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

Specific Project Comments
RC
EB 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 crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mi
tigation 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.

Fie
ld 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.

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.

If y
ou have any questions, please contact Eyitejumade "Ade" Sogbesan via email at [email protected].

Si
ncerely,
Eyitej
umade “Ade” Sogbesan
Utilities Engineer
California Public Utilities Commission
Rail Safety Division
Rail Crossings and Engineering Branch
Comment A.2
Comment A.3
Comment B.1
Comment B.2
Comment B.3
Comment B.4
Comment B.5
Comment B.6
Comment B.7
Comment B.8
Comment B.9
Comment B.10
Comment B.11
Comment B.12
Comment C.1
Comment C.2
Comment C.3
Comment C.4
Comment C.5
Comment C.6
Comment C.7
Comment C.8
Comment C.9
Comment C.10
Comment C.11
Comment C.12
Comment C.13
Comment C.14
Comment C.15
Comment C.16
Comment D.1
Comment D.2
Comment D.3
Comment D.4
Comment D.5
Comment D.6
Comment D.7
Comment D.8

Exhibit B

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR THE

MIDDLEFIELD PARK MASTER PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

OCTOBER 2022

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statutory Requirements for Findings

To support a decision on a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), or Supplemental EIR (SEIR), is prepared, the lead or responsible agency must prepare written findings of fact (Findings) for each significant effect on the environment ident ified in the EIR (e.g., Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code). The City of Mountain View, as the lead agency, has prepared these Findings for the Middlefield Park Master Plan (Project), located at the northeast corner of Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road and north of West Maude Avenue, between Logue Avenue and Clyde Avenue. The Findings must be adopted by the Mountain View City Council, which the City Council hereby elects to do as detailed more fully herein.

Section 15091(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states that:

“(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which a n EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agen cy makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:

(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and juri sdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.”

In short, CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternative s where feasible to avoid or mitigate significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of a project. For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less-than- significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 2
social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 states:

“If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region - wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”

1.2 Record of Proceedings

For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City’s decision on the Project consists of: (a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, Federal, State and local laws and regulations; and (b) the following documents which are in the custody of the City:

• Notice of Preparation and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project (see Appendix B of the Draft SEIR for the Notice of Preparation);

• The Public Review Draft SEIR and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Draft SEIR published in April 2022 and all attached appendices), and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referred to therein;

• All written and verbal comme nts and documents submitted to the City by agencies, organizations, and members of the public on the Project and the Final SEIR (before, during, and after the close of the public comment period up through the close of the public testimony portion of the City Council’s public hearing on the Project);

• The Project’s Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), which incorporates the Precise Plan EIR MMRP as Appendix A to the Project MMRP;

• The Public Review Final SEIR/Response to Comments document and supporting documentation prepared for the Project (Final SEIR published in August 2022) and all decisions, determinations, documents cited, incorporated by reference, or referenced to therein;

• A written response dated September 27 , 2022 to a public comment received after August 29, 2022 related to vapor intrusion, monitoring wells , and other volatile organic compound mitigation recommendations;

• An Errata document dated October 10, 2022;

1 Public Resources Code Section 21081(b).

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 3
• All findings and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited, incorporated by reference, referred to therein;

• All locally adopted land use plans and ordinances, including, without limitation, general plan, precise plans , and ordinances, together with environme ntal review documents, findings, mitigation monitoring and reporting programs, and other documentation relevant to planned growth in the area, such as the City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program adopted by the City Coun cil on July 10, 2012 and the City’s Climate Action Plan (Climate Protection Roadmap adopted in 2015);

• The City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2011012069), including all append ices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on July 10, 2012, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the General Plan EIR;

• The City of Mountain View East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP) Program Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017082051), including all appendices attached thereto, certified by the Mountain View City Council on November 5, 2019, and all findings, decisions, determinations, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Precise Plan EIR;

• All staff reports, presentation materials, and other documents prepared by the City with respect to the Final SEIR and the Project, and any minutes or verbatim transcripts of all information and Study Sessions, workshops, public meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Project; and

• Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, Subdivision (e).

The location and custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings are:

City of Mountain View
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Contact: Lindsay Hagan, 650-903-6306

1.3 Incorporation by Reference

The Final SEIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the comparative analysis of alternatives, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the scope and nature of mitigation measures, and the LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 4
reasons for approving the Project despite the conclusion regarding associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.

1.4 Findings

The Findings set forth herein are based on substantia l evidence contained in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, the Final SEIR, including relevant technical studies, reports, and evaluations supporting the Final SEIR’s analysis. As previously stated, the Draft SEIR (including, without limitations, all appendices attached thereto) addresses the potential effects on the environment that are associated with the Project as required under CEQA, and the Final SEIR and written response dated September 27, 2022 to a late comment includes the p ublic comments received on the Draft SEIR and minor text and graphic revisions to the Draft SEIR , which includes the Errata document dated October 10, 2022 . See Section 1.2 above for information regarding the location and custodian of the documents that comprise the Record of Proceedings.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 5
SECTION 2: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

This section provides a brief description of the Project, lists the objectives of the proposed Project, lists the Precise Plan Guiding Principles, and lists the Project alternatives evaluated in the Draft SEIR.

2.1 Brief Project Description

The proposed Project would demolish the existing 23 office and light industrial buildings totaling approximately 684,645 square feet, landscaping , and surface parking lo ts on a 40 -acre site and construct 1,317,000 square feet of office uses, up to 1,900 residential units, and up to 50,000 square feet of ground -floor commercial space (referred to as active use space) . The Project would also dedicate approximately 7.28 acr es for three new public parks and construct a

2.87-acre privately owned , publicly accessible (POPA) park. The Project would include new vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation. As a Project option, the applicant could develop a private district utilities system with underground utility lines to serve some buildings within the Project site with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), and electric power. A more detailed project description is provided in Section 3.0 of the Draft SEIR.

2.2 Project Objectives

a. Develop the Project area with residential and office uses at an increased density and floor area ratio ( 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:

• LUD 3.1: Land use and transportation. Focus higher land use intensities and densities within one-half mile of public transit service and along major commute corridors.

• LUD 3.8: Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 6
• LUD 9.2: Compatible transit -oriented development. Encourage transit -oriented development that is compatible with surrounding uses and accessible to transit stations.

