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

Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW

CERTIFYING THE MIDDLEFIELD PARK MASTER PLAN

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

ADOPTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS RELATED TO

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND ALTERNATIVES,

AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES,

AND A MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM

WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000, et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 15000, et seq., collectively “CEQA”), the City of Mountain View (“City”), as lead agency, has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan (“Project”); and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View prepared and circulated for public comment a Draft SEIR and gave all public notices in the manner and at the times required by law; and

WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View prepared, completed, and adopted in accordance with CEQA the East Whisman Precise Plan Final Environmental Impact Repo rt (SCH No. 2017082051) (“Precise Plan EIR”) (Citation 1), which evaluated the impacts of the East Whisman Precise Plan (“Precise Plan”) that allows for up to 2 million square feet of net new office uses (and assumes conversion of approximately 2.2 million square feet of existing industrial and R&D space to office uses), 100,000 square feet of retail uses, 200 hotel rooms, and 5,000 multi - family residential units; and

WHEREAS, in connection with the adoption of a resolution approving said Precise Plan, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18395 on November 5, 2019, setting forth certain findings pertaining to the Precise Plan EIR and adopting a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, all pursuant to the provisions of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Project was evaluated and analyzed under the Precise Plan EIR, and it was determined a supplemental environmental report to the Precise Plan EIR was required, as further explained in the Final SEIR, as defined below, for the Project; and

WHEREAS, the City cir culated a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) for the SEIR for the Project in the manner and times required by law for review and comment by responsible and trustee agencies and other interested agencies, organizations, and individuals from October 1, 2021 through November 1, 2021 and held a public scoping meeting on October 14, 2021; and

-2-

WHEREAS, pursuant to PRC Sections 21161 and 211092 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15085 and 15087, on April 26, 2022, a Notice of Completion (“NOC”)/Notice of Availability (“NOA”) document for a Draft SEIR for the Project was duly prepared and distributed; and

WHEREAS, the City duly prepared and circulated the Draft SEIR for the required 45 -day public comment period, which commenced on April 26, 2022 and ended on June 10, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the City duly prepared responses to comments received on the Draft SEIR as reflected in the Final SEIR/Response to Comments document dated August 2022, which address all written and verbal comments on the environmental issues raised during the public review and comment period for the Draft SEIR, and was made available to all commenters and the public on August 19, 2022; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR/Response to Comments document dated August 2022, together with the Draft SEIR as well as all appendices attached thereto, collectively comprise the Final SEIR; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR, which includes the Draft SEIR (incorporated by reference) and the Response to Comments document on the Draft SEIR, was presented to the City Council on November 15 , 2022, and the City Council has reviewed the Final SEIR on the Project and all associated staff reports, meeting minutes, testimony, and evidence constituting the record of proceedings, as referenced in the Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR identifies certain significant effects on the environment that would result from the implementation of the proposed project; and

WHEREAS, the Final SEIR ide ntifies mitigation measures which, when implemented, will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment caused by the proposed project, with the exception of the significant unavoidable impacts related to a conflict with the applicable air quality plan; generation of a cumulatively considerable net increase in operational reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions in a region that is considered nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards; and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction; and

WHEREAS the Final SEIR identifies and analyzes alternatives to the Project; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program has been prepared pursuant to CEQA to monitor the changes to the Project, which the lead agency has adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment; now, therefore, be it

-3-
RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Mountain View , having independently considered the Final SEIR and the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project as shown in the Final SEIR for the Middlefield Park Master Plan:

1. Certifies that the Fin al SEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City and has been presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in it, along with oth er relevant information in the Record of Proceedings, including, without limitation, public testimony, written correspondence, and staff reports and responses (including responses to comments on the Final SEIR received at or prior to the City Council publi c hearing) before approving the Project, and hereby finds that the Final SEIR constitutes an accurate, adequate, objective, and complete EIR.

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

3. Adopts the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, which incorporates the MMRP from the Precise Plan EIR, attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4. Adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures identified and described in the Final SEIR and determines that the Project, as mitigated, will avoid or reduce all of the significant adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of the significant unavoidable impacts related to a conflict with the applicable air quality plan; generation of a cumulatively considerable net increase in operational ROG emissions in a region that is considered nonattainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standards; and exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, which significant unavoidable impacts are considered acceptable because these unavoidable adverse environmental effects are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

5. Finds that a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives were identified and evaluated in the Final SEIR and further finds that none of the alternatives identified and evaluated in the Final SEIR will achieve all of the Project objectives or to the same degree as the proposed Project and, otherwise, are infeasible for the reasons detailed more fully in Exhibit B, do not represent substantial environmental benefits over the proposed Project, and are, therefore, rejected as infeasible, within the meaning of CEQA, in favor of the proposed Project.

6. The City, in making its decision to certify the Final SEIR and approve the Project and as detailed more fully in Exhibit B, hereby recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. The City has acquired a comprehensive and well -rounded understanding of the range of these technical and scientific opinions by its review of the Final SEIR, information provided by the experts who prepared the Final SEIR, the City’s staff and other consultants, other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings, and its own experience and expertise in these matters. The materials reviewed by

-4-
the City include, without limitation, conflicting expert opinions and statements of facts as well as other comments on the environmental issues set forth in the Final SEIR. This comprehensive review has enabled the City to make its determinations after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. As a result, the City has made determinations of significant effects based on substantial evidence and not public controversy or speculation.

Accordingly, the City certifies that its findings and determinations are based on all of the evidence contained i n the Final SEIR as well as the evidence and other information in the Record of Proceedings and hereby elects to rely on the opinions set forth in the Final SEIR and other relevant materials in the Record of Proceedings.

TIME FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

The time within which judicial review of this document must be sought is governed by California Code of Procedure Section 1094.6 as established by Resolution No. 13850 adopted by the City Council on August 9, 1983.

– – – – – – – – – – –

LH/6/RESO
823-10-19-22r-1

Exhibits: A. Final SEIR
B. CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations C. Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
D. Errata Document dated October 10, 2022

Middlefield Park Master Plan
SCH No.: 2021100026
Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report
April 2022
Prepared by
In Consultation with
•• ~~ Cityof
~ ?, Mountain View

SQ DAVID J, POWERS
1a., ■ U)i.l & ASSOCIATES INC.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS l_ PLANNERS
Exhibit A

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.0 Summary ......................................................................................................................... v Section 2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report ........................................................................ 1

2.2 EIR Process ............................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Final EIR/Responses to Comments ........................................................................................ 4 Section 3.0 Project Information ......................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Project Site Location............................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................. 5

3.3 Consistency with General Plan Designation and Zoning District ........................................ 28

3.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 31

3.5 Uses of the EIR ..................................................................................................................... 32 Section 4.0 New Significant Environmental Effects........................................................................ 34

4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................ 36 Section 5.0 Previously Identified Effects ......................................................................................... 70

5.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................................. 71

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................... 76

5.3 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 81

5.4 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 91

5.5 Energy ................................................................................................................................. 100

5.6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................... 109

5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................. 119

5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................... 125

5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 146

5.10 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 158

5.11 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................................. 163

5.12 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 165

5.13 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 179

5.14 Public Services ................................................................................................................... 182

5.15 Recreation ........................................................................................................................... 191

5.16 Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 195

5.17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 213

5.18 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 216

5.19 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................... 227

Middlefield Park Master Plan ii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Section 6.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................... 229 Section 7.0 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................................. 230

7.1 Irreversible Use and Irretrievable Commitments of Nonrenewable Resources ................. 230

7.2 Commitment of Future Generations to Similar Uses ......................................................... 230

7.3 Irreversible Damage from Environmental Accidents ......................................................... 231 Section 8.0 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ......................................................................... 232 Section 9.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 233

9.1 Factors in Selecting and Evaluating Alternatives ............................................................... 233

9.2 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 235 Section 10.0 References ................................................................................................................... 251 Section 11.0 Lead Agency and Consultants ..................................................................................... 258

11.1 Lead Agency ....................................................................................................................... 258

11.2 Consultants ......................................................................................................................... 258 Section 12.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................... 260

Figures
Figure 3.2-1: Regional Map ................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 3.2-2: Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 3.2-3: Aerial Photograph of the MPMP and Surrounding Area ............................................... 11 Figure 3.2-4: Conceptual Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3.2-5: Conceptual Residential Building Elevations .................................................................. 13 Figure 3.2-6: Conceptual Office Building Elevations ......................................................................... 14 Figure 3.2-7: Conceptual Open Space Plan ......................................................................................... 16 Figure 3.2-8: Conceptual Circulation Plan .......................................................................................... 24 Figure 4.1-1: Locations of Off-Site Sensitive Receptors and Modeled Project Traffic ....................... 55 Figure 5.1-1: Transit Priority Area ...................................................................................................... 73 Figure 5.4-1: Location of Buildings 45 Years and Older .................................................................... 94 Figure 5.12-1: Moffett Federal Airfield 2022 Noise Contours .......................................................... 168 Figure 5.16-1: Location of Existing Transit Facilities ....................................................................... 202 Figure 5.16-2: Location of Existing Bicycle Facilities ...................................................................... 204 Figure 9.2-1: Rearranged Project Alternative .................................................................................... 238

Middlefield Park Master Plan iii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Tables
Table 3.2-1: Proposed MPMP Buildings ............................................................................................... 7 Table 3.2-2: Construction Phasing for Proposed Project & District Systems Option ......................... 22 Table 3.2-3: Precise Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements .................................................................... 25 Table 3.3-1: Precise Plan Maximum Allowed Building Heights by Character Area .......................... 29 Table 3.3-2: Allowed and Proposed FAR by Precise Plan Character Area ......................................... 30 Table 4.1-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants ...................................................................................... 36 Table 4.1-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds ............................................................ 40 Table 4.1-3: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day) ................................................................................................................................. 44 Table 4.1-4: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day) with MM AQ-1.1 .................................................................................................... 46 Table 4.1-5: Project with District Utilities System Option Operational Period Emissions ................. 48 Table 4.1-6: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin ROG Emissions (tons/day) ................... 51 Table 4.1-7: Project with District Utilities System Option Construction and Operational Community Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors ................................................................................................ 56 Table 4.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures ........................................ 59 Table 4.1-9: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI ..................................................... 66 Table 4.1-10: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site .......................................... 67 Table 5.5-1: Existing and Project with District Utilities System Option Annual Energy Demand ... 106 Table 5.8-1: Summary of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings .................................... 129 Table 5.8-2: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Sampling Results and Environmental Safety Levels .... ..................................................................................................................................... 132 Table 5.12-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria ...................................................................... 166 Table 5.12-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines ............................................... 169 Table 5.14-1: 2019-2020 School Enrollment and Capacity ............................................................... 185 Table 5.16-2: Maximum Vehicle Parking1 ........................................................................................ 212 Table 9.2-1: Summary of Alternatives Development Assumptions .................................................. 239 Table 9.2-2: Comparison of Impacts Between the Project and Project Alternatives ......................... 248

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

Appendices
Appendix A: Draft Middlefield Park Master Plan
Appendix B: NOP and Comments Received
Appendix C: Air Quality Report
Appendix D: Arborist Report
Appendix E: Historic Resources Survey Report and Peer Review Memorandum Appendix F: Geotechnical Reports
Appendix G: Hazards and Hazardous Materials Reports
Appendix H: Multimodal Transportation Analysis
Appendix I: Utilities Impact Study

Middlefield Park Master Plan v Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 1.0 SUMMARY
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As the CEQA Lead Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR along with any other available information in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts (including growth- inducing impacts and cumulative impacts), mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend either approval or denial of a project.

