each residential building location, excluding R6 AFF, for a total of up to 11 residential buildings.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 33 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 15 ends

The MPMP project includes a network of privately-owned publicly accessible open space, dedicated public park land, and private open space. Four parks (Ellis P ark, Maude Park, CanopyWalkBridge Open Space, and Gateway Park, totaling up to 10.15 acres) are planned within the project site as described below and shown in Figure 3.2-7.

• Ellis Park would be up to 2.87-acres of POPA open space located adjacent to Buildings R1, R2, O1, and the light rail tracks. It would include a plaza area with outdoor seating, recreational amenities, flexible open area for temporary uses and events, as well as a landscaped multi-use path connecting to a future bicycle/pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the VTA light rail line.

The recreational amenities may include bike parking, exercise equipment, communal/educational garden, sport courts, and a 1,000 square foot community room/restroom building. Ellis Park would be constructed by the project applicant concurrent with Buildings R1, R2, and O1.
• The project applicant would dedicate up to 7.28-acres to the City of Mountain View for the future development of the remaining public parks (Canopy WalkBridge Open Space, Maude Park, and Gateway Park). Design-level details for Canopy WalkBridge Open Space, Maude Park, and Gateway Park are unknown at this time; therefore, this document provides a programmatic analysis of these parks. Subsequent environmental review will be completed if required when the designs of these parks are known and proposed by the City.

The land dedicated to the City for Canopy WalkBridge Open Space is anticipated to include a future bicycle/pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the VTA light rail line. The future overcrossing would provide connection to the Hetch-Hetchy/TOD Trail to the west, through the project site into Sunnyvale via Maude Avenue to the east. Design -level details of the bridge overcrossing are unknown at this time; therefore, this document provides a programmatic analysis of the overcrossing and subsequent environmental review will be required when design-level details are known and proposed by the City.

Page 17 ends

8):

The preferred option for the project is to connect to existing utility lines in Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue for water, fire service water, wastewater, and stormwater service. The project would connect to the existing electrical transmission infrastructure for electrical service. Ground floor retail areas of Buildings R1 and R2 would connect to existing PG&E natural gas lines in Ellis Street. 8 The remaining residential and commercial buildings on- site would be 100 percent electric. Based on the anticipated increase in load demand for the project, PG&E would install 12 kilovolt (kV) underground circuits to the project site via a connection at Ellis Street for distribution to the rest of the MPMP buildings. An existing private nitrogen gas line that runs through the north end of the project site would be relocated during project construction. Additionally, the project would include undergrounding of some existing electrical utility lines within the project boundaries. The City is currently analyzing the feasibility of extending the municipal recycled water system to the Precise Plan area. The feasibility report was not completed during the preparation of this EIR; therefore, recycled water is not included in the municipal utilities option for the project.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 34 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Footnote 8: 8 Per City Code Chapters 8, 14, and 24, an exception to the City’s Reach Code is required to include natural gas for retail uses.

Page 19 ends

follows:

Construction of the geothermal system would include drilling and installation of the vertical geo bores beneath each of the proposed buildings and connection of the distribution system. It is estimated that up approximately 2,820 vertical bores would be drilled on the project site. Each bore would be of six inches in diameter, spaced 18 feet apart, and would be drilled approximately 85 to 110 feet bgs of each proposed building.

Page 20 ends

(including Footnote 12):

The proposed buildings would be all electric – no natural gas would be used,. With the potential exception of Building R1 and R2 where natural gas connections would be provided in the ground floors for commercial/restaurant uses.12

Footnote 12:
12Per City Code Chapters 8, 14, and 24, all new construction buildings are required to be electric. Natural gas may be used for commercial spaces and specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service (e.g., a restaurant with a pizza oven) subject to City approval. .

Page 22 ends

Table 3.2-1: Construction Phasing for Proposed Project & District Systems Option Phase Buildings to be Constructed Estimated
Start Date
Estimated
End Date
I R1, R2, R6 AFF, and the southern half of Ellis Park 11/1/2022 05/01/2025 II O11, O2, and northern half of Ellis Park 11/01/2024 07/13/2029 III R3, R4, R4 AFF2, and R5 01/01/2026 02/01/2030
IV O3, O4, O5, P1, and P2 04/01/2026 04/19/2031
1 If the District Utilities System Option is constructed, the CUP would be constructed with Building O1. The thermal wastewater treatment plant would be delivered to the site pre-manufactured and would be assembled within Building O1.
2 Land parcel R4 AFF may be delivered to the City in Phase I, but construction is assumed to remain in Phase III.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 35 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 23 ends

Circulation, Transit, and Parking heading:

• Installation of ADA -compliant ramps at the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue and Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersections.

Page 25 ends

Table 3.2-2: Precise Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements
Land Use Short-Term Long-Term
Residential 1 space per 10 units 1 space per unit
Office
1 space per 20,000 square feet or
minimum 4 spaces, whichever is
greater
1 space per 2,000 square feet or
minimum 4 spaces, whichever is
greater
Neighborhood Commercial Uses
(Retail/Community/Civic/Active
Uses)
4 per 5,000 square feet or
minimum 2 spaces, whichever is
greater
1 per 5,000 square feet or
minimum 2 spaces, whichever is
greater
Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 2019. P. 90.

Page 28 ends

The project proposes to construct approximately 632,355 square fe et of net new office space, up to 1,900 new residential units, up to 30,000 square feet of new retail space, and up to 20,00050,000 square feet of community/civic space active use space (e.g. retail, community space, neighborhood commercial, civic, etc.), representing 31.6 percent of the two million net new square feet of planned office development, 38 percent of the planned 5,000 residential units, and 50 percent of the planned 100,000 net new square feet of neighborhood commercial space previously identified in the adopted Precise Plan. The project proposes the type and scale of development envisioned in the Precise Plan for the Mixed-Use and Employment Character Areas and would be required to comply with the applicable standards and guidelines in the Precise Plan.

Pages 32 The last and second to last rows of the table on this page has been REVISED as follows:

US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
Review of site contamination related to the Middlefield -Ellis-Whisman Superfund Site or other site contamination oversight, including any required remediation actions or protective measures for new construction.

Review of site contamination related to the Hewlett -Packard and E/M Lubricants TCE groundwater plume.

Santa Clara County
Department of
Environmental Health
(DEH)
Review and permits may be required if wells or soil borings are required (for environmental clean -up, for example) or if abandoned wells or septic tanks are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 36 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 33 ends

REVISED as follows:

Valley Water (SCVWD) Approvals of proposed geobores. Review and approval may be required if wells are required or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project. Review and issue well construction, relocation, and destruction permits, including soil borings greater than 45 feet in depth.

California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC)
Approval of permits (potential GO 88B process) for the midblock crossing of Middlefield Road at Middlefield Light Rail Station, and safety upgrades. Some approvals may be in tandem with VTA app roval. In addition to the compliance with design criteria in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the following regulatory CPUC General Orders (GO) may apply to the project for the midblock crossing of Middlefield Road at Middl efield Light Rail Station, safety upgrades, or crossings of the light rail tracks:
• GO 26 -D – regulations governing clearances on railroads and street railroads with reference to side and overhead structures, parallel tracks, and the crossing of public roads, highways, and streets
• GO 72-B – rules governing the construction and maintenance of crossings at grade of railroads with public streets, roads, and highways
• GO 75-D – regulations governing standards for warning devices for at-grade highway rail crossings.
• GO 88-B – rules for altering public highway-rail crossings • GO 95 – rules for overhead electrical line construction • GO 118 – regulations governing the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of walkways adjacent to railroad trackage and the control of vegetation adjacent thereto.

Some of these approvals may be in tandem with VTA approval.

Pages 42 and 43 The Standard Condition of Approval has been REVISED as follows:

Standard Condition of Approval with project-specific additions and recommendations from BAAQMD:

COA AQ-1.1: Both Project Options: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. There shall be a designated on-site coordinator and monitor to ensure implementation of the below dust control measures. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures which also include addi tional measures identified Additional measures in the project -specific air quality analysis and may be identified by BAAQMDs appropriate, such as:

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 37 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
• When the air quality index forecast exceeds 100 for particulates for the project area and the reading exceeds 100 for particulates by 10:00 a.m. for the project area, prohibit grading activities for that day.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than two times per day in order to maintain adequate soil moisture for dust control.

Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. • Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site or cover them with tarpaulin.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered and loaded material shall not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• 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.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Mountain View and the on-site coordinator/monitor regarding dust complaints. The on-site coordinator/monitor shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries.
• Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent porosity.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 38 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
• Where applicable, vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. Dewatering effluent extracted from the site may be utilized for watering all exposed surfaces, if found to meet VOC and Fuel General Permit NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the Site Management Plan required per Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1 in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
• Excavation, grading, and ground -disturbing construction activities shall be phased in accordance with the phasing plan to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
• Avoid tracking of visible soil material on the public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with 6 to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment of soil prior to leaving the site.
• Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

Page 61 ends

As discussed under Impact AQ-1 above, project (under either option) would result in exposure of sensitive receptors near the project site to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD risk thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM

2.5 concentrations primarily from construction emissions.

Implementation of mitigation measures Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, MM AQ-1.2, and conditions of approval COA AQ-1.1 and COA AQ-1.2 identified under Impact AQ-1 would reduce the health risk but not to a less than significant level, and therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. Project operations would not exceed the thresholds for cancer risk, annual PM

2.5 concentrations, and HI emissions. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Page 65 ends

REVISED as follows:

Impact AQ-C: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) woul d result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant air quality impact. (New Impact [Less than Significant, Unavoidable Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 39 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Pages 68 and 69 The text in rows for AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-C in the table has been REVISED as follows:

AQ-3
Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would expose
sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.

No S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM AQ-

3.1, MM
AQ-1.1,
and MM
AQ-1.2
SU
AQ-4
Project: The project (under either
option) would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
substantial odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people.

Yes LTS None N/A

Project with District Utilities
System Option: The project with
District Utilities System Option
would not result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.

No S
MM AQ-

4.1 and

4.2 LTSMM
AQ-C:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would result
in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to a cumulatively
significant air quality impact.

No S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM AQ-

3.1, MM
AQ-1.1,
and MM
AQ-1.2
SULTS
Abbreviations: S-Significant, LTS – Less than Significant, LTSMM – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated, SU – Significant, Unavoidable Impact

Page 75 ends

Additionally, the project includes design objectives for all building designs within the project area, which are consistent with the Precise Plan design guidelines and standards and the project exterior building, site lighting, and street lighting would be designed in accordance with City’s Building Code, Public Works’ Standard Design Criteria, other City regulations, and Caltrans requirements (if applicable). Furthermore, consistent with City standard procedures, the project would be required to comply with the following standard conditions of approval.

• Both Project Options: Rooftop Deck Lighting. Proposed lighting fixtures on the rooftop decks and courtyards shall not be visible from ground level on adjacent public streets. Any string lighting shall be designed to include shades to avoid light spillover and be screened so they are not visible from off-site. Limited pedestrian- scale/building-mounted lighting along pathways may be permitted subject to review and approval of photometric lighting plan submitted as part of the building permit drawings.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 40 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 111 ends

Groundwater
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin (DWR Basin 2-9.02), a groundwater subbasin that is 225297 square miles in area. The project site is not located within or adjacent to any groundwater recharge facilities used by Valley Water.

Soil borings were performed at depths ranging from 44.5 feet to 102.5 feet at s elect properties within the site and based on subsurface investigations, groundwater on-site and rangesd from between six to 16 feet below ground surface (refer to Appendi x F for more specific details on the subsurface investigations completed).

Page 125 ends

• TDM requirements for commercialnonresidential and residential development;

Page 130 ends

subheading has been REVISED as follows:

The project site has an elevation ranging from 6260 amsl in the southeast corner of the site to 5047 feet amsl in the northwest corner. In addition to height, the Moffett Field CLUP restricts land use and density per acre within turning safety zones.

Page 135 ends

The elevation of the project site ranges from 5047 to 6260 feet amsl and the proposed project would have a maximum height of 16 to 125 feet above grade, therefore, the proposed buildings would be reviewed for consistency with the 182-foot amsl threshold and, depending on the amsl at the building location, may require consultation with the FAA to determine if the project would create an avian hazard.4

Page 145 ends

The project (under either option) proposes buildings ranging from 16 to 125 feet in height on a site with an elevation that ranges from 5047 to 6260 feet amsl.

4 Santa Clara County, Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Moffett Federal Airfield. Accessed November 16, 2021.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 41 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Pages 147, 148 Text under the Regulatory Framework heading has been REVISED as follows:

Subsequent to the publication of the NOP and circulation of the Draft SEIR Ii n May 2022, it is anticipated the RWQCB will consider adopted ion of a renewed MRP. If adopted, any The proposed new development would be subject to the regulations under the renewed MRP.

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. Valley Water operates as the flood protection agency for Santa Clara County. Valley Water also provides stream stewardship and is the wholesale water supplier throughout the county, which includes the groundwater recharge program. 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. including borings 45 feet or deeper, are required under Valley Water’s Well Ordinance 90-1. Under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance, projects within Valley Water property or easements are required obtain encroachment permits.

2016 Groundwater Management Plan
The 2016 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater 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, 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 Valley Water’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the 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 Valley Water’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imported and local surface water and in‐lieu recharge through the provision of treated surface water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.

Subsequent to the publication of the NOP for the project, the Board of Directors of Valley Water adopted the 2021 GWMP which replaces the 2016 GWMP as the compreh ensive groundwater management plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins. The proposed project (under either option) would be subject to the provisions of the 2021 GWMP.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 42 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 150 ends

Groundwater

The Precise Plan area (including the project site) overlies the Santa Clara subbasin. The 225297 square mile Santa Clara groundwater basin provides municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply to the area.

Valley Water’s GWM P prepared a Groundwater Management Plan for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins (recently updated in 2021) in 2016, describesing its comprehensive groundwater management framework including objectives and strategies, programs and activities to support those objectives, and outcome measures to gauge performance. The GWMP Groundwater Management Plan is the guiding document for how Valley Water will ensure groundwater basins within its jurisdiction are managed sustainably. The Santa Clara subbasin has not been identified as a groundwater basin in a state of overdraft.

The project site is underlain by two aquifers located between two and 30 feet bgs and between 55 and 160 feet bgs, respectively.
5 Depth to groundwater on the project site varies between six to 16 feet bgs, as discussed in Section 5.6 Geology and Soils.

Flooding
The project site is located within Flood Zone X, an area with reduced flood risk due to a levee, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area as identified by FEMA FIRM. 6 According to the FEMA FIRM, Fflood Zone X is defined as areas of “0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard. Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile. ” The FEMA FIRM also has an overlay designation on the project site designating it as an “A rea with Reduced Flood Risk due to a levee.” an area determined to be outside the one percent and 0.2 percent annual chance floodplains, indicative of a minimal flood hazard.

Page 155 ends

In conclusion, with implementation of the above Precise Plan measures and condition of approval GEO-1.1, for construction dewatering the project (under eithe r option) would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with implementation of the sustainable groundwater management plan for the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater basin.

5 Schlumberger. 2020 Annual Progress Report – Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Fairchild and Regional Groundwater Remediation Programs, Mountain View, California. April 15, 2021. Accessed October 11, 2021. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/09/100023585.pdf
6 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0045H.

Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 43 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 156 ends

Percolation of precipitation within recharge areas replenishes groundwater and contributes to the recharge of principal aquifers.7 There are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants in the Precise Plan area, and therefore, in the project site.8

Page 160 ends

follows:

The project (under either option) proposes non- residential FARs ranging from 0.39 to 1.0 and residential/mixed-use FARs ranging from 1.12 to 1.66 with maximum building heights of 16 to 123125 feet.

Page 161 ends

The proposed land uses (office, parking, and retail/community/civic space active uses ) andwith densities of 200 people per acre or less are consistent with the CLUP as confirmed with Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development on July 15, 2021.

Page 172 ends

• Construction Practices and Noticing Disturbance Coordinator. The project applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise.

Page 185 ends

has been REVISED as follows:

Table 5.14-3: 2019-2020 School Enrollment and Capacity
School Capacity Enrollment Estimated Number of
Project-Generated Students
Vargas Elementary School1 492 293 123185*
Edith Landels Elementary School1 504 442 12462*
Graham Middle School2 1,294 871 153
Mountain View High School3 1,640 2,183 190

7 California Department of Water Resources. Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin.

February 2004. and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016November 19, 2021.
8 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016November 19, 2021. P 4-4.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 44 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
Notes: * Approximate student generation per elementary school provided by Mountain View Whisman School District comment letter dated June 9, 2022. assuming half of elementary students attend each school. 1 Cunningham, Elona. Jack Schreder & Associates, Inc. Personal Communication. October 19, 2021. 2 Westover, Rebecca. Principal, Graham Middle School. Personal Communication. January 19, 2022. 3 Mathiesen, Mike. Associate Superintendent, MVLASD. Personal Communication. December 9, 2021.

Page 187 ends

The project (under either option) includes up to 1,900 residential u nits, which would generate approximately 4,045 residents.
9 It is estimated the project would generate a total of 247 elementary school students, 153 middle school students, and 190 high school students. 10 Based on the current capacity and, enrollment at the local schools, and the estimated number of project-generated students at full buildout at the local schools (refer to Table 5.14-1), there is sufficient capacity at the schools to accommodate project-generated elementary and middle school students. However, the number of high school students generated by the project (under either option) exceed the existing high school capacity.

Even without the addition of project-generated high school students, the high school is over capacity by 543 students. Per direct communication with MVLASD and as noted in Table 5.14-1, if the existing enrollment stays the same, the project’s 190 high school students equates to 34 percent of the total number of students above the high school’s existing capacity. Additional capacity at the high school will be provided once the planned Mountain View High School campus expansion is complete.11

Per the Precise Plan EIR and state law, the project shall pay school impact fees. The MVSD has a Level 1 fee program in place and the project would be subject to payment of applicable developer fees.

Payment of the adopted developer fees by the applicant would, in accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code, fully and completely mitigate all school impacts. In addition, the project would contribute to the repayment of local general obligation bonds that would provide financing for capital projects at the schools assigned to the project.

The State Legislature provided authority for school districts to assess impact fees for both residential and nonresidential development projects. Those fees, as authorized under Education Code Section 17620(a) and Government Code Section 65995(b), are collected by municipalities at the time building permits are issued and conveyed to the affected school district in accordance with a defined fee structure. The Legislature has declared that the payment of those fees constitutes full mitigation for the impacts generated by new development.

9 Resident generation estimates for the project (under either option) were calculated based on the service population estimates for the Precise Plan EIR Transportation analysis. The project (under either option) proposes 1,900 residential units, which is 38 percent of the residential development assumed in the Precise Plan. Therefore, project was assumed to generate 38 percent of the residents assumed. Source: Fehr and Peers. East Whisman Precise Plan Project-Level Transportation Analysis. August 2019. P. 172. 10 Based on the student generation rates provided by the Jack Schreder & Associates. December 8, 2021. K-5 =

0.085
(0.308 affordable), 6-8 = 0.039 (0.247 affordable), High School = 0.047 (0.312 affordable). 11 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 180.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 45 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
No new or expanded school facilities are proposed at this time. In the event that new or expanded school facilities are proposed, they are subject to separate CEQA review. Based on previous analyses for new or expanded public school facilities on developed South Bay locations, typical measures similar to the conditions of approval identified in Sections 4.1 Air Quality, 5.3 Biological Resources,

5.4 Cultural Resources, 5.6 Geology and Soils, 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, 5.12 Noise, and 5.17 Tribal Cultural Resources of this Draft SEIR would be required to reduce potential construction-related effects to less than significant levels.

Consistent with Government Code 65996 and the Precise Plan EIR, the project (under either option) would pay state-mandated school impact fees to offset impacts to local schools, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Page 188 ends

The project (under either option) proposes a network of privately-owned publicly accessible open space, private open space, and land dedication for new public parks totaling 10.15 acres. Additionally, per the Precise Plan, the project (under either option) would be subject to the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance and is a Master Plan that m eets the requirements for the Neighborhood Park Master Plan area. Specifically, the project meets the requirements for a Neighborhood Park Master Plan because it identifies surrounding development and opportunity sites for a two- to three- acre park, dedicates land to the City for a neighborhood park, includes an illustrated park access network consistent with the Precise Plan Mobility Chapter, provides an implementation strategy, and is compliant with Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan noise compatibility policies. Project- related impacts to parks are discussed further in Section 5.15 Recreation below and are concluded to be less than significant. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Page 193 ends

The addition of 10.15-acres of park land included in the project would offset the demand for recreational facilities by future employees and residents living and working on-site. The dedication of land and POPA open space and compliance would be consistent with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. For these reasons, 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. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Page 207 ends

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 46 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022
VTA, CPUC, or the City and would require permits and approval from all three parties . The bus stop improvements would include:

Once a preferred design is selected, the project applicant would be required to obtain permits from VTA/CPUC in accordance with applicable General Orders. These improvements would be reviewed pursuant to those General Order applications and any additional traffic, vehicle queuing, safety, and signal pre-emption requirements would be evaluated at the time of those General Order applications.

Page 210 ends

Pursuant to SB 743, LOS and corresponding vehicle queuing are no longer a significant impact under CEQA, therefore, improvements that increase vehicle queuing capacity are not required under CEQA.

Page 224 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The project (without District Utilities System Option) would connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications lines.

Page 225 ends

been REVISED as follows:

The project without District Utilities System Option would connect to existing electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications lines, and would be adequately served by them.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 47 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Page 226 ends

UTIL-1
Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) 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.

Yes S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM
UTIL-1.1
LTSMM

Page 240 ends

Figure 9.2-1: RearrangedAlternative or Smaller Project Alternative Site

Appendix A Figure 7.5.1 on page 99 has been RE PLACED with the following:

Middlefield Park Master Plan - May 2022 | 101
CIRCULATION + MOBILITY
7 .5 Bicycle network
Regional connections
Building on the bike network
improvements

identified

the

EWPP

a
nd VTA’s Santa Clara Countywide Bike
Plan

(2018),

Middlefield

Park

reinforces

a
ccess to key cross-region routes.

Expanding the Hetch Hetchy Trail
eastward

into

Middlefield

Park

provides

a lo
w-stress, off-street connection to the
21-mile-long Stevens Creek Trail. The
Project proposes to dedicate land to the
City of Mountain View to implement a
Class I shared-use path between Ellis
Street and Clyde Avenue via the future
bridge across the VTA tracks and future
multi-use path to be implemented by the
City through Maude Park. The Project
will provide a multi-use path on the north
side of the O5/P1 buildings and on the
south side of the P2 parking structure.

A new north-south shared-use path
will also be implemented through Ellis
Park, replacing the existing multi-use
path parallel to the VTA tracks. The
Project also proposes a new pedestrian
mid-block
crossing on Middlefield
R oad connecting the Ellis Park multi-
use path to the existing multi-use path
south

Middlefield

parallel

t
he VTA tracks and future protected
bike

lanes

Middlefield

Road.

T
he Project proposes implementation of
Class II buffered bike lanes on both sides
of Maude Avenue west of SR 237. The
proposed Maude Avenue improvements
will connect to future Maude Avenue
bikeway improvements into the City
of Sunnyvale at SR 237 interchange.

Figure 7 .5.1 Pr oposed Bike Network Improvements

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project 49 Final SEIR
City of Mountain View August 2022

Appendix C Page 38 Mitigation Measure AQ-1 has been REVISED as follows:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered at a frequency of no less than two times per day in order to maintain adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture for dust control of 12 percent.

Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe.

Appendix H Appendix H has been REVISED as follows.

Middlefield Park Master Plan
Vehicle Miles Traveled and Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Prepared for:

David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

April 13August 12, 2022
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Hexagon Office: 100 Century Center Court, Suite 501
San Jose, CA 95112
Phone: 408.971.6100
Hexagon Job Number: 21KK12
Client Name: Carolyn Neer, David J. Powers & Associates, Inc.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ................................................................................................... 11

3. Existing Transportation Conditions ............................................................................................... 16

4. Motor Vehicle Operations Analysis ............................................................................................... 31

5. Site Access, Circulation, and Parking ........................................................................................... 67

6. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Assessment ................................................................... 94

7. Other Transportation Issues ....................................................................................................... 103 Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Counts
Appendix B Volume Summary
Appendix C Level of Service Calculations
Appendix D Background Developments
Appendix E Signal and Stop Warrant Analysis
Appendix F Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Treatment Analysis Appendix G Pedestrian Flow Estimates
Appendix H ARUP Loading Space Demand Analysis
Appendix I Local Parking Surveys for Offices and Apartments Appendix J Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan List of Tables
Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay ...... 7 Table 2 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay ............... 8 Table 3 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................... 20 Table 4 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................................. 29 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Estimates .................................................................................... 32 Table 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ......................................................... 45 Table 7 Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service ................................................... 47 Table 8 Signal Warrant Analysis Summary .................................................................................... 49 Table 9 Queuing Analysis Summary .............................................................................................. 52 Table 10 Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Treatment Summary ......................................................... 58 Table 11 Driveway Queuing Analysis .............................................................................................. 72 Table 12 Driveway Signal Warrant Analysis Summary .................................................................... 73 Table 13 Required Loading Spaces for Residential Uses ................................................................ 76 Table 14 Required Loading Spaces for Non-Residential Uses ........................................................ 76 Table 15 Recommended Loading Spaces Based On Peak Demand .............................................. 77 Table 16 Flex Zone Recommendations ........................................................................................... 78 Table 17 East Whisman Precise Parking Maximums and Minimums .............................................. 82 Table 18 Office Parking Demand Based on Local Survey ............................................................... 84 Table 19 Retail/Community/Civic Use Parking Demand Based on ITE Rates ................................. 85 Table 20 Affordable Residential Unit Parking Demand by State Law .............................................. 86 Table 21 Market Rate Residential Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking Demand .......... 87 Table 22 Market Rate Residential Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking Demand ....... 88 Table 23 Market Rate Residential Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking Demand ............... 89 Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022

Table 24 Maude Park Shared Parking Analysis ............................................................................... 90 Table 25 Recommended Vehicle Parking Rates ............................................................................. 91 Table 26 Bicycle Parking Requirements .......................................................................................... 93 Table 27 Transit Vehicle Delay in Study Area ................................................................................ 102 Table 28 Recommended Changes to Draft MPMP ........................................................................ 105 Table 29 Construction Phase Improvments ................................................................................... 106 Table 30 EWPP Intersection Improvements and Project Contributions ......................................... 109 List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections ............................................................................ 2 Figure 2 Proposed Area Plan ............................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 City of Mountain View Residential VMT Map .................................................................... 12 Figure 4 City of Mountain View Employee VMT Map ...................................................................... 13 Figure 5 Existing Transit Services ................................................................................................... 19 Figure 6 Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................................. 22 Figure 7 Existing Lane Configurations ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 8 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 27 Figure 9 Project Trip Distribution ..................................................................................................... 35 Figure 10 Project Trip Assignment .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 11 Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes ............................................................................... 39 Figure 12 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................. 41 Figure 13 Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes ......................................................................... 43 Figure 14 Proposed Midblock Crossing Locations ............................................................................ 59 Figure 15 VTA Bus Duck Out Option – Bus Turn-Out with Bus Island .............................................. 62 Figure 16 VTA Bus Duck Out Option – In-Line Bus Stop with Bus Island ......................................... 63 Figure 17 VTA Bus Duck Out Option – Bus Stop without Island ....................................................... 64 Figure 18 Proposed Driveway Access Points ................................................................................... 68 Figure 19 Project Driveway Trips ...................................................................................................... 71 Figure 20 Emergency Vehicle Access Routes
.................................................................................. 75 Figure 21 Proposed Flex/Loading Zones .......................................................................................... 79 Figure 22 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Network, Shuttle Stops, and Microbility Hubs ............. 95 Figure 23 Existing Pedestrian Quality of Service .............................................................................. 98 Figure 24 Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress ........................................................................... 100 Figure 25 Street C Proposed by EWPP .......................................................................................... 104 Figure 26 Construction Phasing ...................................................................................................... 107 Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | i
Executive Summary
This report presents the results of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and multimodal transportation analysis (MTA) conducted for the proposed Middle field Park Master Plan (MPMP) in Mountain View, California. The plan area is located within the Mixed-Use Character Area and Employment Area North Character Area of the East Whisman Precis e Plan (EWPP) with frontages on Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. The southern portion of the plan area is immediately west and adjacent to the Middle field Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A). The project abuts the city limit with the City of Sunnyvale.

The MPMP proposes to demolish 23 existing buildings (totaling approximately 685,000 square feet), surface parking lots, and landscaping, to redevelop an approximately 40-acre plan area with 1,317,000 square feet (s.f.) of office space (632,000 s.f. net new) withi n five office buildings, up to 1,900 dwelling units within seven residential buildings, up to 41,000 square f eet of ground floor retail space in the residential buildings, 9,000 square feet of ground floor commun ity/civic uses, and two office parking structures

1. Additionally, the project would dedicate land for new public parks and open space. The project would be developed in four phases. Site access to the proposed buildings in the MPMP would be provided via Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, and Maude Avenue. As part of the development, Logue Avenue would be extended northward from the existing cul-de-sac to the boundary of the property of the City and County of San Francisco (referred to as the SFPUC or Hetch-Hetchy right of way) with a new cul-de-sac that would provide access to the new service streets along the northern MPMP area boundary.

Because the project is located within the EWPP area, for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in 2019, and is consistent with the EWPP, this MTA focuses on evaluating the project’s transportation effects under near-term conditions. The project’s cumulative transportation impacts were evaluated in the EWPP EIR.

The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements of th e City of Mountain View, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the VTA, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Per California Senate Bill 743 (SB743) and CEQA Guidelines, the stu dy includes a VMT analysis. The MTA

1 The Master Plan proposes 30,000 s.f. of retail and 20,00050,000 s.f. of active uses, which include a mix of retail, services, neighborhood commercial, and community/civic uses. However, some The land uses proposed under the community/civic uses would result in traffic patterns more simi lar to retail uses. Therefore, this analysisthat are conservatively assumeds to be 41,000 s.f. of retail and 9,000 s.f. community/civic uses.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | ii
also evaluates potential transportation effects of the project in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Mountain View and the VTA. The VTA administers the CMP.