• 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 transportation demand management ( 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 up to 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:

• Housing opportunities and anti-displacement;

• Retention and growth of small businesses and workforce development;

• Safe and expanded connections for pedestrians and bicyclists , while consolidating infrastructure for vehicles; and

• Quality open space for recreation, relaxation, and entertainment.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 7

2.3 Precise Plan Guiding Principles

To provide additional context, each alternative discussed in the SEIR was evaluated against the Precise Plan’s Guiding Principles, which support and establish the vision for growth in the Precise Plan area and are used as a reference point for stakeholders and decision-makers in evaluating development 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; and

10. Create a highly sustainable community.

2.4 Alternatives

Based on the Project objectives and anticipated environmental consequences and pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the following Project alternatives were selected for analysis:

• No Project, No New Development Alternative: The Project would not be built, and the site would remain in its existing condition with 684,645 square feet of office/research and development/light industrial.

• No Project, Redevelopment Alternative: This alternative assumes redevelopment of the site to the base allowable floor area for office (691,285 square feet) and minimum required retail (5,000 square feet).

• Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative assumes a 19% reduction in all proposed development to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 8
operational reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions impacts with incorporation of air quality mitigation measures, resulting in 1,066,770 square feet of office, 1,539 residential units, 24,300 square feet of retail, 16,200 square feet of community space, and 7.8 acres of public parks.

• 31% Reduced Development Alternative: This alternative assumes a 31% reduction in all proposed development to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable operational ROG emissions impacts without air quality mitigation measures, resulting in 908,000 square feet of office, 1,311 residential un its, 20,700 square feet of retail, 13,800 square feet of community space, and 6.6 acres of public parks.

• Rescheduled Construction Alternative: This alternative reschedules the proposed Project phasing to construct Phase 2 (office development) first before the 400 Logue Avenue residential project (the nearby sensitive receptors) is occupied to reduce the Project’s health risk impacts on residents at 400 Logue Avenue.

A more detailed description of these alternatives and required findings are set forth in Section 5 of this document, Feasibility of Project Alternatives. The detailed description is also provided in Section 9.0 of the Draft SEIR.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 9
SECTION 3: EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS

The Final SEIR indicated that significant effects on the environment to the following environmental resources would occur if the Project were implemented:

• Air Quality: Impact AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3, AQ-4, and AQ-C regarding conflict with an air quality plan, increase in criteria air pollutant emissions, construction toxic air contaminants, and generation of odors.

• Hazardous Materials: Impact HAZ-2 regarding exposure to hazardous materials.

• Noise and Vibration: Impact NOI-2 regarding groundborne vibration.

• Utilities: Impact UTL-1 regarding utility infrastructure impacts.

The Final SEIR includes analysis of the Project (with standard City utility connections) and Project with District Utilities System Option (with private district utility connections), so each impact and mitigation measure (MM) identifies if it applies to both Project options or just one Project option.

The environmental impacts listed above would be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures into the Project. The mitigation measures are listed under each of the impacts below and are included in a MMRP, which has been prepared separately from these findings (Citation 4).

NOTE: As described in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, the Air Quality analysis covers several different topics and pollutant types, incl uding consistency with plans, modeling for various criteria pollutants, and health risk assessments, which are evaluated for both project construction as well as operation. These are often discussed together, but are measured and analyzed differently. Because some of the technical results under each Air Quality impact heading were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and some were found to be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation, several of the Air Quality topics are discussed in both Section 3 and Section 4 of this Statement of Findings.

3.1 Air Quality

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 construction criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1: Both Project Options: Construction criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant (TAC) quantification shall be required on individual projects developed under the Precise Plan once construction equipment and phasing details are available through modeling to LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 10
identify impacts and, if necessary, include measures to reduce emissions below the applicable BAAQMD construction thresholds. Reductions in emissions can be accomplished through the following measures:

• Construction equipment selection for low emissions;

• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and added exhaust devices;

• Low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) paints;

• Modification of construction schedule; and

• Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for control of fugitive dust.

MM AQ-1.1: Both Project Options: Pursuant to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, the Project (under either option) shall implement the following measures during all phases of construction:

• All construction equipment larger than 25 horsepower used at the site for more than two continuous days or 20 hours total shall meet U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards for NOx and PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise:

— If use of Tier 4 Final equipment is not commercially available, the Project applicant shall use alternative equipment that meets U.S. EPA emission standards for Tier 2 or 3 engines and include particulate matter emissions control equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel emission control devices that altogether achieve an 85% reduction in particulate matter exhaust in comparison to uncontrolled equipment , alternatively (or in combination). The Project applicant shall provide to the City for review and approval documentation showing that engin es that comply with Tier 4 Final off-road emission standards are not commercially available for the specific off-road equipment necessary during construction. For purposes of this mitigation measure, “commercially available” shall take into consideration the following factors:
(i) potential significant delays to critical -path timing of construction ; and (ii) the geographic proximity to the Project site of Tier 4 Final equipment.

— Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower NO x emissions compared to traditional diesel fuel equipment that meets or exceeds the NO x and PM reduction requirements of U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final engine emission standards, as required above.

• Use electric equipment , such as aerial lifts, air compressors, cement mortar mixers, concrete/industrial saws, cranes, and welders. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity or alternative fuels (i.e., not diesel) instead of by diesel generators.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 11
• Diesel engines, whether for off-road equipment or on-road vehicles, shall not be left idling for more than two minutes, except as provided in exceptions to the applicable State regulations (e.g., traffic conditions, safe operating conditions). The construction sites shall have posted legible and visible signs in designated queuing areas and at the construction site to clearly notify operators of idling limit.

• Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel-powered stationary equipment.

• Use low VOC coatings to reduce ROG emis sions during construction. The Project shall use low VOC coatings that are below current BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3, Architectural Coatings), for at least 80 % of all residential and nonresidential interior paint and exterior paints. This includes all architectural coatings applied during both construction and reapplications throughout the Project’s operational lifetime. At least 80% of coatings applied must meet a “super-compliant” VOC standard of less than 10 grams of VOC per liter of paint. For reapplication of coatings during the Project’s operational lifetime, the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall cont ain a stipulation for low - VOC coatings to be used. Examples of “super -compliance” coatings are contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s website.2

Findings

Through implementation of Precise Plan mitigation measures MM AQ -3.1 and MM AQ-1.1, the Project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan by resulting in construction criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

As described herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigat ion measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or subs tantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR , and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. “Super-Compliant Architectural Coatings.” Accessed December 20, 2021. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/compliance/vocs/architectural-coatings/super-compliant- coatings
LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 12
Impact AQ -2: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction criteria pollutants for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard; however, with i mplementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.