This EIR tiers from the certified 2020 East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final EIR (Precise Plan EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2017082051) and 2012 Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR (SCH# 2011012069), a ll of which are specifically incorporated by reference into this EIR.

Summary of the Project
The approximately 40-acre project site i s located to th e northeast of the Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road intersection, within the Mixed-Use and Employment Character Areas of the East Whisman Precise Plan (Precise Plan) and adjacent to the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Middlefield Light Rail Station . The project site is currently developed with 23 office and light industrial buildings totaling approximately 684,64 5 square feet, as well as landscaping and surface parking lots. The project proposes to demolish the existing improvements and construct 1,317,000 square feet of office uses, up to 1,900 residential units, up to 30,000 square feet of ground floor retail space, and up to 20,000 square feet of community/civic uses . 1 The project would also dedicate
approximately 7.28 acres for three new public parks and construct a 2.87-acre privately owned publicly accessible (P OPA) park. The project would also 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 3.2 Project Description.

1 The Master Plan project materials also collectively refer to the 30,000 square feet of ground floor retail space and 20,000 square feet of community/civic space as “Active Use” space.

Middlefield Park Master Plan vi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section summarizes (1) new significant impacts and mitigation measures identified for the project, which were not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR (identified as MM), and (2) impacts and mitigation measures previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR that are applicable to the project (identified as Precise Plan EIR MM). The impacts and mitigation measures refer to the Project (which assumes standard municipal utilities), the Project with District Utilities System Option (which assumes a private district utility system would be constructed as a project design option), or Both Options.

A detailed discussion of impacts and mitigation measures is provided in Sections 4.0 New Significant Environmental Effects and 5.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
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 BAAQ MD thresholds.
(New Impact [Significant,
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])

Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1: Both Project Options:

Construction criteria pollutant and TAC quantification shall be required on individual projects developed under th e 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 ac complished 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.

EPA Tier 4 Final emission standards for NO x and
PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise:
o 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
Impact AQ -2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard. (New Impact [Significant,
Unavoidable Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact AQ -3: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations. (New Impact
[Significant, Unavoidable Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan vii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
equivalent to CARB Level 3 verifiable diesel
emission control devices that altogether achieve
an 85-percent reduction in p articulate 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 engines 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.
o Use of alternatively fueled equipment with
lower NO x emissions compared to traditional
diesel fuel equipment that meets or exceeds the
NOx 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 equipm ent shall be powered by grid
electricity or alternative fuels (i.e., not diesel)
instead of by diesel generators.
• 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 emissions during
construction. The project shall use low VOC coatings that are below current BAAQMD requirements (i.e., Regulation

Middlefield Park Master Plan viii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings), for at least 80 percent 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 percent 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 contain 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.

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.

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 . (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
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

Middlefield Park Master Plan ix Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
building permits for the CUP. In the event the facility receives confirme d 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 additiona l
measures to control odors described in the plan does not lessen the complaints to less than five per year, the plant shall c ease operations. All wastewater generated by the project shall be directed to the municipal wastewater
system, and subsequent envi ronmental 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.

Impact HAZ -2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment. (Same Impact as
Approved Project. [Less than
Significant Impact with
Mitigation])
Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ -3.1: Prior to the start of any redevelopment activity, a property- specific Phase I ESA shall be completed in accordance with ASTM Standard
Designation E 1527-13 (or the standard that is effective at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted) to identify
Recognized Environmental Conditions, evaluate the
property history, and establish if the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies shall subsequently be conducted if warranted based on the findings of the
property-specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if mitigation measures are needed to protect the health and safety of construction workers, the environment, and area residents.

Middlefield Park Master Plan x Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
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 Professional and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., EPA, RWQCB and/or County Department of
Environmental Health) for review and approval prior to
commencing construction activities. Management of site risks during earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or
suspected, shall be described. Worker training requirements and health and safety shall be described. The SMP shall also be submitted to the City of Mountain View Planning
Division for review. The project developer shall also submit to the City agency approval of the SMP or provide
documentation of a regulatory agency’s decision declining involvement in the project.

Impact NOI -2: Both Project
Options: The project (under either
option) would not result in generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels . (Same
Impact as Approved Project [Less
than Significant Impact with
Mitigation])

Precise Plan EIR 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 concluded 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 nearby structures to ground-born
vibration. Vibration levels 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

Middlefield Park Master Plan xi Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Significant Impact Mitigation Measures
indicate the need for more or less intensive
measurements.
• When vibratio n levels approach limits, suspend
construction and implement contingencies to either
lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. • Conduct post -survey on structures when 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.

Impact UTL -1: Both Project
Options: The project would not require
or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
was
tewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects. (Same Impact as Approved
Project [Less than Significant
Impact])
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 utility impact fees to be paid under the nexus study and will iden tify any other utility infrastructure improvements required as a result of individual projects.

Summary of Project Alternatives
CEQA requires that an EIR identify alternatives to a project as it is proposed. The CEQA Guidelines specify that the EIR should identify alternatives which “would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to determine whether t here are alternatives of design, scope, or location which would substantially lessen the significant impacts, even if those alternatives “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives” or are more expensive (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6).

While CEQA does not require that alternatives must be capable of meeting all of the project objectives, their ability to meet most of the objectives is considered relevant to their consideration. The project objectives are identified in Section 3.4 Project Objectives of this EIR. The alternatives are also evaluated for their consistency with the 10 Precise Plan Guiding Principles, which are listed in Section

9.1.4. A summary of the project alternative evaluated in this EIR is provided below. Refer to Se ction

9.0 Alternatives for the full discussion of each alternative.

Middlefield Park Master Plan xii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
No Project, No New Development Alternative
The CEQA Guidelines specifically require consideration of a “No Project” Alternative. The purpose of including a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project. The CEQA Guidelines specifically advise that the No Project Alternative shall address both the existing conditions and “what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6(e)(2).

Under the No Project, No New Development Alternative, the project site would remain as it is today, developed with a total of 684,645 square feet of office, R&D and light industrial uses. The No Project, No New Development Alternative would avoid the project’s impacts (under either option) but would not meet any of the project objectives. This alternative would not meet any of the Precise Plan’s guiding principles because it does not redevelop the site consistent with the Precise Plan.

No Project, Redevelopment Alternative
Given the site’s land use designation, it is reasonable to assume that if the proposed project were not approved, an office development could be developed on the project site at the base FAR allowed with a minimum amount of retail. The No Project Redevelopment Alternative would include up to 696,285 square feet (0.4 FAR) of non-residential uses, including a minimum 5,000 square feet of retail required by the Precise Plan. The No Project Redevelopment Alternative would result in less or similar impacts as the proposed project, since it is less overall development and does not include residential development. In regards to the project objectives, the No Project Redevelopment Alternative would:
• Meet objectives e and g;
• Partially meet objectives a, b, c, and f; and
• Not meet objectives h and i.

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

Mitigated 19% Reduc
ed 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 measures identified for the project (under either option). The Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative 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. The Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable operational ROG emissions (with mitigation) and lessen the project ’s mitigable construction criteria pollutant emissions and health impacts with implementation of the same mitigation measures identified for the project (under either option). All other impacts for this alternative would be the same or similar as the proposed project. In regards to the project objectives,

Middlefield Park Master Plan xiii Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
the Mitigated 19% Reduced Development Alternative would:
• Meet objectives a, d, e, f, g, h, and i; and
• Partially meet objective b and c.

In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would:
• Consistent with principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10 but alignment with 7 significantly reduces residential units.
• Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

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. The 31% Reduced Development Alternative assumes approximately 908,730 square feet of office uses, 1,311 residential units, 20,700 square feet of ground floor retail space, 13,800 square feet of community/civic uses, and

6.6 acres of park land. The 31% Reduced Development Alternative would avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable operational ROG emissions (no mitigation required) and lessen the project’s mitigable construction criteria pollutant emissions and significant, unavoidable construction health risk impacts with incorporation of the same mitigation measures as identified for the project (under either option). All other impacts would be the same or similar as the proposed project. In regards to the project objectives, the Mitigated 31% Reduced Development Alternative would:
• Meet objectives a, d, e, f, g, h, and i
• Partially meet objectives b and c

In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would:
• Consistent with principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10, but alignment with principle 7 significantly reduces residential units.
• Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location.

Rescheduled Construction Alternative
The purpose of this alternative is to avoid the project’s significant, unavoidable construction health risk impact. The project would result in significant, unavoidable construction health risk impacts due to the location of Phase II construction activities (under either option) adjacent to the approved 400 Logue Avenue residential project’s future sensitive receptors . Rescheduling Phase II construction activities to occur before the approved 400 Logue Residential project is occupied would ensure health risk impacts to these residents from the project (under either option) are reduced. 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 result in a period of vacant office buildings while residential units are constructed based on the Precise Plan, which requires new office uses built under the Jobs -Housing Linkage program to obtain occupancy only once the associated residential development obtains occupancy. Therefore, this alternative would meet all of the project objectives to the same extent as the proposed project, except for objective d.

Middlefield Park Master Plan xiv Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
In regards to the Precise Plan guiding principles, this alternative would:
• Consistent with principles 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. • Guiding principles 4 and 5 are not applicable based on the project location

Areas of Concern
Environmental concerns expressed thus far from local residents, property owners, organizations, and/or agencies about the project include the following:
• Lighting impacts
• Impacts to groundwater resulting from construction dewatering • Sunnyvale Golf Course as a barrier to the east
• Pedestrian safety near Middlefield Light Rail Station • Project-generated traffic on roadway and freeway capacity • Bicycle/Pedestrian as it pertains to transportation impacts • Required connections to existing utilities infrastructure and needed improvements

Middlefield Park Master Plan 1 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Mountain View, as the Lead Agency, has prepared this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Middlefield Park Master Plan project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines.

As described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document that assesses potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines 15121[a]). As the CEQA Le ad Agency for this project, the City of Mountain View is required to consider the information in the EIR, along with any other available information, in deciding whether to approve the project. The basic requirements for an EIR include discussions of the environmental setting, significant environmental impacts (including growth-inducing and cumulative impacts), mitigation measures, and alternatives. It is not the intent of an EIR to recommend approval or denial of a project.

This EIR is a Supplemental EIR to the certified 2020 East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final EIR (Precise Plan EIR, State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2017082051). The primary purpose of the Precise Plan was to increase the density of development and incorporate a more balanced mix of land uses within the East Whisman area in proximity to existing transit facilities and jobs. The East Whisman Precise Plan (Precise Plan ) allows for up to two million square feet of net new office uses 2 (and assumes
conversion of approximately 2.2 million square feet of industrial and R&D space to office uses), 100,000 square feet of retail uses, 200 hotel rooms, and 5,000 multi-family residential units.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(a), the lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:

(1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and (2) Only minor alterations or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.

Based on the analysis contained in this EIR, only the discussion of the project’s significant air quality impacts is needed to supplement the discussion in the Precise Plan EIR. For this reason, the City has prepared a Supplemental EIR for the project that focuses on the project’s air quality impacts.

2 The Precise Plan EIR studied up to 2,300,000 net new square feet of office; however, the City Council approved 2,000,000 net new square feet with the Precise Plan.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 2 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

2.1.1 Tiering of the Environmental Review
This document is a Supplemental EIR to the Precise Plan EIR and tiers from the Precise Plan EIR and Mountain View 2030 General Plan EIR (SCH #2011012069) (General Plan EIR) . The CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 contains the following information on tiering an environmental document:

(a) “Tiering” refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as one prepared for a general plan or policy statement) with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR; and concentrating the EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.