VMT Analysis
The Mountain View VMT Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact under CEQA, which confirm no further VMT analysis is required. The proximity to transit screening criterion was developed based on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects proposed within a half mile of an existing major trans it stop or an existing stop along a high- quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

The project is located in a transit proximity area because it is located within a half mile of the Middlefield LRT Station, which is considered a major transit stop, and complies with the Mountain View VMT Policy.

Additionally, the project is consistent with the EWPP EIR VMT analysis. Therefore, the project has a less- than-significant impact on VMT.

Project Trip Estimates
Trip generation estimates for the proposed project were based o n trip rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and the trip caps for new office developments in the EWPP area. 2 Internal and transit trip reductions were applied to the proje ct according to the 2014 VTA Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines. After applying the applicable trip reductions and existing trip credits, the net new project trips would be 10,812 daily trips, including 998 AM peak hour trips (487 inbound trips and 511 outbound trip s), and 1,061 PM peak hour trips (539 inbound trips and 522 outbound trips). The AM peak hour of traffic is between 7:00 and 10:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is between 4:00 and 7:00 PM.

Intersection Traffic Operations
The results of the intersection level of service analysis show the Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real intersection would operate at LOS F under existing and background conditions. However, the added project traffic would not result in an adverse effect at the intersection. All other signalized study intersections would operate at an acceptable level of service.

At the unsignalized intersections, the results show the Ellis Street and Manila Drive intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour under background condi tions with and without the project.

The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis indicates the intersection would meet the thresholds that warrant signalization under both existing and background conditions during both AM and PM peak hours.

To address the deficiency, the EWPP EIR recommends signalizing the intersection with a protected left turn lane and shared through/right lane for each approach. Thus, the project should contribute to the improvement identified by the EWPP EIR. This contribution may be met with payment of the East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP) Development Impact Fee currently be ing under review by the City (EWPP Nexus Study) and anticipated to be considered for adoption by City Council in mid-2022.

2 For a consistent comparison with the EWPP EIR, the ITE 10th Edition Manual was used, in lieu of the 11th Edition Manual.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | iii
Turn Pocket Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements. The queuing analysis indicates, the project would increase the 95th percentile queue for the southbound left- turn movement by three vehicles under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by six vehicles in the AM peak hour at the Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive intersection. The EWPP EIR analyzed the Ellis Street corridor at the US 101 interchange.

The EIR identified during the AM peak hour, the southbound queu e at Fairchild Drive would extend to the US 101 southbound ramp intersection and cause extensive queuing and vehicle delays on the southbound off ramp. However, the EIR indicates that due to right-of-way and funding constraints, there are no feasible improvements to improve operations and vehicle queuing along Ellis Street at the interchange. Since adoption of the EWPP EIR, the City has ident ified lane restriping and median modifications that can minimally improve this intersection, for which the improvement costs were included in the EWPP Development Impact Fee. So, payment of the fee by the applicant would contribute to these improvements.

At the Ellis Street and Middlefield Road intersection, the queuing analysis indicates the project would increase the 95th percentile queue for the eastbound left-turn movement by one vehicle under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by five vehicles in the AM peak hour and one vehicle i n the PM peak hour. The EWPP EIR identifies the need for an improvement at this intersection, specifically along the eastbound direction to improve queuing. The EWPP EIR recommends adding an eastbound le ft-turn lane with overlap signal phasing. Thus, the project should contribute to this improvement, which could be met by payment of the EWPP Development Impact Ffee should it be adopted.

Freeway Ramp Operations
A freeway ramp operations analysis was performed to identify the effects of project traffic on the vehicle queues at the metered on-ramps and the signal-controlled off-ra mps during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. At the US 101/Ellis Street interchange, the EWPP EIR identified that during the AM peak hour, due to the southbound queue at Fairchild Drive and the northbound queue at the US 101 Northbound Ramp extending to the US 101 Southbound Ramp intersection, the northbound and southbound off ramp queues are expected to frequently extend to the end of the ramp s under background conditions, which could negatively affect freeway operations. During the PM peak hour, the US 101 southbound on-ramp is expected to be fully occupied and spill back onto Ellis Street, blocking the Fairchild Drive intersection.

The US 101 northbound off-ramp queue is expected to extend to the end of the ramp due to the limited operational capacity of the westbound left-turn at the end of the ramp. The project trips would contribute to the ramp operation/queueing issues identified in the EWPP EI R. However, due to right-of-way and funding constraints, the EWPP EIR indicates that there are no f easible improvements to improve operations and queuing issues at the interchange.

Although the interchange cannot be physically improved, the pro ject would improve pedestrian and bicycle access and connection by providing multi-use paths in the project area and improving bike lanes adjacent to and within the Master Plan. It would also expand the Google employee shuttle system (GBus) to the project area to reduce employee vehicle trips. These pro ject features are expected to increase alternative modes of travel and reduce vehicle trips on the surrounding street system.

Traffic Control at Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
The project proposes midblock pedestrian crossings on Ellis Str eet north of Building O1, on Middlefield Road adjacent to the LRT tracks, on Logue Avenue north of Building R3, on Clyde Avenue south of Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | iv
Buildings O4 and O5/P1, and on Clyde Avenue north of Building R5. Midblock crosswalks are proposed to maximize east-west pedestrian/bicycle connection from Ellis Street, north of Building O1, to Logue Avenue and the proposed open space (Maude Park) to Clyde Avenue.

Based on the estimated peak-hour traffic volumes under background plus project conditions and the pedestrian volumes estimated by the pedestrian flow model, the recommended traffic control treatments for the pedestrian midblock crossings are summarized below:
 Ellis Street Crossing north of Building O1 : Provide a traffic signal on Ellis Street at the Quad Campus driveway (365 N Whisman Road/464 Ellis Street) and relocate the proposed crossing to the south leg of the intersection. Eliminate the existing Ellis Street crossing north of the Quad Campus driveway. This would result in the proposed crossing bei ng located further north than currently proposed in the Master Plan.
 Middlefield Road Crossing at the LRT tracks : Provide a signal for the crossing generally parallel to the LRT tracks. Interconnect and coordinate the pedestrian signal with the signal at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road. Provide signal preemption fo r Logue/Middlefield signals to further improve pedestrian crossing and rail operations.  Logue Avenue Crossing north of Building R3: Install an active crosswalk with RRFB and install infrastructure (e.g., conduits, lighting, etc.) to facilitate the installation of a future signal for a future pedestrian-bicycle bridge to be designed and constructed by others.  Clyde Avenue Crossing south of Buildings O4 and O5/P1 : Install a signalized crosswalk at least 100 feet from the driveway to Building O5/P1.
 Clyde Avenue Crossing north of Building R5: Install an active crosswalk with RRFB at the P2 driveway, at least 300 feet from the Clyde Avenue crossing south of Building O5/P1.

Additional engineering analysis is recommended based on the act ual pedestrian volumes and/or field observations of pedestrian delay gaps in roadway traffic flow t o be conducted at the appropriate construction phase of the project, particularly for Ellis Street and Clyde Avenue.

Private Service Street Entrance/Driveway Operations
The service streets and driveways to the project buildings/garages are not expected to cause any on-site or on-street queuing issues, as the service street entrances/dr iveways are expected to provide a minimum queue storage of two vehicles for both inbound and outb ound movements. It is unknown whether the driveway to Building O5/P1 would be located on the north or south side of the building.

However, it is recommended the O5/P1 service street be on the north side of Building O5/P1 to align with the service street north of Buildings O3 and O4, creating an intersection.

The service street on Ellis Street to Buildings O1/R2 would meet the signal warrant as it provides access to garages serving Building O1 and Buildings R1/R2. None of the other driveways/private service street entrances would meet signal warrants under background plus project conditions during either of the peak hours.

To minimize the project’s traffic effect on Maude Avenue and de lay for vehicles accessing Building R6, the following design and control measures can be considered based on driveway location:
 If the driveway is located west of the intersection, then the driveway should be restricted to right- in and right-out only;
 If the driveway is located east of the intersection, between Building R6 and Gateway Park, then vehicles could make a left turn into the driveway without affecting traffic on Maude Avenue; or Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | v
 The driveway could be aligned with the Clyde Avenue/Maude Aven ue intersection and the intersection would still operate at an acceptable level with an all-way stop.

Flex/Loading Zone Locations
The project proposes on-street flex zones and on-site loading zones in various locations for passenger pick-up/drop-off and delivery loading. The following flex/loading zones proposed by the project could be retained: (a) on-street flex zone at Building O2 on Logue Avenu e, (b) on-site loading zones within the parking garages or service streets/driveways at Buildings R1/R2, R6, and O1.

The flex zone for the O2 building would be located in the on-street parking lane near the cul de sac. It is assumed the cul de sac would be large enough to accommodate tru ck maneuver within the cul de sac without interfering with the parking lane on Logue Avenue. It i s recommended the flex zone be located directly adjacent to the cul de sac, so vehicles could access the flex zone easily.

It is recommended to relocate the proposed on-street flex zones at R3, R4/R4 affordable (R4 aff), R5, and O3, O4, and O5 to be on each respective site as on-site loa ding spaces or zones and provided adequate turnaround space within the service streets for vehicles to exit onto the adjacent roadways.

Parking
A parking study was conducted to evaluate appropriate parking ratios for the project, due to the Precise Plan’s parking maximums and the applicant’s request to evaluate a parking reduction for retail parking, unbundled residential parking, and reduced loading spaces. The study also included a shared parking analysis between residential and retail/community spaceactive u se parking within each mixed-use building and between district office parking and park users. The study results provide recommended parking ratios based on land use and parking conditions (shared and/or unbundled).

Office Use Parking. The project should provide 2.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for office use, based on the surveyed utilization rates of similar office developments plus the availability of the GBus employee shuttle program. This parking rate is within the maximum parking of 2.9 spaces per 1,000 s.f allowed in the EWPP. Per the draft Master Plan, the project provides an adequate number of total parking spaces for office use within a district parking arrangement.

Retail/Community/CivicActive Use Parking. Based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the project should provide 3.68 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for retail/community/ civicactive uses (e.g. retail, services, neighborhood commercial, and community/civic uses), which is a reduction from the required minimum of 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f for neighborhood commercial uses per the EWPP. In some parking scenarios discussed below, the draft Master Plan may not be providing eno ugh parking per mixed-use building to accommodate the ground-floor commercial active uses and residential parking. For the P2 structure, 15 additional parking spaces would be required for the retail/comm unityactive use space, and for the Ellis Park Fairchild Barns, an additional 4 spaces would be required in the R1/R2 garage.

Affordable Multi-Family Residential Use Parking. Based on the State Density Bonus Law (Assembly Bill 1763), the project is assumed to provide 0.5 spaces per affordable residential unit. Parking proposed in Building R4 affordable (R4 aff) would be 63 spaces more and for Building R6 would be 51 spaces more than what would be required by State Density Bonus Law.

Market-Rate Multi-Family Residential Use Parking. Multi-family residential parking for the market-rate units was evaluated in three scenarios, based on whether reside ntial parking is unbundled and if retail/communityactive use parking was shared with the resident ial parking in the same building. Each scenario identifies an appropriate parking rate and notes any parking count differences per building location based on the draft Master Plan.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | vi
Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking
The project should provide one space per unit (equivalent to 0. 72 spaces per bedroom) for market rate units, based on the local surveyed utilization rates and adjace ncy to transit, retail services, and open spaces. This parking rate is within the maximum parking allowed of 1 space per studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 or more-bedroom units in the EWPP.

Based on Scenario 1, assuming no shared parking with the retail/community/civicactive uses, the project would need to provide 1,689 parking spaces for the market-rate residential buildings, which is 351 spaces more than included in the draft Master Plan.

Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking
The project should provide 0.85 spaces per unit (equivalent to 0.61 spaces per bedroom) for market rate, based on the parking demand reduction found in the GreenTRIP Pa rking Database and CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions for unbundled parking. This parking rate is within the maximum parking allowed of 1 space per studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 or more bedroom units in the EWPP.

Based on Scenario 2, with fully unbundled residential parking p rovided separate from retail/communityactive use parking, the project would need to p rovide 1,463 parking spaces for the market-rate residential buildings, which is 125 spaces more than included in the draft Master Plan.

Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking
The parking rate applied to the market rate units is the same a s Scenario 2. Assuming that the retail active use parking could be used by residents at night, the pro ject would need to provide 1,294 parking spaces for the market-rate residential buildings, which is 44 spaces fewer than included the draft Master Plan.

Park Use Parking. The project would not be required to provide separate parking for the public parks/open space. However, a shared parking analysis was conduc ted for the P1 and P2 garages to evaluate the number of parking spaces that could be shared betw een the office and park users outside of the office peak hours. The shared analysis shows the office parking demand would peak from 10:00 to 11:00 AM on weekdays when there would be no available parking spaces to share. During the rest of the weekday and weekend, when the office parking demand is lower, it is expected the available parking spaces in the parking garages would be sufficient to accommodat e the parking demand for office and park users.

Loading Spaces. Based on a study prepared by ARUP, the project would provide 18 loading spaces for office use and 15 loading spaces for the ground-floor commercia l active uses, in lieu of providing the zoning required 67 loading spaces for office use and 2 spaces f or the ground-floor commercial active uses.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Operations
Ellis Street, Maude, Logue, and Clyde Avenues, and Fairchild Drive in the project area have a pedestrian quality of service (PQOS) score greater than 2, which indicates a low quality of service. The project would have an adverse effect on the PQOS because it would add new vehicle trips to these street segments.

However, the project is a mixed-use development that provides a variety of land uses within close proximity and includes new pedestr ian, bicycle, and multi-use p aths with direct pedestrians and bicycle routes to transit/shuttle stops, jobs/housing/retail services, open space, existing trail networks, and street segments. The project also would provide enhanced midblock pedestrian crossings to ensure a continuous network of pedestrian facilities across streets and new on-street bike lane improvements. The Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | vii
project would also provide wider sidewalks with landscaping for streets along the project frontages to enhance the pedestrian environment. Taking these factors into account, the project is expected to improve the PQOS along Ellis Street, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Logue Avenue within the plan area.

Ellis Street and Middlefield Road in the project area have a bi cycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) score greater than 2, which indicates that the bikeway is only comfortable for a more confident adult. The project would have an adverse effect on the BLTS because it would add n ew vehicle trips to these street segments. However, the project would improve the bike lanes along the project frontage on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, and Maude Avenue to a Class II buffered on-street bike lane, and upgrade Middlefield Road to Class IV protected bike lanes along the project frontage. Implementing the protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road and buffered bike lanes on Ellis Street is expected to lower the BLTS score, as protected/buffered bike lanes would provide more space between vehicular traffic and bicyclists.

Removal of Street C from the EWPP
The EWPP proposes a Street C that extends midblock between Logu e Avenue and Clyde Avenue from Maude Avenue northward toward the Hetch Hetchy right of way and ends in a cul-de-sac. Because Street C would end in a cul-de-sac, it would not serve through traffic and would only serve properties along the new street. The project would provide direct access to the prop osed buildings in the area bounded by Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues via new service streets on Maud e Avenue (for buildings R3, R4/R4 aff, and R5), Clyde Avenue (buildings O5/P1), the new service street running along the northern boundary (buildings O2, O3, and O4). Therefore, Street C is not necessary for vehicular access to these buildings.

Although Street C would provide pedestrian/bicycle midblock public access between Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue, the project would also provide multiple north-south, multi-use paths/paseos for the public from Maude Avenue and the service street along the northern project boundary to the future City park.

Thus, Street C is not necessary for vehicular or pedestrian circulation. Replacing Street C with multi-use paths/paseos would be consistent with the EWPP. As the City goes through the park design process for Maude Park, specific pedestrian and bicycle connectivity will be considered.

Other Transportation Issues
Hexagon has the following additional recommendations resulting from the site access and circulation evaluation.
 The EWPP proposes to remove parking along one side of Logue, M aude, and Clyde Avenues to provide buffered bike lanes. It is recommended that on-street p arking on the east side of Logue Avenue, the north side of Maude Avenue, and the east side of Clyde Avenue along the project frontages be removed. Also, parking along the R6 street frontag e at the intersection shall be removed to maintain intersection safety.
 Fifteen-foot curb segments adjacent to the driveways and service streets on Maude Avenue, Logue Avenue, and Clyde Avenue should be painted red to prohibi t parking to provide adequate sight distance.
 The bike and scooter share hubs should be well-lit and positioned near (generally within 50 feet) of the main building entrances or at key destinations within the plan area.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 1

1. Introduction
This report presents the results of the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and multimodal transportation analysis (MTA) conducted for the proposed Middle field Park Master Plan (MPMP, plan area) in Mountain View, California. The plan area is located within the Mixed-Use Character Area and Employment Area North Character Area of the East Whisman Precis e Plan (EWPP) with frontages on Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. The southern portion of the plan area is immediately west and adjacent to the Middle field Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (see Figure 1). The project abuts the city limit with the City of Sunnyvale.

3. Additionally, the project would dedicate land for new public parks and open space. The project would be developed in four phases. Site acce ss to the proposed buildings in the MPMP would be provided via Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, and Maude Avenue. As part of the development, Logue Avenue would be extended northward from the existing cul-de-sac to the boundary of the property of the City and County of San Francisc o (referred to as the SFPUC or Hetch- Hetchy right of way) with a new cul-de-sac that would provide access to the new service streets along the northern MPMP area boundary.

3 The Master Plan proposes 30,000 s.f. of retail and 20,00050,000 s.f. of active uses, which include a mix of retail, services, neighborhood commercial, and community/civic uses. However, someThe land uses proposed under the community civic uses would result in traffic patterns more simi lar to retail uses. Therefore, this analysisthat are conservatively assumes assumed to be 41,000 s.f. of retail and 9,000 s.f. community/civic uses.

Mountain
View
Sunnyvale
101
85 82
237
25 26
20 19
24 16
15 14
13 12
9 3
18 23
17 10
8 6
7 22
21 5
11 2
1 4
Central Expy
Evelyn AveEvelyn AveEvelyn Ave
Moffett Blvd
Borregas Ave
Castro St
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
E Middle
field Rd
Ellis St
Macon Rd
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Mary Ave
N Shoreline Blvd
E Arques Ave
N Whisman Rd
W El Camino Real
Enterprise
Calderon Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
W Java Dr
S Bernardo Ave
W Middlefield
Rd
S Mary Ave
Central Expy
N Mathilda Ave
Grant RdGrant Rd
Ferguson DrFerguson
Dr
Logue Logue

AveAve
Clyde Clyd
e AveAve
IndioIndio
AveAve
Grant Rd
Ferguson Dr
Logue Ave
Clyde
Ave
Indio
Ave
= East Whisman Precise Plan Boundary
= Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
LEGEND
X = New Intersection to Study
X = Intersection Studied By EWPP EIR
without Deficiency
X = Intersection Deficiency Identified By

EWPP EIR
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 1
Project Location and Study Intersections

Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 2
Proposed Area Plan
E Middlefield Rd
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Ellis St
Street B (Proposed)Street B (Proposed)
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Ma
ude Ave
W Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
Street B (Proposed)
237
Middlefield Middlefield

VTA LRTVTA LRT
StationStation
Middlefield

VTA LRT
Station
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
A
B
C
D
E
M ddudududdde PaPPaPPa kkkk
Maude Park
R4 AFF
X
= Service Street/Driveway Access Points
LEGEND
#
= Midblock Crossing Locations
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 4
Scope of Study
The purpose of the MTA is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Mountain View, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the VTA, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Per California Senate Bill 743 (SB743) and CEQA Guidelines, the stu dy includes a VMT analysis. The MTA also evaluates potential transportation effects of the project in accordance with the standards and methodologies set forth by the City of Mountain View and the VTA. The VTA administers the CMP.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
Per California Senate Bill 743, the California Natural Resource s Agency, with assistance from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), adopted new C EQA guidelines in December 2018.

The new guidelines state that automobile delay, as measured by level of service (LOS), will no longer constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA, and t hat VMT is considered the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impac ts. The new CEQA guidelines became effective July 1, 2020. The evaluation of VMT for this project is based on the City’s VMT Policy adopted on June 30, 2020, and the EWPP EIR VMT analysis, which was prepared in 2018-19.

Multimodal Transportation Operations Analysis
The MTA includes an analysis of the traffic operational effects of the project on the key intersections and freeway ramps in the project area, an evaluation of traffic ope rational conditions at proposed midblock crossings and driveways, an evaluation of potential adverse eff ects on transit services and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a review of site access, circulation, parking, and conformance with the EWPP.

Study Intersections
The following 26 study intersections (see Figure 1) were selected based on the intersections studied in the EWPP EIR and in accordance with VTA’s Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (October 2014). The intersection list was reduced by removing intersections that did not have a level of service deficiency identified in the EWPP EIR and by removing intersections where the project is not expected to add 10 trips or more per lane. Two unsignalized intersection s (#25 and #26) that were not studied in the EWPP EIR but are within the project vicinity and would prov ide primary access to the project sites were added to the study.

1. Ellis Street and Manila Drive (Mountain View)

2. Ellis Street and US 101 Northbound Ramps (Mountain View)

3. Ellis Street and US 101 Southbound Ramps (Mountain View)

4. Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive (Mountain View)

5. SR 237 Ramps and Maude Avenue (Mountain View)

6. N. Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue (Sunnyvale)

7. W. Maude Avenue and N. Mathilda Avenue (Sunnyvale / CMP)

8. Moffett Boulevard and W. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

9. Easy Street and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

10. N. Whisman Road and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

11. Ellis Street and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

12. Logue Avenue and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

13. Ferguson Drive and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

14. SR 237 Westbound On-Ramp and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

15. SR 237 Eastbound Off-Ramp and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

16. Bernardo Avenue and E. Middlefield Road (Mountain View)

17. Moffett Boulevard and Central Expressway (Santa Clara County / CMP)

18. SR 85 Southbound Off-Ramp and Central Expressway (Santa Clara County) Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 5

19. Whisman Station Drive and Central Expressway (Santa Clara County / CMP)

20. Ferguson Drive and Central Expressway (Santa Clara County / CMP)

21. N. Mary Avenue and Central Expressway (Santa Clara County / CMP)

22. N. Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue (Sunnyvale)

23. S. Whisman Road and SR 237 Westbound Ramps (Mountain View)

24. Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real (Mountain View)

25. Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue (Unsignalized) (Mountain View)

26. Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue (Unsignalized) (Mountain View) Traffic conditions at the study intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Locally, the AM peak hour of traffic is usually between 7:00 and 10:00 AM, and the PM peak hour is typically between 4:00 and 7:00 PM. It is during these periods that the most congested traffic conditions occur on an average weekday.

Intersection traffic conditions were evaluated for the following scenarios:
 Existing Conditions. Existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were obtained from turning- movement counts conducted in 2019 and 2020 pre-COVID-19. New tu rning movement counts were conducted for intersections with counts older than 2019 an d for three intersections with recent counts to be used as baselines. A baseline adjustment factor was applied to the new counts to adjust to typical conditions (pre-COVID-19). A growth rate of 2.5 percent annually was applied to adjust preexisting traffic counts to a 2021 condition.  Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project.
 Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes were estimated by adding to existing traffic volumes the projected volumes from approved but not yet constructed developments in the vicinity of the project. Lists of approved but not yet constructed devel opments were obtained from the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale.
 Background Plus Project Conditions. Background plus project traffic volumes were estimated by adding the additional traffic generated by the project. Background plus project conditions were evaluated relative to background conditions in order to determi ne potential project adverse effects.

Midblock Crossing Locations
The study also evaluated five proposed midblock bike/pedestrian crossings on Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, and Clyde Avenue (see Figure 2). These midb lock crossings were evaluated to determine the best types of traffic control based on the antici pated roadway traffic and number of pedestrians.

A. Midblock crossing on Ellis Street north of Building O1 B. Midblock crossing on Middlefield Road at the VTA light rail tracks C. Midblock crossing on Logue Avenue north of Buildings R3 D. Midblock crossing on Clyde Avenue south of Buildings O4 & O5 /P1 E. Midblock crossing on Clyde Avenue north of Buildings R5 Private Service Street Entrance/Driveway Intersections
The proposed private service street entrances/driveways on Ellis Street, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue (see Figure 2) were evaluated for intersection traffic operations, as listed below. These All private street entrances were evaluated as stop-controlled intersections with signal warrant analysis.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 6

1. Private service street entrance on Ellis Street between Buil dings O1 and R2

2. Driveway entrance on Ellis Street at Buildings R1 and R2

3. Private service street entrance on Logue Avenue for Building O2

4. Private service street entrance on Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue for Buildings O3 and O4

5. Private service street entrance on Maude Avenue between Buil dings R3 and R4/R4 affordable (R4 aff)

6. Private service street entrance on Maude Avenue between Buildings R4/R4 aff and R5

7. Driveway entrance on Maude Avenue for Building R6

8. Private service street entrances on Clyde Avenue for Buildin gs O4 and O5/P1

9. Driveway entrance on Clyde Avenue to P2
Study Freeway Ramps
Based on VTA’s TIA Guidelines, a transportation analysis should include a queuing analysis for freeway on-ramps with existing or planned ramp meters and off-ramps controlled by signals at junctions with local streets. The US 101/Ellis Street, SR 237/Maude Avenue, and SR 237/Middlefield Road interchanges provide access to the freeway system from the project area. Therefore, a freeway ramp traffic operations analysis was conducted for these interchanges.

Freeway Segments
Freeway segment analysis was not included for the study because the project is within the development and trip assumptions of the EWPP, for which the freeway segment deficiencies have been identified by the EWPP EIR.

Other Transportation Issues
The study includes an evaluation of potential operational deficiencies to transit services and pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a review of vehicular site access, truck access and circulation, and parking. In addition, a review of the removal of Street C from the EWPP was conducted.

Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
This section presents the methods used to determine traffic conditions at the study intersections. It includes descriptions of the data requirements, the analysis me thodologies, and the applicable level of service standards.

Data Requirements
The data required for the analysis were obtained from new traffic counts, the City of Mountain View, the EWPP, and Google Earth. The following data were collected from these sources:
 Intersection traffic volumes,
 Lane geometries,
 Signal timing and phasing, and
 A list of approved but not yet constructed developments.

Intersection Level of Service Methodologies and Standards Traffic conditions at the study intersections were evaluated using level of service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative description of operating conditions ranging fr om LOS A, or free-flow conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, or jammed conditions with excessive delays.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 7
Signalized Intersection
The Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale evaluate level of service at signalized intersections based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) level of service methodology. This HCM method evaluates signalized intersection operations on the basis of average cont rol delay time for all vehicles at the intersection. This average delay can then be correlated to a le vel of service. Table 1 presents the level of service definitions for signalized intersections.

Table 1
Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Control Delay

This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection levels of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology. Since TRAFFIX is approved by VTA as the level of s ervice analysis software for CMP signalized intersections, the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale employ the CMP defaults values for the analysis parameters. TRAFFIX software was used to analyze intersection operations and intersection adverse effects based on the increases in critical-movement delay and the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) between no-project and project scenarios.

B+ 10.1 to 12.0
B 12.1 to 18.0
B- 18.1 to 20.0
C+ 20.1 to 23.0
C 23.1 to 32.0
C- 32.1 to 35.0
D+ 35.1 to 39.0
D 39.1 to 51.0
D- 51.1 to 55.0
E+ 55.1 to 60.0
E 60.1 to 75.0
E- 75.1 to 80.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p10-16.

VTA Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines (June 2003), Table 2.

F
This level of delay is considered unacceptable by most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes of such delay levels.
greater than 80.0
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable signal progression, long cycle lenghts, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.

This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor signal progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume- to-capacity (V/C) ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently.

Operations characterized by good signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average vehicle delay.

Higher delays may result from fair signal progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant, though may still pass through the intersection without stopping.

Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(sec.)
A
Signal progression is extremely favorable. Most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to the very low vehicle delay.

10.0 or less
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 8
According to the City’s February 2021 MTA Handbook, the standar d for signalized intersections is LOS D, except for CMP intersections, County Expressway intersection s, and intersections in the Downtown and San Antonio Center planning areas in Mountain View, where the standard is LOS E. Therefore, the LOS D standard applies to all City-controlled intersections.

The City of Sunnyvale has set forth LOS D as the minimum standard, except at CMP intersections and intersections on roadways considered “regionally significant” within Sunnyvale, which have a standard of LOS E. Study intersections within Sunnyvale along Central Expressway and Mathilda Avenue are considered regionally significant.

Unsignalized Intersections
Level of service analysis at unsignalized intersections is generally used to determine the need for modifications in the type of intersection control (i.e., all-way stop or signalization). As part of the evaluation, traffic volumes, delays and traffic signal warrants are evaluated to determine if the existing intersection control is appropriate.

For unsignalized intersections, level of service depends on the average delay experienced by vehicles on the stop-controlled approaches. For side street stop-control led intersections (i.e., two-way or T- intersections), operations are defined by the average control delay experienced by vehicles entering the intersection from the stop-controlled approaches on minor streets or from left-turn approaches on major streets; the level of service is reported based on the average delay for the worst approach. For the all- way stop-controlled intersections, the level of service is based on the average delay for all the intersection approaches. The level of service definitions for unsignalized i ntersections are shown in Table 2. This study utilizes TRAFFIX software to determine intersection level s of service based on the 2000 HCM methodology for unsignalized intersection.

The City of Mountain View does not have an adopted level of service standard for unsignalized intersections. However, the City strives to maintain LOS D for unsignalized intersections.

Table 2
Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Based on Average Delay

Traffic Signal Warrant
An assessment of the need for signalization was conducted for t he unsignalized intersections. For this study, the need for signalization is based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant (Warrant 3) described in the A Little or no traffic delay 10.0 or less
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F Extreme traffic delays greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Washington, D.C., 2000) p17-2.