Refer to MM AQ-1.1.

Findings

Through implementation of mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1, the Project (under either option) would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of construction criteria pollutants for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

As described herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR , and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

Impact AQ-4: Project with District Utilities Systems Option: The Project with District Utilities Systems Option would have th e potential to result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors); however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

MM AQ-4.1: Project with District Utilities System Option : The Project applicant shall develop and implement an odor -control plan that addresses plant design issues to control odors, identifies operating and maintenance procedures to prevent odors, and includes a corrective action plan to respond to upset condi tions and odor complaints. The odor-control plan shall describe the design elements and best management practices built into the facility, including the following:

• Ventilation of the system using carbon absorption, biofiltration, ammonia scrubbers, or other effective means to treat exhausted air from the enclosed facility;

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 13
• Odorproofing of refuse containers used to store and transport grit and screenings or biosolids; and

• Injection of chemicals to control hydrogen sulfide.

The plan shall describe procedures to address upset conditions caused by equipment failures, power outages, flow control, or treatment issues as well as odor complaints. Procedures would include investigating and identifying the source of the odor/odor complaint , and corrective actions could include installing specific odor -control technologies (e.g., odor -control units) or adjusting plant operations (e.g., by adding ferrous chloride injections). The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director (or the Director’s designee) and BAAQMD prior to issuance of building permits for the Conditional Use Permit ( CUP). In the event the facility receives confirmed complaints related to five separate incidents per year averaged over a three- year period, pursuant to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the plant shall revise the odor -control plan and resubmit it to the City for review and approval. If implementation of additional measures to control odors described in the plan does not lessen the complaints to fewer than five per year, the plant shall cease operations. All wastewater generated by the Project shall be directed to the municipal wastewater system, and subsequent environmental review shall be required to assess the impacts of continued operations of the facility.

MM AQ-4.2: Project with District Utilities System Option: Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact regarding odor complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. A log of odor complaints and procedures implemented to respond to complaints shall be maintained by the operator and provided to the City upon request.

Findings

Through implementation of mitigation measures MM AQ -4.1 and MM AQ -4.2 and compliance with BAAQMD regulations, the Project with District Utilities System Option would limit the discharge of odorous substances and respond to upset conditions and o dor complaints with corrective actions, reducing impacts to a less-than-significant level.

As described herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR , and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 14

Impact AQ -C: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable contributi on to a cumulatively significant exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration impact; however, with incorporation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Refer to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1 and MM AQ-1.1 above; and

MM AQ-1.2: Both Project Options: All on-site diesel emergency generators (under either option) shall be equipped with engines that meet or exceed U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter emissions.

Findings

Modeling shows the cumulative health risk (specifically excess cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentration) is below the BAAQMD thresholds of significance with the Project’s implementation of the City’s standard condition of approval, Precis e Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1, and Project mitigation measures MM AQ -1.1 and MM AQ-1.2. The impact is, therefore, considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described herein, the above mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the P roject as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR , and adoption of the miti gation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

3.2 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact HAZ-2: Both Project Options: The Project (under both options) would 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; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation, this impact would be reduced to a less -than- significant level.

Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1: Both Project Options: Prior to the start of any redevelopment activity, a property-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (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 LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 15
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 soil, soil vapor and/or groundwater (based on the professional judgment of the environmental professional and/or determination by the City based on the property-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, groundwater, or other materials during construction activities. The SMP shall be prepared by an Environmental Professi onal and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, 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 measures 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.

Findings

The Project (under either option) is consistent with the land uses for the site identified and anticipated in the EWPP and as analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR. According to the Precise Plan EIR, future development projects within the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area would be subject to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area, and the Statement of Work Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Address the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area. Furthermore, all future development would be required to prepare and submit an air -monitoring plan, vapor intrusion control system remedial design plan, and additional requirements as needed by the EPA for review and approval and by the City for review (refer to the Precise Plan EIR for details).

The Project site is located within the MEW Superfund Study Area , and groundwater contamination and soil vapor levels on-site are similar to other sites within the MEW Superfund Study Area. Therefore, the Project would have the same impacts as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR for sites within the MEW Superfund Study Area and would be required to comply with the EPA-required ROD mea sures described in the Precise Plan EIR to minimize potential impacts associated with the contaminated groundwater and soil vapor during Project construction and operation.

Consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1, Phase I ESAs have been prepared for t he Project site (refer to Appendix G of the Draft SEIR). Pursuant to Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1, to protect LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 16
construction workers and the environment, an SMP would be prepared and implemented. With implementation of the vapor control measures and SMP des cribed in Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-

3.1 above, impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant because contaminated soil, groundwater, and soil vapor would be properly managed and remediated during Project construction and operatio n. The impact is, therefore, considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described herein, the above mitigation measure has been incorporated into the Project that avoid or reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR , and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect to a less - than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

3.3 Noise

Impact NOI-2: Both Project Options: The Project would result in the generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Precise Plan EIR MM NOI -4.1: Use drilled piles (which cause lower vibra tion levels) where geological conditions permit their use. In areas where Project construction is anticipated to include vibration -generating activities, such as pile driving or use of vibratory rollers, in close proximity to existing structures, site -specific vibration studies shall be conducted to determine the area of impact and to identify appropriate mitigation measures , which may include the following:

• Identification of sites that would include vibration compaction activities , such as pile driving, and have the potential to generate groundborne vibration and the sensitivity of nearby structures to groundborne vibration. Vibration limits should be applied to all vibration-sensitive structures located within 200 ’ of the project. A qualified structu ral engineer should conduct this task.

• Development of a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring would be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions.

• Construction contingencies would be identified for when vibration levels approached the limits.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 17
• At a minimum, vibration monitoring should be conducted during initial demolition activities and during pile driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements.