(b) Agencies are encouraged to tier the environmental analysis which they prepare for separate but related projects including general plans, zoning changes, and development projects. This approach can eliminate repetitive discussions of the same issues and focus the later EIR or negative declaration on the actu al issues ripe for decision at each level of environmental review. Tiering is appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy or program of lesser scope, or to a site -specific EIR or negative declaration. Tiering does not excuse the lead agency from adequately analyzing reasonably foreseeable significant effects of the project and does not justify deferring such analysis to a later tier EIR or negative declaration. However, the level of detail contained in a first tier EIR need not be greater than that of the program, plan, policy, or ordinance being analyzed.

2.1.2 Focu
s of the Supplemental EIR
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, a Supplemental EIR need only contain the necessary information to make the previous ly certified EIR adequate for the project, effectively focusing on additional significant effects on the environment which were not addressed in the previously certified EIR. The City of Mountain View determined that the project’s effects on the following environmental resources were previously addressed and adequately covered in the Precise Plan and General Plan EIRs:

• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forest Resources
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

Middlefield Park Master Plan 3 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
That is, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to those resources listed above when compared to those disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. However, the City of Mountain View found that the project would result in new significant effects on air quality which were not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR (i.e., the previously certified EIR). A discussion of the project’s new significant air quality effects is included in Section 4.0 New Significant Environmental Effects and a discussion of the project’s previously disclosed environmental effects is included in Section 5.0 Previously Identified Effects of this EIR.

2.2 EIR PROCESS

2.2.1 Notic
e of Preparation and Scoping
In accordance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Mountain View prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR. The NOP was circulated to the public and local, state, and federal agencies on October 1, 2021. The standard 30-day comment period concluded on November 1, 2021. The NOP provided a general description of the proposed project and identified possible environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the project . The City of Mountain View also held a public scoping meeting on October 14, 2021 to discuss the project and solicit public input as to the scope and contents of this EIR. T he meeting was held virtually. One verbal public comment was provided at the meeting requesting off-road pedestrian and bicycle connectivity from the project site to the City of Sunnyvale. Appendix B of this EIR includes the NOP and the written comments received on the NOP.

2.2.2 Draft EI
R Public Review and Comment Period
Publication of this Draft EIR will mark the beginning of a 45-day public review period. During this period, the Draft EIR will be availa ble to the public and local, state, and federal agencies for review and comment. Notice of the availability and completion of this Draft EIR will be sent directly to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the NOP and posted on the City’s website at www.mountainview.gov/CEQA. Additionally, consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 819 , which requires all CEQA environmental documents to be submitted electronically to the Office of Planning and Research’s CEQAnet database, a copy of this Draft EIR will be sent to and available on the CEQAnet Webportal. Written comments concerning the environmental review contained in this Draft EIR during the 45-day public review period should be sent to:

Linds
ay Hagan, Deputy Zoning Administrator
Community Development Department
500 Castro Street, PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
[email protected]

Middlefield Park Master Plan 4 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

2.3 FINAL EIR/RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Following the conclusion of the 45-day public review period, the City of Mountain View will prepare a Final EIR in conformance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132. The Final EIR will consist of:

• Revisions to the Draft EIR text, as necessary;
• List of individuals and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; • Responses to comments received on the D raft EIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15088); and
• Copies of letters received on the Draft EIR.

Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines stipulates that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings . If the lead agency approves a project despite it resulting in significant adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the agency must state the reasons for its action in writing .

This Statement of Overriding Considerations must be included in the record of project approval.

2.3.1 Notic
e of Determination
If the project is approved, the City of Mountain View will file a Notice of Determination (NOD), which will be available for public inspection and posted within 24 hours of receipt at the County Clerk’s Office and available for public inspection for 30 days. The filing of the NOD starts a 30-day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15094[g]).

Middlefield Park Master Plan 5 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

3.1 PROJECT SITE LOCATION
The Middlefield Park Master Plan (MPMP) project site is located to the northeast of the Ellis Street and East Middlefield Road intersection, within the Mixed-Use and Employment Area North Character Areas of the East Whisman Precise Plan (Precise Plan). The project site totals approximately 40 acres and consists of 14 parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs]: 160-58-001, 160-58-016, 160-58-017, 160-57-004, 160-57-006, 160-57-007, 160-57-008, 160-57-009, 160-57-010, 160-57-011, 160-57-012, 160-57-013, 160-59-005, and 160-59-006). The project site is currently developed with 23 office and light industrial buildings totaling approximately 684,645 square feet, as well as landscaping and surface parking lots. The project site is not all contiguous and is generally bounded by the City and County of San Francisco property (often referred to as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission [SFPUC] right-of-way or Hetch-Hetchy right-of-way) to the north, East Middlefield Road to the south, Ellis Street to the west, and the Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course and State Route (SR) 237 to the east.

The project site is located adjacent to the Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) Middlefield Light Rail Station and the VTA multi-use path is located on the west side of the light rail tracks within and to the south of the project site. The path connects from Pacific Drive to Middlefield Road and from Middlefield Road to the north property boundary of 475 Ellis Street . The Hetch-Hetchy /Transit Oriented Development (TOD) T rail is located approximately 65 feet west of the project site, across Ellis Street. A regional map and a vicinity map of the project site are shown on Figure 3.2-1 and Figure

3.2-2, respectively, and an aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 3.2-3.

Additional construction staging (including construction parking) would occur on APNs 160-57-016 and 160-55-036 located at 405 Clyde Avenue and 580 Clyde Avenue, respectively (refer to Figure

3.2-2 and Figure 3.2-3).

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

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

The proposed project would also include:

• Dedic
ation of land for three new public parks totaling approximately 7.28 acres and a 2.87- acre POPA developed by the applicant. In total, up to 10.15 acres of public ly accessible park land would be provided within the project site;

Middlefield Park Master Plan 6 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• New vehicular circulation, including up to six private streets and an extension of Logue Avenue (an existing public street), new on-street and off-street bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and new landscaping and trees; and
• 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. If the District Utilities System Option is selected, one of the office buildings (Building O1) would contain a 45,000 square foot Central Utility Plant (CUP) and the system would require crossing the VTA light rail line and public streets to serve the project area.

In addition to the improvements described above , the project includes a Vesting Tentative Map to create up to 18 lots, up to 1,900 condominium lots, and up to 140 vertical lots within the project site, as well as a Development Agreement to grant implementation of entitlements over a 20-year period.

The primary aspects of the project are described below and include the following:

• Buildings
• Parks and open space
• Utilities
• Emergency generators
• Green building and emission reduction features
• Site access, circulation, transit, and parking
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
• Construction activities and phasing
• Heritage trees and landscaping

3.2.1 Buil
dings
The project includes the following buildings:

• Five office building locations (see buildings O1 through O5 on Figure 3.2-4) 3 • Two affordable residential building locations (see buildings R4 AFF and R6 AFF on Figure

3.2-4)
• Seven residential mixed-use building locations (see buildings R1 – R6 on Figure 3.2-4)4 • Two, shared district parking structures (see Figure 3.2-4) • One community/civic building located within Ellis Park

The proposed site plan with the building locations is shown on Figure 3.2-4 and conceptual residential and office building elevations are shown on Figure 3.2-5 and Figure 3.2-6 below. A summary of the proposed buildings is included in Table 3.2-1. The maximum building heights would range from 16 to 125 feet. Parking for a ll of the office and residential buildings would be provided in surface, above ground, and/or belo w ground parking facilities. Buildings labeled AFF on Figure 3.2-4 indicate affordable residential buildings that could be constructed independently from the market rate buildings with the same number. For example, building s R4 and R4 AFF are two separate buildings, located

3 Up to two buildings could be constructed on each building location for a total of up to 10 office buildings on -site. 4 Up to two buildings could be constructed on each residential building location, excluding R6 AFF, for a total of up to 11 residential buildings.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 7 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
within the same area shown on Figure 3.2-4.

Table 3.2-1: Proposed MPMP Buildings
Building
Number Uses
Gross
Square
Feet
Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)5
Vehicle Parking
Provided6
Maximum
Depth
Excavation
(feet)
O1
Office 441,939
-- 125
450 spaces (two
levels below
ground)
50 Central
Utility Plan 45,000
O2 Office 190,000 -- 95 250 spaces (one
level above ground) 5
O3 Office 310,000 -- 95 150 spaces (one
level above ground) 5
O4 Office 292,212 -- 95 150 spaces (one
level above ground) 5
O5/P1
Office 82,849
-- 65
1,334 spaces (one
level below grade,
four levels above
ground)
5 Parking
Garage
P2
Community/
Civic 4,000
-- 65
315spaces (four
levels above
ground)
5 Parking
Garage
R1
Residential 320,000 400
125
467 spaces (one
below ground, one
above ground)
20 Retail 18,308 --
R2
Residential 363,000 450
125
500 spaces (one
level below ground,
one level above
ground)
20 Retail 4,200 --
Community/
Civic 8,434 --
R3
Residential 263,000 270
95 287 spaces (one
level below ground,
one level above
ground)
20 Retail 2,877 --
Community/
Civic 1,666 --
R4 AFF Residential
(Affordable) 190,000 210 95
105 spaces (one
level below ground
and one level above
ground)
20 5 All building heights would comply with the height limits of the Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 6 Parking is identified as a maximum and may be less if the project parking program includes unbundled residential parking, shared parking, or other measures.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 8 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 3.2-1: Proposed MPMP Buildings
Building
Number Uses
Gross
Square
Feet
Units
Maximum
Building
Height
(feet)5
Vehicle Parking
Provided6
Maximum
Depth
Excavation
(feet)
R4
Residential 95,000 90
95 103 spaces (one
level below ground,
one level above
ground)
20 Retail 1,955 --
Community/
Civic 1,666 --
R5

Residential 340,000 310
95 332spaces (one
level below ground,
one level above
ground)
20 Retail 2,660 --
Community/
Civic 3,234 --
R6 AFF Residential
(Affordable) 155,000 170 95
85 spaces (one
level below ground,
one level above
ground)
20 Ellis
Park
Community/
Civic 1,000 -- 16 N/A 3
Proposed Building Totals and Dwelling Units by Land Use -- Office 1,317,000 -- -- -- --
-- Community/
Civic 20,000 -- -- -- --
-- Residential 1,726,000 1,900 -- -- --
-- Retail 30,000 -- -- -- --