Level of Service Description Average Delay Per Vehicle (Sec.) Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 9
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (CA MUTCD) , Part 4, Highway Traffic Signals, 2014. This method provides an indication of whether traffic conditions and peak- hour traffic levels are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. Note that this is just one tool used to evaluate whether installation of a traffic signal would be justified. Additional analysis is recommended and may include unsignalized level of service analysis and/or operational analysis such as evaluating vehicle queuing and delay. Other types of traffic control devices, signage, or geometric changes may be preferable based on existing field conditions. U ltimately, the City’s professional engineering judgment will be used in the final determination of traffic control devices and improvements.

Intersection Vehicle Queuing Analysis
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis at study intersections where the project would add a substantial number of vehicle trips to the left-turn movements.

The analysis provides a basis for estimating future left-turn pocket storage requirements at the study intersections and is presented for informational purposes only, since Mountain View has not defined a policy related to queuing. Vehicle queues were estimated using a Poisson probability distribution, which estimates the probability of “n” vehicles for a vehicle movement using the following formula:

P (x=n) = 
n e – (
n!
Where:

P (x=n) = probability of “n” vehicles in queue per lane n = number of vehicles in the queue per lane
average # of vehicles in the queue per lane (vehicles per hr per lane/signal cycles per hr) The basis of the analysis is as follows: (1) the Poisson probability distribution is used to estimate the 95th percentile maximum number of queued vehicles for a particular l eft-turn movement; (2) the estimated maximum number of vehicles in the queue is translated into a queue length, assuming 25 feet per vehicle; and (3) the estimated maximum queue length is compared to the e xisting or planned available storage capacity for the left-turn movement. This analysis thus provides a basis for estimating future turn pocket storage requirements at intersections.

For signalized intersections, the 95th percentile queue length value indicates that during the peak hour, a queue of this length or less would occur on 95 percent of the signal cycles or a queue length larger than the 95th percentile queue would only occur on 5 percent of the signal cycles (about 3 cycles during the peak hour for a signal with a 60-second cycle length). Thus , turn pocket storage designs based on the 95th percentile queue length would ensure that storage spac e would be exceeded only 5 percent of the time for a signalized movement. Vehicle queuing at unsignalized intersections is evaluated based on the delay experienced by each turning movement.

Definition of Adverse Operational Effects
Adverse operational effects on signalized intersections are bas ed on the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale and CMP level of service standards. For the unsignalized intersections, the City of Mountain View has applied adverse effect criteria in other traffic studi es even though there is no formally adopted level of service policy for unsignalized intersections.

Signalized Intersections
According to the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale and CMP level of service standards, a development is said to create an adverse operations effect on traffic conditions at a signalized intersection if, for either peak hour, either of the following conditions occurs:

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 10

1. The level of service at the intersection drops below its res pective level of service standard (LOS D or better for all local intersections in Mountain View and Sunnyvale and LOS E or better for CMP and regionally significant intersections in Sunnyvale) when project traffic is added, or

2. An intersection that operates below its level of service sta ndard under no-project conditions experiences an increase in critical-movement delay of four (4) or more seconds, and an increase in critical volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of one percent (0.01) or more when project traffic is added.

The exception to this criterion is when the addition of project traffic reduces the amount of average control delay for critical movements, i.e., the change in average control delay for critical movements are negative.

In this case, the criterion is when the project increases the critical v/c value by 0.01 or more.

Unsignalized Intersections
The City of Mountain View does not have an adopted level of service standard or adverse effect criteria for unsignalized intersections. However, based on other transportation studies prepared for the City, the project is said to create an adverse operational effect on traffic conditions at an unsignalized intersection in the City of Mountain View if for either peak hour:

1. The addition of project traffic causes the average intersection delay for all-way stop-controlled or the worst movement/approach for side-street stop-controlled int ersections to degrade to LOS F, and

2. The intersection satisfies the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) peak-hour volume signal warrant.

Report Organization
This report includes:
 An executive summary.
 Chapter 1 presents the project introduction and analysis/regul atory thresholds.  Chapter 2 presents the VMT analysis.
 Chapter 3 describes existing conditions including the existing roadway network, transit service, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
 Chapter 4 describes the vehicle operational analysis, includin g the method by which project traffic is estimated, the intersection operations under existing plus project, background, and background plus project conditions, freeway ramp operations, midblock pedestrian crossing assessment, and effects on surrounding neighborhood streets.
 Chapter 5 presents the analysis of site access, circulation, d riveway operations, and parking.  Chapter 6 presents the assessment of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.  Chapter 7 presents analysis of other transportation-related is sues, including the evaluation of removal of the EWPP proposed Street C, construction phasing, and the project contribution to the EWPP improvements.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 11

2. Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
City VMT Policy
The City of Mountain View VMT Policy establishes screening criteria for developments that are expected to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact under CEQA with no further VMT analysis required.

Any project that does not meet all of the screening criteria is subject to further VMT analysis. The proximity to transit screening criterion was developed based on the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), which states that lead agencies generally s hould presume that certain projects proposed within a half mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. A major transit stop is defined as an existing rail station, bus rapid transit station, or as the intersection of 2 or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods. Based on the CEQA guidelines, the City developed a transit proximity map, which shows areas in Mo untain View where this screen applies (see Figures 3 and 4). In addition to proximity to a major tran sit stop, the project characteristics must meet the following criteria:
 Contain a floor area ratio (FAR) greater than 0.75;
 Provide reduced parking compared to the maximum parking required by the City;  Is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050; or
 Does not replace affordable residential units with a fewer num ber of moderate- or high-income residential units.

Proximity to Transit
The project is located in a transit proximity area because it is located within a half mile of the Middlefield Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station, which is considered a major transit stop.

Floor Area Ratio
The FAR is calculated as the gross floor area divided by the si te area. The project would have an FAR of 1.46. Thus, the development meets the minimum requirement to be considered a transit supportive project.

Figure 3
City of Mountain View Residential VMT Map
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
Figure 4
City of Mountain View Employee VMT Map
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 14
Parking Requirement
Transit supportive projects may not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the City Code. The project would provide fewer parking spaces than the maximum parking required by the EWPP for residential and office uses and provide fewer parking spaces than the minimum required for retail/community/civicactive uses by the EWPP (e.g. neighborhood commercial) and City zoning code.

Plan Bay Area
Plan Bay Area is the Bay Area’s regional plan to comply with Senate Bill 735, the State’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) law. SB 735 requires regional metropolitan planning organizations in California to develop SCSs, or long-range plans, that align tra nsportation, housing, and land use decisions toward achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Plan Bay Area integrates land use and transportation planning and mandates both a GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks a nd the provision of adequate housing for the region’s projected population growth.

The project is consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050 because it would provide more housing within the EWPP area within walking distance of the Middlefield LRT Statio n and with bicycle facilities within and adjacent to the project area. The project would also implement a transportation demand management (TDM) programs to promote alternative modes of transportation a nd reduce vehicle trips and GHG emissions.

Affordable Housing
Affordable housing has been shown to generate fewer vehicle miles traveled per capita than market rate housing. Accordingly, the City’s VMT Policy states that transit supportive projects must not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of affordable units, and any replacement units must be at the same level of affordability. The site currently is devel oped with office buildings only. The project would replace the existing office buildings with a mix of market-rate and affordable residential units, as defined by the City’s Below-Market-Rate program, office uses, o pen space, and retail/communityactive uses (e.g. retail, services, neighborhood commercial, and community/civic uses).

EWPP EIR VMT
The EWPP EIR was certified in November 2019 prior to the development and adoption of the City’s VMT Policy in June 2020. The VMT impact for the EWPP EIR was evalua ted based on the total project- generated VMT per service population (residents and employees), while the adopted VMT Policy evaluates VMT impacts based on the home-based trip VMT per capi ta for residential uses and home- based work trip VMT per employee for employment uses for developments that do not meet the screening criteria.

The EWPP EIR evaluated the VMT impact in two ways to determine whether (1) the project-generated VMT would result in a VMT impact by comparing to the citywide a nd countywide VMT thresholds (15 percent below existing conditions) and (2) the EWPP’s effect on the change in travel on roadways within the City and County by comparing the change in VMT with and without EWPP. For the project-generated VMT, the EIR states the EWPP would result in a project-level an d cumulative VMT impact because project generated VMT would be greater than the citywide and countywide thresholds. However, the EIR also states the EWPP would not have an effect on travel on roadways within the City or County because citywide and countywide VMT with the EWPP would be lower than t he VMT without the EWPP. Since the project is within the EWPP development area and is included in the EWPP EIR trip assumptions, the project is consistent with the conclusions regarding VMT in the EWPP EIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 15
Findings
Per the City’s VMT Policy adopted on June 30, 2020, the project meets the proximity to transit screening criterion by having a FAR of 1.46, providing fewer residential and nonresidential parking spaces than the maximum required by the City, fewer active useretail parking spaces than the minimum required by the City, being consistent with Plan Bay Area, and providing affordable housing units. Therefore, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT based on the adopted City Policy. Also, the project would not result in additional impact than the VMT impa ct identified in the EWPP EIR as it is consistent with the development assumptions.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 16

3. Existing Transportation Conditions
This chapter describes existing conditions for transportation facilities within and in the vicinity of the plan area including the roadway network, transit services, pedestria n and bicycle facilities, and traffic operations at the study intersections.

Existing Roadway Network
Regional access to the project site is provided by US 101, SR 8 5, SR 237, and Central Expressway.

Local access to the project site is provided via Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, Maude Avenue, Logue Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. Other listed roadways are included as routes to primary streets that access the project site, such as Moffett Boulevard, Whisman Road, Mary Avenue, and Mathilda Avenue. For the purposes of this study, US 101, Middlefield Road, and all parallel streets are considered to run east-west, and cross streets, such as SR 237 and Logue Avenue, are considered to run north-south.

US 101 is eight lanes wide with three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. US 101 prov ides access to the plan area via full interchanges at Ellis Street and SR 237.

SR 85 is a north-south freeway that begins at US 101, east of N. Shoreline Boulevard, extends south towards San Jose, and terminates at US 101 east of the Silicon Valley Boulevard/Bernal Road interchange. SR 85 is six lanes wide (two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 provides access to the project site via an interchange at SR 237 SR 237 is a four-lane to six-lane freeway within the vicinity of Sunnyvale that extends west to El Camino Real and east to I-880 in Milpitas. East of Mathilda Avenue, SR 237 has two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. West of Mathilda Avenue, SR 237 has two mixed-flow lanes in each direction.

SR 237 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue.

Central Expressway is an east-west, four-lane to six-lane expressway. It begins at Trimble Road in the east, crosses Sunnyvale, extends westward and transitions into Alma Street. In the study area, Central Expressway has two eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes and a posted speed limit of 50 mph.

Central Expressway is mostly grade-separated within Sunnyvale except at Mary Avenue. The Mary Avenue intersection has crosswalks with pedestrian push buttons and signal heads across all legs. There are no sidewalks or bike lanes along Central Expressway, but bikes are allowed to ride on the shoulders.

On-street parking is not permitted on this roadway.

Middlefield Road is a mostly east-west four-lane arterial that runs parallel to US 101. It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses north then westward through Redwood City. Middlefield Road has landscaped medians with left-turn pockets at intersections and has Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 17
bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides of the street. The bike lanes on Middlefield Road between Thaddeus Drive and Logue Avenue are part-time bike facilities that are used as bike lanes from 2 AM to 7 PM on weekdays and are used for on-street parking for the remaining hours (7 PM to 2 AM) and on weekends. The speed limit is 35 mph. Middlefield Road provides access to project site via its intersections with Ellis Street and Logue Avenue.

Maude Avenue is an east-west arterial street between Logue Avenue in the west and Wolfe Road in the east. Maude Avenue has two lanes west of the SR 237 eastbound f rontage road. Between the SR 237 eastbound frontage road and San Angelo Avenue, Maude Avenue has four lanes. Bike lanes exist along both sides of the street for the entire street. Sidewalks exist along both sides of the street except between the SR 237 westbound frontage road and Macara Avenue on the north side and between east of Logue Avenue and the SR 237 westbound frontage road on the south side. West of Clyde Avenue, on street parking is permitted along both sides of the street except between 2 AM and 6 AM. The posted speed limit is 25 mph between Logue Avenue and SR 237. The speed limit increases to 35 mph east of SR 237.

Maude Avenue provides direct access to the R2, R3, R4, and R6 buildings of the project site.

Moffett Boulevard is a north-south arterial that extends northward from Central Expressway to US 101.

South of Central Expressway, it becomes Castro Street that runs through Downtown Mountain View. The four-lane roadway has a raised median with left-turn pockets at intersections north of Middlefield Road and has a center turn lane with left-turn pockets at intersecti ons south of Middlefield Road. Bike lanes are present on both sides of Moffett Boulevard north of Leong D rive, but do not continue to Middlefield Road. Moffett Boulevard has sidewalks on both sides of the street except the section between the SR 85 southbound on-ramp and Leong Drive where there is no sidewalk on the west side of the road. On-street parking is prohibited north of Middlefield Road and permitted south of Middlefield Road. The speed limit is 40 mph north of Middlefield Road and 35 mph south of Middlefield Road.

Whisman Road is a north-south arterial between Fairchild Drive in the north and Dana Street in the south. Whisman Road has two lanes north of Middlefield Road wit h landscaped medians and left-turn pockets at intersections. South of Middlefield Road, Whisman Ro ad is a four-lane road with landscaped medians beginning south of Pacific Drive. Bike lanes and sidewalks exist on both sides of the entire street. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street south of Flynn Avenue. On-street parking is permitted along the west side of the street between Fairchild Drive and Flynn Avenue. The speed limit is 35 mph.

Ellis Street is a north-south four-lane arterial between Macon Road in the north and Middlefield Road in the south. Ellis Street has multiple landscaped medians and a t wo-way left turn lane at driveways with left turn pockets at intersections. Bike lanes exist along both sides of the street south of Fairchild Drive.

Sidewalks exist along both sides of the street south of Fairchi ld Drive. Sidewalks also exist along the west side of the street between Manila Avenue and Fairchild Drive. On-street parking is prohibited along both sides of the entire street. The posted speed limit is 40 m ph. Ellis Street provides direct access to the O1, R1, and R2 buildings of the project site.

Logue Avenue is a north-south two-lane local street starting at Middlefield Road in the south and ends with a cul-de-sac north of Maude Avenue. Bike lanes exist along both sides of the street south of Maude Avenue with the southbound bike lane terminating approximately 230 feet before Middlefield Road.

Sidewalks exist along both sides of the street, except for a short segment near the cul-de-sac along the west side of the street. On-street parking is permitted along b oth sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Logue Avenue provides direct access to the O2 and O3 buildings of the project site.

Clyde Avenue is a north-south two-lane local street starting at Maude Avenue in the south and continuing as Fairchild Drive in the north. Bike lanes and sidewalks exist along both sides of the street. On-street parking is permitted along both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Clyde Avenue Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 18
provides direct access to the O4 and O5 buildings and the two parking garages (P1 and P2) of the project site.

Mary Avenue is a six-lane roadway south of Central Expressway and a four-lane roadway north of Central Expressway. Mary Avenue travels in the north-south direction. It is classified as a collector north of Central Expressway and an arterial south of Central Expressw ay. It extends from Almanor Avenue in the north to Homestead Road in the south. Bike lanes exist alon g the entire street. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street for the whole length of the roadway. On-street parking is prohibited in the project vicinity. It has a posted speed limit of 30 mph in the project vicinity.

Mathilda Avenue is a six to eight-lane roadway. It is classified as an arterial. It extends from E. Caribbean Drive south past El Camino Real, where it transitions to Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road and extends south into Cupertino and Saratoga. Bike lanes exist along both sides of the street north of Washington Avenue in the project vicinity and along the east side of the street north of between Washington Avenue and Iowa Avenue. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street in the project vicinity, except between California Avenue and Washington Avenue as it is grade separated in this area. On-street parking is prohibited in the project vicinity. It has a posted speed limit of 45 mph in the project vicinity.

Existing Transit Services
Existing public transit services in the study area are provided by the VTA and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA). VTA operates bus and light rail transit (LRT) services in Santa Clara County, and the TMA provides free MVgo shuttle service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and Whisman areas.

The VTA bus and LRT routes and MVgo shuttle routes in the project vicinity and the bus/shuttle stops near the project site are summarized in Table 3 and shown on Figure 5.

VTA Bus Service
VTA Local Route 21 serves the project area with bus stops in each direction on Maude Avenue west of Clyde Avenue, on Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue, and on Middlefield Road at Ellis Street. The bus stops along Maude Avenue would be the closest stops for Buildings O4, O5, R4, R5, and R6. The bus stops along Middlefield Road would be the closest stops for Buildings O1, R1, and R2. The Logue Avenue bus stops would be the closest stops for B uildings O2, O3, and R3. Table 4 summarizes the distance from the closest buildings to the close st bus stops. Route 21 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 2.0 miles from the plan area. The Mountain View Transit Center provides connections to Caltrain, VTA LRT, several VTA b us routes (21, 40, and 52), MV community shuttle, and MVgo shuttle routes.

VTA Light Rail Transit (LRT)
The LRT Orange Line serves the plan area with the Middlefield LRT Station in the project area. The Middlefield LRT Station is approximately 300 feet from the closest building, Building R1, and approximately 2,500 feet of walking distance (0.47 mile) from the farthest building, Building O5/P1. The Orange Line travels between the Mountain View Transit Center and Alum Rock. 21 21
51 21,
MVgo
MVgo
MVgo
MVgo
MVCS
Red, MVgo
MVCS
Gray,
MVgo
21,
MVgo
21 21
21 Middlefield
LRT Station
Whisman
Whisman
LRT StationLRT Station
Whisman
LRT Station
Bayshore/NASA
LRT Station
Mountain
View
101
85 237
Central
Expy
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
E Middle
field Rd
Ellis St
Macon Rd
N Mary Ave
N Whisman Rd
Central Expy
Easy St
Tyrella Ave
Leong Dr
N Bernardo Ave
Logue AveLogue Ave
Clyde AveClyde Ave
Logue Ave
Clyde Ave
= East Whisman Precise Plan Boundary
= Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
LEGEND
= VTA Local Bus Route
= MVGO Shuttle Route A
= MV Community Shuttle
= Bus Stop
XX
= Light Rail: Mountain View-Alum Rock
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 5
Existing Transit Services

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 20
Table 3
Existing Transit Services

Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA) Shuttles The TMA operates the MVgo shuttle system. This shuttle system is provided through the collection of TMA member dues. MVgo operates four shuttle routes that provide service to employment areas from the Mountain View Transit Center. Three routes serve the North Bayshore area, and one route serves the N. Whisman area. The shuttles are timed to meet Caltrain arrivals during the AM and departures during PM commute periods. MVgo shuttle Route A provides servic e to the project area, with two bus stops within the vicinity of the area. One bus stop is on Middlefield Road east of Ellis Street, approximately 400 feet from the closest building, Building R1. Another bus stop is on Clyde Avenue, east of Clyde Court at the Samsung Building (665 Clyde Avenue), approximately 1,015 feet north of Buildings O4 and O5/P1.

It is likely that patrons in Buildings O1, O2, R1, R2, and R3 w ould utilize the stop on Middlefield Road, and patrons in Buildings O3, O4, O5 would utlize the stop on Cl yde Avenue. The distance between the two bus stops is similar from Buildings R4, R4 aff, R5, and R6.

Google Employee Shuttle
Google operates an employee shuttle system called GBus. Google employees can ride GBus for free to Google office buildings in Mountain View and Sunnyvale. GBus fu nctions as both an inter-office shuttle between various local building locations and a long-haul commut e shuttle system. GBus can serve the project area with an existing stop within the Quad Campus parking lot between Whisman Road and Ellis Street. As part of the transportation demand management (TDM) p lan, a second new GBus stop would be added in the project area within the proposed private service street north of Buildings O3 and O4.

Headways1
Route Route Description (minutes)
VTA Bus Route
Maude Avenue west of Clyde Avenue 50 feet to R5
Middlefield Road at Ellis Street 260 feet to R1
Logue Avenue between Maude and
Middlefield Road 740 feet to R3
Mountain View Shuttles
Clyde Avenue east of Clyde Court 1,015 feet to O4/O5
Middlefield Road east of Ellis Street 400 feet to R1
MV Community
Shuttle3
Through out Mountain
View, along Middlefield
and Whisman
10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 30 Whisman Road south of Middlefield Road 1,975 feet to to R1
VTA Light Rail Transit
LRT Orange Line Mountain View - Alum
Rock
5:30 AM - 12:45 AM
(next day) 20 Middlefield LRT Station 300 feet to R1
Notes:

3. Operated by Mountain View and Google. It provides free transportation connections between many residential neighborhoods, senior residences and services, city offices, library, park and recreational facilities, medical offices, shopping centers, and entertainment venues throughout Mountain View.

View Transit Center and the Bayshore/Whisman areas.
30 2. Operated by Mountain View Transportation Management Association. It provides free transportation connections between Mountain Weekday Hours
of Operation Nearby Bus Stops
Walking Distance
from Nearest Stop
to Nearest Building
Mvgo Route A2 Whisman, Clyde and
Middlefield
7:05 AM - 10:00 AM,
4:15 - 7:55 PM 30-60

1. Headways during weekday peak periods as of November 2021 Local Route 21
Stanford Shopping
Center - Santa Clara
Transit Center
5:30 AM - 9:05 PM
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 21
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks and crosswalks, whic h are present along most study area roadways, and at signalized and unsignalized study intersection s. Pedestrian signal heads and push buttons are present at the signalized study intersections. Cros swalks are present along the north leg of the unsignalized study intersection of Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue and along the north leg of the unsignalized intersection of Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue. Hig h-visibility midblock crosswalk curb extensions exists on Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue to access the existing path to the Middlefield LRT Station and a midblock crosswalk on Clyde Avenue north of the plan area boundary (in front of 580 Clyde Avenue) is present. Two enhance d midblock crosswalks with rapid rectangular flashing beacons (RRFB) exist on Ellis Street: north of the plan area boundary (in front of 475 Ellis Street) and in front of the proposed Building R2 (in front of 500 E. Middlefield Road). Sidewalks are missing on the north side of Maude Avenue between the SR 237 westbound frontage road and Macara Avenue and on the south side of Maude Avenue between Logue Aven ue and the SR 237 westbound frontage road. Sidewalks are also missing along the west side of Logue Avenue near the cul-de-sac.

Within a typical walking distance (a half mile or 10 minutes), pedestrian facilities are present between the plan area and the surrounding land uses, including bus stops in the area. However, continuous sidewalks across a long street block are not equivalent to good pedestrian connectivity. In addition, long distances (wider roads), heavier traffic volumes, and high posted speed l imits discourage pedestrian activity. The street network in the project area consists of long blocks: between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue, between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue, and between Maude Av enue and Clyde Avenue. As discussed in Chapter 7, the project would create better network connectivity through the provision of new pedestrian and bicycle paths and shorter block lengths.

Existing Bicycle Facilities
The bicycle facilities that exist within one mile of the projec t area (see Figure 6) include a multi-use trail (Class I bikeway), striped bike lanes (Class II bikeway), and s hared bike routes/boulevards (Class III bikeway). Bike paths or multi-use trails are shared between ped estrians and bicyclists and separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways de signated for use by bicycles with special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are signed bike routes where bicyclists share a travel lane with motorists. Bike boulevards are modified bike routes with additional treatments that offer convenient and efficient through-routes for bicyclists of all skill levels.

The existing Hetch Hetchy Trail extends from N. Whisman Road and connects to the Stevens Creek Trail.

The trail can be accessed from Whisman Road, approximately 0.9 mile from the plan area. East of Whisman Road, the trail connects to a multi-use path between N. Whisman Road and Ellis Street, through the existing Quad Office Campus.

The Stevens Creek Trail extends from the Bay, under US 101 and Middlefield Road, and ends at Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Avenue. The trail can be accessed from a po int on Easy Street at the Gladys Avenue intersection, about 1.0 mile from the plan area, from the sidewalk on the south side of Middlefield Road, or from the Hetch Hetchy Trail.

A multi-use path also exists along the west side of the LRT tracks between the northwest corner of the proposed Building O2, across Middlefield Road, into the South W hisman and Whisman Station neighborhoods. The path can be accessed by Middlefield Road, El lis Street and Logue Avenue through pedestrian walkways that run between these streets and the Middlefield LRT Station. It should be noted that no crosswalk exists on Middlefield Road to connect the existing multi-use path north and south.

LRT Trail
Hetchy Hetch Trail
Stevens Creek Trail
Mountain
View
101
85 237
Central
Expy
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
E Middlefield Rd
Gladys AveGladys Ave
Gladys Ave
Ellis St
Macon Rd
N Mary Ave
N Whisman Rd
Easy St
Tyrella Ave
Leong Dr
N Bernardo Ave
Logue AveLogue Ave
Clyde AveClyde
Ave
Logue Ave
Clyde Ave
= East Whisman Precise Plan Boundary
= Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
LEGEND
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 6
Existing Bicycle Facilities
= Class I Multi-Use Path/Trail
= Class II Bike Lane
= Class III Bike Route
= Class III Bicycle Boulevard
= Part-Time Bike Lane
(2AM-7PM Weekdays)
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 23
Striped bike lanes are present along the following street segments:
 Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue  Maude Avenue, except for a short segment between Clyde Avenue and SR 237 eastbound frontage road
 Middlefield Road, between Whisman Road and Bernardo Avenue  Middlefield Road, west of Whisman Road (part time 2 AM – 7 PM on weekdays)  Whisman Road, for the entire street
 Ellis Street, for the entire street
 Clyde Avenue, for the entire street
 Evelyn Avenue, east of Hope Street
 Mary Avenue, for the entire street
 Mathilda Avenue, south of Ahwanee Street
 Moffett Boulevard, north of Leong Drive
Some of these streets, while having bike lanes, are more suitab le for experienced riders because of the traffic speed. The bike lanes on Middlefield Road west of Whisman Road are part-time bike facilities that are used as bike lanes from 2 AM to 7 PM on weekdays and are used for on-street parking for the remaining hours (7 PM to 2 AM) and on weekends. Because the bik e lanes are available only on weekdays, they are primarily suited to bicycle commuters and not to casual riders.

Bike routes are typically designated with sharrows (shared-lane pavement markings) and bikes may take the travel lane. Bike routes are appropriate for low-volume streets with slow travel speeds, especially those on which motorist volumes are low enough that passing man euvers can use the full street width; on roadways with bicycle demand but without adequate space for bike lanes; and as “gap fillers” where there are short breaks in bike lanes due to right-of-way constr aints. The City’s Bike Map shows Leong Drive and Fairchild Drive are designated as existing bike routes. However, there are no sign or sharrows on either street to indicate a bike route.

The City’s Bike Map shows Central Avenue and Gladys Avenue are designated as existing bike boulevards. There are signs on Gladys Avenue at Whisman Road and along Central Avenue to indicate bike boulevards. Bike boulevards prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming strategies, wayfinding signage, and other measures. One key feature is stop signs are “flipped” - removed from the boulevard and placed on cross streets - to favor the bicycle direction of travel. This change improves bicyclists’ average speed by minimizing unneeded stops. Bicycle boulevard improvements are coupled with traffic calming features to discourage motor vehicle speeding.

As discussed in Chapter 7, the project would provide additional network connectivity through the provision of new pedestrian and bicycle paths and improve the existing bike lanes in the project area.

Existing Intersection Lane Configurations and Traffic Volumes The existing lane configurations at the study intersections wer e obtained from field observations and previous traffic studies (see Figure 7).

Existing traffic volumes were obtained from previous traffic st udies in 2019 and 2020 (pre-Covid) and new turning movement counts collected in September 2021, betwee n 7:00 and 10:00 AM and between 4:00 and 7:00 PM on a typical weekday.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 26
Of the 26 study intersections, 17 intersections have turning movement counts conducted prior to Covid- 19 in 2019 and 2020. Counts conducted in 2019 were increased by a factor of 2.5 percent per year from 2019 to 2021 (for an overall total of 5.0 percent) to derive the existing volumes. At the Moffett Boulevard and Central Expressway intersection, the PM peak-hour count was collected in 2018 by the CMP.

However, due to the street closure on Castro Street, a new PM p eak-hour count was not collected, and the 2018 CMP count was increased by a factor of 2.5 percent per year from 2018 to 2021 (for an overall total of 7.5 percent) to derive the existing volumes.

The following intersections did not have recent counts, and traffic volumes were counted on September 28, 2021:
 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue (PM peak hours only)  SR 85 SB Off Ramp and Central Expressway
 Whisman Station Drive and Central Expressway
 Ferguson Drive and Central Expressway
 Mary Avenue and Central Expressway (PM peak hours only)  Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real
 Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue
 Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue
New traffic counts at the above intersections were lower than t ypical conditions due to Covid-19.

Therefore, intersection counts for the Mary Avenue/Maude Avenue , Mary Avenue/Central Expressway, and Mathilda Avenue/Indio Avenue intersections were also conducted on September 28, 2021 to be used as baselines. The baselines determined an adjustment factor to be applied to the new volume counts between current conditions and typical conditions (i.e., pre-Covid-19). Based on the comparison of the 2020 counts and new counts, factors of 2.83 and 2.86 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, were applied to the new counts at the Mathilda Avenue/Maude Avenue, Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue, and Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersections based on the new counts collected at the Mary Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection. The new counts at these intersections are much lower than the 2020 pre-Covid counts because most employees of the office buildings in the area still continue to work remotely. Factors of 1.67 and 1.62 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, were applied to the new counts at the remaining intersections based on the new counts collected at the Mary Avenue/Central Expressway, and Mathilda Avenue/Indio Avenue intersections.