• When vibration levels approach limits, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures.

• Conduct postsurvey on structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage have been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities.

Findings

With the incorporation of Precise Plan EIR MM NOI-4.1, the Project (under either option) would result in a less-than-significant vibration impact because the Project (under either option) would not include pile driving, locate vibration compaction activities away from vibration sensitive structures, implement a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan, monitor structures affected by vibration, and conduct a postconstruction survey of affected structures.

3.4 Utilities and Service Systems

Impact UTL-1: Both Project Options: The Project would require or result in the relocation of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts; however, with implementation of the identified mitigation measure, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Precise Plan EIR MM UTL -1.1: 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 u tility impact fees to be paid under the nexus study and will identify any other utility infrastructure improvements required as a result of individual projects.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 18

Findings

The Project (under either option) is consistent with the land uses for the site identified and anticipated in the EWPP and as analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR. A site-specific Utility Impact Study (UIS) was prepared for the Project consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM UTL -1.1 (see Appendix I of the Draft SEIR), which confirmed the Project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. The Project will be required to pay the appropriate impact fee adopted for the Precise Plan. The im pact is, therefore, considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 19
SECTION 4: SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED

TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL

A significant unavoidable impact is an impact that cannot be mitigated to a less -than-significant level if the Project is implemented. Except for the impact described below, all significant impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to a less -than-significant level with incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR includes analysis of the Project (with standard City utility connections) and Project with District Utilities System Option (with private district utility connections), so each impact and mitigation measure (MM) identifies if it applies to both Project options or just one Project option.

NOTE: As described in Section 4.1 , Air Quality, of the Draft SEIR, the Air Quality analysis covers several different topics and pollutant types, including consistency with plans, modeling for various criteria pollutants, and health risk assessments, which are evaluated for both project construction as well as operation. These are often discussed together, but are measured and analyzed differently. Because some of the technical results under each Air Quality impact heading were found to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, and some we re found to be significant and unavoidable even with mitigation, several of the Air Quality topics are discussed in both Section 3 and Section 4 of this Statement of Findings.

The Project would result in the following significant unavoidable impacts:

4.1 Air Quality

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 constructio n emissions) in excess of BAAQMD thresholds.

Refer to MM AQ-1.1, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, and MM AQ-1.2 described previously, which will be required of the Project as conditions of approval.

Findings

The Precise Plan EIR disclosed that the implementation of the Precise Plan would result in long - term pollutant emissions from building operations (including operation of stationary sources , such as emergency back-up diesel generators) and vehicle use. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not have numeric thresholds related to direct and indirect regional criterial air pollutant emissions (including ROG) resulting from plan implementation; rather, BAAQMD only requires emission computations for project -level analysis. For this reason, the Precise Plan EIR stated future projects under the Precise Plan would be reviewed against BAAQMD operational criteria pollutant thresholds when proposed. Therefore, the operational emissions of the Project were modeled and compared to BAAQMD thresholds. Operational criteria pollutant emissions LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 20
associated with the Project (under either option) would be generated primarily from vehicles driven by future employees, residents, customers, and vendors to and from the Project site and from consumer products.

While the proposed Project is consistent with the assumptions and land uses in the Precise Plan EIR, because of the different modeling requirements for a specific project versus a plan, the operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG. In addition, the Project would exceed BAAQMD project -level thresholds for health risk. Therefore, while the Project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) control measures and goals, the Project is found to be i nconsistent with the 2017 CAP based on the Project exceeding BAAQMD project-level thresholds and would result in significant, unavoidable (with the above mitigation incorporated) operational criteria air pollutant (ROG emissions) and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions).

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that reduce this significant impact. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR, and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect , but not to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

Impact AQ -2: Both Project Options: The Project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of operational criteria pollutants (ROG) for which the Project region is nonattainment under an appli cable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.

Refer to MM AQ-1.1, described previously, which will be required of the Project as a condition of approval.

Findings

The Bay Area does not meet State and/or Federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), or coarse particulate matter (PM10). High ozone levels are caused by cumulative emissions of ROG and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Construction period criteria pollutant emissions associated wit h the proposed Project (under either option) were modeled and found to be below the BAAQMD significance threshold with the implementation of the above mitigation measure. Operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed Project (under either option) would not exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds, with the exception of ROG. While it is feasible and enforceable for the City to require super -compliant VOC coatings be applied initially (as required by the above mitigation measure), the C ity cannot ensure that future occupants or tenants would use super -compliant VOC coatings during LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 21
reapplication for the lifetime of the Project. In addition, there is no feasible mitigation measure to ensure consumer products (such as inks, coatings, and adhesives) used by future residents and tenants would be low in VOCs. Therefore, the Project’s ROG emissions would be significant and unavoidable.

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

Refer to MM AQ-1.1, MM AQ-1.2, and Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, described previously, which will be required of the Project as a condition of approval.

Findings

The Project (under either option) would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors near the Project site to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD risk thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM2.5 concentrations primarily from construction emissions. Modeling completed found implementation of City standard condition of approval and mitigation measure Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1, and MM AQ -1.2 would reduce the health risk , but not to a less -than- significant level, and, therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that reduce this significant impact. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures des cribed above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR, and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect , but not to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

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 in regard to the implementation of the 2017 CAP and net increase in criteria pollutants.

See Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, MM AQ-1.1 above.

Findings

By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. In developing thresholds of significance for air pollution, BAAQMD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s air quali ty conditions. That is, if a project exceeds the BAAQMD significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 22

• Implementation of the 2017 CAP : As described above under Impact AQ -1, the Project (under either option) would be consistent with the 2017 CAP goals but would result in significant, unavoidable health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) and operational ROG emiss ions. The Project’s implementation of City standard conditions of approval, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1, and MM AQ -1.1 would reduce these impacts , but not to a less -than-significant level. The Project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the implementation of the 2017 CAP.

• Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants : As discussed under Impact AQ -1, the Project (under either option) would result in significant, unavoidable ROG emissions during operations.

Implementation of Project mitigation measure MM AQ -1.1 requiring the use of low VOC exterior finishes pursuant to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1 would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. The Project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact.