82 85
82 84
87 237
237
101
101
101
280
280
680
680
880
880
Palo Alto
Mountain View
SunnyvaleLos Altos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Milpitas
Palo Alto
Mountain View
SunnyvaleLos Altos
Santa Clara
San Jose
Milpitas
San
Francisco
Bay
Project Site
REGIONAL MAP FIGURE 3.2-1
01 .5 5 Miles01 .5 5 Miles
Pacific Ocean
Monterey Bay
San José
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
Santa Cruz
Mountain View
Morgan Hill
San José
SunnyvaleSunnyvale
FremontSan MateoSan Mateo
Redwood CityRedwood City
LivermoreLivermore
Oakland
Mountain View
San Francisco
Project SiteProject Site
Santa Cruz
Morgan Hill
FranciscoFrancisco
N
~
Encinal Park
West Maude Avenue
Benecia Avenue
North Mary Avenue
North M
ary Avenue
Potrero Avenue
North Pastoria Avenue
Palomar Avenue
Corte Madera Ave
East Middlefield Road
Ellis Street
National Avenue
Logue Avenue
C
lyde Avenue
No
rth
W
hisma
n
Road
Central Expressway
East Evelyn Avenue
Ada Avenue
Gladys Avenue
Tyrella Avenue
Easy Street
West Maude Avenue
Benecia Avenue
North Mary Avenue
North M
ary Avenue
Pot
rero Avenue
North Pastoria Avenue
Palomar Avenue
Corte Madera Ave
East Middlefield Road
Ellis Street
National Avenue
Logue Avenue
C
lyde Avenue
No
rth
W
hisma
n
Road
Central Expressway
East Evelyn Avenue
Ada Avenue
Gladys Avenue
Tyrella Avenu
e
Easy Street
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
VTA Lig
ht Rail
VTA
Light Rail
VTA Light RailVTA Li
ght Rail
237
237
101
101
Ferguson Drive
Ferguson Drive
Sunnyvale
Municipal
Golf Course
Kenneth N
Slater Elementary
School
Slater
School
Park
Sunnyvale
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 3.2-2
Base Map: ESRI, ArcGIS
0 250 1,000 1,500 2,500 Feet
MPMP Site
Hetch Hetchy TOD Trail
VTA Multi-Use Path
Off-site Construction
Staging Areas
VTA Middlefield Light
Rail Station
Dr:::J
- ... ~
---..... _
'---=----- -:. ___ --
"'' I""'""""""'! -
-... ---
$.,
uu ~x--
~n~r tr; ~ULJL 0 ~ ti
~ ~ ~ ~ .~
;2i~:) ~· =3 ~
l r--9 ..,,/.,, :h "
Sunnyvale Municipal
Golf Course
Sunnyvale Municipal
Golf Course
Commercial
& Office
Agriculture
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Church
Office
Office
Office
Residential
West Maude Avenue
M
acara
Avenue
Clyde Avenue
Clyde AvenueClyde Court
Logue AvenueEast Middlefield Road
Ellis Street
West Maude Avenue
M
acara
Avenue
Clyde
Avenue
Clyde AvenueClyde
Court
Logue AvenueEast MiddlefieldRoad
Ellis Street
237
237
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
Maude Avenue
MaudeAvenue
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE MPMP SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA FIGURE 3.2-3 Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 29, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2020 0 100 600 800 1,200 Feet
MPMP Site Boundary
Approved 400 Logue
Avenue Residential Project
Approved 355 E. Middlefield
Road Residential Project
Hetch Hetchy TOD Trail
Off-site Construction
Staging Areas
City and County of San
Francisco (SFPUC)
VTA Multi-Use Path
VTA Middlefield Light
Rail Station
Source: Google, LLC, January 2022.
0 50 100 200 Ft

NATIONAL AVENUE
E. MIDDLEFIELD ROAD

ELLIS STREET

LOGUE AVENUE

CLYDE AVENUE
W. MAUDE AVENUE
HIGHWAY 237
R4
R4 AFF
R6 AFF
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-4
MPMP Site Boundary
Parking GarageP#
Office BuildingO#
Residential/Mixed Use BuildingR#
Residential Affordable BuildingR# AFF
~ r-i,
]
1:::::1
7 Ll
01 J
LJ \ J
/)

SUNNYVALE MUNICIPAL

GOLF COURSE
nc
'- ~,-_ I
~
Source: Google, LLC, January 2022.
78’
Overall
Height
78’
Overall
Height
78’
Overall
Height
78’
Overall
Height
90’ 118’ 26’ 68’ 56’ 100’ 100’ 55’ 75’ 20’ 146’
35’
Average
Street Wall
Height
35’
Average
Street Wall
Height
35’
Average
Street Wall
Height
40’
240’ 241’302’
78’
Overall
Height
78’
Overall
Height
90’ 118’ 22’ 72’ 56’ 75’ 124’ 57’ 100’ 40’ 100’ 28’
227’ 240’302’
90’ 96’ 48’ 68’ 56’ 120’ 74’ 56’ 125’ 28’ 146’44’
238’ 240’302’
CONCEPTUAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.2-5 --- ...

I
" I I
' T
Source: Google, LLC, 2022.
68’
Overall
Height
68’
Overall
Height
68’
Overall
Height
55’
Average
Street Wall
Height
155’
215’
124’ 130’ 130’ 40’ 67’ 90’ 50’ 142’
300’ 282’
60’
83’
Overall
Height
70’
Overall
Height
68’
Overall
Height
80’
Overall
Height
55’
Average
Street Wall
Height
55’
Average
Street Wall
Height
68’
Overall
Height
83’
Overall
Height
68’
Overall
Height
65’
215’
131’ 84’ 124’ 145’ 155’ 67’ 50’ 100’ 135’
215’ 300’ 285’
124’ 96’ 84’ 120’ 67’ 200’ 82’
300’ 282’
150’
CONCEPTUAL OFFICE BUILDING ELEVATIONS FIGURE 3.2-6
' -~ ---
---1J~rnuM-r-r M1 11.~1!~~r11~,,rn 111
11 T-1111111! -1---
t 1 I I I I
I I i t

Middlefield Park Master Plan 15 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

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

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

Subsequent environmental review will be completed if required when the designs of these parks are known and proposed by the City.

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

The MPMP also includes approximately 97,140 square feet (or 2.23 acres) of private open space around the buildings. The private open space areas would consist of landscaping and trees, some of which may be accessible to the public.

3.2.3 Utilit
ies
Utilities for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Mountain View (for water, fire service water, wastewater, stormwater), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (for natural gas and electrical service) and/or Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) (for electrical service). 7 Additionally, as an
option, the applicant is considering development of an independent private District Utility System to serve the proposed MPMP buildings and further the applicant’s corporate sustainability goals. These two utility options are described in detail below and analyzed throughout this EIR.

7 Electrical service for the proposed project and District Utilitie s System Option would be carbon free 100 percent renewable regardless of the service provider.

Source: Google, LLC, January 2022.

MIDDLEFIELD

LIGHT RAIL

STATION

ELLIS PARK
FUTURE

PED-BIKE
BRIDGE
CANOPY
WALK

MAUDE PARK

GATEWAY
PARK

HETCH-HETCHY

TOD TRAIL

VTA LIGHT RAIL

ELLIS STREET

LGOUE AVENUE

CLYDE AVENUE
R4 AFF
R4
R3
R5
R6 AFF
P2
P1O5
O4O3O2
O1
R2
R1
W. MA
UDE AV
ENUE
E. MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
HIGHWAY 237
CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN FIGURE 3.2-7
MPMP Site Boundary
Parking GarageP#
Office BuildingO#
Private Open Space (with some public access)
Privately Owned Public Space
Dedicated Public Space
Residential/Mixed Use Building
R#
Residential Affordable BuildingR# AFF
0 100’ 300’ 500’

APPROXIMATE SCALE
n
--
1:::::1
---------
==-==-==-==-======~ I I I I.______J
10 . ==-==-==========~ I I I I I I -
I I
t I
___________ n ______ ,
n l
, ,._..J..._______...1 I ___ j
--,
11---__J I --------.J

Middlefield Park Master Plan 17 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

3.2.3.2 District Utilities System Option
Alternatively, the project could construct a private district utilities system with underground utility lines to serve buildings within the project site with wastewater, recycled water, thermal energy (heating and cooling), and electric power. Water and f ire water service would be provided by the City. This option is being considered by the applicant to further their corporate sustainability goals and the applicant considers this option to be more efficient than business-as-usual municipal utilities systems.

Operation of the CUP would be in addition to continued operation of t he City’s existing utilities systems because the City must ensure the existing utilities systems can accommodate the proposed development in the event the district utilities system is offline and to plan for citywide service-capacity needs. Therefore, this EIR evaluates the proposed district utilities system facilities as “additive” to existing utility operations, rather than as a replacement for such existing utilities.

The district utilities system components are described below.

Central Utility Plant
The District Utilities System Option includes an approximately 45,000-square foot CUP, which would provide wastewater treatment, recycled water production, heating, and cooling for most of the buildings within the project site.
9 The CUP would be located within Building O1 either at ground level or in one of the below ground parking levels. Cooling towers would be constructed on the rooftop of Building O1 to provide the additional heat rejection for the CUP. The air source heat pumps installed initially on the rooftops at R1/R2 in Phase I would be relocated to the rooftop of O1 in Phase II and would be 10 feet in height. The rooftop open cooling towers would be approximately 20 feet in height.

The construction phases are discussed in Section 3.2.6.

8 Per City Code Chapters 8, 14, and 24 , an exception to the City’s Reach Code is required to include natural gas for retail uses.
9 Building R4 AFF and R6 AFF would be served by municipal utilities under the District Utilities Sy stem option.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 18 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Recycled Water Generation The CUP would include a wastewater treatment plant that would have capacity to treat an average wet weather flow of up to 250,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The proposed wastewater treatment plant would only treat wastewater generated by the connected buildings on-site. It is estimated full build out of the MPMP would generate approximately 263,200 gallons per day of wastewater, which is 13,200 gallons per day more than the treatment capacity of the proposed wastewater treatment plant.10

When the treatment plant has reached its daily capacity , or in the event the on-site treatment plant is offline, the excess wastewater generated by the project would be discharged to the City’s municipal wastewater conveyance system and treated at the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) via existing sanitary sewer lin es located in Ellis Street. Solids produced by the wastewater treatment plant on the project site would either be regularly hauled to a n appropriate processing facility in sealed containers or combined with excess wastewater generated by the project and discharged through the City’s municipal wastewater conveyance system.

Wastewater generated by the project would be discharged from each building by a pump station and conveyed via gravity sanitary sewer lines within the site to the proposed CUP/wastewater treatment plant within Building O1. Once at the wastewater treatment plant, wastewater would undergo a multi- step treatment process including screening, primary filtration, secondary biological treatment, tertiary filtration, and disinfection to remove solids, pollutants, and harmful pathogens.

Recycled water produced by the wastewater treatment plant would achieve recycled water standards as described under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations and would be used for non-potable demands on-site including toilet flushing, co oling, and irrigation. Excess recycled water generated at the CUP would be store d in multiple tanks totaling 125,000 gallons capacity within the basement of Building O1 and could be made available to adjacent properties outside of the project site or open spaces within the project site in order to further reduce potable water use.

Appropriate measures and technology solutions would be designed and implemented to ensure objectionable odors generated by the wastewater treatment plant are within the regulatory compliance limits and do not impact the public. Odor controls would be designed using the best available technology and consistent with regulatory requirements. The most odorous processes, which result in the production of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia , would be enclosed and critically controlled. The project would also include regular monitoring of complaints and reporting on the success of odor controls to regulatory agencies. Specific solutions to odor complaints may include:

• Active ventilation (foul air blowers) to odor control units (e.g., carbon absorption, biofiltration, or ammonia scrubbers);
• House odorous processes in a ventilated enclosure;
• Wastewater screenings
11 and grit would be washed, dewatered, and compacted before being stored in enclosed, odor-proof refuse containers;
• Haul any stored residuals off-site at regular intervals; and

10 Schaaf & Wheeler. Middlefield Master Plan Utility Impact Study. April 18, 2022. 11 Wastewater screenings refers to inert materials that are present within raw wastewater and are removed in the early stages of the wastewater treatment process.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 19 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• Ferrous chloride injection for hydrogen sulfide removal in primary sedimentation tanks to provide chemically enhanced primary treatment as needed for odor control at specific wastewater treatment processes.