The existing peak-hour intersection volumes are shown in Figure 8. The intersection turning-movement counts conducted for this analysis are presented in Appendix A. Traffic count dates and sources and the adjustment applied to the study intersections are summarized in Appendix B.

Existing Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the intersection level of service show that all study intersections are currently operating at acceptable levels of service except the Grant Road/SR 237 Ramp and El Camino Real intersection, which is operating at LOS F during both the morning and evening peak hours (see Table 4). The intersection levels of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix C.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 29
Table 4
Existing Intersection Levels of Service

LOS Peak Count Avg.

ID Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Hour Date Delay 1 LOS 1 Ellis Street and Manila Driv e MV D AM 02/04/20 30.9 D (all-way stop) PM 02/04/20 17.8 C
2 Ellis Street and US 101 NB Ramps MV D AM 02/04/20 14.3 B PM 02/04/20 17.5 B
3 Ellis Street and US 101 SB Ramps MV D AM 02/04/20 16.6 B PM 02/04/20 16.0 B
4 Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive MV D AM 02/04/20 16.2 B PM 02/04/20 16.0 B
5 SR 237 Ramps and Maude Avenue MV D AM 05/30/19 29.2 C PM 05/30/19 34.3 C-
6 Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue SV D AM 02/05/20 37.2 D+ PM 02/05/20 35.5 D+
7 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue* SV/CMP E AM 02/05/20 42.4 D PM 09/28/21 50.8 D
8 Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 37.1 D+ PM 05/30/19 39.1 D
9 Easy St and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 19.2 B- PM 05/30/19 11.9 B+
10 Whisman Road and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 29.5 C PM 05/30/19 31.4 C
11 Ellis Street and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 15.1 B PM 05/30/19 15.5 B
12 Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 14.0 B PM 05/30/19 16.9 B
13 Ferguson Drive and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 10.3 B+ PM 05/30/19 8.8 A
14 SR 237 WB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 18.9 B- PM 05/30/19 14.9 B
15 SR 237 EB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 24.4 C PM 05/30/19 18.8 B-
Existing
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 30
Table 4
Existing Intersections Level of Service (continued)

LOS Peak Count Avg.

ID Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Hour Date Delay 1 LOS 16 Bernardo Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 05/30/19 11.0 B+ PM 05/30/19 15.4 B
17 Moffett Boulevard and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 05/22/19 41.6 D PM 11/01/18 58.2 E+
18 SR 85 SB Off Ramp/Central Expy SCC D AM 09/28/21 10.8 B+ PM 09/28/21 13.8 B
19 Whisman Station Drive and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 09/28/21 25.4 C PM 09/28/21 10.7 B+
20 Ferguson Drive and Central Expy* SCC D AM 09/28/21 5.7 A PM 09/28/21 3.1 A
21 Mary Avenue and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 02/06/20 51.1 D- PM 09/28/21 62.1 E
22 Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue SV E AM 02/05/20 36.7 D+ PM 02/05/20 38.3 D+
23 Whisman Road and SR 237 WB Ramps MV D AM 05/30/19 33.8 C- PM 05/30/19 35.3 D+
24 Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real* Caltrans/CMP E AM 09/28/21 102.0 F PM 09/28/21 94.0 F
25 Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 09/28/21 10.7 B (unsignalized)2 PM 09/28/21 10.0 B
26 Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 09/28/21 11.1 B (all-way stop) PM 09/28/21 8.3 A
Notes:
* Denotes VTA CMP intersection. SCC = Santa Clara County, MV = Mountain View, SV = Sunnyvale

1. Weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle.

2. Worst movement delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS are reported for stop-controlled intersections.

Bold indicates a substandard level of service.

Existing
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 31

4. Motor Vehicle Operations Analysis
This chapter presents the intersection operations analysis incl uding the method by which project traffic is estimated, the results of intersection level of service analysis for existing plus project, background, and background plus project, any adverse effects to intersection level of service caused by the project, intersection vehicle queuing, freeway ramp traffic operations, midblock pedestrian crossings, and effects on surrounding neighborhood streets. A potential adverse effect on a study intersection is not considered a CEQA impact.

Project Trip Estimates
The magnitude of traffic produced by a new development and the locations where that traffic would appear were estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip gene ration, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In determining project trip generation, the magnitu de of traffic traveling to and from the proposed project was estimated for the AM and PM peak hours. As part of the project trip distribution, the directions to and from which the project trips would travel were estimated. In the project trip assignment, the project trips were assigned to specific streets and intersections. These procedures are described below.

Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates (see Table 1) for the mixed-use devel opment are based on standard trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual , 10th Edition and the trip caps for new office developments in t he EWPP area. 4 For a consistent comparison with the EWPP EIR, the ITE 10th Edition Manual was used. Internal and transit trip reductions were applied to the project according to the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines . A pass-by trip reduction was also applied to the project’s retail uses. Net project trip generation on the surrounding roadway network was estimated by further crediting trips generated by the existing land uses on site.

4 The EWPP identifies an area-wide average trip cap of 0.95 a.m. and 0.88 p.m. peak-hour trips per 1,000 square feet of office and R&D sites to minimize vehicle trips into and out of East Whisman gateways. The 465 Fairchild Dr/600 Ellis Street Office Project transportation analysis, prepared by Fehr Peers dated September 2020, analyzed the combination of existing (l egacy) office development not sub ject to TDM requirements and future new office development that will be subject to TDM requirements in order to refine the trip generation rate necessary for future new office development to be compliant with the gateway trip cap volumes. The resulting trip cap for new office development is 0.83 a.m. and 0.72 p.m., which includes the incorporation of TDM measures required by the EWPP.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 32
Table 5
Project Trip Generation Estimates

ITE ITE Reduction
Land Use[1] Code Land Use % Rate Trip Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Land Uses
Google Office Buildings 1,317 ksf 5.25 6,914 0.833 943 154 1,097 0.723 152 800 952 Multifamily Housing 221 Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) 1,900 du 5.44 10,336 0.36 178 506 684 0.44 510 326 836 Housing & Retail (15%)[2] 15% -232 -2 -4 -6 -12 -11 -23 Housing & Employment (3%)[2] 3% -310 -5 -15 -20 -15 -10 -25 Transit Reduction (9%)[2] 9% -881 -15 -44 -59 -43 -28 -71 Multifamily Housing Trips 8,913 156 443 599 440 277 717 Retail[3] 820 Shopping Center 41 ksf 37.75 1,548 0.94 24 15 39 3.81 75 81 156 Housing & Retail (15%)[2] 15% -232 -4 -2 -6 -11 -12 -23 Retail Passby (Daily=30%, AM PH=0%, PM PH=30%)[4] 30% -395 0 0 0 -19 -21 -40 Retail Trips 921 20 13 33 45 48 93
Community/Civic Space[3] 495 Recreational Community Center 9 ksf 28.82 259 1.76 11 5 16 2.31 10 11 2 1 Maude Park 411 Public Park 5 acres 15.38 77 0.02 0 0 0 3.83 10 9 19 Project Trips After Reductions 17,084 1,130 615 1,745 657 1,145 1,802 Existing Land Uses
Existing Office Buildings 710 General Office Building 685 ksf 9.74 6,672 1.16 684 111 795 1.15 126 6 62 788 Transit Reduction (6%)[2] 6% -400 -41 -7 -48 -8 -39 -47 Total Existing Trips 6,272 643 104 747 118 623 741
Net Project Trips 10,812 487 511 998 539 522 1,061
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition 2017
Notes:
[4] Pass-by trip reduction is based on the maximum allowable pass-by trip reduction rate in the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 2014 for the daily and PM peak hour. Hexagon assumes no pass-by trip reduction during the AM peak hour for retail uses.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip Trip
[1] Daily, AM, and PM peak hour average rates published in ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, were used for Multifamily Housing, Retail, and Community/Civic Space uses. Maude Park trips were estimated using the fitted-curve equations for daily and PM peak-hour trips and the average trip rate for AM peak-hour trips. Daily trip rate and AM and PM peak-hour trip cap rates developed for the 465 Fairchild Drive office project were used for the Google office uses. [2] Trip reductions based on Table 1: Standard Auto Trip Reduction Rates from the VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 2014.

Daily
Size
Based on Trip Cap Requirement
[3] The Master Plan proposes 30,000 s.f. of retail and 20,000 s.f. of community/civic uses. However, land uses proposed under the community civic uses category would result in traffic patterns more similar to retail uses. Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes 41,000 s.f. of retail and 9,000 s.f. community/civic uses.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 33
Gross Project Trip Generation
Through empirical research, data has been collected that show t rip generation rates for many types of land uses. The data research is compiled in the publication Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The magnitude of t raffic added to the roadway system by a particular development is estimated by multiplying the applicable trip generation rates by the size of the development.

Trips that would be generated by the proposed uses were estimat e d u s i n g t h e I T E t r i p r a t e s f o r , “Multifamily Housing Mid-Rise” (Land Use 221), “Shopping Center” (Land Use 820), “Recreational Community Center” (Land Use 495), and “Public Park” (Land Use 411). For the proposed office uses, on the other hand, trip rates were determined based on the trip caps for new office development in the EWPP.

Trips generated by the existing offices on the site were estimated using ITE trip rates for “General Office” (Land Use 710).

A description of the source of trip generation rates for each land-use is provided below:
 Google Office. The trip estimate is based on the daily trip rate and peak-hou r trip cap rates for new office developments in the EWPP area. The trip cap rates we re determined through the transportation analysis for the 465 Fairchild Drive/600 Ellis Street office project at 0.83 trips per ksf during the AM peak hour and 0.72 trips per ksf during the PM peak hour, which is inclusive of TDM measures required by the EWPP.
 Residential. The trip estimate is based on the ITE Land Use code 221: Multifamily Housing (Mid- Rise), which includes apartments, townhouses, and condominiums located within the same building with at least three other dwelling units and that have between three to ten levels.  Retail. The trip estimate is based on ITE Land Use code 820: Shopping Center. This category includes the trip data for a wide scale of retail/commercial uses, from neighborhood centers to regional centers. It includes several types of retail/commercial uses like retail stores, restaurants, banks, grocery store, and health clubs, etc. that are typically present in shopping centers. Since specific uses of the proposed retail/commercial spaces are unkn own, it is reasonable to use the trip rates for shopping centers for the retail/commercial space as it includes a variety of uses that can serve a visitor in one vehicle trip.
 Community/Civic Space. The trip estimate is based on ITE Land Use code 495: Recreation al Community Center. This category includes the trip data for a stand-alone public facility similar to and including YMCAs. These facilities also typically include meeting rooms, classes, daycare, and clubs for adults and children, etc.
 Maude Park. The trip estimate is based on the ITE Land Use code 411: Public Park. This category includes data for public parks that include swimming facilities, trails, ball fields, soccer fields, and picnic facilities. Because Maude Park is large (over 5 acres) and could include active recreational use (i.e., a sports field, a community pool, picnic/event areas), it is not considered as passive open space. Therefore, trips associated with the park were estimated using the ITE trip rates.

Trip Adjustments and Reductions
Because the project would provide office, residential, and retail mixed-use on site, some residents would patronize the retail and office businesses, which would result in the internalization of some project trips.

Per the VTA TIA Guidelines, internal trip reductions of 15% bet ween retail and residential uses and 3% between residential and office uses were applied to the project. The trip reduction factors were first applied to the smaller trip generator; then the same trips were subtracted from the larger trip generators to account for both trip ends.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 34
The project is located within 2,000 feet of the VTA Light Rail Middlefield Station. Therefore, per the VTA TIA Guidelines, a 9% transit reduction was applied to the residential uses. This reduction is supported by a combination of the project’s access to public transit and proposed TDM program, which includes access to local transportation information.

The internalization and transit reduction factors for the office uses were not applied because the trip cap rates for new office developments in the EWPP area, which are 28 and 37 percent lower than the ITE trip rates for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, account for internalization and TDM measures.

Therefore, additional VTA internalization and transit reduction were not applied to the office uses.

According to the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Program, the project would be required to achieve a minimum 9 percent reduction for nonresidential land uses with 50 employees or more. Because the project would be required to achieve the trip caps through the TDM plan, it would meet the reduction goal required by the GHG Reduction Program.

In addition, trip generation for retail uses is typically adjusted to account for pass-by trips. Pass-by trips are trips that would already be on the adjacent roadways (and are therefore already counted in the existing traffic) but would turn into the site while passing by. Pass-by trips are therefore excluded from the traffic projections (although pass-by traffic is accounted for at the site entrances). An average pass- by trip reduction of 30% was applied to the daily trips and the PM peak-hour trips of the retail component of the project based on the maximum allowable pass-by reduction per the VTA TIA Guidelines.

Existing Trip Credits
The project would demolish approximately 685,000 square feet of existing office buildings as part of the proposed project. The trips generated by the existing office bu ildings on the site were estimated using ITE average trip rates for General Office Building. A transit reduction factor was applied to the office uses per the VTA TIA Guidelines. Due to Covid-19, most employees are working remotely. Therefore, trip generation counts were not conducted for the existing buildings, and the ITE trip rates were used to estimate the existing trips. Existing trip credits account for the trips that were generated by the existing office buildings, all of which are occupied or were occupied recently.

Net Project Trips
After applying the applicable trip reductions and existing trip credits, the net new project trips generated by the proposed land uses on the roadway network would be 10,812 daily trips, including 998 AM peak hour trips (487 inbound trips and 511 outbound trips), and 1,06 1 PM peak hour trips (539 inbound trips and 522 outbound trips) (see Table 5).

Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trip distribution patterns for the office and residential uses were estimated based on the trip distributions for the 465 Fairchild Drive/600 Ellis Street offi ce project and the 355 E. Middlefield Road residential project, respectively. Both projects are located in the EWPP area, and the trip distributions were informed by the overall EWPP distribution. The trip distribution for the retail and community uses of the project was estimated based on the locations of complementa ry land uses. It is expected that the project retail and community uses would serve mostly the area in the vicinity of the project area. The trip distribution patterns are shown on Figure 9.

The peak-hour trips generated by the existing and proposed uses were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure, the roadway network connections, and the locations of project driveways. Figure 10 show the assignment of the net project traffic at the study intersections.

A tabular summary of project traffic at each study intersection is contained in Appendix B.

Mountain
View
Sunnyvale
101
85 82
237
1 2
3 4
5 6
8 17
18 24
19 23
25 26
20 21
22 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 7
Central Expy
Evelyn AveEvelyn AveEvelyn Ave
Moffett Blvd
Borregas Ave
Castro St
N Mathilda Ave
W Maude Ave
E Middlefield Rd Ellis St
Macon Rd
N Fair Oaks Ave
N Mary Ave
N Shoreline Blvd
E Arques Ave
N Whisman Rd
W El Camino Real
Enterprise
Calderon Ave
S Shoreline Blvd
W Java Dr
S Bernardo Ave
W Middlefield
Rd
S Mary Ave
Central Expy
N Mathilda Ave
11%(3%)
5%(5%)
4%(5%)
15%(10%)
20%(15%)
6%(10%)
2%
4%
3%
5%(4%)
15%(30%)
(3%)
(5%)
10%(10%)
10%
10%
10%
10%10%5%
10%
5%
5%
5%
5% 5%
5%
5%
= East Whisman Precise Plan Boundary
= Middlefield Park Master Plan Boundary
LEGEND
= Office(Residential) Trip DistributionXX%(XX%)
X = Study Intersection
= Retail/Community Service/Park
Trip DistributionXX%
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 9
Project Trip Distribution

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 38
Intersection Traffic Operations Analysis
The intersection operations analysis is intended to quantify the operations of the study intersections and to identify potential adverse effects due to the addition of pr oject traffic. The study intersections are located in the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale and are evaluated based on the respective cities’ and CMP’s intersection analysis methodologies and standards in determining potential adverse operational effects due to the project, as described in Chapter 1.

Roadway Network
The roadway network under background and project conditions is assumed to be the same as under existing conditions because there are no planned and funded transportation improvements at the study intersections that would alter the existing intersection lane configurations, and the project would not alter the existing intersection lane configurations.

Traffic Volumes
Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Project trips were added to existing traffic volumes to obtain existing plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 11).

Background Traffic Volumes
Background traffic volumes for the study intersections (see Fig ure 12) were estimated by adding to the existing traffic volumes the trips generated by nearby approved projects that have not been constructed or occupied.

Lists of approved projects were obtained from the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. Hexagon considered both the location and size of the approved projects in order to eliminate those that were too far away or too small to affect traffic conditions of the study intersections. The approved projects considered for the study are listed in Appendix D. Vehicle trips from the approved projects were obtained from the project’s TIA or environmental document (Initial Study or EIR), if available. For projects without a traffic study, trip estimates were developed using rates publ ished in the Trip Generation Manual. The estimated trips were assigned to the study intersections according to distributions identified in the development traffic studies, if available, or knowledge of the study area.

Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Project trips were added to background traffic volumes to obtain background plus project traffic volumes (see Figure 13).

The approved trips and traffic volumes for all components of traffic are tabulated in Appendix B.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 45
Intersection Levels of Service
The results of the existing plus project intersection level of service analysis are shown in Table 6. The results of the background and background plus project intersect ion levels of service analysis are shown in Table 7. The detailed intersection level of service calculation sheets for all study scenarios are included in Appendix C.

Background Conditions
Intersection levels of service were evaluated against the standards of the CMP and the Cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The results of the intersection level of service analysis show that most study intersections would operate at acceptable levels during both th e AM and PM peak hours of traffic. The Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection would operate at LOS F d uring the AM peak hour, and the Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real intersection would operate at LO S F during the AM and PM peak hours.

The EWPP EIR shows the Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real int ersection would operate at LOS E under background conditions and LOS F under cumulative condit ions. However, no improvements were identified for this intersection.

Table 6
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service

LOS Peak Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection (Jurisdiction) Jurisdiction Standard Hour Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 1 Ellis Street and Manila Drive MV D AM 30.9 D 30.9 D -- -- (all-way stop) PM 17.8 C 18.3 C -- --
2 Ellis Street and US 101 NB Ramps MV D AM 14.3 B 17.1 B 2.8 0.120 PM 17.5 B 20.0 C+ 2.4 0.112
3 Ellis Street and US 101 SB Ramps MV D AM 16.6 B 18.5 B- 1.9 0.089 PM 16.0 B 17.9 B 2.9 0.135
4 Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive MV D AM 16.2 B 17.8 B -0.3 0.037 PM 16.0 B 18.9 B- 4.5 0.186
5 SR 237 Ramps and Maude Avenue MV D AM 29.2 C 32.3 C- 3.7 0.087 PM 34.3 C- 35.0 C- -1.2 0.114
6 Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue SV D AM 37.2 D+ 36.6 D+ -0.4 0.024 PM 35.5 D+ 34.6 C- -0.5 0.023
7 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue* SV/CMP E AM 42.4 D 43.0 D 0.6 0.007 PM 50.8 D 52.6 D- 2.2 0.015
8 Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Road MV D AM 37.1 D+ 37.3 D+ -0.1 0.008 PM 39.1 D 39.7 D 1.0 0.020
9 Easy St and Middlefield Road MV D AM 19.2 B- 19.1 B- -0.1 0.015 PM 11.9 B+ 11.7 B+ 0.0 0.016
10 Whisman Road and Middlefield Road MV D AM 29.5 C 29.3 C -0.2 0.021 PM 31.4 C 31.8 C 0.7 0.018
11 Ellis Street and Middlefield Road MV D AM 15.1 B 16.3 B 1.0 0.077 PM 15.5 B 17.0 B 2.1 0.102
12 Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 14.0 B 18.2 B- 5.3 0.107 PM 16.9 B 20.6 C+ 4.1 0.064
13 Ferguson Drive and Middlefield Road MV D AM 10.3 B+ 10.4 B+ 0.0 0.024 PM 8.8 A 9.0 A 0.4 0.030
14 SR 237 WB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 18.9 B- 19.3 B- 0.4 0.020 PM 14.9 B 15.1 B 0.2 0.033
15 SR 237 EB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 24.4 C 24.4 C 0.0 0.026 PM 18.8 B- 19.5 B- 0.7 0.020
Existing Existing+Project
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 46
Table 6
Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (continued)

LOS PM Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Jurisdiction Standard AM Delay 1 LOS Delay1 LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 16 Bernardo Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 11.0 B+ 11.1 B+ 0.1 0.006 PM 15.4 B 15.8 B 0.4 0.013
17 Moffett Boulevard and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 41.6 D 42.0 D 0.4 0.0 11 PM 58.2 E+ 59.9 E+ 1.4 0.009
18 SR 85 SB Off Ramp/Central Expy SCC D AM 10.8 B+ 10.9 B+ 0.1 0.005 PM 13.8 B 13.8 B 0.0 0.005
19 Whisman Station Drive and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 25.4 C 25.9 C 0. 7 0.005 PM 10.7 B+ 10.8 B+ 0.3 0.006
20 Ferguson Drive and Central Expy* SCC D AM 5.7 A 5.9 A 0.0 0.000 PM 3.1 A 3.4 A 0.0 0.000
21 Mary Avenue and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 51.1 D- 51.1 D- 0.1 0.003 PM 62.1 E 62.5 E 0.7 0.004
22 Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue SV E AM 36.7 D+ 38.5 D+ 2.7 0.037 PM 38.3 D+ 38.7 D+ 0.0 0.001
23 Whisman Road and SR 237 WB Ramps MV D AM 33.8 C- 33.9 C- 0.5 0.014 PM 35.3 D+ 35.4 D+ 0.0 0.000
24 Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real* Caltrans/CMP E AM 102.0 F 101.6 F 0.0 0.000 PM 94.0 F 93.8 F 0.0 0.000
25 Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 10.7 B 13.0 B -- -- (unsignalized)2 PM 10.0 B 11.1 B -- --
26 Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 11.1 B 19.5 C -- -- (all-way stop) PM 8.3 A 12.7 B -- --
Notes:
* Denotes VTA CMP intersection. SCC = Santa Clara County, MV = Mountain View, SV = Sunnyvale

1. Weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle.

2. Worst movement delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS are reported for stop-controlled intersections.

Bold indicates a substandard level of service.

Existing Existing+Project
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 47
Table 7
Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service

LOS Peak Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Jurisdiction Standard Hour Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 1 Ellis Street and Manila Drive MV D AM 54.4 F 54.2 F -- -- (all-way stop) PM 23.4 C 24.3 C -- --
2 Ellis Street and US 101 NB Ramps MV D AM 15.1 B 18.5 B- 3.7 0.125 PM 19.6 B- 23.4 C 4.0 0.122
3 Ellis Street and US 101 SB Ramps MV D AM 18.2 B- 22.5 C+ 4.2 0.110 PM 15.6 B 17.8 B 2.1 0.153
4 Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive MV D AM 16.7 B 19.3 B- 7.5 0.149 PM 17.6 B 20.7 C+ 5.6 0.185
5 SR 237 Ramps and Maude Avenue MV D AM 34.4 C- 39.2 D 6.6 0.061 PM 34.5 C- 36.6 D+ 1.6 0.079
6 Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue SV D AM 37.3 D+ 36.9 D+ -0.5 0.018 PM 36.0 D+ 35.4 D+ -0.3 0.025
7 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue* SV/CMP E AM 54.1 D- 56.1 E+ 4.7 0.021 PM 62.7 E 63.6 E -1.0 -0.004
8 Moffett Boulev ard and Middlefield Road MV D AM 37.9 D+ 38.1 D+ 0.0 0.008 PM 39.7 D 40.1 D 0.8 0.013
9 Easy St and Middlefield Road MV D AM 18.9 B- 18.7 B- 0.0 0.011 PM 11.7 B+ 11.5 B+ -0.1 0.008
10 Whisman Road and Middlefield Road MV D AM 29.1 C 29.0 C -0.2 0.021 PM 31.9 C 32.5 C- 0.6 0.017
11 Ellis Street and Middlefield Road MV D AM 15.3 B 16.9 B 1.5 0.078 PM 15.6 B 17.3 B 2.4 0.102
12 Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 13.9 B 18.1 B- 5.4 0.107 PM 16.3 B 20.3 C+ 3.7 0.051
13 Ferguson Drive and Middlefield Road MV D AM 10.1 B+ 10.0 A 0.1 0.024 PM 8.7 A 8.8 A 0.4 0.022
14 SR 237 WB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 19.1 B- 19.5 B- 0.5 0.020 PM 16.2 B 16.6 B 0.4 0.035
15 SR 237 EB Ramps and Middlefield Road MV D AM 25.5 C 25.5 C 0.0 0.026 PM 19.5 B- 20.2 C+ 0.6 0.019
Background Background+Project
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 48
Table 7
Background Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service (continued)

Project Conditions
The results of the analysis show that the added project trips would not cause an adverse operational effect at any of the signalized study intersections under existing and background conditions.

The Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection is a T-intersection and is stop controlled on all approaches.

Under background conditions, the intersection is estimated to operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) during the AM peak hour. The added project trips would slightly increase the average delay for the intersection but is not expected to cause a noticeable effe ct on traffic operations at this intersection.

The peak-hour volume signal warrant analysis described below indicates that both the AM and PM peak- hour volumes at the intersection would meet the peak-hour signal warrant under both existing and background conditions. To address the deficiency, the EWPP EIR recommends signalizing the intersection with a protected left turn lane and shared through/right lane for each approach. Thus, the project should contribute to the improvement identified by the EWPP, which can be . The project may be able to contribute to the improvement identifiedachieved by the applicant paying the EWPP Development Impact Fee, if adopted.

There are several signalized intersections for which the average delay under project conditions is shown to be less than under no project conditions during at least one peak hour. The decrease in average delay can be less under project conditions because the intersection d elay is a weighted average of all intersection movements. The addition of project traffic to movements with delays lower than the average intersection delay can reduce the average delay for the entire intersection. There are also several LOS AM Avg. Avg. Incr. In Incr. In
ID Intersection Jurisdiction Standard PM Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Crit. Delay Crit. V/C 16 Bernardo Avenue and Middlefield Road MV D AM 12.9 B 12.9 B 0.0 0.006 PM 16.4 B 16.7 B 0.4 0.005
17 Moffett Boulev ard and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 42.4 D 42.8 D 0.4 0.011 PM 63.4 E 65.6 E 1.9 0.009
18 SR 85 SB Off Ramp/Central Expy SCC D AM 10.8 B+ 10.9 B+ 0.1 0.005 PM 13.8 B 13.8 B 0.0 0.005
19 Whisman Station Drive and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 25.3 C 25.8 C 0.7 0.005 PM 10.9 B+ 11.0 B+ 0.3 0.006
20 Ferguson Drive and Central Expy* SCC D AM 4.8 A 5.0 A 0.0 0.000 PM 3.1 A 3.4 A 0.0 0.000
21 Mary Avenue and Central Expy* SCC/CMP E AM 52.4 D- 52.4 D- 0.1 0.003 PM 65.9 E 66.4 E 0.9 0.004
22 Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue SV E AM 52.1 D- 58.6 E+ 10.3 0.037 PM 41.9 D 43.7 D 1.5 0.010
23 Whisman Road and SR 237 WB Ramps MV D AM 33.8 C- 33.9 C- 0.5 0.014 PM 35.3 D+ 35.3 D+ -0.1 -0.001
24 Grant Road/SR 237 and El Camino Real* Caltrans/CMP E AM 102.9 F 102.5 F 0.0 0.000 PM 95.8 F 94.4 F -1.9 -0.005
25 Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 10.8 B 13.2 B -- -- (unsignalized)2 PM 10.1 A 11.2 B -- --
26 Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue MV D AM 12.6 B 28.4 D -- -- (all-way stop) PM 8.7 A 14.3 B -- --
Notes:
* Denotes VTA CMP intersection. SCC = Santa Clara County, MV = Mountain View, SV = Sunnyvale

1. Weighted average control delay measured in seconds per vehicle.

2. Worst movement delay (seconds per vehicle) and LOS are reported for stop-controlled intersections.

Bold indicates a substandard level of service.

Background Background+Project
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 49
signalized intersections at which there would be no increase in critical delay and/or critical v/c compared to existing and background conditions. This is because the proj ect trips are assigned to the non-critical movements of these intersections.

Signal Warrant Analysis At Unsignalized Intersections
Traffic operations at the unsignalized intersections were also analyzed on the basis of the Peak-Hour Volume Signal Warrant, (Warrant #3) described in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 2014 Edition. This method makes no evaluation of intersection level of service, but simply provides an indication whether peak-hour traffic volumes are, or would be, sufficient to justify installation of a traffic signal. The results of peak-hour volu me signal warrant analysis (see Table 8) indicate that the Ellis Street/Manila Drive intersection would meet the thresholds that warrant signalization under both existing and background conditions during both AM an d PM peak hours. The Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection would not meet the warrant analysis under any condition. The Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection would meet the warrant analysis under the background plus project conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours. However, because the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS D under background plus project conditions, inst allation of a traffic signal is not recommended for the intersection. The peak-hour signal warrant sheet is contained in Appendix E.

Table 8
Signal Warrant Analysis Summary

Intersection Control at Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue
The Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection is all-way stop cont rolled. The peak-hour volume under the background plus project scenario would warrant a traffic si gnal. However, the intersection would operate adequately without a signal.

To further evaluate the need for a traffic signal at the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection, the Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Warrant (Warrant #1) and the Pedest rian Volume Warrant (Warrant #4) were checked. The warrant sheet is contained in Appendix E. The 8-hour vehicular volume warrant would not be met because the traffic volume for four of the highest 8 hours is less than the minimum thresholds for a traffic signal. Based on the peak period pedestrian volume estimated by the applicant for the MPMP, there would be up to 100 pedestrians during the 3-4 hour peak p eriod, which is much lower than the minimum threshold (100 pedestrians per hour) of the pedestrian volume warrant. Therefore, based on the 8-hour volume and pedestrian volume warrants, the intersection would not warrant a traffic signal.