As described herein, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that reduce this significant impact. The City of Mountain View hereby finds that implementation of the mitigation measures described above are feasible, and they are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project as conditions of approval for the Project. Accordingly, changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the Project which substant ially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR and adoption of the mitigation measure set forth above will reduce the significant effect , but not to a less-than-significant level. Adoption of the conditions of approval will effectively make the mitigation measure part of the Project.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 23
SECTION 5: FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

The Draft SEIR included several Project alternatives. The City hereby concludes that the Draft SEIR sets forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision-making. The City finds that the alternatives identified and described in the Draft SEIR were considered and further finds that two of them (a Location Alternative and Alternative Site Design, Smaller Project Site Alternative) to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Section 21081 as described in Sections 9.2.1.1 and 9.2.1.2 of the Draft SEIR.

In addition to the Project, the following alternatives were evaluated in the Draft SEIR and are more fully described in Section 9.0 of the Draft SEIR. Each alternative was evaluated against the Project Objectives (objectives a. through j.) listed in Section 2.2 of this document, and the Precise Plan’s Guiding Principles ( principles 1 through 10) listed in Section 2.3 of this document , as reference points for stakeholders and decision-makers in evaluating Project alternatives.

5.1 No Project, No New Development Alternative

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, research, and development and light industrial uses.

Findings

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 constructio n emissions) as well as avoid all other impacts because it would not change existing conditions.

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 to implement a TDM program under the Precise Plan and would, therefore, not meet Project objective e., nor would it provide community benefit, housing, multi- modal connections, and open space identified in objectives h. and i. 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.

Further, this alternative would not assist the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for new housing.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 24

5.2 No Project, Redevelopment Alternative

The No Project, Redevelopment Alternative would result in the redevelopment of the site with developments that would meet the Base FAR allowed on the site, which is 0.4 FAR for nonresidential uses in the Precise Plan Mixed-Use and Employment Area North Character Areas and include the minimum amount of retail uses required. Assuming the whole site (40 acres) is developed with nonresidential uses, the No Project, Redevelopment Alternative would redevelop the site with up to 696,285 square feet (0.4 FAR) of nonresidential office uses, including a minimum 5,000 square feet of retail required by the Precise Plan. It is also assumed this alternative would implement sustainable building practices and a TDM program consistent with the requirements of the Precise Plan. No residential development would occur.

Findings

Given the scale of development under this alternative, it is assumed 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. Based on the reduced size of development under this alternative, it is assumed that operational ROG emissions would be less than significant. This alternative would require a project -specific vehicle miles traveled ( VMT) analysis because it does not meet the City’s density screening criteria of 0.75 FAR for development projects located near transit. Therefore, this alternative could result in a significant VMT impact requiring mitigation.

The No Project, Redevelopment Alternative would result in less or similar impacts for other impacts due to its consistency with the development evaluated in the Precise Plan EIR and existing conditions but would not include housing or as much office square footage as proposed by the Project (under either option). This alternative would provide approximately 0.5% of the planned office square footage in the Precise Plan. 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 woul d 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.

The No Pr oject, Redevelopment Alternative partially meets Project o bjectives a., c ., and f . because it does not include residential uses and proposes an incremental increase over existing office square footage. The alternative would not meet Project 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 Linkage Program and community benefits , are not applicable because the Project would not be subject to the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program or be required to provide community benefits.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 25
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 objective f.).

The Redevelopment Alternative would not include park land dedication, Bonus FAR, community benefits, or housing; therefore, objectives h. and i. would not be met.

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 n ear 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) or balance jobs and housing opportunities with g reater intensity near transit. Guiding Principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the Project location.

Because this alternative would not include housing, it would also not assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing.

5.3 Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative

The purpose of the Mitigated 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 mea sures 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% 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.

Findings

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 VMT density screening criteria of 0.75 FAR for development 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. All other impacts would be the same or similar to the proposed Project because th e 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.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 26
This alternative would develop the site with residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR consistent with the Precise Plan Character Areas and would, therefore, meet objective a.

The Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would provide 19 % 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 transportation 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 City for development of future parks pursuant to the City’s Park Land Dedicat ion 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.

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 offic e development, such that a 19 % 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% fewer than the proposed Project). Therefore, this alternative would assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Project. Guiding Principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the Project location.

5.4 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 %. This alternative, therefore, assumes approximately 9 08,730 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.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 27
Findings

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.

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% 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 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 pract ices 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 park land and meet objective h. (which calls for up to seven acres of park land). Additionally, because this alternative would deve lop 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.

This alternative would have the same alignment wit h the Precise Plan Guiding Principles as the Mitigated 19% Alternative but would result in an even greater reduction in housing units in relation to principle 7 and the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program as outlined above for the Mitigated 19% Alternative. For this alternative, the Project applicant would be minimally required to construct 672 residential units (1,228 units or 65% fewer than the proposed Project). Therefore, this alternative would assist the City in meeting its RHNA for new housing to a lesser extent than the proposed Project or the 19% Reduced Development Alternative. Guiding Principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the Project location.

5.5 Rescheduled Construction Alternative

The Project would result in significant, unavoidable const ruction 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. The approved 400 Logue LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 28
Residential project would be constructed and operational in 2025. Rescheduling Phase II construction activities to occur first w ould ensure pollutants 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 a lternative, 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 . The purpose of this alternative is to ensure pollutants 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.

Findings

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. 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 c annot be occupied until the residential units have been constructed per Precise Plan requirements for the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program.

This alternative aligns with the Precise Plan Principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 as it promotes a new mixed-use neighb orhood 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.

5.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative(s)

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 ( e)(2) states that an EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative. If the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

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. In addition to the No Project alternatives, the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative, 31% Reduced Development Alternative, and LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 29
Rescheduled Construction Alternative would be environmentally superior alternatives because they would each avoid one of the Project’s sign ificant, 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 avoids one of the Project’s signi ficant 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.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 30
SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable risks when determining whether to approve a project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological , or other benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agenc y to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened. Those reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record.

The Final SEIR and the CEQA Findings of Fact conclude that implementing the Middlefield Park Master Plan will result in certain significant impacts to the environment that cannot be avoided or substantially lessened with the application of feasib le mitigation measures or feasible alternatives. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is , therefore, necessary to comply with CEQA, Public Resources Code, Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093. The significant and unavoidable impacts and the benefits related to the Project are:

• Air Quality: Conflict with Air Quality Plan (Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-C): 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.