Buildings would be served by the on-site wastewater treatment plant and have a back -up connection to the City’s municipal wastewater conveyance system, which could be used as a primary connection should future owners or building occupants choose not to operate the on-site wastewater treatment plant, or as back-up if the treatment plant is temporarily down for repairs or servicing. 12 The proposed
sanitary sewer network would rely on a low-pressure sewer system independent from the stormwater and rainwater collection systems, to prevent infiltration and inflow. Wastewater would be collected at each building either via gravity sanitary sewer lines or a low-pressure sewer network and routed to the wastewater treatment plant within the CUP. The wastewater treatment plant would be installed in Phase II of construction. During Phase I of construction, a temporary c onnection to the municipal sewer system would be required and utilized.

Building Heating and Cooling
Heating and cooling for all buildings on-site would be provided by geothermal energy and a combination of heat recovery chillers, air source heat pumps , and cooling towers. The geothermal system would include tubing installed within dedicated bores under the various buildings and connected to pipes in the district utility distribution system, through which water circulates below the ground surface (bgs). Because ground temperatures remain relatively stable throughout the year, water within the pipes underground is warmer or cooler than the average air temperature . Therefore, when water is circulated in the pipes from beneath the ground and throughout the building, it provides a passive warming or cooling effect in the building. The ASHP would be located on the roof of Building O1 and would distribute hot or chilled water to the various buildings. Heat recovery chillers would be located in a mechanical room within Building O1.

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

Temporary ASHP units would be installed on the rooftop of Buildings R1 and R2 to provide temporary heating and cooling for these buildings prior to construction of the CUP (which is to be constructed in Phase II). Those temporary ASHP units would then be transferred to the rooftop of Building O1 during Phase II of construction.

12 For the EIR analysis, Buildings R4 AFF and R6 AFF are assumed to be served by the City’s municipal wastewater conveyance system to ensure impacts to the City’s system were considered. In the event these buildings w ould be served by the on-site wastewater treatment plant, additional environmental review may be required.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 20 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Microgrid System
The proposed buil dings would be all electric – no natural gas would be used, with the potential exception of Buildings R1 and R2 where natural gas connections would be provided in the ground floors for commercial/restaurant uses.13

It is estimated the project would use a total of approximately 35.7 million kilowatt (kWh) of electricity per year.14 Approximately 20 percent (or 7.2 million kWh per year) of the electricity demand for the proposed project would be generated on-site by rooftop photovoltaic panels located on ea ch of the proposed buildings under the project without District Utilities System Option . Under the District Utilities System Option, a greater rooftop surface area would be available for photovoltaic panels because mechanical equipment for building heating and cooling which is traditionally located on the roof would be located in the CUP under this project option, allowing for greater s olar generation on- site. Under the project with District Utilities System Option, approximately 30 percent (or 10.7 million kWh per year) of the electricity demand for the proposed project would be generated on-site by rooftop photovoltaic panels located on each of the proposed buildings. The project’s remaining electricity demand (under either option) would be supplied by the PG&E distribution network. Solar energy generated on-site would be stored within on-site battery storage units. The battery unit s wo uld be located within the CUP or distributed in battery rooms at each building. If in the CUP, batteries would be located either in the basement of Building O1 or in an enclosure adjacent to the building at grade .

The battery storage units would be pad-mounted and seismically restrained on the finished grade/floor per manufacturer recommendations and include proper catchment system s designed for protection from coolant leakage and fire.
15 District Distribution System and Building Connections In order to transport wastewater, recycled water, hot and chilled water, and electricity to each of the buildings and parks in the Master Plan, a district distribution system consisting of underground cabling and a series of below ground insulated pipes ranging from four to 16 inches in diameter, would be constructed. These cables and pipes may be direct buried or buried within an encasement (referred to as a utilidor) and would require undercrossing the right-of-way and property owned by public agencies such as the City of Mountain View and the VTA. The underground cabling and pipes would connect and provide service between the buildings, CUP, and microgrid system. Additionally, each building would include a connection room with pumping and energy transfer equipment for the thermal network as well as break-out tank and backflow preventers for the recycled water supply. Each connection room would also include metering and control equipment to track overall consumption, monitor efficiency, and enable integrated control.

13 Per City Code Chapters 8, 14, and 24, all new construction buildings are required to be electric. Natural gas may be used for commercial spaces with specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service (e.g. , a restaurant with a pizza oven) subject to City approval.
14 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Middlefield Park Maste r Plan Project Air Quality Assessment, Mountain View, California. April 19, 2022.
15 Battery space selection and design shall be coordinated with the City Fire Marshall for fire hazard protection.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 21 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.2.4 Emergency Generators
The project would include 11 emergency back-up generators located within the basements of Buildings R1, R3 through R5, R4 AFF, R6 AFF and O1 through O5. The back-up generator in Building R1 would provide back-up power to Buildings R1 and R2. All generators would be diesel powered. The s ix generators located within the proposed residential buildings would have a power rating of 500 kW and the generators within the proposed office buildings would have a power rating of 900 kW.

3.2.5 Gre en Building and Emissions Reduction Features Consistent with the Development Standards and Bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR ) Standards for non- residential development projects within th e Precise Plan area, the proposed office buildings would meet the intent of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum. Residential buildings requesting Bonus FAR would achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points or better and must use submetering per unit, or other appropriate technology, to track individual energy use for each residential unit . All new buildings are required to install dual plumbing for potable and recycled water use, per the City’s current codes. In addition to the Green Building standards required by the Precise Plan, the preferred project (i.e., the project without the District Utilities System Option) would also incorporate the following green building features:

• Photovoltaic System: At least 50 percent of the rooftops of each building within the project site would be equipped with rooftop photovoltaic systems. It is estimated that approximately 20 percent of the project’s electricity demand would be provided by solar power generated on- site.
• Water Efficient Landscaping: Water efficient irrigation systems would support native, drought tolerant plants compatible with recycled water through the project site.

If the District Utilities System O ption is selected, the project would include the following additional green building measures:

• Geothermal System: The project would include a district thermal system which would provide heating and cooling to the proposed buildings via a closed loop system to optimize efficiency as described in 3.2.3.2 above.
• Microgrid System: Each building would be equipped with a rooftop photovoltaic system.

Solar energy generated on-site would be tra nsported via electric lines below ground to the battery units in Building O1. It is estimated that approximately 30 percent of the project ’s electricity demand would be provided by the microgrid system. • Water Efficient Building Systems: The project would include an on- site wastewater treatment plant which would supply recycled water to the project. All buildings would be dual plumbed and served by recycled water supplies for mechanical operations, irrigation, and toilet flushing.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 22 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.2.6 Construction Activities and Phasing
Construction activities associated with the project would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and landscaping. The build out of the MPMP project would occur over four phases and take a total of approximately 8.5 years. 16 During this time, construction activities would occur between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and Saturday and Sunday only with written approval of the Chief Building Official per City Code (Chapter 8).17 As noted in Table 3.2-2, the maximum depth of excavation required would range from five to 50 feet bgs for the proposed buildings and 85 to 110 feet bgs for geothermal bores under the District Utilities System Option. The geothermal bores would be drilled using the mud rotary drilling technique.18

Approximately 749,425 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site to accommodate the proposed below ground parking, building foundations and footings, and utilities. If the District Utilities System Option is selected, the project would require export of up to an additional approximately 40,000 cubic yards of soil. Construction staging and parking would primarily occur on-site and on two adjacent parcels (APNs: 160-57-016 and 160-55-036) located at 405 Clyde Avenue and 580 Clyde Avenue. A summary of the proposed phasing is shown in Table 3.2-2 below.

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

16 While construction activities would take a minimum of 8.5 years to complete, the project includes a Development Agreement that allows the applicant to act on project entitlements for up to 20 years. The EIR analyses, including the construction air quality and noise analyses, conservatively assumes approximately 8.5-year construction period. 17 City of Mountain View. City Code Chapter 8, Article VI, Section 8.70. Accessed October 26, 2021. 18 Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Re: Middlefield Park Master Plan Project- Specific Agency Submittal for:

Google Planned Horizontal Work. October 1, 2021. Page 3.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 23 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.2.7 Site Access, Circulation, Transit, and Parking
A site access and circulation map is shown on Figure 3.2-8. Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via driveways on Ellis Street, East Middlefield Road, Logue Avenue, Maude Avenue, and Clyde Avenue. Six separate private service ro ads for direct parking access, delivery/service trucks, garbage and recycling collection trucks, shuttle buses, and emergency vehicles are proposed throughout the project site and would be accessible via two points on Ellis Street (a private service street to access O1 and R2 and a driveway to access R1 and R2 parking), two service streets on Maude Avenue, two service streets off Logue Avenue (one north of Building O2 and one north of Building O3 that would provide connection to Clyde Avenue), and one service street off Clyde Avenue for Building O5/P1. Parking garages at P2 and R6 AFF would have private driveways with direct access from the adjacent public street to the respective parking and service collection areas.

Pedestrian and bicycle access to and around the site would be provided via a network of new multi-use paths throughout the site. Wider paths for pedestrian and bicycle access to the site would be provided in the form of shared facilities and sidewalks on the six new private service streets, new multi-use paths and greenways in between buildings whe re no service street is located , and improved and new sidewalks and bike lanes along existing public s treets (as shown on Figure 3.2-8). Additionally, the project would include:
• Dedication of park land for a future bicycle and pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the light rail line to allow the expansion of a park trail network;
• Installation of new midblock crossings and modifications to existing midblock crossings; • Improvements to an existing bus stop on Middlefield Road adjacent to the Light Rail S tation including:
o A new midblock pedestrian crossing to connect the north and south ends of an existing VTA multi-use path along the west side of the light rail tracks; o A new bus shelter and bench;
o A driveway with bollards to restrict access to emergency vehicles; o A 120-foot in-lane bus stop or bus duck-out (out-of-lane) stop (to be decided); o A raised protected bike lane along the bus stop or buffered on-street bike lane (to be decided);
o A bus island for loading/unloading passengers (to be decided); and o Maintaining the existing stop location or shifting the stop westward toward Ellis Street intersection (to be decided);
• Construction of wider sidewalks with landscaping along project frontages and new private service streets; and
• Bicycle improvements including construction of Class II buffered on-street bike lanes on Ellis Street, Logue Avenue, Clyde Avenue, Maude Avenue, and a Class IV protected bike lane along Middlefield Road in front of the project.

Source: Google, LLC, January 2022.

R4 AFF
R4
R3
R5
R6 AFF
P2
P1 O5
O4O3O2
O1
R2
R1

ELLIS STREET

LOGUE AVENUE
HIGHWAY 237
W. MAUDE AVENUE
E. MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
CLYDE
AVENUE
MPMP Site Boundary
Parking GarageP#
Office Building
Residential Passage
Proposed RRFB Pedestrian Crossing
Multi-Use Path
Middlefield Light Rail Station
VTA Light Rail Line
Service Roads
Local Streets
Pedestrian Path
O#
Residential/Mixed Use BuildingR#
Residential Affordable BuildingR# AFF
Future Bridge Overcrossing
0 100’ 300’ 500’

APPROXIMATE SCALE
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION PLAN FIGURE 3.2-8
-----------------~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
-I
~ -__ J -ID:IDD
I lllllllffllltllllltlllllllllllll
® --1 -I
I
~
1111111111111111
i
------~ 0
i
I ; I
I I
-===:a
: ,, t
" ' , _
f

Middlefield Park Master Plan 25 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
The midblock crossing on Middlefield Road near the Middlefield Light Rail Station would require separate approval by the California Public Utilities Commission in coordination with the VTA. The project would include a total of 4,528 s paces within the proposed office , parking structure, and residential mixed-use buildings.
19 Refer to Table 3.2-1 above for a breakdown of the parking spaces by building/parking structure. Short and long -term bicycle parking would also be provided within or adjacent to the entrances of each office and residential building and would meet the Precise Plan bicycle parking requirements (refer to Table 3.2-3).