As an alternative, a roundabout was also evaluated for the Maude Avenue/Clyde Avenue intersection. A standard single lane roundabout typically requires 110 feet in diameter and a mini roundabout requires 80 feet in diameter. The intersection is approximately 70 feet wide in the east-west direction. However, in the north-south direction, the intersection is approximately 50 feet wide. Because the intersection Intersection Existing
Existing Plus
Project Background
Background
Plus Project
Ellis Street & Manila Street Yes Yes Yes Yes
Logue Avenue & Maude Avenue No No No No
Clyde Avenue & Maude Avenue No No No Yes
Notes:

1. Based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Dev ices for Streets and Highways, Warrant 3 - Peak Hour
Signal Warrant Met 1
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 50
comprises an arterial and collector street, a standard roundabout would be appropriate. To accommodate the roundabout would require taking approximately 20 to 30 feet from the adjacent properties at Building R6, Building R5, as well as the property at the northeast corne r of Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue, for right-of-way use. With the roundabout, the intersection would operate similarly or better than the existing all-way stop. With the all-way stop, the maximum westbound vehi cle queue on Maude Avenue is estimated to extend to the signal at SR 237 during the AM peak hour under background plus project conditions. With the roundabout, the westbound vehicle queue is expected to be shorter and would not extend to the signal at SR 237. It should be noted that the rou ndabout may be challenging to accommodate since the project does not include redevelopment of the property at the northeast corner of Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue and it would alter the project significantly, resulting in fewer residential units (Buildings R5 and R6) – particularly affordable units - a nd a reduction in the size of public parks (Maude and Gateway Parks). Due to right-of-way constraints and loss of residential units and park space, the roundabout is not recommended.

Stop Warrant Analysis At Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue
A potential all-way stop at the Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue i ntersection was evaluated under existing, background, and background plus project conditions, based on the criteria described in the City’s stop warrant analysis worksheet. The criteria includes:

I. Volume Warrant: The vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approa ches is at least 300 vehicles per hour for the highest 8 hours of an average day, AND the combined vehicular volume entering the intersection from the minor street approaches is at least 100 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours.

OR
The vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approac hes is at least 300 vehicles per hour for the highest 8 hours of an average day, AND the total pedestrian volume entering the intersection is at least 100 pedestrians per hour for the same 8 hours.

If the intersection is located in a residential area, the above volume thresholds are decreased by 40%.

II. Crash Warrant: 3 or more reported crashes/collisions in a 12-month period.

III. Line of Sight Warrant: 150 feet or less line of sight distance on one or more approaches of the major street.

An intersection qualifies as a residential area if ALL of the following conditions exist:
- Both streets have residential frontage and have a 25 mph speed limit. - Neither street is an adopted through street as defined in the CVC (California Vehicle Code). - Neither street has more than one travel lane in each direction . - No stop sign or traffic signal exists within 500 feet along th e major street. - The installation of a 4-way stop sign is compatible with overa ll traffic circulation.

The Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection does not qualify as a residential area because both streets do not have a residential frontage, even though some residential uses areis anticipated along both streets (400 Logue Avenue and the project Building R3).

Based on the City’s stop warrant criteria, the intersection would not meet any of the three warrants under any scenario. The stop warrant analysis worksheets are included in Appendix E.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 51
Intersection Vehicle Queuing
The analysis of intersection operations was supplemented with a vehicle queuing analysis for intersections where the project would add a substantial number of trips to the left-turn movements. This analysis provides a basis for estimating future storage requirements at the intersections under existing, background, and background plus project conditions. Vehicle queues were estimated using the Poisson method, described in Chapter 1. The following left-turn movemen ts were evaluated, and the results of the queueing analysis are summarized in Table 9:
 Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive: southbound left turn  SR 237 Ramps and Maude Avenue: northbound and eastbound left t urns  Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue: northbound left turn
 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue: northbound left turn  Whisman Road and Middlefield Road: southbound and westbound le ft turns  Ellis Street and Middlefield Road: southbound and eastbound le ft turns  Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road: eastbound left turn  Ferguson Drive and Middlefield Road: northbound and westbound left turns  SR 237 Eastbound Ramps and Middlefield Road: northbound left t urn  Ferguson Drive and Central Expressway: eastbound left turn  Moffett Boulevard and Middlefield Road: westbound left turn  Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue: southbound left turn  Logue Avenue and Maude Avenue: westbound movement
 Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue: southbound and eastbound moveme nts The queuing analysis indicates that under background plus project conditions, the 95th percentile left- turn vehicle queue at the following movements and peak hours wo uld exceed the storage capacity due to the project. The vehicle queuing calculations are included in Appendix F.  Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive: southbound left turn (AM peak hour)  Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue: northbound left turn (AM peak hour)  Whisman Road and Middlefield Road: westbound left turn (PM pea k hour)  Ellis Street and Middlefield Road: eastbound left turn (AM and PM peak hours)  Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road: eastbound left turn (PM pea k hour)  Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue: southbound movement (PM peak ho ur) The queuing analyses for these movements are discussed below. T he project trips would not cause the estimated maximum vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity at other movements or peak hours.

Southbound Left Turn at Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive The southbound left-turn lane on Ellis Street at Fairchild Drive provides approximately 175 feet of vehicle storage, which can accommodate about seven vehicles. The 95th percentile queue currently extends past the storage lane by one vehicle during the AM peak hour. Under background conditions, the queue would exceed the storage length by three vehicles. The project would increase the 95th percentile queue by three vehicles under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by six vehicles in the AM peak hour.

The EWPP EIR analyzed the Ellis Street corridor at the US 101 interchange. The EIR identified that during the AM peak hour, the southbound queue at Fairchild Drive would extend to the US 101 southbound ramp intersection and cause extensive queuing and ve hicle delays on the southbound off ramp. However, the EIR indicates that due to right-of-way and funding constraints, there are no feasible Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 52
Table 9
Queuing Analysis Summary

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 70 70 100 110 100 110 150 130 160 160 95 100 Volume (vph) 224 88 97 37 40 76 345 104 613 134 275 86
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 224 88 97 37 40 76 173 52 307 67 138 43
95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 8 4 6 3 3 5 12 4 20 6 7 3
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 200 100 150 75 75 125 300 100 500 150 175 75
Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 225 225 175 175 250 250 450 450 250 250 Adequate (Y/N) N YY YY Y N Y N YY Y
Background
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 70 70 100 110 100 110 150 130 160 160 95 100 Volume (vph) 310 103 97 37 40 76 346 104 700 150 335 97 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 310 103 97 37 40 76 173 52 350 75 168 49 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 10 5 6 3 3 5 12 4 22 7 8 3
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 250 125 150 75 75 125 300 100 550 175 200 75
Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 225 225 175 175 250 250 450 450 250 250 Adequate (Y/N) N YY YY Y N Y N YY Y
Background Plus Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 70 70 100 110 100 110 150 130 160 160 95 100 Volume (vph) 428 150 168 85 109 111 360 109 740 184 350 120 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 428 150 168 85 109 111 180 55 370 92 175 60 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 13 6 8 5 6 7 12 4 23 8 8 4
95th %. Queue2 (ft/ln) 325 150 200 125 150 175 300 100 575 200 200 100 Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 225 225 175 175 250 250 450 450 250 250 Adequate (Y/N) N YY YY Y N Y N YY Y
Notes:
1 Cycle length used for signalized intersections, delay of movement used for unsignalized intersections 2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued.
3 Storage length measured from intersection to nearest driveway.

NBLSBL EBL NBL
NB = northbound; SB = southbound; WB = westbound; EB = eastboun d; L = left-turn; T = through; R = right turn SR 237 Ramps & Maude Avenue
SR 237 EB Ramps &
Middlefield Road
Ellis Street &
Fairchild
Mary Avenue &
Maude Avenue
Mathilda Avenue
& Maude Avenue
Analysis Scenario
NBLNBL
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 53
Table 9
Queuing Analysis Summary (continued)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 100 100 70 65 70 65 85 105 70 70 70 70 Volume (vph) 61 51 65 337 160 419 256 108 85 49 61 18 35 138 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 61 51 65 337 80 210 256 108 85 49 61 18 18 69 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 4 4 4 15 4 7 9 4 5 4 3 1 1 3
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 100 100 100 375 100 175 225 100 125 100 75 25 25 75 Storage (ft/ln) 125 125 275 275 250 250 125 125 200 200 125 125 175 175 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y N YY N YY Y Y Y Y Y
Background
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 100 100 70 65 70 65 85 105 70 70 70 70 Volume (vph) 73 126 65 340 202 454 263 110 89 61 61 18 36 139 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 73 126 65 340 101 227 263 110 89 61 61 18 18 70 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 5 7 4 15 4 7 9 5 5 4 3 1 1 3
95th %. Queue2 (ft/ln) 125 175 100 375 100 175 225 125 125 100 75 25 25 75 Storage (ft/ln) 125 125 275 275 250 250 125 125 200 200 125 125 175 175 Adequate (Y/N) Y N Y N YY N YY Y Y Y Y Y
Background Plus Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 100 100 100 100 70 65 70 65 85 105 70 70 70 70 Volume (vph) 78 136 96 367 257 564 281 153 126 168 79 33 40 151 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
Volume (vphpl) 78 136 96 367 129 282 281 153 126 168 79 33 20 76 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 5 7 6 16 4 7 10 6 6 9 4 2 2 4
95th %. Queue2 (ft/ln) 125 175 150 400 100 175 250 150 150 225 100 50 50 100 Storage (ft/ln) 125 125 275 275 250 250 125 125 200 200 125 125 175 175 Adequate (Y/N) Y N Y N YY NN Y N YY YY
Notes:
1 Cycle length used for signalized intersections, delay of movement used for unsignalized intersections 2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued.
3 Storage length measured from intersection to nearest driveway.

SBL3 EBL WBLSBL
Analysis Scenario

NBLWBL EBL
NB = northbound; SB = southbound; WB = westbound; EB = eastbound; L = left-turn; T = through; R = righ t turn Whisman Road & Middlefield Road Ellis Street & Middlefield Road Ferguson Drive &
Middlefield Road
Logue Avenue &
Middlefield
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 54
Table 9
Queuing Analysis Summary (continued)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Existing
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 89 90 120 120 160 160 10.7 9.5 8.6 8.7 7.9 8.3 Volume (vph) 65 109 141 168 22 39 287 74 68 146 54 146
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 65 109 141 168 22 39 287 74 68 146 54 146 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 4 6 9 10 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 100 150 225 250 75 100 75 25 25 25 25 25
Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 300 300 325 325 100 100 75 75 75 75 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Background
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 89 90 120 120 160 160 10.8 9.6 9.8 9.1 8.3 8.6 Volume (vph) 65 109 142 169 57 128 299 76 154 161 56 157 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 65 109 142 169 57 128 299 76 154 161 56 157 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 4 6 9 10 5 10 3 1 2 2 1 2
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 100 150 225 250 125 250 75 25 50 50 25 50
Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 300 300 325 325 100 100 75 75 75 75 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Background Plus Project
Cycle/Delay1 (sec) 89 90 120 120 160 160 13.2 11.1 12.1 16.6 11.6 10.5 Volume (vph) 81 120 143 170 86 155 435 150 205 433 249 160 Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 81 120 143 170 86 155 435 150 205 433 249 160 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 5 6 9 10 7 11 4 2 2 5 2 2
95th %. Queue
2 (ft/ln) 125 150 225 250 175 275 100 50 50 125 50 50
Storage (ft/ln) 175 175 300 300 325 325 100 100 75 75 75 75 Adequate (Y/N) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N YY
Notes:
1 Cycle length used for signalized intersections, delay of movement used for unsignalized intersections 2 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued.
3 Storage length measured from intersection to nearest driveway.

EBL WBL/T/R 3WBL EBL/T3SBL/R3SBL
Logue Avenue &
Maude Avenue Clyde Avenue & Maude Avenue
NB = northbound; SB = southbound; WB = westbound; EB = eastbound; L = left-turn; T = through; R = right turn Ferguson Drive &
Central Expy
Moffett Boulevard &
Middlefield Road
Mathilda Avenue &
Indio Avenue
Analysis Scenario
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 55
improvements to improve operations and vehicle queuing along Ellis Street at the interchange.

However, since adoption of the EWPP EIR, the City has identified lane restriping and median modifications that can minimally improve this intersection, for which the improvement costs were included in the EWPP Development Impact Fee. So, payment of the fee by the applicant would contribute to these improvements.

Northbound Left Turn at Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue The northbound left-turn lanes on Mathilda Avenue at Maude Avenue provide approximately 450 feet of vehicle storage per lane within two lanes, which can accommodate about 18 vehicles per lane. The 95th percentile vehicle queue would exceed the storage capacity by t wo vehicles in the AM peak hour under existing conditions and four vehicles under background conditions. The project would increase the 95th percentile queue by one vehicle under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by five vehicles p er lane in the AM peak hour. The northbound left turn pockets could be extended by modifying the landscaped median to accommodate the extra 10 vehicles. However, the northbound traffic has thre e through lanes to travel through the intersection. Thus, the spillback is not expected to affect the northbound through traffic at the intersection.

Westbound Left Turn at Whisman Road and Middlefield Road The westbound left-turn lane on Middlefield Road at Whisman Road provides approximately 275 feet of vehicle storage, which can accommodate about 11 vehicles. The 95th percentile queue currently extends past the storage lane by four vehicles during the PM peak hour. Under background conditions, the queue would not increase. The project would increase the 95th percent ile queue by one vehicle under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by five vehicles in the PM peak hour. The westbound left turn pocket could be extended to 200 feet by modifying the landscaped median. However, the westbound through movement has two lanes to travel through the intersection. Thus, the 95th percentile queu e briefly extending to the inside through lane is not expected to adversely affect the westbound traffic flow.

Eastbound Left Turn at Ellis Street and Middlefield Road The eastbound left-turn lane on Middlefield Road at Ellis Street provides approximately 125 feet of vehicle storage, which can accommodate about five vehicles. The 95th percentile queue currently extends past the storage lane by four vehicles during the AM peak hour. Duri ng the PM peak hour, the queue is accommodated within the storage lane with four vehicles. Under background conditions, the queue would not increase during the AM peak hour and would increase by one vehicle during the PM peak hour. The project would increase the 95th percentile queue by one vehicle under background plus project conditions, causing the 95th percentile vehicle queue to exceed the storage capacity by five vehicles in the AM peak hour and one vehicle in the PM peak hour. In the AM peak hour, the 95th percentile vehicle queue would extend to the median opening for the westbound midblock left turn into the driveway at 487 E. Middlefield Road.

The EWPP EIR identifies the need for an improvement at this int ersection, specifically along the eastbound direction to improve queuing. The EIR recommends adding an eastbound left-turn lane with overlap signal phasing. The existing right-of-way of 80 feet could fit two 8-foot bike lanes, two 10-foot left turn lanes, and four 11-foot through lanes. The project may be able tocan contribute to the improvement identified by paying an the EWPP Development Impact Fee, if adopted.

Eastbound Left Turn at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road The eastbound left-turn lane on Middlefield Road at Logue Avenu e provides approximately 200 feet of vehicle storage, which can accommodate about eight vehicles. The 95th percentile queue is accommodated during the AM and PM peak hours under existing and background conditions. The project Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 56
would increase the 95th percentile queue to 225 feet during the PM peak hour, which would extend past the storage lane by one vehicle. The small increase in queue length is not expected to cause a noticeable effect on the eastbound traffic operations because the left-tur n spillback would last for a short period of time during the PM peak hour. The extended queue is not expected to create any conflicts with the VTA rail safety operations as there are gate arms at the rail to prevent vehicles from approaching the crossing.

However, to minimize the possibility of the eastbound vehicle queue extending to the LRT tracks, a signal should be installed for the midblock crossing B at the LRT tracks with preemptive signals that are interconnected and coordinated with the signal at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road. A separate queuing analysis should be conducted to confirm traffic signal coordination/operations.

Southbound Movement at Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue
The southbound lane on Clyde Avenue at Maude Avenue provides approximately 75 feet of vehicle storage to the nearest driveway, which can accommodate about th ree vehicles. The 95th percentile queue is accommodated during the AM and PM peak hours under exi sting and background conditions.

The project would increase the 95th percentile queue to 125 feet during the PM peak hour, which would extend past the nearest driveway by two vehicles. The small increase in queue length is not expected to substantially increase the delay for vehicles accessing the driveway because the left-turn spillback would last for a short period of time during the PM peak hour.

Freeway Ramp Traffic Operations
A freeway ramp operations analysis was performed to identify the effects of project traffic on the vehicle queues at the metered on-ramp and the signal-controlled off-ramp during the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Ramp operations at the study ramps were based on the operational assessment prepared for EWPP EIR. It should be noted that the evaluation of freeway ramps is not required based on the VTA’s TIA Guidelines, nor are there adopted methodologies or adverse effect criteria for the analysis of freeway ramps.

The US 101/Ellis Street interchange provides direct access to U S 101 from the plan area. The SR 237/Maude Avenue interchange provides direct access to SR 237 East, and the SR 237/Middlefield Road interchange provides direct access to SR 237 West. The US 101 s outhbound on-ramp from Ellis Street is metered in the PM commute hours. The SR 237 on-ramps are not metered at either location. Therefore, the SR 237 ramp operations were only evaluated for the off-ramps.

US 101/Ellis Street Ramps
The EWPP EIR evaluated the operation of the US 101/Ellis Street interchange using a VISSIM micro simulation model evaluating the Ellis Street corridor between Manila Drive and Fairchild Drive. The model was calibrated using the vehicular/pedestrian/bicycle traffic volumes, intersection signal timings, and light rail service levels to replicate the operations observed in the field. The model results showed that during the AM peak hour, due to the southbound queue at Fairchild Drive and the northbound queue at the US 101 Northbound Ramp extending to the US 101 Southbound Ramp intersection under project conditions, the northbound and southbound off ramp queues are expected to frequently extend to the end of the ramps, which could negatively affect freeway operations. During the PM peak hour, the US 101 southbound on-ramp is expected to be fully queued and spilling back onto Ellis Street, blocking the Fairchild Drive intersection. The US 101 northbound off-ramp qu eue is expected to extend to the end of the ramp, due to the limited operational capacity of the westbound left-turn at the end of the ramp.

The project would add 92 and 137 trips to the US 101 southbound off-ramp during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, and 79 and 52 trips to the US 101 northbound off-ramp during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The project would add 96 new PM peak-hour trips to the metered US 101 southbound on-ramp. The project trips would contribute to the ramp operati onal/queueing issues identified in the Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 57
EWPP EIR. However, due to right-of-way and funding constraints, the EIR indicates that there are no feasible improvements to address operational and queuing issues at the interchange.

SR 237/Middlefield Road Eastbound Off-Ramps
The project would add 84 and 65 trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, to the eastbound off-ramp at Middlefield Road. During the AM peak hour, 15 vehicles are expected to make a left turn onto Middlefield Road, and 69 vehicles are expected to continue through to the Maude Avenue intersection.

During the PM peak hour, 23 vehicles are expected to make a left turn onto Middlefield Road, and 42 vehicles are expected to continue through to the Maude Avenue intersection.

As shown in Table 9, the added 15 and 23 northbound left-turn t rips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, would be within the storage lanes. The vehicle queues for the through traffic would also be contained within the off-ramps.

SR 237/Maude Avenue Off-Ramps
The project would add 65 and 70 trips to the SR 237 westbound off-ramp at Maude Avenue during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The added trips to the westbound off-ramp would make a right turn onto Maude Avenue. Right turn vehicles may make right turns on the red, green, and right turn green signal. Thus, the project is not expected to extend the off-ramp queue to the end of the ramp.

The added 69 and 42 northbound left-turn trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, would not extend the queue past the storage lane, as shown in Table 9.

Therefore, the project trips would not cause operational or que ueing issues at the SR 237/Middlefield Road and SR 237/Maude Avenue interchanges.

Midblock Pedestrian Crossings
The project proposes, or recommends, midblock crossings in the following locations, as shown on Figure 14, with Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) or pedestrian signals:

A. Ellis Street north of Building O1
B. Middlefield Road west of the LRT tracks
C. Logue Avenue north of Building R3
D. Clyde Avenue south of Buildings O4 and O5/P1
E. Clyde Avenue north of Building R5
The midblock crosswalks A, C, D and E would be installed at the proposed Class I bicycle and pedestrian path/trail that would extend from Ellis Street north of Buildin g O1, through Logue Avenue and Maude Park, to Clyde Avenue.

To determine the type of treatment necessary for each crossing, the Guidelines for Pedestrian Crossing Treatments included in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings , was used for the assessment. The Guidelines include a worksheet to determine the type of treatment necessary. The worksheet first determines whether a traffic signal would be warranted at a crossing based on the major road vehicle volume and peak-hour pedestrian volume, based on the Pedestrian Volume Warrant (Warrant 4) in the MUTCD. The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application wh ere the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. The major street vehicle volume was used to determine the minimum peak-hour pede strian volume that would warrant a traffic signal. If the peak-hour pedestrian volume is greater t han the minimum volume, a traffic signal should be considered if not within 300 feet of another traffic signal. The traffic control signal for midblock Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 58
crossings should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets or driveways that are controlled by stop or yield signs. Note that this is just one tool used to evaluate whether installation of a traffic signal would be justified. Additional engineering analysis is recommended based on the actual pedestrian volumes and/or field observations of pedestrian delay gaps in roadway t raffic flow to be conducted at the appropriate construction phase of the project.

If a traffic signal is not warranted, other types of treatments are determined based on pedestrian delay at the crossing. The pedestrian delay was determined using the ped estrian crossing distance, walking speed, and start up and end clearance time. Table 10 summarizes the recommended treatments and the assumptions for each proposed crossing. The midblock pedestrian crossing worksheets are contained in Appendix F. The recommended treatment and improvements for each proposed crossing are also shown in Figure 14.

Table 10
Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Treatment Summary

In combination with providing adequate lighting in the public r ight-of-way for crossings, the treatment categories are as follows:
 Crosswalk: standard crosswalk markings and pedestrian crossing signs with new street lighting.  Enhanced and/or high visibility: crosswalk with devices and design treatments that enhance both the ability of pedestrians to cross the street and the vis ibility of the crossing location and pedestrians waiting to cross. Warning signs, markings, or beacons are present or active at the crossing location at all times. Examples include in-street pedestrian crossing signs, high-visibility signs and markings, raised crosswalk, and median refuge islands.  Active when present: crosswalk with devices designed to display a warning only when pedestrians are present or crossing the street. Examples include flashing amber beacons (RRFB), and pedestrian crossing flags.

Location
A. Ellis Street north of O1 Y Traffic Signal Pedestrian crossing volume per hour is equal to or greater than 105 pedestrians per hour
B. Middlefield Road west of LRT tracks N Traffic Signal3 Proximity of LRT tracks and safety C. Logue Avenue north of R3 Y Traffic Signal Pedestrian crossing volume per hour is equal to or greater than 862 pedestrians per hour
D. Clyde Avenue south of O4 & O5/P1 Y Traffic Signal Pedestrian crossing volume per hour is equal to or greater than 387 pedestrians per hour
E. Clyde Avenue north of R5 N Active or Enhanced Fewer than 364 pedestrians per hour Notes:

3. A red signal or HAWK beacon be warranted for the pedestrian volume up to 460. However, due to the proximity of LRT tracks, for operational coordination and safety, a traffic signal is recommended..

Treatment
Category2
Meets Signal Warrant
(Y/N)1

1. The signal warrant is determined based on the Pedestrian Volume Warrant (Warrant 4) in the MUTCD. The peak-hour pedestrian volume was estimated based on the pedestrian flow model, provided by Google for the MPMP. The warrant is based on the background plus project volumes.

2. The NCHRP describes treatment categories as Red, Active or Enhanced, and Crosswalk. Traffic signals are warranted by the pedestrian volume warrant.

Assumption
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 14
Proposed Midblock Crossing Locations and Recommendations E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Street B (Proposed)Street B (Proposed)
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
Street B (Proposed)
237
X
X
A
E
A
B
C
D
E
= Proposed Midblock Crossing Locations
= Recommended Midblock Crossing Locations
Move the crosswalk to the
Street B intersection with a
signal. Remove the existing
crosswalk in the north leg.

LEGEND
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Middlefield Middlefield

VTA LRTVTA LRT
StationStation
Middlefield

VTA LRT
Station
Install an active crosswalk
with RRFB and infrastructure
to facilitate the installation of
a future signal
Signalize the crosswalk and
locate the crosswalk at least
100 feet from the driveway to
Building O5/P1
Move the crosswalk at the P2
driveway at least 300 feet from
the Crosswalk D. Provide RRFB
for the crosswalk
Signalize the crosswalk and
interconnect/coordinate the
pedestrian signal with the
signal at Logue Avenue and
Middlefield Road
R4 AFF
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 60
 Red signal or beacon (HAWK signal): crosswalk with devices displaying a circular red indication (signal or beacon) to motorists at the pedestrian crossing location. A HAWK signal provides yellow and red indications for drivers when the pedestrian phase is ac tivated and remains dark when there are no pedestrians.
 Traffic Signal: crosswalk with traffic control signal. A traffic signal is subject to requirements specified in the MUTCD. A midblock traffic signal typically dwells in steady green (or green arrow) for vehicles and turns red for vehicles when the pedestrian phase is activated.

The pedestrian volumes used to determine the treatments for the midblock crossings are based on the pedestrian flow model, prepared by ARUP and provided by the pro ject applicant (see Appendix G). The pedestrian flow model estimated the pedestrian volumes during the 3 - 4 hour AM peak period based on pre-pandemic Google mode splits for office users in the project area and represent only pedestrian arrivals. The estimates do not include existing pedestrian acti vities and pedestrian trips generated by other uses proposed in the project area; the model also assumes the presence of a bridge over VTA light rail, which is not part of the project. A separate pedestrian flow model was provided that includes the AM peak hour estimates (see Appendix G). However, to present a con servative assessment, the 3-4 hour AM peak period pedestrian volumes were considered peak-hour vol umes for this analysis. Additional volume analysis or refinement was not conducted due to the current pandemic conditions and the lack of diverse uses at the project site today. As the Master Plan is d eveloped, additional pedestrian volume analysis can be conducted to refine midblock crossing treatments.

A. Ellis Street North of Building O1
A high visibility crosswalk with RRFB is present on Ellis Stree t north of the Quad Campus driveway (proposed Street B in EWPP). The project recommends a new crosswalk north of the Building O1 to the southside of the Quad Campus driveway. Based on the peak-hour traffic on Ellis Street under background plus project conditions, if the pedestrian volume per hour would be equal to or greater than 105, a traffic signal would be warranted. If the pedestrian volume would be between 20 and 105, an active or enhanced crosswalk would be needed.

The pedestrian flow model estimated 750 to 1,000 pedestrians per peak hour crossing Ellis Street at this location because the crosswalk would serve: Google employees walking to the office buildings and retail uses from the existing GBus stop within the Quad Campus to the project area, to/from adjacent office buildings on Ellis Street, or be used by transit commuters/residents of the project between the LRT station and nearby office buildings. Thus, a traffic signal would be warranted based on the projected pedestrian volume by the model. Additionally, the traffic signal will furt her support pedestrian and bicycle crossings associated with any future pedestrian-bike bridge near this intersection.

With the proposed crossing, the existing Ellis Street crossing north of the Quad Campus driveway should be eliminated. It is recommended to install the signal at the Q uad Campus driveway and move the proposed crossing to the south leg of the intersection to be mo re closely aligned with the future location of a bridge (to be designed and constructed by the City).

B. Middlefield Road at the LRT Tracks
A multi-use path is present along the west side of the LRT tracks between the northwest corner of the proposed Building O2 and the South Whisman and Whisman Station neighborhoods. The path can be accessed via Middlefield Road. However, currently there is no marked crosswalk on Middlefield Road.

Based on the peak-hour traffic on Middlefield Road under background plus project conditions, if there would be 20 to 460 pedestrians/bicycles per hour crossing Middl efield Road, a red signal or HAWK beacon crosswalk would be warranted. The MPMP pedestrian flow model estimated fewer than 100, but more than 20, pedestrians per hour crossing Middlefield Road at this location. Thus, a red signal or HAWK beacon would be warranted. However, due to the proximity o f LRT tracks, for operational Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 61
coordination and safety, a traffic signal is recommended. The preemptive pedestrian signal should be interconnected and coordinated with the signal at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road. The signal and crossing must comply with CA MUTCD Section 8 guidance and CPUC General Order 75 and 88 requirements. Additional queueing analysis should be conducted to further determine traffic signal coordination, along with. a safety analysis, which may require the addition of new gates, channelization, warning devices for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and gate a rms/push gates to prevent “wrong way” entrance from sidewalk and bike lanes when crossing protections are activated.

Bus Stop Redesign Options
There is an existing bus duck out located just west of the LRT tracks along westbound Middlefield Road for VTA Route 21 and MVgo Route A. Both routes have headways of 30 to 60 minutes. To accommodate the project, the existing VTA bus duck out needs to be redesign ed primarily to accommodate an emergency vehicle access (EVA) entrance for the project and, secondly, to accommodate the proposed midblock crossing and Class IV protected bike lanes on Middlefield Road consistent with the EWPP. The City, project applicant, VTA and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), who own and oversee the safety of the light rail tracks, is are considering three bus stop redesign options: (a) bus turn-out with bus island (Figure 15), (b) in-line bus stop with bus island (Figure 16), and (c) bus stop without island (Figure 17).
(a) Bus Turn-Out with Bus Island
The turn-out would be approximately 36 feet west of the proposed midblock crosswalk. Although the bus turn-out would be located close to the proposed crosswalk, buse s are not expected to block the crosswalk, because it is unlikely to have two or more buses stop at the same time, based on the current bus headways. This option would not cause delays to the westbou nd traffic, as the bus lane would be separated from the travel lane. With the addition of the bus island, the bus would not have to cross the bike lane to arrive at the bus stop, which provides added safety for bicyclists. However, pedestrians would have to cross the bike lane with caution to get to the bus isla nd from the sidewalk. The design shows a raised pedestrian crossing between the sidewalk and bus island to alert bicyclists. (b) In-line Bus Stop with Bus Island
The in-line bus stop would be approximately 100 feet east of the Ellis Street intersection and 190 feet west of the proposed crosswalk. The bus would need to stop in the travel lane for this option, which would cause delays to the westbound traffic. The in-line option would potentially result in a westbound vehicle queue that extends to the crosswalk and rail track. However, ba sed on the current bus headways, the vehicle queue would only occur briefly, assuming the buses would load passengers efficiently and would not wait at the bus stop. Similar to the turn-out with island option, the bus would not have to cross the bike lane to arrive at the bus stop, but pedestrians would have to cross the bike lane with caution to get to the bus island from the sidewalk.
(c) Bus Stop without Island
The no island bus stop would be approximately 95 feet east of the Ellis Street intersection and 195 feet west of the proposed crosswalk. This option would be similar to the existing bus stop, but would move the stop closer to the Ellis Street intersection. This option would not cause delays to the westbound traffic, as the bus lane would be separated from the travel lane. However, because the stop is closer to the intersection, the bus departing the stop would need to wait for westbound queues to clear the signal and wait for a gap to merge into the westbound travel lane. Although this option would separate the bus stop and the travel lane, the bus would be required to cross over the bike lane to get to the stop. This would not improve safety for bicyclists compared to the existing conf iguration or the other two design options.