• Air Quality: Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant (Impact AQ -1, Impact AQ -2, and Impact AQ-C): The Project (under either option) wou ld result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard.

• Air Quality: Exposure to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations (Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-3, Impact AQ -C): The Project (under either option) would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

The City further specifically finds that the significant unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the proposed Project’s benefits and are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Project based on the findings below:

• The City has made a reasonable and good-faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project, as described above.

• All Mitigation Measures recommended in the Final SEIR have been incorporated into the Project and will be implemented through the MMRP, incorporated by reference herein.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 31
• In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has, in determining whether or not to approve the Project, balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including regionwide or Statewide environmental benefits of the Project against these unavoidable environmental risk s, and has found that the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The following statements specify the reasons why, in the City’s judgment, the benefits of the Project outweigh its unavoidable environmental risks. The City also finds that any one of the following reasons for approval cited below is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City will stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the City’s Findings and the benefits described below can be found in the Record of Proceedings.

The City of Mountain View finds that the Middlefield Park Master Plan has benefits that outweigh the significant, unavoidable impacts identified above. The benefits of the Project are:

6.1 Economic Benefits

• The Project develops the area with residential and office uses at an increased density and FAR near public transit and major roadways, providing a more efficient use of available land and increased pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. The Project redevelops an underutilized site with a greater land -use intensity office development, residential, and retail that supports business growth in the City and , specifically, continued growth in the EWPP area.

• The Project would include a high-quality office development, attracting regional enterprises to or retaining existing enterprises in the City.

• The Project would implement the EWPP and would add higher -intensity office uses , housing, and new retail/services in the EWPP area.

• The Project would provide for beneficial, Cit y revenue-generating infill in support of the City’s long -term fiscal health, including offset ting any increased City staffing needs generated by the population growth.

• The Project would advance the vision of the EWPP by providing a sustainable, transit - oriented employment center.

• The Project would generate revenue for the City through increased property tax revenue and Community Benefit Contribution from the Project.

• Development of the Project would create new jobs.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 32

6.2 Social Benefits

• The Project would lead to the redevelopment of an underutilized site served by existing transportation and utility infrastructure.

• The Project would expand and enhance recreational open space options within the City by providing new public parks and publicly accessible open space near Middlefield Road.

• The Project would also meet the City’s General Plan land use goals and policies which promote pedestrian and bicyclist connections to services and employers by creating on-site pedestrian and bicycle amenit ies; and the Project will upgrade the existing Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stop on Middlefield Road to accommodate a new pedestrian midblock crossing, bike lanes, and a new bus stop.

• The Project would increase housing supply in the City, which further improves the jobs - housing imbalance and would contribute to the City’s upcoming RHNA cycle starting in 2023.

• The Project would provide support to targeted small business in the City through their Community Benefits Program, which wil l further available neighborhood -serving uses to residents, workers, and visitors in the area.

• The Project would improve the overall aesthetic and visual quality of the EWPP area and has the potential to encourage further redevelopment activity and revitalization within the area.

• The Project would extend Citywide pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, open space resources, and major destinations within the City and into the City of Sunnyvale.

6.3 Regionwide or Statewide Environmental Benefits

• The Project would promote compact growth by increasing job opportunities at a location near existing transportation and utility infrastructure with the goal of reducing the region’s overall greenhouse gas emissions and VMT by focusing devel opment near transit and infrastructure with a TDM program.

• The Project would further support the operations of the VTA light rail system by providing an increased mix of new land uses at greater intensities adjacent to the existing Middlefield Light Rail station, which increases potential ridership that supports expanded services.

The City Council has carefully weighed these impacts and benefits and finds that the benefits of implementing the Project outweigh the above significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 33

The City Council finds that each of the following specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations and benefits of the Middlefield Park Master P lan, separately and independently, outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project, and each one is an overriding consideration independently warranting project approval.

Council finds that the significant unavoidable impacts of the Project are overridden by each of these individual considerations standing alone. The significant unavoidable environmental effects remaining after adoption of mitigation measures are considered acceptable in light of these significant benefits of the Mid dlefield Park Master Plan, as described in this statement of overriding considerations.

If Council certifies the Final SEIR and approves the Middlefield Park Master Plan, future zoning and other City permits would be subject to City review, subsequent environmental review as required, and public hearings.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated to the public and responsible agencies for input regarding the analysis in the Draft SEIR from October 1, 2021, through November 1, 2021, and a public SEIR scoping session for the Project was held on October 14, 2021. The Draft SEIR was circulated for public review for a 45-day comment period, which commenced on April 26, 2022 and ended on June 10, 2022 (Citation 2).

Formal written responses to each of the comments received during the comment period are included in the Final SEIR as well as text revisions to the Draft SEIR. No substantial changes to the Draft SEIR were required, and the Final SEIR includes the entire Draft SEIR by reference. The Final SEIR was made available to the public on August 19, 2022 (Citation 3).

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 34
SECTION 7: CONCLUSION; NO RECIRCULATION OF THE FINAL EIR IS REQUIRED

An EIR is adequate as long as it provides specific response to all specific questions about significant environmental issues and as long as the EIR, as a whole, reflects a good-faith effort at full disclosure. “Recirculation is not required where the new information added to an EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modification in an adequate EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b))

Per CEQA Guideli nes Section 15088.5(a), 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 on the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing:

1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

The City finds the SEIR is adequate and none of the commenters disclose any new “significant information” as defined by CEQA that would require recirculation of the SEIR. No new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts have been identified that would result from the Project or from an alternative or a new mitigation measure proposed as part of the Project.

Moreover, no new feasible mitigation measures or alternatives have been identified that are considerably different from others previously analyzed and would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Project that the City and the applicant have declined to implement.

All of the responses to comments contained in this Final SEIR merely provide information that clarifies and amplifies the evaluation of impacts contained in the Draft SEIR.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a), based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and the information contained in the record, the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the Final SEIR.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 35

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including pro vision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR.

LH/6/CDD
823-10-19-22SOC 36

CITATIONS

1. City of Mountain View. Final Environmental Impact Report for the East Whisman Pr ecise Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2017082051. January 2020.