Table 3.2-3: Precise Plan Bicycle Parking Requirements
Land Use Short-Term Long-Term
Residential 1 space per 10 units 1 space per unit
Office
1 space per 20,000 square feet or
minimum 4 spaces, whichever is
greater
1 space per 2,000 square feet or
minimum 4 spaces, whichever is
greater
Neighborhood
Commercial Uses
(Retail/Community/Civic
Uses)
4 per 5,000 square feet or minimum
2 spaces, whichever is greater
1 per 5,000 square feet or minimum
2 spaces, whichever is greater
Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 2019. P. 90.

3.2.8 Her itage Trees and Landscaping
The project site contains 1,032 trees, 310 of which are Heritage trees as defined in the City Code.20 Of the total trees, 32 are City street trees and 35 are off-site trees in close proximity of the project. There are a total of 77 tree species on-site (refer to Appendix D for additional details regarding tree species, size, and health). Implementation of the project would result in the removal of up to 823 existing trees (approximately 80 percent of the trees), including up to 310 Heritage trees. The project would plant a minimum of 620 new trees throughout the project site and along the project frontages on East Middlefield Road, Clyde Avenue , Maude Avenue, Logue Avenue , and Ellis Street, which is a minimum replacement of two new trees to be planted for every one Heritage tree removed in accordance with Section 32.35 of the City Code. Some of the tree species to be planted include alder, oak, and sycamore trees. In addition to new trees, the project includes new landscaping consisting of native and/or drought-tolerant plants. If the District Utilities System Option is selected, the landscaping for privately-owned parcels within the project site would be irrigated using recycled water (not potable water); however, some potable water would be used until the recycled water infrastructure is constructed in Phase II.

19 Parking is identified as a maximum and may be less if the project parking program includes unbundled residential parking, shared parking, or other measures.
20 A Heritage Tree is defined as any one of the following: 1) a tree which has a trunk with a circumference of 48 inches or more measured at 54 inches above natural grade; 2) a multi -branched tree which has major branches below fifty- four (54) inches above the natural grade with a circumference of 48 inches measured just below the first major trunk fork; 3) a quercus (oak), sequoia (redwood), or cedrus (cedar) tree with a circumference of 12 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade; 4) a tree or grove of trees designated by resolution of the city council to be of special historical value or of significant community benefit. Source: City of Mountain View. City Code Chapter 32 Article II. May 24, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 26 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.2.9 Transportation Demand Management
The Precise Plan requires office and R&D projects with new construction or additions greater than 10,000 square feet and all new development subject to parking maximums (including residential) shall provide a TDM plan with programs and measures to reduce vehicle trips. Pursuant to the Precise Plan, the proposed project is required to incorporate the following TDM measures:

Nonresidential TDM Requirements
• TDM Plan Site Requirements: The following site design features shall be in the project to adhere to the required trip cap:
o Priority parking for carpools and vanpools.
o Bicycle parking and shower and changing facilities as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan.
o Maximum parking and carshare parking as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan. o Site design that supports alternative modes, such as orienting building entrances toward sidewalks, transit stops, and bicycle facilities.
• TDM Plan Operational Requirements: The TDM plan shall include the following minimum operational measures though other measures may be needed to achieve the required trip caps:
o The property owner shall join the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MVTMA). Tenants may join in lieu of property owners, but if a tenant is unable to maintain membership, the property owner shall be responsible. o Monetary incentives for alternative modes, such as subsidized transit passes, bike-share or carpools for office employees.
o Monetary incentives for alternative modes, such as subsidized transit passes or bike - share and/or unbundled parking for residents.
• TDM Plan Alternative Requirements: The TDM plan may include other measures to reach required trip targets, including but not limited to:
o Shared bicycles if a bikeshare service is not available nearby o Parking cash-out, paid parking, or other parking monetization o Guaranteed ride home program
o Telecommute support
o Alternative work schedules
• Parking Rationale: The TDM plan shall demonstrate the parking provided is adequate to serve the needs of the development and shall consider the project’s trip-reduction measures. • Implementation: The TDM plan shall identify how the required measures would be implemented and describe other measures proposed to meet or exceed trip reduction goals. • Trip Cap: The Precise Plan established a long -term vehicle trip cap across the entire East Whisman area of 0.83 a.m. and 0.72 p.m. peak-hour trips per 1,000 net new square feet across all office and R&D sites.
21 This area wide trip cap is implemented through a site-specific trip

21 The Precise Plan identifies an area-wide average of 0.95 a.m. and 0.88 p.m. peak-hour trips per 1,000 square feet of office and R&D sites to minimize vehicle trips into and out of East Whisman gateways. The 600 Ellis Street transportation analysis, prepared by Fehr Peers dated September 2020, analyzed the combination of existing (legacy)

Middlefield Park Master Plan 27 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
cap, as established through the Precise Plan’s Office Trip Cap Phasing Program and Administrative Guidelines. The proposed project would implement a tri p cap of 1,097 a.m. peak hour trips and 952 p.m. peak hour trips.
• Monitoring and Enforcement: Annual monitoring of the TDM plan shall be conducted through a third party and paid for by the property owner or their representative. It shall include driveway counts and a survey of employee travel modes.

Residential TDM Requirements
• TMA Membership : New residential developments with at least 100 units shall become Mountain View TMA members.
• TDM Plan Site Requirements: New residential development shall include the following TDM site measures:
o Maximum parking and carshare parking as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan o Bicycle parking as defined by Chapter 3 of the Precise Plan o Residential projects over 100 units shall provide a shared, common, collaborative workspace available to residents and their guest, which can be offered in partnership with nearby residences or businesses.
o Site design that supports alternative modes, such as orienting building entrances toward sidewalks, transit stops, and bicycle facilities
o Accessible, secure storage space for grocery and package delivery shall be provided in multifamily development.
• TDM Plan Operational Requirements: The TDM plan shall include the following operational measures, or equivalent:
o Property managers or homeowner associations (HOAs) shall provide access to shared bicycles if bikeshare service is not available nearby.
o Property managers or HOAs shall provide local transportation information to all residents through a website, leasing office, or initial leasing information. o Property managers or HOAs shall support Safe Routes to Schools programs including facilitating parent gatherings and coordination of walking schools buses and/or bike trains.
o Monetary incentives for alternative modes, su ch as subsidized transit passes or bike- share for residents and/or unbundled parking.
• Parking Rationale: The TDM plan shall demonstrate the parking provided is adequate to serve the needs of the development and shall consider the project’s trip-reduction measures. • TDM Monitoring: Annual TDM monitoring shall be conducted by a third party and paid for by the property owner or their representative. It shall include parking counts to measure the peak parking demand and resulting parking rate. The monitoring results shall be submitted to the City.

office development not subject to TDM requirements and future new office development that would be subject to TDM requirements in order to refine the trip generation rate necessary for future new office development to be compliant with the gateway trip cap volumes. The resulting trip cap for new office development is 0.83 a.m. and 0.72 p.m., which includes the incorporation of TDM measures required by the Precise Plan.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 28 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
In addition to TDM measures required in the Precise Plan, the project would implement the following measures:
• Design Elements: The project would fund and construct (or some combination of both) area bicycle and pedestrian network improvements on project site street frontages along Ellis Street, East Middlefield Road, and Logue, Maude, and Clyde Avenues. The mixed-use character of the project would reduce the need for vehicle trips due to increased employment and housing opportunities within a half-mile of the existing Middlefield light rail s tation combined with potential on-site food, retail, services, and recreation opportunities. • Operational Elements: The project would include commuter shuttle services for office uses, carshare services, first -mile/last-mile micro mobility services, an on-site transportation coordinator, flexible work schedules for employees, marketing and information for the proposed TDM program, pre -tax commuter benefits, biking incentives, bike buddy program, bike loaner program, rideshare matching services, and an expanded carpool matching program.

Additional measures such as unbundled residential parking and shared parking may also be considered.

3.3 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING

DISTRICT

3.3.1 Gene ral Plan
The project site is designated High Intensity Office and East Whisman Mixed-Use in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan High-Intensity Office designation supports major commercial operations, such as corporations, financial and administrative offices, high-technology industries, and other scientific facilities, as well as supporting retail and other service uses. The General Plan East Whisman Mixed- Used designation promotes a mix of offices, neighborhood-serving commercial, multi -family residential, lodging, and small businesses in the core of the East Whisman area.

3.3.2 Zoni
ng
The project site is zoned P-41 East Whisman Precise Plan (EWPP, Precise Plan). Most of the project site is within the Precise Plan ’s Mixed-Use Character Area, which is defined as a transit-oriented district with a mix of neighborhood commercial, residential, and office uses where the highest intensity buildings are located near the Middlefield light rail station. This designation allows a mix of low , moderate, and high-intensity uses of office, R&D, multi-family residential, hotel, and retail services .

The eastern edge of the project site (east of Clyde Avenue) is located within the Employment Character Area North and is intended for a mix of moderate and higher- intensity office uses with some opportunities for hotels and neighborhood commercial uses off of Ellis Street.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 29 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

Per the Precise Plan, the maximum building heights allowed on the project site ranges across the low, moderate, and high intensity subareas. The Precise Plan provides some additional height allowances, which the project is incorporating (see Table 3.3-1 below).

Table 3.3-1: Precise Plan Maximum Allowed Building Heights by Character Area Character Areas Low Intensity
Subarea
Medium
Intensity Subarea
High Intensity
Subarea
Mixed-Use Character Area
Max. Building Height1
N/A
75 feet 95 feet
Max. Building Height with Park
Dedication2 90 feet 110 feet
Max. Building Height with Park
Dedication and Ground-Floor
Neighborhood Commercial3
95 feet 115 feet
Max. Building Height in High-Rise Core4 N/A 135 feet
Employment Character Area North
Max. Building Height1 60 feet
N/A N/A Max. Building Height with Ground-Floor
Neighborhood Commercial3 65 feet
1 Up to an additional 10 feet is permitted for architectural features for rooftop amen ities (with a provisional use permit) or at key corners. Elevator overruns may be allowed additional height for rooftop access. 2 Up to 10-15 feet of additional height for one typical additional story is permitted if land is dedicated for a public park or other public facilities.
3 Up to 5 feet of additional height is allowed for buildings with ground-floor neighborhood commercial uses 4 Residential/Mixed-Use in High-Intensity Subarea can propose up to 135 feet in height, inclusive of all additional height allowances/exceptions. No building height can exceed 182 feet above mean sea level per the adopted Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).

Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 5, 2019. Pgs. 57 – 59.

The Precise Plan establishes a “base” FAR allowance per subarea for residential/mixed -use and non- residential uses, in addition to a maximum FAR. The “base” FAR for the project site varies from 0.40 for non-residential development to 1.0 for residential /mixed-use development. The maximum FAR allowed ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 for non- residential development and 2.5 to 3.5 for residential/mixed- use development. Any FAR above the “base” is considered “bonus” FAR and subject to additional green building requirements, community benefit requirements, and compliance with the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program as outlined in the Precise Plan.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 30 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 3.3-2: Allowed and Proposed FAR by Precise Plan Character Area Precise Plan
Subarea
Allowed Non-
Residential
FAR
Proposed Non-
Residential
FAR1
Allowed
Residential/Mixed-
Use FAR
Proposed
Residential/Mixed-
Use FAR2
Mixed-Use Character Area
High-Intensity
Subarea
Base: 0.4
Max: 1.0 1.0 Base: 1.0
Max: 3.5 1.66
Medium-Intensity
Subarea
Base: 0.4
Max: 0.75 0.75 Base: 1.0
Max: 2.5 1.12
Low-Intensity
Subarea N/A N/A
Employment Character Area North
Low-Intensity
Subarea
Base: 0.4
Max: 0.5 0.39 N/A
1 Nonresidential FAR includes all building square footage above-grade, excluding above-grade parking, and including the CUP in the project with district utility system option. 2 Residential/Mixed-Use FAR includes all building square footage above grade, including above -grade parking.

Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. November 5, 2019. P p. 68, 72.

The project proposes non-residential FARs ranging from 0.39 to 1.0 and residential/mixed-use FARs ranging from 1.12 to 1.66 with maximum building heights of 16to 125 feet. The project’s cumulative combined FAR is 1.46 over the 40-acre project site. The project is proposing to use “bonus” FAR for both residential and non-residential development as permitted in the Precise Plan.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 31 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, the EIR must include a statement of the objectives of the project. The objectives for this project are as follows:

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 32 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

3.5 USES OF THE EIR
This EIR provides decision makers in the City of Mountain View and the general public with environmental information to use in considering the proposed project. It is intended that this EIR be used for the discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, as proposed. These discretionary actions may include, but are not limited to, the list below. T his list also includes ministerial permits and approvals.

Agency Permit/Review Required
City of Mountain View Discretionary Approvals of:
• A Master Plan
• A Vesting Tentative Map
• Provisional Use Permits
• Planned Community Permits
• Development Review Permits
• Heritage Tree Removal Permits
• Change of Use Permits
• A Development Agreement

Ministerial Approvals of:
• Demolition Permits
• Grading Permits
• Building Permits
• Fire/Environmental Protection Permits
• Offsite Improvement Plans (incl uding work within the right -of- way, Excavation and Encroachment Permits or Agreements) • Wastewater Discharge Permits ( for discharge of domestic wastewater from the onsite treatment plant)
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
(BAAQMD)
Permit to construct and authority to operate backup diesel generators, district water reuse facility, and any other stationary sources of emissions.

California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans)
Encroachment Permit if within Caltrans right-of-way.

Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA)
Determination of No Hazard and/or execution of an avigation easement as deemed necessary.

Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
Potential approval of elements of proposed microgrid distribution network and on-site generation and storage facilities.

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

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 33 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Agency Permit/Review Required
San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB)
• Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDE S) General Permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Notice of Intent for construction activities Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for on -site stormwater management and pollution prevention, discharge permit for discharge of municipal wastewater from on-site wastewater treatment plant, industrial discharge permit for discharge of residuals from the on- site wastewater treatment plant, approval of dual plumbed buildings for indoor recycled water use, approval of Title 22 Engineering Report for Recycled Water, Waste Discharge requirements for Water Reclamation Facility and recycled Water Use.
• Lead on the permitting process for the onsite wastewater treatment plant and will approve the Title 22 Engineering Report for Recycled Water.
• Waste Discharge Requirements for Water Reclamation Facility and Recycled Water Use.
• Review of site contamination related to the Hewlett -Packard and E/M Lubricants TCE groundwater plume. This oversight may be deferred to another agency by the RWQCB.

State Water Resources
Control Board – Division
of Drinking Water
• Approval for dual plumbed buildings in indoor recycled water use • Review of Title 22 Engineering Report for Recycled Water City of Sunnyvale Encroachment Permits or Agreements for work within Sunnyvale’s public right-of-way
PG&E Agreement for microgrid system (Project with District Utilities System Option only)
Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA)
Review and approval of encroachment of utilities under the VTA light rail lines, inspection of bus stop modifications on Middlefield Road, and applicable permits for the proximity of construction activity to the light rail station, including safety upgrades.

Valley Water (SCVWD) Approvals of proposed geobores. Review and approval may be required if wells are required or if abandoned wells are proposed to be destroyed during construction of the project.

California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC)
Approval of permits (potential GO-88B process) for the midblock crossing of Middlefield Road at Middlefield Light Rail Station, and safety upgrades.

Some approvals may be in tandem with VTA approval.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 34 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 4.0 NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
As noted in Section 2.0 Introduction above, the proposed project would implement a large portion of the East Whisman Precise Plan, which was analyzed in a Program EIR that was certified by the City in 2019.

Per Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, where an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines that substantial changes are proposed in the project which will involve new or more severe impacts; new circumstances involve new or more severe impacts; or new information of substantial importance is available, requiring new analysis or verification.

Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation. The supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised.

The existing conditions and overall amount and location of development in the Precise Plan remains the same with the proposed project as analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR. Therefore, the cumulative, growth inducing, and irreversible impacts remain the same with the proposed project as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. This section includes a discussion of the additional significant effects of the project on air quality which were not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. The discussion for air quality includes the following subsections:

Environmental Setting – This subsection 1) provides a brief overview of relevant plans, policies, and regulations that compose the regulatory framework for the project and 2) describes the existing, physical environmental conditions at the project site and in the surrounding area, as relevant.

Impact Discussion – This subsection includes the recommended checklist questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to assess impacts. The impact discussions apply to both the project with and without the District Utilities System Option, unless expressly stated otherwise.

• Project Impacts – This subsection summarizes the impact conclusions from the Precise Plan EIR and discusses the project’s impact on the environmental subject as related to the checklist questions. For significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are identified. “Mitigation measures” are measures that will minimize, avoid, or eliminate a significant impact (CEQA Guidelines Section 15370). Each impact is numbered to correspond to the checklist question being answered. For example, Impact AIR -1 answers the first checklist question in the Air Quality section. Mitigation measures are also numbered to correspond to the impact they address. For example, MM AIR-1.3 refers to the third mitigation measure for the first impact in the Air Quality section.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 35 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• Cumulative Impacts – This subsection discusses the project’s cumulative air quality impacts. “Cumulative impacts,” as defined by CEQA, refer to two or more individual effects, which when combined, compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts may result from individually minor, but collectively significant , effects taking place over a period of time. CEQA Guideline Section 15130 states an EIR should discuss cumulative impacts “when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable.” The discussion does not need to be in as great detail as is necessary for project impacts, but is to be “guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness.” The purpose of the cumulative analysis is to allow decision makers to better understand the impacts that might result from approval of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project addressed in this EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines advise that a discussion of cumulative impacts should reflect both their severity and the likelihood of their occurrence ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b]). To accomplish these two objectives, the analysis should include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects or a summary of projections from an adopted general plan or similar document (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1]). For cumulative air quality impacts, a list of past, present and future projects was used to assess the potential for new cumulative impacts and the project’s contribution to existing cumulative air quality impacts.

The analysis must determine whether the project’s contribution to any cumulatively significant impact is cumulatively considerable, as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15065(a)(3). The cumulative impacts discussion for each environmental issue accordingly addresses the following issues: 1) would the effects of all of past, present, and probable future (pending) development result in a significant cumulative impact on the resource in question; and, if that cumulative impact is likely to be significant, 2 ) would the contribution from the proposed project to that significant cumulative impact be cumulatively considerable.

The impact discussions for all other environmental resource s are included in Section 5.0 Previously Identified Effects , because no new or substantially more severe impacts associated with those environmental resources were identified beyond those previously analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 36 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

4.1 AIR QUALITY
The following discussion is based, in part , on an Air Quality Analysis completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. This report is attached as Appendix C.

4.1.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for air quality has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

4.1.1.1 Background Information
Criteria Pollutants
Air quality in the Bay Area is assessed based on six common air pollutants (referred to as criteria pollutants), including ground-level ozone (O
3), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SO x), and lead.22 Criteria pollutants are regulated because they result in health effects. An overview of the sources of criteria pollutants and their associated he alth effects are summarized in Table 4.1-1. The most commonly regulated criteria pollutants in the Bay Area are discussed further below.

Table 4.1-1: Health Effects of Air Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Ozone (O3) Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases
• Irritation of eyes
• Cardiopulmonary function impairment
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Motor vehicle exhaust, high temperature
stationary combustion, atmospheric
reactions
• Aggravation of respiratory illness
• Reduced visibility
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM

2.5)
and Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM
10)
Stationary combustion of solid fuels,
construction activities, industrial
processes, atmospheric chemical
reactions
• Reduced lung function, especially in
children
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiorespiratory diseases
• Increased cough and chest discomfort
• Reduced visibility
Toxic Air
Contaminants
(TACs)
Cars and trucks, especially diesel-fueled;
industrial sources, such as chrome
platers; dry cleaners and service stations;
building materials and products
• Cancer
• Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation
• Neurological and reproductive
disorders

22 The area has attained both state and federal ambient air quality standards for CO. The project does not include substantial new emissions of sulfur dioxide or lead. These criteria pollutants are not discussed further.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 37 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
High O3 levels are caused by the cumulative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and NO x.

These precursor pollutants react under certain meteorological conditions to form high O 3 levels.

Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants is the focus of the Bay Area’s attempts to reduce O3 levels.

PM is a problematic air pollutant of the Bay Area. PM is assessed and measured in terms of respirable particulate matter or particles that have a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) and fine particulate matter where particles have a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5).

Toxic Air Contaminants
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of compounds known to have health effects. They include but are not limited to criteria pollutants. TACs are found in ambient air, especially in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, diesel fuel combustion, and commercial operations (e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g., diesel particulate matter [DPM] near a freeway).

Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air and is estimated to represent about three-quarters of the cancer risk from TACs. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of gases, vapors, and fine particles.

Medium- and heavy-duty diesel trucks represent the bulk of DPM emissions from California highways.

The majority of DPM is small enough to be inhaled into the lungs. Most inhaled particles are subsequently exhaled, but some deposit on the lung surface or in the deepest regions of the lungs (most susceptible to injury).
23 Chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Sensitive Receptors
Some groups of people are more affected by air pollution than others. CARB has identified the following persons who are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 16, the elderly over 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, and elementary schools.

4.1.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Clean Air Act
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for overseeing implementation of the Clean Air Act and its subsequent amendments. The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to set n ational ambient air quality standards for the six common criteria pollutants (discussed previously), including PM, O3, CO, SOx, NOx, and lead. The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “national standards”) are classified as either primary or secondary.

Primary standards are meant to provide public health protection, including protecting the health of

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 38 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

CARB is the state agency that regulates mobile sources throughout the state and oversees implementation of the state air quality laws and regulations, including the California Clean Air Act.

The EPA and CARB have adopted ambient air quality standards establishing permissible levels of these pollutants to protect public health and the climate. California has adopted its own air quality standards, known as the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS or “state standards”).

California’s ambient standards are at least as protective as the NAAQS and often more s tringent.

Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are determined for each air pollutant. Attainment status for a pollutant means a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Risk Reduction Plan
To address the issue of diesel emissions in the state, CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles. In addition to requiring more stringent emission standards for new on-road and off-road mobile sources and stationary diesel-fueled engines to reduce particulate matter emissions by 90 percent, the plan involves application of emission control strategies to existing diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce DPM (in addition to other pollutants). Implementation of this plan, in conjunction with stringent federal and CARB-adopted emission limits for diesel -fueled vehicles and equipment (including off-road equipment), will significantly reduce emissions of DPM and NO x.