However, pedestrians would wait for the bus on the sidewalk and would not have to cross the bike lane.

Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 15
VTA Bus Duck Out Option - Bus Turn-Out with Bus Island
Ellis St
E Middlefield Road
RAISED

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING
RAISED

PEDESTRIAN

CROSSING

8.0’ SW

6.0’ BIKE LANE

10.0’ BUS LANE

26.0’ DRIVEWAY

10.0’ BUS
ISLAND

11.0’ TRAVEL LANE
120’ BUS LANE
36’ TAPER
80’ TAPER
9’ MIN

Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 16
VTA Bus Duck Out Option - In-Line Bus Stop with Bus Island Ellis St
E Middlefield Road

8.0’ SW

6.0’ BIKE LANE

10.0’ BUS ISLAND

12.0’ BUS LANE/

TRAVEL LANE
120’ BUS LANE
100’ SETBACK F

ROM INTERSECTION
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 17
VTA Bus Duck Out Option - Bus Stop without Island
Ellis St
E Middlefield Road

8.0’ SIDEWALK

6.0’ BIKE LANE

11.0’ TRAVEL LANE

12.0’ BUS LANE
120’ BUS LANE
80’ TAPER
80’ TAPER
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 65
Under any of the bus redesign options, the applicant will need to provide necessary safety measures determined in coordination with the City, VTA, and CPUC and through the CPUC General Order 88-B process.

C. Logue Avenue North of Building R3
Based on the peak-hour traffic on Logue Avenue under background plus project conditions, the crossing would require a traffic signal if greater than 862 pedestrians per hour were present. If the pedestrian volume per hour would be fewer than 862, a marked crosswalk would be warranted.

The MPMP pedestrian flow model estimated 750 to 1,000 pedestria n crossings per peak hour crossing Logue Avenue at this location because the crosswalk would be used by Google employees to walk to and from the office buildings to the P1 and P2 garages or by transit commuters to walk between the LRT station and the office and residential buildings via a future pedestrian-bicycle bridge over the LRT tracks (to be designed/constructed by the City). Thus, a traffic signal would be warranted based on the projected pedestrian volume by the model. However, the model assumed a pedestrian bridge crossing over the LRT tracks is present, so there would be a high pedestrian volu me traveling between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue using the crosswalk on Ellis Street, north of Building O1 (Midblock A), and at this crossing.

Prior to the pedestrian bridge crossing over the LRT tracks, there would be fewer pedestrians using this midblock crossing. Therefore, an active crosswalk with RRFB is recommended prior to installation of the bridge. A signal at the midblock crosswalk should be reevaluated as part of the bridge design and review process. However, the project should install infrastructure (e.g., conduits, lighting, etc.) at the Logue Avenue midblock crossing to facilitate an easier installation of a future signal.

D. Clyde Avenue South of Buildings O4 & O5/P1
Based on the peak-hour traffic on Clyde Avenue under background plus project conditions, the crossing would require a traffic signal if greater than 387 pedestrians per hour were present. If the pedestrian volume would be between 20 and 387, an active or enhanced crosswalk would be needed.

The pedestrian flow model estimated 750 to 1,000 pedestrians per hour crossing at this location because the crosswalk would be next to the proposed parking garage and would be used by Google employees to walk to the office buildings from the parking garage. Thus, a traffic signal would be warranted based on the projected pedestrian volume by the model. It is unknown whether the driveway to P1 parking garage would be located on the north or south side of the build ing. It is recommended that the P1 driveway be on the north side of Building O5/P1 to align with the service street north of Buildings O3 and O4 to create an intersection. The midblock crossing D should be by itself, allowing it to be at least 100 feet from the driveway.

As an alternative to signal control, a roundabout was evaluated as a traffic control option for the midblock crossing. A roundabout was found to not be appropriate for the crossing because it would function like stop signs in that vehicles would need to frequently stop for pedestrians, which would create substantial delay for vehicle traffic on Clyde Avenue based on the projected pedestrian volume. Clyde Avenue has a curb-to-curb width of 50 feet. A mini roundabout typically requires 80 feet in diameter, which . Thus, a mini roundabout for the crossing would require taking approxima tely 15 feet of right-of-way from both sides of the street further reducing park open space. Thus, a roundabout is not recommended.

E. Clyde Avenue North of Building R5
Based on the peak-hour traffic on Clyde Avenue under background plus project conditions, the crossing would require an active or enhanced crosswalk if there would be 25 to 364 pedestrians per hour crossing Clyde Avenue.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 66
The pedestrian flow model estimated fewer than 100, but more than 25, pedestrians per hour crossing at this location. Thus, an active crosswalk would be warranted bas ed on the projected pedestrian volume by the model. The proposed crosswalk would be near the driveway to P2 parking garage, which would be located on the south side of the building and would be used by Google employees to walk to the office buildings from the parking garage, or, if a shared garage, with park users. It is recommended the crossing be installed at the P2 driveway, allowing pedestrians to be mor e visible to vehicles exiting the garage.

This crossing should be at least 300 feet from the proposed midblock Crossing D to generally align with the south side of Maude Park and the EWPP block lengths.

Effects on Surrounding Neighborhood Streets
Direct access to the plan area is via two major arterials (Elli s Street and Maude Avenue) and one local street (Clyde Avenue). Surrounding arterials that also provide access to the plan area include Middlefield Road, Moffett Boulevard, Mary Avenue, and Mathilda Avenue. Beca use of the easy access to the plan area from major arterials, project traffic is not expected to use/cut-through neighborhood residential streets. In addition, there are no neighborhood residential streets that would provide direct access to Ellis Street or Maude Avenue near the plan area. It should be noted t hat Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, and Maude Avenue are already serving commercial uses in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project is not expected to cause an adverse effect or cut-through traffic issu es on the surrounding neighborhood streets.

There would be potential cut-through traffic along Fairchild Drive/Leong Drive between Moffett Boulevard and Ellis Street to bypass congestion along US 101. Leong Drive/Fairchild Drive does not have any stop signs between Moffett Boulevard and Ellis Street, which could promote cut-through for drivers who are familiar with the area. However, the segment of US 101 between Moffett Boulevard and Ellis Street is generally not as congested as the rest of the freeway. Thus, it is not likely that vehicles would use Fairchild Drive to cut through. The City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) is available to address any concerns for the neighborhood, and the project should contr ibute to the traffic calming measures identified in the NTMP if the project results in cut-through traffic along Leong Drive/Fairchild Drive.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 67

5. Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
A review of the project plan area was performed to determine if adequate site access and circulation would be provided and to identify any access or circulation issues that should be improved. This review is based on the draft Middlefield Park Master Plan presented in Figure 2, and in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards. A parking analysis was conducted to compare the City’s parking requirements to the parking demand based on local surveyed util ization rates and ITE parking demand rates. The analysis also includes a shared parking analysis.

This report has analyzed the project with service streets serving all residential/mixed-use and office locations, excluding R1, R6 and P2 which are served by driveway s. Should any modifications occur to the project to replace service streets with driveways or non-vehicular access (e.g., paseos, multi-use paths), additional transportation analysis may be required under a separate MTA.

Motor Vehicle Access and Circulation
Motor vehicle access to and from the proposed buildings would be provided via one service street and one driveway on Ellis Street, two service streets at the cul-de -sac on Logue Avenue to Clyde Avenue, two service streets and one driveway on Maude Avenue, and one s ervice street and one driveway on Clyde Avenue (see Figure 18). The northern Ellis Street service street (#1) would provide full access to the building O1 garage and the buildings R1 and R2 shared garage. The southern entrance (#2) on Ellis Street would be a right-in, right-out only driveway and would provide access to the buildings R1 and R2 shared garage. The Logue Avenue service streets (#3) would prov ide access to the O2, O3, and O4 office buildings and garages. The western most Maude Avenue service street (#4) would provide access to each respective garage for buildings R3, R4, R4 affordable (R4 aff). The middle service street (#5) on Maude Avenue would provide access to the buildings R4, R4 aff, and R5 parking garages. The eastern most Maude Avenue driveway (#6) would provide access to the R6 residential building and parking garage. The northern Clyde Avenue service street (#7) would pro vide access to the O4 and O5 office buildings and garages as well as the P1 parking structure for o ffice use. The southern Clyde Avenue driveway (#8) would provide access to the P2 parking garage.

The parking garages at buildings R1, R2, R3, R4, R4 aff, and R5 would provide parking spaces for the residential and , retail, and communityactive uses within each respective building location. Building R4 aff and R6 would provide parking for residential use only. Parking garages P1 and P2 would be used by all office buildings as part of a parking district. An analysis was conducted to determine if office and park uses could share the use of these district garages during and outside of office hours, as discussed later in this section.

Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 18
Proposed Driveway Access Points
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Street B (Proposed)Street B (Proposed)
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
Street B (Proposed)
237
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
1 X
= Driveway Access Points
LEGEND
#
= Service Street Access Points
R4 AFF
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 69
Private Service Street/Driveway Design
The project would provide a service street north of Buildings O2, O3, and O4, which would be accessed via Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue. Additional service streets would be provided for buildings O1, R3/R4/R4 aff, and R4/R4 aff/R5, and O5/P1 (see Figure 18). The EWPP identifies service streets as slower, narrower streets that serve as access to parking garage s, addresses for residential units, commercial loading spaces, and delivery for offices or R&D uses , which are private but can be publicly accessible. Service streets include trees and sidewalks, where bicycles may share the travel lane with slow-moving vehicles. Service streets that are a fire lane must be at least 26 feet wide (curb to curb) with a 13-foot vehicle lane in each direction, for a total width of 46 feet with a separation of 55 to 65 feet between buildings. Service streets must include a 5-foot minimu m width sidewalk, separated from the street by landscaping. The proposed service streets would need to meet these requirements.

According to Mountain View’s Zoning Ordinance, Section 36.32.80(e), two-way driveways should be a minimum of 18 feet wide, unless fire access requires a minimum width of 26 feet. The driveways to parking garage P2, building R1/R2 shared garage, and building R6 should meet the City’s requirement.

Sight Distance at Project Driveways
The project driveways and service street entrances should be free and clear of any obstructions to optimize sight distance per the City’s Standard Details A-22, t hereby ensuring the exiting vehicles can see pedestrians coming from either direction on the sidewalk and other vehicles or bicycles traveling on the street. The EWPP requires 200 feet between each driveway/service street, and driveways must be at least 50 feet from street corners. Because the Master Plan is conceptual, all measurements between driveways and intersections are estimates. The project will be required to follow the sight distance requirements at the time of permitting for each phase of development.

Ellis Street Driveways
The posted speed limit on Ellis Street is 40 mph. The stopping sight distance is 300 feet per the City’s Standard Details A-22. Thus, a driver must be able to see 300 f eet in both directions on Ellis Street to locate a sufficient gap to turn out of the service street or driveway.

The two vehicle entries/exits (#1 and #2) on Ellis Street would be located approximately 340 feet apart from each other. There are no roadway curves on Ellis Street, w hich gives adequate sight distance between the two vehicle access points. The southern driveway (#2) is estimated to be located 275 feet north of Middlefield Road. Vehicles turning from Middlefield Road are expected to travel at lower speeds while making turns. Given that vehicles turning onto northbound Ellis Street from Middlefield Road are more likely to travel at a speed of 15 mph, the recommended stopping sight distance would be 125 feet (based on a design speed of 20 mph), which means that sufficient sight distance would be provided for exiting vehicles at the southern driveway (#2) with restricted right-turn exiting only.

Maude Avenue Driveways
There is a slight roadway curve on Maude Street east of Clyde Avenue. However, based on the posted speed limit of 25 mph and the recommended stopping sight distan ce of 150 feet, a driver would be able to see both directions on Maude Street to locate a sufficient g ap to turn out of the service streets and driveway. Thus, both service streets (#4 and #5) for buildings R3, R4/R4 aff, and R5 would have sufficient sight distance from the roadway curve. The two service streets (#4 and #5) on Maude Avenue to buildings R3, R4/R4 aff, and R5 are estimated to be approximately 300 feet apart, which is adequate sight distance given that vehicles are likely to travel slowly while exiting e ither service street. However, any on-street parking near the service streets/driveways could potentially bl ock the exiting drivers’ sight. Thus, it is recommended on-street parking be removed on the north side of M aude Avenue along the project frontage to avoid blocking visibility and to implement buffered bicycle lanes as envisioned by the Precise Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 70
Plan. Should the buildings be constructed prior to installation of the modifications to street parking and bike lanes on Maude Avenue, as an interim measure, the project should provide 15 feet of red curb next to the service streets and driveways to provide adequate sight distance.

The proposed driveway for building R6 would be located approximately 55 feet west of Clyde Avenue.

Vehicles turning from Clyde Avenue would need to stop prior to entering the intersection. Vehicles stopped at the intersection would be able to see vehicles turning out of the driveway, so the sight distance would be adequate. However, street parking is permitted along b oth sides of the driveway, which could block the sight distance for outbound vehicles. The project should provide 15 feet of red curb next to the driveway and along the street frontage within the intersection so the outbound vehicles could clearly see the oncoming vehicles from Maude Avenue and Clyde Avenue.

Alternatively, Building R6 could be designed with a driveway in alignment with the intersection of Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue. With the driveway opposite Clyde Avenue, exiting vehicles would easily be able to make left and right turns out of the driveway with no s ight distance issues. The project should provide red curb on either side of the driveway for the portion s of the project frontage within the intersection.

Clyde Avenue Driveways
There is a roadway curve on Clyde Avenue north of the northern service streets. Based on the posted speed limit of 25 mph and the recommended stopping sight distan ce of 150 feet, a driver would be able to see both directions on Clyde Avenue to locate a sufficient g ap to turn out of the service streets (#7).

Drivers exiting the northern service streets need to be able to see 150 feet and see southbound drivers approaching prior to the curve. The northern service streets (#7) at O4/O5/P1 and the southern driveway (#8) at P2 are estimated to be approximately 350 to 400 feet apart from each other. On-street parking is allowed near the service street entrance to O4, which could pot entially block the exiting drivers’ sight.

Thus, the project should provide 15 feet of red curb next to the service street entrance.

Similar to Maude Avenue, the MPMP proposes to remove parking al ong one side of Clyde Avenue per the EWPP but does not specify which side. Because Maude Park is on the west side of Clyde Avenue, which would benefit from on-street parking, and there are fewer vehicle curb cuts, it is recommended that on-street parking be removed on the east side of Clyde Avenue a long the project frontage to implement buffered bicycle lanes consistent with the EWPP. Should the pro ject buildings be constructed prior to implementation of the removal of parking and bike lane reconfiguration, as an interim measure to prevent blocking the exiting drivers’ sight, the project should provide 15 feet of red curb next to the driveways.

Driveway Operations
Traffic operations at the project service streets/driveways were evaluated to identify whether there would be vehicle queuing issues. The trips that are estimated to occu r at each entrance and exit are shown in Figure 19. Table 11 summarizes the estimated maximum inbound ve hicle queues on streets and outbound vehicle queues at the driveways. The results show that the driveways are not expected to experience any on-site or on-street queuing issues, as the driv eways are expected to have a minimum queue storage of two vehicles for both the inbound and outbound directions.

A signal warrant analysis was also conducted for the new servic e streets/driveways along Ellis Street, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. The results of peak-hour signal warrant analysis indicate that all service streets/driveways, except the O1/R2 service street (#1), would not meet the thresholds that warrant signalization under background plus project conditions during either of the peak hours (see Table 12). The peak-hour signal warrant sheets are included in Appendix E.

E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
237
R2
R1
O1
O2 O3 O4
R3
R4
R4 AFF
R5
R6
P1O5
P2
113(18)
160(149)
100(177)
19(96)
59(38)46(32)
23(65)
15(43)
71(46)55(38)
24(67)
23(62)
1(1)
39(24)
10(31)
3(8)
53(9)
261(43)
75(12)
107(17)
22(3)
125(20)
39(203)
21(109)
12(64)
4(22)
8(42)
20(106)
50(27)
33(5)
10(52)
6(32)
34(78)
105(65)
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 19
Project Driveway Trips
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 72
Table 11
Driveway Queuing Analysis

Table 11
Driveway Queuing Analysis (continued)

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Project Conditions
Delay (sec) 11.0 7.7 26.4 16.7 12.3 7.6 12.5 11.0 7.7 7.8 11.3 11.0 Volume (vph) 160 149 119 273 15 45 105 72 23 62 126 87
Number of lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Volume (vphpl) 160 149 119 273 15 45 105 72 23 62 126 87 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 2 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
95th %. Queue
1 (ft/ln) 50 50 75 75 25 25 50 25 25 25 50 25
Storage (ft/ln)2 250 250 -- 3 --3 240 240 --3 --3 300 300 -- 3 --3 Storage Type
Notes:
1 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued.
2 Storage length measured from intersection to upstream intersection or driveway. 3 Site plans are not av ailable. During design, the 95th percentile queue should be the minimum storage length in feet.

NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westboun d; L = left turn mov ement; TWLT = two-way left-turn Maude Avenue & R3/R4 DrivewayEllis Street & O1 Driveway Maude Avenue & R4/R5 Driveway

WB SBSBL
Analysis Scenario

EBLSBEBL
TWLT Driveway EB lane Driveway EB lane Driveway

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Project Conditions
Delay (sec) 7.6 7.5 10 9 7.6 7.6 13.0 11.1 8.8 7.6 19.3 17.4 8.8 7.7 14.8 12.6 Volume (vphpl) 10 34 40 25 53 9 12 64 107 17 60 312 33 5 16 86 95th %. Queue (veh/ln) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
95th %. Queue
1 (ft/ln) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Storage (ft/ln)2 55 55 -- 3 --3 200 200 --3 --3 200 200 --3 --3 430 430 --3 --3 Storage Type
Notes:
1 Assumes 25 feet per vehicle queued.
2 Storage length measured from intersection to upstream intersection or driveway. 3 Site plans are not available. During design, the 95th percentile queue should be the minimum storage length in feet.

DrivewayNB lane Driveway SB lane Driveway SB laneDrivewayWB Lane

SBLNBL EB SBLWBL
Clyde Avenue & O4 & O5/P1 Driveway
NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westboun d; L = left turn mov ement; TWLT = two-way left-turn Clyde Avenue & P2 DrivewayMaude Avenue & R6 Driveway
WB
Analysis Scenario
WBNB
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 73
Table 12
Driveway Signal Warrant Analysis Summary

The service streets/driveways along Logue Avenue were not considered for a signal warrant as the driveways would be at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. The driveway to building R6 was also not considered for a signal warrant.

Building O1/R2 Service Street (#1)
The service street would provide full access to the Building O1 garage and the Building R1/R2 shared garage. The peak-hour volume at the service street intersection would warrant a signal.

Building R6 Driveway (#6)
The driveway to building R6 is shown only 55 feet from the near by Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection, which could make it difficult for vehicles to make a left turn into the driveway if the eastbound queue at the intersection were to extend past the driveway. The queuing analysis shows that the estimated eastbound queue at the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection would not extend past or block the driveway. Thus, vehicles would be able to make a left turn into the driveway. Regardless, to minimize the project’s traffic effect on Maude Avenue and delay for vehicles accessing the building R6 site, the driveway should be restricted to right in and right out only. For the right-in, right-out control option, because all trips would make a right turn into and out of the driveway, operational issues related to vehicle queueing and vehicle delay for inbound and outbound traffic are not expected to occur at the driveway.

Alternatively, the driveway could be located east of the inters ection, between Building R6 and Gateway Park, so vehicles could make a left turn into the driveway with out affecting traffic on Maude Avenue.

Because of the nearby signal at SR 237 and stop control at Clyde Avenue that provides gaps in traffic on Maude Avenue, the project traffic would be able to turn in and out of the driveway without difficulties. The driveway option would not change the findings of the intersecti on operations analysis described in Chapter 4 for the SR 237 Ramps/Maude Avenue and Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersections.

The building R6 driveway could also be aligned with the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection. With this alternative alignment, the intersection would still operate at an acceptable level (D or better) with the all-way stop. The alignment of the driveway to the intersection would not change the findings of the signal warrant analysis described in Chapter 4 for this intersection.

Service Street/Driveway
Ellis Street & O1/R2 Serv ice Street Yes
Ellis Street & R1/R2 Driv eway No
Maude Avenue & R3/R4 Service Street No
Maude Avenue & R4/R5 Service Street No
Clyde Av enue & O4 & O5/P1 Serv ice Street No
Clyde Avenue & P2 Driveway No
Note:

1. Based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Dev ices for Streets and Highways, Warrant 3 - Peak Hour.

Signal Warrant Met 1
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 74
Building O5/P1 Driveway (#8)
It is unknown whether the driveway to Building O5/P1 would be located on the north or south side of the building. It is recommended that the O5/P1 driveway be on the north side of Building O5/P1 to align with the service street north of Buildings O3 and O4 and to create an intersection. The intersection also would not meet the thresholds that warrant signalization under background plus project.

Truck Access and Circulation
Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA)
Emergency response vehicles would access the project site from Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, Clyde Avenue, and all project driveways/service streets. Additional emergency access would be provided via an emergency vehicle access path, also doubling as a multi-use path, on the west side of the light rail tracks north of Middlefield Road. Another potential emergency vehicle access lane may be located on the south side of O5/P1. Emergency access would also be provided through the service street north of buildings O2, O3, O4, and O5/P1 and the service streets between R3/R4/R4 aff and R4/R4 aff/R5 (see Figure 20).

As required by the EWPP, if emergency access is required for re sidential paseos and multi-use paths, additional width is required to accommodate the 26-foot-wide emergency access. Additionally, dead-end emergency access lanes that exceed 150 feet in length must be provided with a turn-around, which some of the service streets may need to comply with. The emergency access road west of the LRT tracks is a multiuse path that meets the EWPP requirement for EVA access. Buildings greater than 30 feet in height require a minimum of two EVA roads. All buildings would be greater than 30 feet in height, and all buildings are shown to have at least two EVA roads as previousl y described through the driveways, service streets, multi-use paths, and public streets.

Garbage Collection
The project is required to provide trash, recycling, and composting services within at least one trash and recycle enclosure of each building. It is expected that trash bins would be towed from the trash enclosures to the loading area for each building in the project driveway or service street staging area, or, if accommodated inside of the parking garage, which would be used as trash staging on garbage collection days. Therefore, trash collection would occur on-site in each building.

Loading
EWPP Requirements
Residential Uses
For residential uses, the EWPP requires one loading space per 200 units for pick-up/drop off, short-term parking, and loading and deliveries, in addition to one designated moving truck location. Table 13 shows the number of required loading spaces for the residential uses of the project, excluding one required moving truck space at each residential building.
ɑɑɐ˟
əɕ˟ əɕ˟ əɕ˟
ɖɕ˟
ɖɕ˟
əɕ˟
əɕ˟
əɕ˟
əɕ˟
ɑɒɓ˟
ɑɒɓ˟
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
R1
R2
R3
R4
R4 AFF
R5
R6
P1
P2
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
237
O1
O2 O3 O4
O5
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 20
Emergency Vehicle Access Routes
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 76
Table 13
Required Loading Spaces for Residential Uses

Nonresidential Uses
For nonresidential uses, the EWPP follows the City zoning code for loading space requirements. The code requires one loading space for nonresidential uses occupyi ng 10,000 to 30,000 square feet of building area. For uses occupying greater than 30,000 square feet of building area, one additional space is required for every additional 20,000 square feet. The project would build 1,367,000 square feet of non- residential uses (1,317,000 square feet of office and 50,000 square feet of active uses). Thus, the project would require 69 loading spaces per the zoning code. The breakdown of spaces is shown in Table 14.

R4 aff and R6 buildings are not listed in Table 14, as they do not include nonresidential uses.

Table 14
Required Loading Spaces for Non-Residential Uses

Buliding
Required
Loading Spaces
R1 400 units 2
R2 450 units 3
R3 270 units 2
R4 90 units 1
R4 Aff 210 units 2
R5 310 units 2
R6 170 units 1
Total 1900 units 13
Size
Proposed Uses
Required Loading
Spaces
Office Uses
O1 441,939 s.f. 22
O2 190,000 s.f. 10
O3 310,000 s.f. 16
O4 292,212 s.f. 15
O5/P1 82,849 s.f. 4
Office Subtotal 1,317,000 s.f. 67
Retail/Community Active Uses
R1 18,308 s.f. 1
R2 12,633 s.f. 1
R3 3,877 s.f. 0
R4 1,955 s.f. 0
R5 4,227 s.f. 0
P2/Active Uses 9,000 s.f. 0
Retail/Community Active
Uses Subtotal 50,000 s.f. 2
Total 1,367,000 s.f 69
Size
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 77
Recommended Loading Spaces
Per the zoning code, the project would be required to provide a total of 82 loading spaces (69 for office uses and retail/communityactive uses, and 13 for residential us es). To determine the actual number of loading spaces that would be used, a study was prepared by ARUP (supplied by the applicant) to estimate the number of loading spaces needed for deliveries and loading per a demand-based approach using demand rates from local and global data surveys (see Appendix H ). Based on the study, the number of loading spaces to meet peak loading demand would be 18 spaces for the office buildings and 15 spaces for the residential/mixed-use buildings (including activeretail /community uses), where it is assumed 15 percent of all deliveries arrive in the peak hour and each truc k has a 30-minute turnaround time. Table 15 shows the recommended number of loading spaces for deliverie s and loading based on the peak loading demand. Spaces required for the storage and collection of garbage or a moving truck are separately required per residential/mixed-use building and were excluded from the ARUP study.

The loading zones and loading docks would be accessed via the proposed service streets/driveways.

The project would prioritize minimizing off-street and on-stree t loading activities during peak hours to reduce potential conflicts between passenger vehicle site access and loading services.

Table 15
Recommended Loading Spaces Based On Peak Demand

Proposed Flex/Loading Zone Locations
The EWPP encourages loading docks to be screened on private pro perty and in locations least visible from public streets, parks, or open spaces. However, the EWPP p rovides an option for curbside "flex zones" on local streets (Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues). Flex zones uses may include parking, passenger pick-up/drop-off, delivery loading, shuttle/transit stops, and other uses as approved by the City. Per the EWPP, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue are planned to provide on-street Buildings
Recommended
Loading Spaces
Office
O1 6
O2 3
O3 4
O4 4
O5/P1 1
Office Subtotal 18
Residential Mixed Use
R1 4
R2 3
R3 2
R4 1
R4 Aff 1
R5 3
R6 1
Mixed Use Subtotal 15
Total 33
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 78
parking along one-side of the street; and therefore, one off-street parking space/loading area on the designated street parking side could be designated as a flex zone.

The project proposes on-street flex zones in various locations within the plan area (see Figure 21) for passenger pick-up/drop-off and delivery loading. At buildings O1, R1, R2, and R6, the loading zones are proposed within the parking garages or service streets/driveways on private property. All other flex zones are proposed on public streets. All flex zones should be free and clear of driveways and midblock crossings and should not interfere with planned bike lanes or b us stops. The building O2, O3, and R3 flex zones are proposed on Logue Avenue. The building R4/R4 aff flex zone is proposed on Maude Avenue. The building O4, O5, and R5 flex zones are proposed on Clyde Avenue. All flex zones would be provided on local public streets and private service streets, which would meet the EWPP requirement.

Table 16 provides a summary of recommendations to retain the fl ex zone as proposed or to relocate to a service street, based on the draft Master Plan.

Table 16
Flex Zone Recommendations

The building O1, R1, R2, and R6 flex zones within the service streets, driveway, or parking garages would be good locations as conflicts between passengers and vehicles are expected to be few. The service streets/garages would provide better flex zone spaces for Buildings O1, R1, and R2, as Ellis Street is considered an arterial with no on-street parking. For Building R6, providing a flex zone on the street would be close to the intersection, which could cause potential confl icts between vehicles. Within the private driveway, there could be potential conflicts between passengers and loading vehicles; however, as previously described, the project would prioritize minimizing loading activities during peak hours to reduce potential conflicts between passenger vehicle site access and loading services. Thus, the on-site location is appropriate for Building R6.

The Logue Avenue flex zones (O2, O3 and R3) would be ideal only for the O2 building. As part of the project, buffered bike lanes would be implemented by removing parking on one side of the roadway along the project frontage. Although, the MPMP does not specify, it i s recommended on-street parking be removed on the east side of Logue Avenue along the project fron tage because the project has the frontage for the entire segment north of Maude Avenue. Without on-street parking, it is not possible to accommodate the proposed on-street flex zones for Building R3 and O3 without blocking the bike lane.

Therefore, the flex zones for the R3 and O3 buildings should be located within their respective private service streets or parking garages.