2. City of Mountain View. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middlefield Park Master Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2021100026. April 2022.

3. City of Mountain View. 2022. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Middlefield Park Master Plan Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2021100026. August 2022.

4. City of Mountain View. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Middlefield Park Master Plan. August 2022.

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
Middlefield Park Master Plan Project
State Clearinghouse #2021100026
Middlefield Park Master Plan Project
City of Mountain View Page 1 of 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2022
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Project-Specific Mitigation Measures
Air Quality Impacts
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 any criteria
pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard.

MM AQ-1.2: Both Project Options: All on-site
diesel emergency generators (under either option)
shall be equipped with engines that meet or exceed
U.S. EPA Tier 4 standards for particulate matter
emissions.

Project applicant All mitigation measures shall
be printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and
project plans.

Oversight of implementation
by City of Mountain View
Building and Fire Inspection
Director (or the Director’s
Designee)
Prior to issuance
of grading and
demolition permits
Exhibit C
Middlefield Park Master Plan Project
City of Mountain View Page 2 of 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2022
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
(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])
Impact AQ-4: Project with
District Utilities Systems
Option: The project with
District Utilities Systems
Option would not result in
other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number
of people with the
implementation of mitigation.
(New Impact [Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])
MM AQ-4.1: Project with District Utilities
System Option: The project applicant shall develop
an odor control plan that addresses plant design
issues to control odors, identifies operating and
maintenance procedures to prevent odors, and
includes a corrective action plan to respond to upset
conditions and odor complaints. The odor control
plan shall describe the design elements and best
management practices built into the facility,
including the following:
• Ventilation of the system using carbon
absorption, biofiltration, ammonia scrubbers,
or other effective means to treat exhausted air
from the enclosed facility;
• Odor proofing of refuse containers used to
store and tran sport grit and screenings or
biosolids; and
• Injection of chemicals to control hydrogen
sulfide.

Project applicant Odor control plan submitted to
the City and BAAQMD.

Oversight of implementation
by City of Mountain View
Public Works Director (or the
Director’s Designee) and
BAAQMD
Prior to issuance
of building permits
for the CUP
Middlefield Park Master Plan Project
City of Mountain View Page 3 of 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2022
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
The plan shall describe procedures to address upset
conditions caused by equipment failures, power
outages, flow control, or treatment issues, as well as
odor complaints. Procedures would include
investigating and identifying the source of the
odor/odor complaint and corrective actions could
include installing specific odor control technologies
(e.g., odor control units) or adjusting plant
operations (e.g., by adding ferrous chloride
injections). The plan shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Director (or the Director’s
Designee) and BAAQMD prior to issuance of
building permits for the CUP. In the event the
facility receives confirmed complaints related to five
separate incidents per year averaged over a three-
year period, pursuant to BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, the plant shall revise the odor control
plan and resubmit it to the City for review and
approval. If implementation of additional measures
to control odors described in the plan does not lessen
the complaints to less than five per year, the plant
shall cease operations. All wastewater generated by
the project shall be directed to the municipal
wastewater system, and subsequent environmental
review shall be required to assess the impacts of
continued operations of the facility.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project
City of Mountain View Page 4 of 4
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
October 2022
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
MM AQ-4.2: Project with District Utilities
System Option: Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and person to contact regarding
odor complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s
phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. A log of
odor complaints and procedures implemented to
respond to complaints shall be maintained by the
operator and provided to the City upon request.

Project applicant Posting of notification sign on-
site.

Maintenance of odor complaint
log and corresponding
responses by operator.

Oversight of implementation
by City of Mountain View
Public Works Director (or the
Director’s Designee).

On-going during
project operations
SOURCE: City of Mountain View. Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Environmental Impact Report. April 2022.

MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM
East Whisman Precise Plan Project
State Clearinghouse #2017082051
East Whisman Precise Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 1 of 5 September 2019
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Air Quality Impacts
Impact AQ-3: Emissions of
criteria pollutants during
construction of future project
under the Precise Plan could
exceed Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
(BAAQMD) thresholds and
result in a significant impact.

MM AQ-3.1: Construction criteria pollutant and
toxic air contaminant quantification shall be required
on individual projects developed under the Precise
Plan once construction equipment and phasing details
are available through modeling to identify impacts
and, if necessary, include measures to reduce
emissions below the applicable BAAQMD
construction thresholds. Reductions in emissions can
be accomplished through, not limited to, the
following measures:
• Construction equipment selection for low
emissions;
• Use of alternative fuels, engine retrofits, and
added exhaust devices;
• Low-VOC paints;
• Modify construction schedule; and
Implementation of BAAQMD Basic and/or
Additional Construction Mitigation Measures for
control of fugitive dust.

Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project
Measures will be required to be
implemented as part of
demolition and development
permits. Measures will be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and
project plans prior to issuance
of permits.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department.

Prior to and during
any construction
activities, as
specified
Impact AQ-4: Health risks
associated with exposure to
TACs during temporary
construction activities
associated with development
under the Precise Plan could
significantly impact sensitive
receptors.

Implementation of MM AQ-3.1 during development of future projects under the Precise Plan would reduce TAC-related health impacts at sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.

Appendix A Certified 2019 East Whisman Precise MMRP

East Whisman Precise Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 2 of 5 September 2019
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts
Impact HAZ-3: Future
construction and demolition
activities could expose
construction workers, the
environment, and area
residents to potentially
unacceptable health risks from
contaminated groundwater,
soils, and soil gas.

MM HAZ-3.1: Prior to the start of any
redevelopment activity, a property-specific Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (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.

Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project.

Project will be evaluated
during the development review
and entitlement process to
identify their compliance with
this measure.

Measures will be required as
part of demolition and
development permits, as
applicable. Measures will be
printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and
project plans prior to issuance
of permits.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department,
EPA, RWQCB, and/or County
Department of Environmental
Health

Prior to the
approval of
grading permits.

East Whisman Precise Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 3 of 5 September 2019
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], Regional
Water Quality Control Board [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 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.

Noise and Vibration
Impact NOI-4: Construction
activities during
implementation of the Precise
Plan could result in significant
groundborne vibration-related
impacts to existing structures.