Flex Zones Retain as Proposed
R1 X (on site)
R2 X (on site)
R3 X
R4/R4 Aff X
R5 X
R6 X (on site)
O1 X (on site)
O2 X (on street)
O3 X
O4 X
O5 X
Relocate to Service Street
E Middlefield Rd
Ellis St
Logue AveLogue AveLogue AveR1
R2
O1
O2 O3 O4
R3
R4
R5
R6
P1O5
P2
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
237
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
R4 AFF
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 21
Proposed Flex/Loading Zones
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 80
The flex zone for the O2 building would be located in the parking lane near the cul de sac. It is assumed that the cul de sac would be large enough to accommodate truck maneuver within the cul de sac without interfering with the parking lane on Logue Avenue. It is recomm ended the flex zone be located directly adjacent to the cul de sac, so vehicles could access the flex zone easily.

As envisioned by the EWPP, the MPMP would also implement buffer ed bike lanes by removing parking along one side of the roadway along Maude and Clyde Avenues. Ho wever, the MPMP does not specify which side of the street. It is recommended that on-street parking be removed on the north side of Maude Avenue along the project frontages. Therefore, it is recommended the loading zones for building R4/R4 aff be provided within one of the service streets or within the respective parking garage. Because Maude Park is on the west side of Clyde Avenue, which would benefit f rom on-street parking, on-street parking should be removed on the east side of Clyde Avenue along the project frontages with the implementation of buffered bicycle lanes. Therefore, the on-street flex zone for building O5 should be relocated to the service street or parking garage.

The proposed flex zones on the west side of Clyde Avenue for Buildings O4 and R5 would be good location for southbound traffic along Clyde Avenue. Passengers would be able to exit the vehicle and be directly in front of the O4 and R5 buildings. However, the flex zone would be an issue for northbound vehicles, as drop off vehicles would need to make a U-turn in the middle of Clyde Avenue or enter and exit the O4, O5, or P2 building driveways to approach the flex zones. This could cause issues for inbound and outbound project traffic at the driveway, as well as any through traffic along Clyde Avenue. Thus, the building O4 and R5 flex zones should be provided within the service streets with adequate turnaround space for vehicles to exit onto the street or within the respective parking garages.

All flex zones recommended to be relocated to the service street, project driveway, or respective parking garage would need to be align with on-site loading requirements for the project.

Parking
Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking for the project was reviewed per the City of Mountain View requirements, State of California Density Bonus Law, parking demand rates from local u tilization survey data, the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the GreenTRIP Parking Database, the CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, and the Urban Land Institute (ULI) publication Shared Parking.

A shared parking analysis was conducted for residential and retail/community/civicactive uses within the same building and for the district parking garages based on the ULI Shared Parking methodology.

Parking rates for office use, retail/community/civicactive use, and park use are evaluated based on local utilization survey data and the ITE Parking Generation Manual . Active uses are being conservatively assumed for parking as 41,000 sf of retail and 9,000 sf of community/civic uses.

For the residential mixed-use buildings, parking spaces were evaluated for the following three scenarios based on the options for unbundled residential parking and shar ed parking. The residential market-rate unit mix was provided by the applicant: 26% studio units, 38% 1-bedroom units, 32% 2-bedroom units and 4% 3-bedroom units.
 Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking. This scenario establishes a parking rate per market rate residential unit based on local utilization survey data and assumes parking is bundled (included) in monthly rent and assigned per unit. No shared parking is assumed with the ground- floor retail/community/civicactive uses in the same building.  Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking. This scenario establishes a parking rate per market rate residential unit based on the GreenTRIP Parking Dat abase and the CAPCOA Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 81
Handbook for parking reduction from unbundled parking. The parking is assumed to be unbundled with the residential units. Unbundled spaces mean a separate monthly rent is charged per parking space and is assigned to a unit only when rented. This scenario assumes separate parking for the retail/community/civicactive uses in the same building – no shared parking.  Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking. This scenario assumes a parking rate per market rate residential unit as identified in Scenario 2, but with sha red parking for the retail/community/civicactive uses within the same building.

For purposes of the parking analysis, in the three residential scenarios discussed, the retail/community/civicactive use parking rate is consistent.

The project proposes 4,276 total vehicle parking spaces, including 2,634 spaces for office use (at a rate of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f.) and 1,642 spaces within the resid ential/mixed-use buildings for residential uses (at 0.8 spaces per unit), and retail/community/civicactive uses (at 2.4 spaces per 1,000 gross s.f., or 4 spaces per 1,000 for retail and no parking for community/civic spaces).

East Whisman Precise Plan Parking Requirements
To establish the baseline, the vehicle parking requirements were calculated for the project based on the parking maximums and minimums established in the EWPP. Table 17 compares this baseline with the proposed parking in the Draft Master Plan. The EWPP parking requirements are:
 Office: Maximum of 2.9 spaces per 1,000 s.f.
 Residential – Market Rate Units : Maximum of one space per studio/1-bedroom unit and two spaces per unit with more than one bedroom, which is inclusive of any visitor parking.  Residential – Affordable Units: Maximum of 0.5 spaces per unit per the State of California Density Bonus Law for affordable housing (AB 1763).5 The project is located in a transit proximity area and within a half mile of the Middlefield LRT Station so t his parking ratio is assumed for Buildings R4 aff and R6.
 Retail: Minimum of 4 spaces per 1,000 s.f.
 Other uses: Minimum as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. The City code does not provide a parking rate for community/civic uses. The most similar use for community uses is a church use, which requires one space per 170 square feet of gross floor area (or 5.89 spaces per 1,000 s.f.).

This is a similar rate to other public assembly/community center type of uses - such as a YMCA or daycare facilities.
 Parks: The City does not have an adopted parking rate for parks and the project is not required to provide parking, but a rate was established for purposes of the shared parking analysis.

Based on the City’s maximum office parking requirements, the project could provide no more than a total of 3,819 spaces for the office buildings. The project proposes 2,634 spaces in the office buildings and district parking garages P1 and P2 at a rate of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of office, which is within the maximum ratio of 2.9 spaces. Additionally, the project could pr ovide no more than a maximum total of 2,477 spaces for the residential mixed-use buildings. The project proposes 1,642 total spaces, inclusive

5 State Density Bonus Law under AB 1763 does identifiesy a parking allowance of 0.5 spaces per bedroom unit for developments that include the maximum number of affordable low-income and very low-income units within half of a mile of a major transit stop. However, sSince the number of bedrooms is not known for the affordable buildings, this report assumes parking per unit under the Law.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 82
Table 17
East Whisman Precise Parking Maximums and Minimums

Proposed Uses
Parking
Ratio
Required
Parking
Spaces
Office Use1
Building O1 441,939 s.f. 450
Building O2 190,000 s.f. 250
Building O3 310,000 s.f. 150
Building O4 292,212 s.f. 150
Building O5/Garage P1 82,849 s.f. 1,334
Garage P2 2 -- -- -- 300
Office Total 1,317,000 s.f. 2.9 per ksf 3,819 2,634
Building R1
104 Studio 1 per unit 104
152 1-bedroom 1 per unit 152
128 2-bedroom 2 per unit 256
16 3-bedroom 2 per unit 32
Retail3 18,308 s.f. 6 4 per ksf 73
R1 Total 400 units 617 354
Building R2
117 Studio 1 per unit 117
171 1-bedroom 1 per unit 171
144 2-bedroom 2 per unit 288
18 3-bedroom 2 per unit 36
Retail
3 12,634 s.f. 6 4 per ksf 51
R2 Total 450 units 663 337
Building R3
70 Studio 1 per unit 70
103 1-bedroom 1 per unit 103
86 2-bedroom 2 per unit 172
11 3-bedroom 2 per unit 22
Retail3 3,877 s.f. 6 4 per ksf 16
R3 Total 270 units 383 244
Building R4 Affordable
Affordable Residential4 210 units 0.5 per unit 105
R4 Affordable Total 210 units 105 168
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
Residential1
Residential1
Residential1
Size
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 83
Table 17 (continued)
East Whisman Precise Parking Maximums and Minimums

Proposed Uses
Parking
Ratio
Required
Parking
Spaces
Building R4
23 Studio 1 per unit 23
34 1-bedroom 1 per unit 34
29 2-bedroom 2 per unit 58
4 3-bedroom 2 per unit 8
Retail3 1,955 s.f. 6 4 per ksf 8
R4 Total 90 units 131 92
Building R5
81 Studio 1 per unit 81
118 1-bedroom 1 per unit 118
99 2-bedroom 2 per unit 198
12 3-bedroom 2 per unit 24
Retail3 4,227 s.f. 4 per ksf 17
R5 Total 310 units 438 311
Building R6
Affordable Residential4 170 units 0.5 per unit 85
R6 Total 170 units 85 136
Community/Civic Use
Community5 9,000 s.f. 6 5.9 per ksf 53 -
Office Subtotal1 3,819 2,634
Mixed-Use Subtotal1, 3 2,475 1,642
Google Middlefield Park MP Total 6,294 4,276
Notes:

1. Office and market rate residential parking ratios based on the maximum EWPP requirements.

3. Retail parking ratio based on the minimum EWPP requirements.

Size
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
Market Rate Residential1

6. The Master Plan proposes 50,000 sf of active uses, comprised of retail, services, neighborhood commercial and community/civic uses. The proposed land uses would result in traffic patterns conservatively assumed to be 41,000 sf retail and 9,000 sf community/civic.The Master Plan proposes 30,000 s.f. of retail and 20,000 s.f. of community/civic uses. However, land uses proposed under the community civic uses category would result in traffic patterns more similar to retail uses.

Therefore, this analysis assumes 41,000 s.f. of retail and 9,000 s.f. community/civic uses.

5. Parking ratio based on the City of Mountain View Zoning Code, Section 36.32.50, for church uses.

4. The State Density Bonus Law requires 0.5 spaces per unit in affordable housing buildings.

2. P2 garage would be shared between office, retail, community/civic, and park uses during the off hours of the office.

Residential1
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 84
of 0.8 spaces per residential unit and 2.4 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of retail/community/civic use, which is within the maximum allowed. While Table 17 shows the stand-alone maximum parking required for the project, the EWPP encourages shared parking where complementary uses occur, such as commercial and residential within the same building and encourages unbundled residential parking. Shared parking, unbundled parking, and lower parking ratios are appropriate to consider for this project due to the transit proximity and proposed surrounding uses.

Office Parking
Counts were conducted at local office buildings near transit between 2016 and 2018 by Hexagon (see Appendix I). The office locations surveyed are in close proximity to Caltrain stations or offer shuttles to a nearby Caltrain station. For office buildings near transit, the average peak parking demand rate was found to be 2.03 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Based on this rate, the parking demand for the office buildings would be 2,674 spaces, which is 40 spaces more than the propose d number of parking spaces (see Table 18).

Table 18
Office Parking Demand Based on Local Survey

However, Google provides the GBus shuttle service for its employees in Mountain View and Sunnyvale.

Based on the MPMP TDM Plan (see Appendix J), 31.3 percent of it s employees take GBus to work, which greatly reduces the parking demand. All of the proposed office buildings would be required to implement the MPMP TDM plan to meet the trip caps. Therefore, it is expected that the proposed number of office parking spaces would be sufficient to meet the demand at a ratio of 2.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of office. Note, this is the same parking ratio for office as approved for Charleston East and Landings by the City, both owned by Google in North Bayshore.

Retail/Community/CivicActive Use Parking
The parking demand that would be generated by the proposed reta il/community/civic uses were estimated using the 85th percentile parking rate contained in t he ITE Parking Generation Manual , 5th Edition, for “Shopping Center” (Land Use 820) for 41,000 s.f. and “Recreational Community Center” (Land Use 495) for 9,000 s.f., based on the types of uses anticipated . For Shopping Center, the rate is 3.68 spaces per 1,000 s.f. and, for Community Center, the rate is 3. 78 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Based on these rates, the parking demand for the total project would be 184 spaces. Table 19 summarizes the parking Proposed
Spaces
Building O1 441.939 ksf 450
Building O2 190.000 ksf 250
Building O3 310.000 ksf 150
Building O4 292.212 ksf 150
Building O5/Garage P1 82.849 ksf 1,334
Garage P2 -- -- -- 300
Office Total 1,317 ksf 2.03 per ksf
1 2,674 2,634
Note:

Proposed Office Use Size
Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Parking Demand
Rate

1. Rate per local survey rates for similar uses near transit conducted by Hexagon between 20162011 and 2018.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 85
demand per building based on the distribution of retail/community/civic (active) uses in the project. For the P2 structure, 15 additional parking spaces would be required for the retail/communityactive use space, and for the Ellis Park Fairchild Barns, an additional 4 spaces would be required in the R1/R2 garage.

Table 19
Retail/Community/CivicActive Use Parking Demand Based on ITE Rates

Residential Parking – Affordable Units
Per State Density Bonus Law, if an affordable housing development includes rental units for low-income or very-low income households, is located within a Transit Priority Area, and has unobstructed access to a major transit stop from the development, then, upon request of the developer, a city shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest par king, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit.

Since the project is located in a transit proximity area and within a half mile of the Middlefield LRT Station, this parking ratio is assumed for the two affordable buildings - Buildings R4 aff and R6. This results in 105 spaces for Building R4 aff and 85 spaces for R6 (see Table 20). The parking proposed in Building R4 affordable (R4 aff) would be 63 spaces more and for Building R6 would be 51 spaces more than what would be required by State Density Bonus Law.

Market-Rate Residential Building
R1 Retail 18.308 ksf 3.68 per ksf 1 67
R2 Retail/Community/Civic Use 12.634 ksf 3.68 per ksf 1 46 R3 Retail/Community/Civic Use 4.543 ksf 3.68 per ksf 1 17 R4 Retail/Community/Civic Use 3.621 ksf 3.68 per ksf 1 13 R5 Retail/Community/Civic Use 5.894 ksf 3.68 per ksf 1 22 Other
P2 Community/Civic Use 4 ksf 3.78 per ksf 2 15
Ellis Park Community/Civic Use 1 ksf 3.78 per ksf 2 4
Activ eRetail/Community/Civic
Uses Total 50 ksf 184
Notes:

2. 85th percentile weekday rates for Recreational Community Center (Land Use 495) used from ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition.

Proposed
Activ eRetail/Community/Civic
Uses Size
Parking Demand
Rate
Parking
Demand
(spaces)

1. 85th percentile weekday rates for Shopping Center (Non-December) (Land Use 820) used from ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 86
Table 20
Affordable Residential Unit Parking Demand by State Law

Residential Parking – Market Rate Units
Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking
A parking utilization survey was conducted on March 15, 2022, a t higher-density residential complexes in Mountain View near transit services and major arterials (see Appendix I). The surveys were conducted at nighttime during the weekday when full occupancy is anticipa ted.6 Some of the surveyed sites offer partial unbundled parking, with one space included with monthly rent and additional spaces offered at an additional monthly rent. Peak parking demand rates were determined based on the average number of occupied parking spaces per bedroom. On average, the parking ratio was found to be 0.72 spaces per bedroom, or 0.99 spaces per unit, inclusive of visitor parking spaces.

As a comparison, the parking ratios for approved residential developments in the EWPP area include:
 400 Logue Avenue: 1 space per unit (or 0.85 spaces per bedroom )  355 E. Middlefield Road: 1.27 spaces per unit, collectively of apartments and condos o 1.09 spaces per apartment uni t (or 0.83 spaces per bedroom) o 1.32 spaces per condo unit (or 0.54 spaces per bedroom) The project proposes 0.8 spaces per unit for 1,900 residential units (market-rate and affordable units), which calculates to 0.57 spaces per bedroom. This parking ratio is lower than the majority of parking ratios for the approved residential developments and slightly lower than the unbundled parking scenario studied in Scenario 2.

Under Scenario 1, the project should provide 0.72 spaces per be droom for market rate units, based on the local surveyed utilization rates and adjacency to transit, retail services, and open spaces. This parking rate is equivalent to 1.01 spaces per unit, but is recommended to be considered at 1 space per unit due to the minor fractional difference which can be easily absorbed by the projects residential TDM program.

This rate is within the maximum parking allowed of one space pe r studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 or more bedroom unit in the EWPP and includes guest parking.

6 The Q1 2022 vacancy rate of higher-density residential apartment complexes (300+ units) in Mountain View is

5.4%. This rate was provided by the City from Costar accessed on March 24, 2022.

Building R4 Affordable 210 units 0.5 per unit 1 105 168 Building R6 170 units 0.5 per unit 1 85 136
Affordable Housing Total 190 304
Note:

Proposed
Spaces
Parking Demand
Rate
Parking
Demand
(spaces)Proposed Affordable Housing Size

1. The State Density Bonus Law requiresallows 0.5 spaces per affordable housing unit in affordable housing buildings near transit.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 87
Based on the parking rate of one space per multi-family residential unit and the retail/community use rate noted above, assuming no shared parking, the project should provide the number of parking spaces to meet the total parking demand for each building shown in Table 21.

Table 21
Market Rate Residential Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking Demand

For Scenario 1, the parking demand generated by the residential and retail/community/civicactive uses would be 1,689 spaces, which is 351 spaces more than the number of proposed parking spaces (1,338 spaces) in the market-rate residential mixed-use buildings.

Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking
Based on local parking surveys for residential uses, some of th e surveyed sites offer partial unbundled parking, with one space included with monthly rent and additional spaces offered at an additional monthly rent. To determine the residential parking demand with fully un bundled parking, the GreenTRIP Parking Database and CAPCOA Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions (December 2021) were reviewed.

The GreenTRIP Parking Database, published by TransForm, include s parking data for 80 multi-family residential sites around the San Francisco Bay Area. The data w ere was collected in 2013 - 2014. The data shows whether unbundled parking was implemented, the cost of a parking space, and the number of unbundled parking spaces. Fourteen sites that are similar to the project were selected from the database. These sites are located in Berkeley, Union City, Moun tain View, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Emeryville, and Dublin. These sites have a moderate number of units (greater than 100), provide parking spaces equal or greater than 0.57 space per bedroom, are not senior housing, had affordable units equal or less than 15%, and had vacancy rates equal or less than 5%. The parking data for the selected sites are included in Appendix I. The parking data shows that these developments have an average parking demand of 0.88 spaces per bedroom, while the developments that implement 100% unbundled parking have an average parking demand of 0.68 spaces per bedroom. Thus , the parking demand for developments with fully unbundled parking is about 15% lower th an the average parking demand for all sites.

The CAPCOA Handbook provides methods to quantify GHG emission and VMT reductions from a specified list of measures. For unbundled parking, the reductio n is calculated based on the reduction of vehicle ownership by comparing parking space cost to vehicle co st. Based on the parking space cost, Building R1 400 71 471 354 117
Building R2 450 46 496 337 159
Building R3 270 17 287 244 43
Building R4 90 13 103 92 11
Building R5 310 22 332 311 21
Market-Rate Residential
Building Total 1,520 169 1,689 1,338 351
Note:

Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking Required Per Building Proposed Market-Rate
Residential Building
Residential
Parking Demand
(spaces)

1. Parking demand for Building R1 include the demand for Ellis Park Community/Civic Use.

Activ eRetail/Commu
nity/ Civic Use
Parking Demand
(spaces)1
Total Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
MPMP
Parking
Differential
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 88
the handbook recommends up to 15.7% of VMT reduction resulting from unbundled parking with a monthly parking cost of $300 per space (see Appendix I). It is assumed that a VMT reduction is equivalent to a reduction in parking demand.

Based on the GreenTRIP Parking Database and CAPCOA Handbook, it is anticipated that fully unbundled parking could provide a parking reduction of 15% from the recommended parking rate (0.72 spaces per bedroom). With the fully unbundled parking, the parking demand could be reduced to 0.61 spaces per bedroom.

Under Scenario 2, the project should provide 0.61 spaces per bedroom for market rate units. This parking rate is equivalent to 0.85 spaces per unit, which is within the maximum parking allowed of 1 space per studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 or more-bedroom units in the EWPP and inclusive of guest parking.

Based on the parking rate of 0.85 spaces per multi-family residential unit with unbundled parking and the retail/communityactive use rate noted above, assuming no shared parking, the project should provide the number of parking spaces to meet the total parking demand for each building shown in Table 22.

Table 22
Market Rate Residential Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking Demand

Per Scenario 2, the parking demand generated by the residential , retail, and community active uses would be 1,463 spaces, which is 125 spaces more than the number of proposed parking spaces (1,338 spaces) in the market-rate residential mixed-use buildings.

Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking
Shared parking is the use of a parking space to serve two or more individual land uses due to variations in parking demand by hour among differing land uses. Summing the parking demand generated by each use at every hour generally results in an overall peak parking demand for a mixed-use site that is less than the sum of the peak parking demands for each individual use. Thus, the application of the principal of shared parking may reduce the total parking demand for mixed-use developments. Therefore, aA shared parking analysis was conducted for the residential buildings R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 to estimate the parking demand with fully unbundled parking for the residen t i a l u s e a n d t h e retail/community/civicactive uses with spaces being shared by the residential use at night.

Building R1 340 71 411 354 57
Building R2 383 46 429 337 92
Building R3 230 17 247 244 3
Building R4 77 13 90 92 -2
Building R5 264 22 286 311 -25
Market-Rate Residential
Building Total 1,294 169 1,463 1,338 125
Note:

Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking Required Per Building Proposed Market-Rate
Residential Building
Residential
Parking Demand
(spaces)
Activ e
Retail/Communi
ty/ Civic Use Parking
Demand (spaces)1
Total Parking
Demand
(spaces)
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
MPMP
Parking
Differential

1. Parking demand for Building R1 include the demand for Ellis Park Community/Civic Use.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 89
The shared parking analysis is based on time-of-day factors obtained from the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking , 3rd Edition, recommended parking rate for multi-family reside ntial buildings with unbundled parking, and the retail/community use rate noted above. Appendix I shows the hourly parking demand and total parking demand for each building with shared parking.

With shared parking, the project should provide total parking s paces within each building to meet a parking demand of 0.61 spaces per bedroom for market rate units with unbundled parking. This parking rate is equivalent to 0.85 spaces per unit, which is within the maximum parking allowed of 1 space per studio/1 bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 2 or more-bedroom units in the EWPP. The remainder of the residential parking demand would be accommodated by the retail spaces at night. The shared parking spaces would likely be used as a combination of residential gue st parking, property management staff parking, and/or residential parking with restricted hours.

Based on the parking rate of 0.85 spaces per multi-family residential unit with unbundled parking and the retail/community use rate noted above, with shared parking, the project should provide the number of parking spaces to meet the total parking demand for each building shown in Table 23.

Table 23
Market Rate Residential Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking Demand

Per Scenario 3, the parking demand generated by the residential , retail, and community active uses would be 1,294 spaces, which is 44 spaces fewer than the number of proposed parking spaces (1,338 spaces) in the residential mixed-use buildings.

Parking for Maude Park
The parking demand that would be generated by the proposed Maude park use was estimated using the 85th percentile parking rate contained in the ITE Parking Generation Manual , 5th Edition, for “Soccer Field” (Land Use 488). This was selected based on the anticipated active recreational use of a large 5- acre park. Based on the presence of one soccer field, the weekday rate is 69.65 spaces. This generates an assumed parking demand of at least 70 spaces.

Building R1 269 71 340 354 -14
Building R2 337 46 383 337 46
Building R3 213 17 230 244 -14
Building R4 64 13 77 92 -15
Building R5 242 22 264 311 -47
Market-Rate Residential
Building Total 1,125 169 1,294 1,338 -44
Notes:

Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking Required Per Building Proposed Market-Rate
Residential Building
Residential
Parking Spaces
2 Activ eRetail/Commu
nity/ Civic Use
Parking Demand
(spaces)3
Total Parking
Demand
(spaces)1
Proposed
Parking
Spaces
MPMP
Parking
Differential

1. Based on the shared parking analysis, total parking demand is the parking demand for the residential use with fully unbundled parking based on 0.85 spaces per unit.

2. Residential spaces = Total spaces - the number of spaces for the retail/community/civic active uses

3. Parking demand for Building R1 include the demand for Ellis Park Community/Civic Use.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 90
The project does not show any parking for public parks/open space as the park land would be dedicated to and developed by the City. Therefore, a shared parking analy sis was conducted for the P1 and P2 district garages to evaluate if parking spaces could be shared between the office and parks outside of the office peak hours. The shared analysis (see Table 24) shows the office parking demand would peak from 10:00 to 11:00 AM on weekdays, and there would be no parking spaces to share at that time. During the rest of the weekday and weekend when the office parking demand is lower, it is expected the available parking spaces in the parking garage would be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand for office and park users. Note, any arrangements for use of parking for p ark users would require agreement between the applicant and City.

Table 24
Maude Park Shared Parking Analysis

Available Spaces
to Share
Parking Demand by Hour:
6 a.m. 1 39 40 1,595
7 a.m. 4 199 203 1,435
8 a.m. 9 719 728 915
9 a.m. 21 1,373 1,394 261
10 a.m. 39 1,634 1,673 0
11 a.m. 50 1,454 1,504 180
Noon 62 1,160 1,222 474
1 p.m. 67 1,258 1,325 376
2 p.m. 70 1,552 1,622 82
3 p.m. 67 1,389 1,456 245
4 p.m. 64 1,160 1,224 474
5 p.m. 50 817 867 817
6 p.m. 64 343 407 1,291
7 p.m. 70 203 273 1,431
8 p.m. 70 69 139 1,565
9 p.m. 70 39 109 1,595
10 p.m. 59 13 72 1,621
11 p.m. 36 0 36 1,634
Midnight 8 0 8 1,634
Max. Demand
70 1,634 1,673
Time of Day Source: Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Park ing, 3rd Edition, 2005.

Bold indicate parking demand greater than proposed parking Notes:

ParkHour of Day Office Total Demand
P1/P2 Proposed Spaces 1,634

1. Parking requirements for the community and park uses are based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition. It is assumed the office use would occupy
occupied all parking spaces during the peak demand.

Parking Requirement 1
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 91
Recommended Vehicle Parking Rates
Table 25 provides a summary of the recommended vehicle parking rates for the project. The project should provide 2.0 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for office use, based on the surveyed rates plus the availability of TDM measures, including the GBus employee shuttles. Although the surveyed rate was found to be

2.03 spaces per 1,000 s.f. of office use, the high rate of GBus use is expected to reduce the parking demand, in addition to the close proximity of Middlefield LRT station.

Based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the project should provide 3.68 spaces per 1,000 s.f. for retail/community/civic uses. For residential uses, based on the State Density Bonus Law, the project qualifies to provide 0.5 spaces per affordable housing unit due to proximity to the Middlefield LRT station.

Parking for the market-rate residential units would depend on the parking program:
 Scenario 1 (No Shared, No Unbundled): provide 1 space per unit (equivalent to 0.72 spaces per bedroom), based on the local surveyed rates.
 Scenario 2 (No Shared, With Unbundled): provide 0.85 spaces per unit (equivalent to 0.61 spaces per bedroom), based on the GreenTRIP Parking Database and CAPCOA Handbook.  Scenario 3 (Shared and Unbundled): provide 0.85 spaces per uni t (equivalent to 0.61 spaces per bedroom), based on the ULI Shared Parking and Scenario 2 unbundled parking.

Table 25
Recommended Vehicle Parking Rates

Compared to the draft Master Plan, the project provides an adequate number of total parking spaces for office use. Per State Density Bonus Law, pParking proposed for the affordable housing units in R4 aff would be 63 spaces more than what would be required and Building R6 would provide 51 spaces more Proposed
Spaces
Office 1,317 ksf 2 per ksf 1 2,634 2,634
Market Rate Residential 1,520 units 1,216
Scenario 1: No Shared, No Unbundled Parking 1.00 per unit2 1,520 Scenario 2: No Shared, With Unbundled Parking 0.85 per unit3 1,294 Scenario 3: Shared and Unbundled Parking 0.85 per unit3 1,294 Affordable Residential 380 units 0.5 per unit 4 190 304 ActiveRetail/Community/Civic Use 50 ksf 3.68 per ksf 5 184 122 Notes:

4. The State Density Bonus Law allowsrequires 0.5 spaces per affordable housing unit in affordable housing buildings near transit.

2. Rate per local survey rates conducted by Hexagon in March 2022.

5. 85th percentile weekday rates for Shopping Center (Non-December) (Land Use 820) used from ITE Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition.

Proposed Uses Size
Recommended
Parking Rate
Parking
Demand
(spaces)

1. The parking demand rate for office is based on the MPMP proposed parking rate. Based on the MPMP TDM plan,

31.3 percent of Google employees are expected to use the provided Google GBus service, which is expected to lower the parking demand.

3. Rate per local survey rates conducted by Hexagon in March 2022, and with a 15% reduction for unbundled parking.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 92
than what would be required by State Density Bonus Law. Dependi ng on the scenario selected, the project may need to provide additional parking within the mixed-use buildings to accommodate the recommended market-rate residential and retail/communityactive use parking rates identified.

Bicycle Parking
The bicycle parking for the project was evaluated based on the EWPP requirements. The bicycle parking requirements are as follows:
 Residential: one long-term space per unit and one short-term space per 10 units  Office: one-long term space per 2,000 square feet and one shor t-term space per 20,000 square feet.
 Neighborhood Commercial Uses (Retail/Community/Civic Uses): one long-term space and 4 short-term spaces per 5,000 square feet
The bike parking requirements for neighborhood commercial uses were universally applied to the retail and community/civicactive uses.

The project will be required to provide the required number of long-term spaces within each building and short-term parking within the plan area near building entrances , shuttle stops, major pathways, and gathering spaces (see Table 26). The project is not required to provide bicycle parking spaces for the park use, as that will be considered as part of the City’s park design process.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 93
Table 26
Bicycle Parking Requirements

Long-Term Short-Term Long-Term Short-Term
Office Uses
O1 441.939 ksf 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 221 45
O2 190.000 ksf 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 95 19
O3 310.000 ksf 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 155 31
O4 292.212 ksf 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 146 29
O5/P1 82.849 ksf 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 41 8
Office Total 1,317.000 1 per 2 ksf 1 per 10 ksf 659 132 Building R1
Residential 400 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 400 40
Retail 18.308 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 4 15
R1 Total 404 55
Building R2
R2 450 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 450 45
Retail/Community 12.634 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 3 10 R2 Total 453 55
Building R3
R3 270 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 270 27
Retail/Community 4.543 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 2 4
R3 Total 272 31
Building R4 Affordable
R4 210 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 210 21
R4 Affordable Total 210 21
Building R4
R4 90 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 90 9
Retail/Community 3.621 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 2 3
R4 Total 92 12
Building R5
R5 310 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 310 31
Retail/Community 5.894 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 2 5
R5 Total 312 36
Building R6
R6 170 units 1 per unit 1 per 10 units 170 17
R6 Total 170 17
Other
Community at P2 & Ellis Park 5 ksf 1 per 5 ksf 4 per 5 ksf 2 4 Park 5 acres -- -- -- --
Other Total 24
Notes:

1. Rates per the City of Mountain View East Whisman Precise Plan.

Proposed Uses Size
Required Parking SpacesRate1
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 94

6. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facility Assessment This Chapter evaluates the effects of the project on the operations of pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit services in the project vicinity.

The analysis includes an evaluation of the pedestrian access and circulation within the site, access/network between the project site and key nearby destinat ions, ADA compliance of pedestrian facilities in the project proximity, pedestrian quality of service (PQOS), and the project’s consistency with the applicable policies related to pedestrian-oriented designs and elements. The City’s PQOS Map was used to identify whether the project trips or design would affect the existing PQOS and whether there are existing pedestrian connection gaps in the project proximity.

A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on bicycle access, circulation, and operations in the area was conducted. The analysis includes an evaluation of bicycle circu lation, bicycle facilities, and access to bicycle parking within the site, bicycle access/network between the project site and key nearby destinations, and bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS). The City’s BLTS Map was used to identify whether the project trips or design would affect the existing BLTS.

A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit servi ces/facilities in the area and consistency with the applicable policies related to transit-oriented designs and elements was conducted.

Pedestrian Operations
Pedestrian Access and Circulation
Pedestrian access to the project site is provided via sidewalks on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, Middlefield Road, and surrounding streets. Figure 22 shows the proposed pedestrian and multi-use paths within the plan area that would provide pedestrian connections between the buildings, parks/open spaces, surrounding sidewalks and nearby transit/shuttle stops. An east-west pedestrian and multi-use path would be provided along the north side of building O1 and through Ellis Park to connect pedestrians between Ellis Street, the north-south multi-use path along the LRT tracks, Logue Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. East-west pedestrian routes would also be provided between Ellis Street, the LRT station, and Logue Avenue that would provide access to the LRT Station and north-south multi-use path along the LRT racks. Between Logue Avenue and Cl yde Avenue, north-south pedestrian and multi-use paths would connect pedestrians between Maude Avenue, Maude Park, and the service street along the northern boundary of the plan area.

Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 22
Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Network, Shuttle Stops, and Micromobility Corrals E Middlefield Rd
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Ellis St
Street B (Proposed by EWPP)Street B (Proposed by EWPP)
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
Street B (Proposed by EWPP)
Future
Ped/Bike
Bridge
237
Middlefield

VTA LRT
Station
MM ddd PPPP krk
Maude Park
R4 AFF
G
LEGEND
= Class I Multi-Use Path/Trail
= Class IV Protected Bike Lane
= On-Site Pedestrian Route
= Micromobility Corral
= Gbus Shuttle Stop
= Existing VTA Bus or MVgo Stop
= Class II Buffered Bike Lane
= Class I Multi-Use Path/Trail
Proposed by EWPP
= Class II Buffered Bike Lane
Proposed by EWPP
G

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 96
As previously discussed (see Chapter 4), midblock pedestrian crossings are proposed in various locations: one on Ellis Street at the multi-use path and betwee n buildings R1 and R2, one on Logue Avenue at the multi-use path, two on Clyde Avenue at the multi- use path south of building O4, and one on Middlefield Road at the multi-use path along the LRT racks. These midblock crossings would provide safe crossing for pedestrians traveling through the plan area.

Figure 22 also shows that continuous pedestrian connections would be provided between the project buildings and the proposed bus stops via sidewalks, proposed mi dblock crossings, and proposed pedestrian and multi-use paths. As discussed in Chapter 3, Google operates an existing Gbus shuttle with an existing stop within the Quad Campus. A second new Gbus stop would be added in the plan area within the proposed service street adjacent to Buildings O3 and O4. Access between these hubs and the project buildings would be provided via the proposed midblock crossing, proposed pedestrian/multi-use paths within the plan area, new upgraded bike lanes, and existing sidewalks.

The project would provide 8-foot sidewalks with an additional 6 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and street along the project frontage on Middlefield Road and a long the project frontage on Ellis Street, and 7-foot sidewalks plus 5 feet of landscaping along the proje ct frontage on Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues. The updated sidewalks would meet the EWPP street design standards. The new service streets require a minimum 5 feet of sidewalk and a minimum 5 feet of la ndscaping on either side of the service street, per the EWPP standards.

ADA Compliance
ADA curb ramps are present at all corners of the study intersections where there are crosswalks. Most corners meet current ADA curb ramp designs, such as truncated domes and adequate curb ramp slopes.

Truncated domes are the standard design requirement for detectable warnings which enable people with visual disabilities to determine the boundary between the sidewalk and the street.

The following intersections inlcclude at least one corner that does not include truncated domes, and the ramp slope of these ramps do not appear to meet the current ADA standard.  North leg of the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection  North leg of the Logue Avenue/Maude Avenue intersection  South leg corners at the Ferguson Drive/Middlefield Road inter section  Southwest corner at the SR 237 Westbound Ramp/Middlefield Road intersection  South leg of the SR 237 Eastbound Ramp/Middlefield Road inters ection The project would improve the Clyde Avenue/Maude Avenue and Logue Avenue/Maude intersections to inlcude ADA-compliant ramps as part of the street improvements within the plan area.

Pedestrian Infrastructure, Safety, and User Experience
According to the 2012 General Plan, a neighborhood is walkable when people can travel comfortably and safely on foot to many destinations. Convenient walking distance is considered to be a half mile to a mile, a walk that would take 10 to 20 minutes. There are a few restau rants and retail stores on Middlefield Road within a mile of the project site, and the Middlefield LRT Station and bus stops are located within

0.5 miles of all project buildings.

Although located within one mile, access to some of the surrounding land uses and bus stops would require crossing busy arterial streets (Whisman Road and Middlefield Road). The wide streets might be uncomfortable for some pedestrians to cross and would not be co nsidered a quality pedestrian environment. For this reason, the EWPP plans to create a mixed-use area with more commercial uses to be utilized by residents and employees.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 97
The project would implement the EWPP in the project area by providing wider sidewalks along the project frontages on Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maud e Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. It would also provide enhanced midblock crosswalks on Ellis Street, Logu e Avenue, and Clyde Avenue at the multi-use trail. And, the project introduces a mix of uses internally that do not require the crossing of major streets to access between buildings, public open space, retail services, and public transit.

Pedestrian Quality of Service
Pedestrian quality of service (PQOS) identifies the level of comfort for pedestrians on any given roadway.

Mountain View’s Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV), published in May 2021, includes a PQOS map (see Figure 23) that shows continuity or gaps in the pedestrian facilities as indicated with a PQOS score ranging from 1 to 5. A higher PQOS score indicates a low qualit y of service. The PQOS metric in the AcessMV document covers the following factors:
 Proximity to a variety of destinations and amenities
 Street connectivity and directness of routes to destinations  Presence of a continuous network of pedestrian facilities  Motor vehicle traffic speed; and
 Street width and intersection conditions
Based on the PQOS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a PQOS greater than 2, which is not desirable:
 Ellis Street (PQOS 5)
 Maude Avenue between Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue (PQOS 4)  Maude Avenue between Clyde Avenue and the City limit (PQOS 5)  Logue Avenue (PQOS 4)
 Clyde Avenue (PQOS 5)
 Fairchild Drive (PQOS 5)
The project would have an adverse effect on pedestrian operations because the project is expected to add vehicle trips to these street segments that have a PQOS score of 3 or more.

Because the project is a mixed-use development, it would provid e a variety of uses within closer proximity. The project would provide new pedestrian and multi-use paths to provide pedestrians with direct routes to transit/shuttle stops and street segments. The project also would provide enhanced midblock pedestrian crossings to ensure a continuous network of pedestrian facilities across streets. The project would also provide wider sidewalks with landscaping for streets along the project frontages to enhance the pedestrian environment. Taking these factors into account, the project is expected to improve the PQOS along Ellis Street, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Logue Avenue within the plan area.

Bicycle Operations
Bicycle Access and Circulation
Bicycle access to the project site is via bike lanes on Middlefield Road, Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. The EWPP proposes to improve these bike lanes to buffered bike lanes.

The project would implement Class IV protected bike lanes on Mi ddlefield Road and Class II buffered bike lanes on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue along the project frontages.

Class IV bike lanes are separated bike lanes using grade separa tion, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, on street parking, or raised islands.

Figure 23
Existing Pedestrian Quality of Service
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Source: Access MV, City of Mountain View, 2021
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 99
An east-west multi-use path would be provided through the project between Ellis Street and Clyde Avenue that would connect to the existing multi-use pathway that currently runs through the Quad Office Campus between Whisman Road and Ellis Street, which would provide direct access to the Hetch Hetchy Trail. Multiple north-south multi-use paths are proposed from between Maude Avenue and the service street along the northern boundary of the plan area into Maude Park, which provide a midblock north- south pedestrian connection between Logue Avenue and Maude Aven ue, so pedestrians/cyclists would not need to travel to Logue Avenue or Maude Avenue.

The project proposes bike and scooter share hubs (micromobility hubs shown in Figure 22), once permitted by the City of Mountain View, in three locations: near the Quad Campus driveway entrance on Ellis Street (proposed Street B in EWPP), east of building R1 across from the Middlefield LRT stop, and within the service street just north of building O4 at Clyde Av enue. Micromobility hubs would provide dedicated on-site spaces for bike and scooter storage, which would allow the implementation of bike and scooter share programs via the TDM plan . Access between these hubs and the project buildings would be provided via the proposed midblock crossings, proposed pedestrian/multi-use paths within the plan area, and existing sidewalks. These hubs should be well-lit and positioned near (generally within 50 feet) of the main building entrances or at key destinations within the plan area.

Bicycle Infrastructure, Safety, and User Experience
The 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan Update evaluates the quali ty of the bicycle network in the City in terms of connectivity gaps and low stress gaps. The plan identifies spot gaps, connection gaps, and quality gaps along Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Ellis Street, and Maude Avenue. Spot gaps refer to point-specific locations lacking dedicated bicycle facilities or other treatments to accommodate safe and comfortable bicycle travel. Connection gaps are missing segment s on a clearly defined bikeway, while quality gaps are links of an existing bikeway that are deficient or have operational shortcomings. The plan also identifies the low stress bicycle network. Low stress segments include Class I separated paths and streets with low traffic volumes, low traffic speeds, and bike facilities such as a protected bike lane or a bike boulevard. These are facilities where people feel most comfortable biking because they typically have the least interaction with motor-vehicles. Fairchild Drive, Manila Drive, the Hetchy Hetch Trail, and the Stevens Creek Trail are considered low stress segments. Although there are bike lanes on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Middlefield Road in the project area, none of these streets are classified as low stress bicycle facilities. However, the project would construct multi-use paths (Class I Bikeway) within the area to provide safer and direct connections for bicycles between Ellis Street and Clyde Avenue and between Middlefield Road, Maude Avenue, an d the office buildings O3, O4 and O5 without riding on the streets. The project would also improve the existing bike lanes by providing buffered/protected bike lanes along the project frontage.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
The City’s AcessMV report includes a bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) map (see Figure 24) to identify the perceived comfort and safety of existing roads and bikeway facilities from the perspective of cyclists, as indicated with a BLTS score ranging from 1 to 4. A higher BL TS score indicates that the bikeway is comfortable for a more confident adult. A BLTS score of 1 is comfortable for all ages and abilities, a BLTS score of 2 is comfortable for an average adult, while a BLTS sc ore of 4 indicates that the streets are comfortable only for highly confident riders. The metric (ranging from 1 to 4) in the AccessMV document covers the following factors:
 Number of through lanes or street width
 Posted speed limit or prevailing vehicle speed
 Presence and type of bicycle facilities
 Presence of traffic signals
 Presence of crossing islands
Figure 24
Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Source: Access MV, City of Mountain View, 2021

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 101
Based on the BLTS map, the following streets in the project vicinity have a BLTS greater than 2, which is undesirable:
 Ellis Street (BLTS 4)
 Middlefield Road (BLTS 3)
The project would create an adverse effect on bicycle operations, as the project is expected to add vehicle trips to these streets.

The AccessMV report also includes a BLTS map considering the planned bicycle facilities listed in the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (2018), the VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018), the City of Mountain View Bicycle Transportation Plan (2014), the Caltrain Bicycle Access and Parking Plan (2008), and several area precise plans, including the EWPP. With the planned improv ements identified in these documents, Ellis Street is expected to continue to have a BLTS score of 4 and Middlefield Road would have a BLTS score of 3. All other streets in the EWPP area would continue to have a BLTS score of 2 or lower.

The project would improve the bike lanes along the project frontage on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, and Maude Avenue to buffered bike lanes and protected b ike lanes on Middlefield Road.

Implementing the buffered/protected bike lanes on Ellis Street and Middlefield Road is expected to lower the BLTS score, as protected bike lanes would provide more space between vehicular traffic and bicyclists.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Schools
The project is located within the boundary of Jose Antonio Varg as Theuerkauf Elementary School and Edith Landels Elementary School, Graham Crittenden Middle Schoo l, and Mountain View High School, which are about 0.7 mile southwest, 1.7 miles northwestsouthwest, 3.02.0 miles northwestsouthwest, and 4.9 miles south of the plan area, respectively. According t o the City of Mountain View’s Suggested Routes to Schools Program, Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary School students that wish to bike to school could use the LRT trail and Pacifica Drive to get to the school. mMiddle school students that wish to bike to school could use Walker Drive, Hetch Hetchy Trail, Stevens Creek Trail, Central Avenue, Montecito Avenue, and Farley Street local streets to get to the school. High school students could use the Stevens Creek Trail and local streets from the project area to school.

Transit Operations
Transit Facilities, Service, and Access
The project area is served by VTA Route 21 and MVgo Route A wit h the closest bus stops located on Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue. The project also is served by the Middlefield LRT Station, which is considered a major transit stop. The project would enhance and provide shorter access to the transit stops by providing pedestrian and multi-use paths within the plan area. The project would also enhance existing bus stops on site frontages by providing shelters and benches, as required by VTA.

Google operates an existing GBus shuttle system with an existing stop within the Quad Campus. A second new GBus stop would be added in the plan area within the proposed service street adjacent to Buildings O3 and O4. Access between these hubs and the project buildings would be provided via the proposed midblock crossing, proposed pedestrian/multi-use paths within the plan area, and existing sidewalks.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 102
Transit Ridership
According to the VTA TIA Guidelines, nine percent of residents in housing within 2,000 feet of an LRT station are expected to utilize transit, which calculates to 59 new riders during the AM peak hour and 71 new riders during the PM peak hour. Because Google operates its GBus shuttles for employees as a long-haul commute option, the number of office workers that would take VTA transit to commute is expected to be minor. Office employees who are VTA transit riders will likely be traveling a short distance between the Mountain View Transit Center (in Downtown) to the Middlefield LTR station.

During the AM and PM peak hours, there are three light rail trains that run in each direction, two Route 21 buses that run in each direction, and two MVgo shuttles that run northbound in the morning and southbound in the afternoon/evening. The increase in ridership could be accommodated by the existing transit routes.

Transit Vehicle Delay
To assess the project’s effect on transit vehicle delay, the de lay experienced by each route running through the study intersections was estimated based on the aver age vehicle delay that is calculated as part of the intersection level of service analysis. Table 27 summarizes the bus travel times through the study area and the increase in transit vehicle delay with the addition of the project traffic. VTA has not established policies or significance criteria related to transi t vehicle delay. Therefore, this analysis is presented for information purposes only. The results show that the project would result in a minimal increase (less than 60 seconds per vehicle) in transit travel time for the bus routes in the study area.

Table 27
Transit Vehicle Delay in Study Area

Bus Route Study Area Street(s) Direction AM PM
21 Eastbound 1.2 36.1
Westbound -3.8 25.9
MVgo Route A Whisman Rd, Fairchild Dr, Clyde Ave,
Maude Ave, Logue Ave, Middlefield Rd -- 4.7 4.4
Note:

Projected increase in transit delay based on a comparison of background vs. background plus project intersection movement delays calculated by TRAFFIX.

Moffett Blvd, Middlefield Rd, Logue Ave,
Maude Ave, Mathilda Ave
Projected Change in Transit
Vehicle Delay (sec/veh)
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 103

7. Other Transportation Issues
This chapter presents other transportation issues associated with the project, including:
 EWPP Street C Removal
 Recommended Changes to the MPMP
 Construction Phasing
 Project Contribution to the EWPP
EWPP Street C Removal
The EWPP proposes a Street C that extends midblock between Logu e Avenue and Clyde Avenue from Maude Avenue northward to the Hetch Hetchy right of way and end s in a cul-de-sac (see Figure 25).

Street C was conceptualized in EWPP to serve as an additional access to new buildings to break-up the long Maude Avenue block and provide a point of pedestrian connectivity near a new neighborhood park.

The EWPP describes that, with a Master Plan application, the Ci ty can review a proposed circulation network that does not include Street C if findings can be made that the street is not necessary for vehicle circulation or utilities.

Because Street C would end in a cul-de-sac, it would not serve through traffic and would only serve properties on the new street. The project would provide direct access to the proposed buildings in the area bounded by Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues through Maude A venue (buildings R3, R4/R4 aff, R5, and R6), Clyde Avenue (buildings O5/P1 and P2), and the service street running along the northern boundary (buildings O2, O3, and O4). Therefore, Street C is not necessary for vehicular access to these buildings. Although Street C would provide pedestrian/bicycle midblock access between Maude Avenue and the Hetch Hetchy easement, the project would also provide north-south public multi-use paths from Maude Avenue to the service street along the north project boun dary into a new neighborhood park (Maude Park). Thus, Street C is not necessary for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Replacing Street C with public multi-use paths is consistent with the EWPP as it maintains approximately 300-to-400-foot block lengths and would provide more connections for pedestrians and bicyclists with the service streets than a single Street C would provide.

E Middlefield Rd
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Ellis St
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
237
Maude Park
Middlefield Middlefield

VTA LRTVTA LRT
StationStation
Middlefield

VTA LRT
Station
Street B (Proposed by EWPP)Street B (Proposed by EWPP)Street B (Proposed by EWPP) Street C (Proposed by EWPP)
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 25
Street C Proposed by EWPP
R4 AFF
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 105
Recommended Changes to the MPMP
Table 28 summarized the recommended changes to the MPMP based o n the analysis and evaluation discussed in Chapters 4 and 5.

Table 28
Recommended Changes to Draft MPMP

Construction Phasing
The project would be constructed in four phases (see Table 29). Phase 1 would construct buildings R1, R2, and R6. Phase 2 would include constructing buildings O1 and O2. Phase 3 would construct buildings R3, R4/R4 aff, and R5. Under Phase 3, Maude Park is intended to be dedicated or delivered. Phase 4 would construct buildings O3, O4, O5/P1, and P2. Roadway improv ements along Middlefield Road should occur during Phase 1, depending on the timing of other improvements planned in later phases.

Logue Avenue would be extended to serve building O2 and the roadway and intersection improvements along Ellis Street are planned under Phase 2. Roadway improvements along Logue and Maude Avenues would occur in Phase 3, with Maude Avenue improvements potentially moved to Phase 4 depending on Element Recommended Changes from MPMP
Ellis Street Crossing north of Building O1: Provide a traffic signal on Ellis Street at the Quad Campus driveway and move the crossing to the south leg of the intersection. Eliminate the existing Ellis Street crossing north of the Quad Campus driveway.

Middlefield Road Crossing at the LRT tracks: Signalize the crossing.

Interconnect and coordinate the preemptive pedestrian signal with the signal at Logue Avenue and Middlefield Road.

Logue Avenue Crossing north of Building R3: Provide an active crosswalk with RRFB and install infrastructure (e.g. conduits, lighting, etc.) to facilitate the installation of a future signal.

Clyde Avenue Crossing south of Building O5/P1: Install a signalized crosswalk at least 100 feet from the driveway to Building O5/P1.

Clyde Avenue Crossing north of Building R5: Install an active crosswalk with RRFB at the P2 driveway, at least 300 feet from the Clyde Avenue Crossing south of Building O5/P1.

Provide 15 feet of red curbs next to the service streets/driveways if parking is permitted on the roadways.

Align the O5/P1 driveway with the service street north of Buildings O3 and O4 to create an intersection.

Flex Zones Move the on-street flex zones for O3, O4, O5, R3, R4, and R5 to the service street/private driveway for the respective buildings.

Removal of On-
Street Parking
East side of Logue Avenue, north side of Maude Avenue, and east side of Clyde Avenue.

Removal of parking at R6 street frontage.

Vehicle Parking
Ratios
Determine residential parking requirement based on unbundled and shared parking management. Retail/community/civic uses based on

3.68 spaces per 1,000 sf.

Midblock Crossing
Service Street/
Driveway
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 106
timing of Phase 4. Finally, Phase 4 would include Clyde Avenue roadway and midblock crossing improvements. Based on the buildings and roadway improvements planned for each phase, Table 29 summarizes the midblock crossings and new traffic signals that should be built in each phase.

Construction parking and staging would be located near each building during each phase, with some off- site locations for parking. Trucks would access the construction areas using arterial streets, such as Ellis Street, Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, and Maude Avenue (see Figure 26) with nearby freeway access for SR 237 and US 101. Two additional sites (in the northeast corner of Clyde Avenue and Maude Avenue and north of Building O4 on Clyde Avenue) are proposed to be us ed during construction, which are not part of the Master Plan area. On-site vehicle parking is expect ed to be sufficient for existing uses and construction crews during each phase of construction. The proje ct would be conditioned to prepare and submit a construction management plan during each building perm it stage that addresses the construction schedule, street closures and/or detours, construction staging areas, parking, and the planned truck routes. Use of any city-owned land (future parks) for construction staging or parking would require a license agreement with the City.

Table 29
Construction Phase Improvments

Phase Construction
Buildings R1, R2, and R6
Middlefield Road roadway improvements1
Middlefield Road Midblock Crossing at the LRT tracks (signal) VTA bus duck-out modifications
Buildings O1 and O2
Logue Avenue extension
Ellis Street roadway and intersection improvements
Ellis Street Midblock Crossing north of Building O1 (signal) Signal at the O1/R2 service street on Ellis Street
Phase 3 Buildings R3, R4/R4 affordable, and R5
Logue Avenue roadway improvements
Logue Avenue Midblock Crossing north of Building R3 (active crosswalk with RRFB)
Maude Avenue roadway improvements
2 Buildings O3, O4, O5/P1, and P2
Clyde Avenue roadway improvements
Clyde Avenue Midblock Crossing south of Building O5/P1 (signal) Clyde Avenue Midblock Crossing north of Building R5 (active crosswalk with RRFB)
Notes
Phase 2
Phase 4

1. Improvements along Middlefield Road could potentially occur during Phase 1, depending on the timing of other improvements planned in later phases.

Phase 1

2. Maude Avenue improvements could be combined with Phase 4, depending on timing of Phase 4 development.

E Middlefield Rd
Source: Middlefield Park Master Plan
Ellis St
Street B (Proposed)Street B (Proposed)
Logue AveLogue AveLogue Ave
W Maude AveW Maude AveW Maude Ave
Clyde AveClyde AveClyde Ave
Hwy 237Hwy 237Hwy 237
Street B (Proposed)
237
Phase 1Phase 1Phase 1
Phase 2Phase 2Phase 2
Phase 3Phase 3Phase 3
Phase 4Phase 4Phase 4
Phase 2
Phase 2 Phase 2
Phase 4
Phase 3
Phase
1, 2, 3, 4
Phase
1, 2, 3, 4
Phase
1 Phase 2
Phase 1
Phase 2Phase 1
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 4
=Staging Area and Construction Parking
LEGEND
Middlefield Park Master Plan MTA
Figure 26
Construction Phasing
R4 AFF
Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 108
Project Contribution to the EWPP
The EWPP envisions a variety of housing, retail, open space, an d office uses, including the land uses proposed by the Middlefield Park project. Implementation of the EWPP would result in adverse operational effects at several study intersections and would require intersection improvements to address the adverse effects. Because the project would contribute trips to the EWPP, the project should contribute its fair share to the improvements recommended by the EWPP EIR. The intersection improvements recommended by the EWPP EIR and percentage of the MPMP’s contributions are shown in Table 30.

The project’s contribution to the EWPP recommended improvements were calculated based on the proportion of trips generated by the project to the total EWPP trips. The AM and PM peak-hour proportions were averaged to determine the overall project cont ribution per intersection. The number of trips generated by the EWPP are the same under existing, backgr ound, and cumulative conditions. The project should contribute to the listed improvements, which could be met by payment of the Should the city adopt an East WhismanEWPP Development Impact Fee (currentl y under review) that includes the listed improvements, the project may be able to pay their fair share in fee.

Middlefield Park Master Plan VMT and MTA April 13August 12, 2022 Page | 109
Table 30
EWPP Intersection Improvements and Project Contributions

Peak Project EWPP Deficiency Project
ID Intersection Improvement 1 Hour Trips Scenario Contribution AM 30
PM 36
AM 249
PM 198
AM 401
PM 431
AM 383
PM 364
AM 134
PM 138
AM 117
PM 121
AM 85
PM 96
AM 131
PM 171
AM 283
PM 364
AM 64
PM 68
AM 30
PM 30
AM 41
PM 35
AM 71
PM 68
AM 23
PM 18
Notes:
* Indicates CMP intersection
4 1. Improvements as listed in the EWPP EIR under existing plus p roject, background plus project, and cumulativ e plus project conditions. 5 6
18%
45%
10%
38%
10%
20%
16%
Mary Avenue and Central Expressway* Add second westbound left, third westbound through, and third eastbound thorugh lanes4
--
--
22%
--
5%
Mathilda Avenue and Indio Avenue Add dedicated westbound right lane with overlap signal phasing4 Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Existing, Background,
Cumulative
23 Whisman Road and SR 237 WB Ramps Add dedicated southbound left and westbound right lanes with overlap signal phasing5
17 Moffett Boulev ard and Central Expressway* Close Castro Street leg at Ev elyn Av enue, as identified in the Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan (2016)4
18 SR 85 SB Off Ramp/Central Expressway Convert southbound right lane to shared southbound left/right lane
5 21
22 10 Whisman Road and Middlefield Road Add dedicated eastbound right lane with overlap signal phasing
11 Ellis Street and Middlefield Road Add second eastbound left lane 7 Mathilda Avenue and Maude Avenue* No feasible improvement ident ified 8 Moffett Boulev ard and Middlefield Road Add dedicated northbound right, southbound right, and eastbound right lanes with overlap signal phasing
1 Ellis Street and Manila Drive Signalize intersection with a protected left turn lane and shared through/right lane for each approach
2 Ellis Street and US 101 NB Ramps Add westbound left and southbound right lanes with overlap signal phasing
2 14%Background,
Cumulative
Background,
Cumulative --

2. This improvement is considered infeasible due to several considerations, including right-of-way, funding constraints, the limited space under the existing bridge structure to accommodate v ehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian use, and a need to accommodate light rail and freight rail traffic.

3. The interchange is part of the State highway system, which i s under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. There are no feasible improv ements completely under the City's control.

4. The implementation of this improvement is uncertain because this intersection is not under the City of Mountain View's juri sdiction.

5. This improvement would require coordination with Caltrans and Santa Clara County.

Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Cumulative
Ellis Street and Fairchild Drive Convert southbound approach to 2 through lanes 2 SR 237 Ramps and Maude Av enue Redesign the interchange to a tight diamond configuration3
Mary Avenue and Maude Avenue Add dedicated eastbound right lane with overlap signal phasing
4 Appendix A: Draft SEIR Comment Letters
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
Jun
e 13, 2022
Li
ndsay Hagan
City of Mountain View
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94039
Re:

SIR - Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Middlefield Park Master Plan, Mountain View, Santa Clara County.

SCH# 2021100026.

Dea
r Ms. Hagan:

The
California Public Utilities Commission's (Commission) Rail Crossing Engineering Branch (RCEB) is taking this opportunity to address the City of Mountain View (City) Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan.

RCEB staff offers the following comments:

Commission Requirements and Policy
The
Commission has jurisdiction over the safety of highway-rail crossings (crossings) in California. The Commission has exclusive power over the design, alteration, and closure of crossings, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1201 et al. Based on Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 3.9, an application to the Commission is required to construct a railroad across a public road. The Diridon Station Area Plan is subject to several other rules and regulations involving the Commission. The proposed project's design criteria must comply with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and Commission General Orders (GO's). The following GO's, among others, may be applicable:
• GO 2
6-D (regulations governing clearances on railroads and street railroads with reference to side and overhead structures, parallel tracks, and the crossing of public roads, highways, and streets)
• GO 72-B (rules governing the construction and maintenance of crossings at grade of railroads with public streets, roads, and highways)
• GO 75-D (regulations governing standards for warning devices for at-grade highway- rail crossings)
• GO 88-B (rules for altering public highway-rail crossings) • GO 95 (rules for overhead electric line construction) • GO 118 (regulations governing the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of walkways adjacent to railroad trackage and the control of vegetation adjacent thereto).

Comment A.1
Lindsay Hagan
June 13, 2022

Page 2 ends

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Mountain View City Council
November 15, 2022