MM NOI-4.1: Use drilled piles (which cause lower
vibration levels) where geological conditions permit
their use. In areas where project construction is
anticipated to include vibration-generating activities, such as pile driving or use of vibratory rollers, in
close proximity to existing structures, site-specific
vibration studies should be conducted to determine
the area of impact and to identify appropriate
mitigation measures which may include the
following:
• Identification of sites that would include
vibration compaction activities such as pile
driving and have the potential to generate
ground-borne vibration, and the sensitivity of
Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project
Measures will be required to be
implemented construction and
development permits.

Measures will be printed on all
construction documents,
contracts, and project plans
prior to issuance of permits.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department.

During
construction
activities, as
specified
Eas
t Whisman Precise Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 4 of 5 September 2019
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
nearby structures to ground-borne vibration.

Vibration limits should be applied to all
vibration-sensitive structures located within 200
feet of the project. A qualified structural
engineer should conduct this task.
• Development of a vibration monitoring and
construction contingency plan to identify
structures where monitoring would be
conducted, set up a vibration monitoring
schedule, define structure-specific vibration
limits, and address the need to conduct photo,
elevation, and crack surveys to document
before and after construction conditions.
• Construction contingencies would be identified
for when vibration levels approached the limits.
• At a minimum, vibration monitoring should be
conducted during initial demolition activities
and during pile driving activities. Monitoring
results may indicate the need for more or less
intensive measurements.
• When vibration levels approach limits, suspend
construction and implement contingencies to
either lower vibration levels or secure the
affected structures.
• Conduct post-survey on structures where either
monitoring has indicated high levels or
complaints of damage has been made. Make
appropriate repairs or compensation where
damage has occurred as a result of construction
activities.

East Whisman Precise Plan Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of Mountain View Page 5 of 5 September 2019
Environmental Impacts Mitigation and Avoidance Measures Responsibility for Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation
Timing of
Compliance
Transportation
Impact TRA-4: Street C
would result in increased light
rail vehicle delay due to the
slower train speeds through the
crossing, disrupting the
existing facility.

MM TRA-4.1: The proposed Street C shall be
removed from the Precise Plan and replaced with a
grade-separated multi-use path (public pedestrian and
bicycle access). This improvement would eliminate
disruption of the existing light rail facility and there would be no impact.

The Adopted
Precise Plan reflects
this change.

The multi-use path
may be constructed
by the City or
project applicants
during construction
of adjacent projects
Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department
and/or implementation of the
improvement through the
City’s Capital Improvement
Program by the Public Works
Department.

As adjacent
properties
redevelop
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-1: Future large-
scale, site-specific
development projects
associated with
implementation of the Precise
Plan could result in impacts to
the existing water, sewer, and
storm drainage infrastructure.

Proposed new development
may require upsizing and/or
improvements to nearby water
distribution, sewer, and storm
drainage infrastructure to
accommodate growth
associated with larger projects.

MM UTL-1.1: 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.

Project applicant
and contractors
implementing the
project
Measures will be required to be
implemented as part of
development permits based on
the findings of the future site-
specific utility studies and
public works requirements.

Measures will be printed on all
construction documents,
contracts, and project plans
prior to issuance of permits.

Oversight of implementation
by the City’s Community
Development Department and
Public Works Department.

Prior to and during
any construction
activities, as
specified
SOURCE: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). June 2019. and Final EIR. September 2019. 1 ERRATA
Middlefield Park Master Plan
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2021100026) October 10, 2022

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ERRATA
The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan was published for public review on April 26, 2022. The public review period ended on June 10, 2022. A total of four comment letters were received, some of which resulted in minor text changes to the Draft SEIR. A Final SEIR which included these comments, formal responses, and text changes to the Draft SEIR was circulated on August 19, 2022. The following errata to the Draft SEIR is made to correct an omission in the Draft SEIR after publishing the Final SEIR for circulation.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR (including SEIR) when:
(a) 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 EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. 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 u pon 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. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the e nvironmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

Exhibit D

2 (c) If the revision is limited to a few chapters or portions of the EIR, the lead agency need only recirculate the chapters or portions that have been modified. (d) Recirculation of an EIR requires notice pursuant to Section 15087, and consultation pursuant to Section 15086.
(e) A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
(f) The lead agency shall evaluate and respond to comments as provided in Section 15088.

Recirculating an EIR can result in the lead agency receiving more than one set of comments from reviewers. The following are two ways in which the lead agency may identify the set of comments to which it will respond. This dual approach avoids confusion over whether the lead agency must respond to comments which are duplicates or which are no longer pertinent due to revisions to the EIR. In no case shall the lead agency fail to respond to pertinent comments on significant environmental issues.

As shown b elow, the following revisions made to the Draft SEIR would not alter the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR. The following changes are intended to correct an omission in the Draft SEIR and clarifies the existing analysis. Therefore, modifications are insignificant and recirculation of an EIR is not required under CEQA Guidelines.

DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS
This section contains revisions to the text of the Middlefield Park Master Plan Draft SEIR dated April 26, 2022. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown with a line through the text.

The following bullet was ADDED to correct an inadvertent omission in the list of significant unavoidable impacts on Page 232 of the Draft SEIR:

• 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 [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation])

The last bullet on page 26 was REVISED to clarify trip cap calculations in the Precise Plan area:

• Trip Cap: The Precise Plan established a long-term vehicle trip cap across the entire East Whisman area of, which for new office development is 0.83 a.m. and 0.72 p.m. peak-hour trips per 1,000 net new square feet cap, as established through the Precise Plan’s Office Trip Cap Phasing Program and Administrative Guidelines. The proposed project would implement a trip cap of 1,097 a.m. peak hour trips and 952 p.m. peak hour trips.

The above text changes are minor corrections that do not present new information or changes in the analysis or findings of the Draft SEIR. The AQ-C impact was discussed and disclosed in the Draft SEIR analysis, but this bullet was omitted from page 232 of the Draft SEIR, which summarized the list

3 of significant unavoidable impacts; this is not a new impact or discussion and is not new significant information under CEQA.

In conformance with Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft SEIR, technical appendices and reports, Final SEIR, together with the Errata and the information contained in this document are intended to inform the decision-makers and the public of the environmental effects of the Middlefield Park Master Plan project.

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Mountain View City Council
November 15, 2022