Regional
2017 Clean Air Plan
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the agency primarily responsible for assuring the federal and state ambient air quality standards are maintained in the San Francisco Bay Area. Regional air quality manag ement districts, such as BAAQMD, must prepare air quality plans specifying how state and federal air quality standards will be met. BAAQMD’s most recently adopted plan is the Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP focuses on two related BAAQMD goals: protecting public health and protecting the climate. To protect public health, the 2017 CAP describes how BAAQMD will continue its progress toward attaining state and federal air quality standards and eliminating health risk disparities from exposure to air pollution among Bay Area communities. To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-greenhouse gases (GHGs) that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion. 24 24 BAAQMD. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-clim ate/air-quality- plans/current-plans.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 39 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing air quality impacts developed by BAAQMD within their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures.

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

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

NC 20.6 Air quality standards. Protect the public and construction workers from construction exhaust and particulate emissions.

INC 20.7 Protect sensitive receptors. Protect the public from substantial pollutant concentrations.

INC 20.8 Offensive odors. Protect residents from offensive odors.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. P. 137

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains guiding principles, guidelines, and design standards that relate to air quality by encouraging increased density and a mix of uses near transit stations, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and aggressive vehicle trip reductions for new and existing office development that also reduce air pollutant emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled.

4.1.1.3 Existing Conditions
The project site is located in Santa Clara County, which is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.

The Bay Area, as a whole, does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level O3, and PM2.5, nor does it meet state standards for PM10. The Bay Area is considered in attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.25

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located approximately 700 feet southwest of the site in the P-37 South Whisman Precise Plan area. There are also residences located approximately 1,000 feet southeast, to the east of SR 237 from the project site in the City of Sunnyvale

25 “Attainment” status for a pollutant means a given air district meets the standard set by the EPA and/or CARB.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 40 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
(refer to Figure 3.2-3). T he future residents of the recently approved 400 Logue Avenue Residential project, adjacent to the project site, would be considered sensitive receptors when that development is occupied.26 It is anticipated that the planned residences at 400 Logue would be occupied by late 2024.27 Additionally, future residents would be located in the approved 355 East Middlefield Road Residential project approximately 650 feet southwest of the project site.28

4.1.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on air quality, would the project:

1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for judgement on the part of the lead agency and must be based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. The City of Mountain View has considered the air quality thresholds updated by BAAQMD in May 2017 and regards these thresholds to be the best information available for the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conservative in terms of the assessment of health effects associated with TACs and PM

2.5. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
thresholds used in this analysis are identified in Table 4.1-2 below.

Table 4.1-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Criteria Pollutants
ROG, NOx 54 54 10
PM10 82 (exhaust) 82 15
PM2.5 54 (exhaust) 54 40
CO Not Applicable 9.0 ppm (eight-hour) or 20.0 ppm (one-hour) Fugitive Dust
Dust Control
Measures/Best
Management Practices
Not Applicable

26 The 400 Logue Residential project (PL -2019-406) was approved by the Mountain View City Council on June 22, 2021.
27 City of Mountain View. 400 Logue Avenue Residential Project Consistency Checklist. May 2021. 28 The 355, 364, 401, 415 E. Middlefield Residential Project (PL-2018-206) was approved by the Mountain View City Council on October 13, 2020.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 41 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 4.1-2: BAAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Construction
Thresholds Operation Thresholds
Average Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Daily
Emissions
(pounds/day)
Annual Average
Emissions (tons/year)
Health Risks and Hazards for New Sources (within a 1,000-foot Zone of Influence) Health Hazard Single Source Combined Cumulative Sources Excess Cancer Risk 10 per one million 100 per million
Incremental Annual
PM2.5 0.3µg*/m3 0.8 µg/m3 (average)
Note: µg = micrograms

4.1.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact AQ-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality pla n by resulting in operational ROG emissions and health risks (primarily due to construction emissions) in excess of BAAQMD thresholds . ( New Impact [Significant , Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded the Precise Plan would not conflict with 2017 CAP or interfere with its implementation because the plan includes implementing policies and measures consistent with the 2017 CAP and would not increase vehicle -miles traveled (VMT) at a rate faster than population growth.
29 The project is consistent with the Precise Plan.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines set forth separate criteria for determining project-level consistency with the 2017 CAP. In general, a project is considered consistent with the 2017 CAP if the project:

a) Supports the primary goals of the 2017 CAP;
b) Includes relevant control measures; and
c) Does not interfere with implementation of the 2017 CAP control measures.

The project’s consistency with the 2017 CAP based on the above criteria is discussed below.

Support of Primary 2017 CAP Goals
As discussed i n Section 4.1.1.2 Regulatory Framework, the goals of the 2017 CAP include 1) protecting public health by progressing towards attaining air quality standards and eliminating health risk and 2) protecting the climate. If a project exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance, its emissions are considered to result in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air

29 City of Mountain View. East Whisma n Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 46-49.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 42 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
quality conditions. Similarly, if the project exceeds the BAAQMD community health risk threshold of significance, the project would result in a community health risk. A project exceeding either of these BAAQMD thresholds is considered to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP , even if the project meets the CAP goals . An analysis of the project’s construction and operational air pollu tant emissions is provided below, as well as a discussion of the project’s community health risk.

Construction Period Emissions
The Precise Plan EIR disclosed that future development under the Precise Plan would result in short - term emissions from construction activities.30 During construction, fugitive dust (the dominant source of PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions) is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials.

Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those in the vicinity. Off-road construction equipment is often diesel -powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to PM 10 and PM2.5 emissions. Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions.

Fugitive Dust
The Precise Plan EIR concluded the construction of future development projects under the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts from fugitive dust with the implementation of the below BAAQMD best management practices, which the City requires as a standard condition of approval (Impact AQ-2 in the Precise Plan EIR).
31 Standard Condition of Approval

COA AQ-1.1: Both Project Options: Basic Air Quality Construction Measures. The applicant shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by BAAQMD to reduce fugitive dust emissions. Emission reduction measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures. Additi onal measures may be identified by BAAQMD or the contractor as appropriate, such as:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

30 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan, Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 49.
31 Ibid. Pp. 49-50.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 43 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the C ity of Mountain View regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations

The project (under either option) would implement the above standard condition of approval and, therefore, result in the same less than significant impact for construction fugitive dust as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Criteria Air Pollutants
The Precise Plan EIR concluded construction of future projects under the Precise Plan could exceed BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants and result in a significant impact (Impact AQ -3 in the Precise Plan EIR).
32 The Precise Plan EIR identified mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1 to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

East Whisman Precise Plan EIR Mitigation Measure

Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1: Both Project Options: Construction criteria pollutant and TAC 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 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.

32 Ibid. Pp 50.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 44 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1, a project -specific air quality analysis was prepared (refer to Appendix C). The following discussion summarizes the findings and conclusions of this project-specific air quality analysis.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 and CARB’s Emission Factor 2021 (EMFAC2021) model were used to estimate annual emissions from construction activities.

Construction emissions were modeled based on equipment list and schedule information provided by the applicant for the project with District Utilities System Option. The construction schedule assumes the project (under either option) would be built over a period of approximately 8.5 years, or an estimated 2,652 construction workdays. Details about the equipment list, construction schedule, modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix C. Table 4.1-3 shows the estimated daily air emissions from construction of the project with Distri ct Utilities System Option. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown in Table 4.1-3 since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system, which includes additional construction of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, an d district distribution system.

Table 4.1-3: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day)
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2022-2023 (366 construction workdays) 7.85 66.67 3.42 2.94 2024 (314 workdays) 3.33 24.37 1.42 0.99
2025 (313 workdays) 45.56 54.17 2.55 2.08
2026 (313 workdays) 13.53 112.61 5.43 4.45
2027 (313 workdays) 17.16 71.98 3.78 2.81
2028 (314 workdays) 82.76 47.15 2.76 1.85
2029 (313 workdays) 5.22 22.64 1.51 0.83
2030 (313 workdays) 1.34 8.25 0.49 0.22
2031 (93 workdays) 1.25 7.86 0.46 0.21
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Thresholds? Yes Yes No No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Assumes 2,652 construction workdays.

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

As shown in Table 4.1-3 above, project construction would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG in construction year 2028 and for NOx emissions in construction years 2022-2023, 2026, and

Middlefield Park Master Plan 45 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
2027. Pursuant to Precise Plan EIR mitigation measure MM AQ-3.1, the project (under either option) would implement the below new project mitigation measure to reduce its construction criteria air pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx to a less than significant level.

New Project Mitigation Measure:

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 NO
x and PM (PM10 and PM2.5), if feasible, otherwise:
o 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 alto gether achieve an 85-percent 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 engines 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.
o Use of alternatively fueled equipment with lower NO
x emissions
compared to traditional diesel fuel equipment that meets or exceeds the NOx 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.
• 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 const ruction 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 emissions 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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 46 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
percent of all residential and nonresid ential 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 percent 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 contain 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.
33 With implementation of the above mitigation measure, m odeling indicates that on -site construction ROG emissions would be reduced by 70 percent and NOx emissions would be reduced by 62 percent, resulting in less than significant impacts for each criteria pollutant as shown on Table 4.1-4. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Table 4.1-4: Project with District Utilities System Option Daily Construction Period Emissions (Pounds Per Day) with MM AQ-1.1
Year ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
Exhaust
2022-2023 (366 construction workdays) 2.94 15.95 0.76 0.43 2024 (314 workdays) 2.04 10.89 0.71 0.32
2025 (313 workdays) 10.54 16.08 0.78 0.43
2026 (313 workdays) 5.81 31.59 1.60 0.86
2027 (313 workdays) 6.53 25.74 1.66 0.79
2028 (314 workdays) 19.39 21.49 1.52 0.67
2029 (313 workdays) 3.31 15.07 1.15 0.48
2030 (313 workdays) 1.09 6.24 0.46 0.19
2031 (93 workdays) 1.01 5.93 0.43 0.18
BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG and NOx. Assumes 2,652 construction workdays.

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

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 47 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Operational Period Emissions
The Precise Plan EIR disclosed the implementation of the Precise Plan would result in long- term pollutant emissions from building operations (including operation of stationary sources like emergency backup diesel generators) and vehicle use.34 The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not have numeric thresholds related to direct and indirect regional criterial air pollutant emissions 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.

A project is now proposed; therefore, the operational emissions of the project were modeled and compared to BAAQMD thresholds. Operational criteria pollutant emissions 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. The project (under either option) proposes 11 emergency diesel generators (including seven 500 kW generators for the residential buildings and four 900 kW generators for the office buildings). The generators would be tested periodically and would power the buildings in the event of a power failure. It is assumed the generators would operate primarily for testing and maintenance purposes.

CalEEMod and EMFAC2021 were used to estimate emissions from the project with district utilities system operation assuming full build out of the proposed MPMP. The estimated net annual and daily operational period emissions from the project with District Utilities System Option compared to BAAQMD thresholds of significance are summarized in Table 4.1-5. Existing uses on the project site currently generate operational emissions. These emissions are estimated based on the earliest possible date in which they could cease operations and subtracted from the project’s emissions at the earliest date in which the project (under either option) would be constructed and operational (2032) to arrive at the project’s net emissions. Any emissions associated with build out later than 2032 would be lower than current emissions due to assumed efficiencies from improved vehicle fuel efficiency, energ y efficient appliances, and mechanical systems over time. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown in
Table 4.1-5 for NOx, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with d istrict utilities system, which includes the operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system.

ROG emissions would be the same as shown in Table 4.1-5 because the addition of the CUP in the district utility system would not result in greater ROG emissions since ROG emissions are primarily from area and mobile sources. The modeling assumptions, data inputs, and results are described further in Appendix C of this EIR.

34 Ibid. P. 51.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 48 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 4.1-5: Project with District Utilities System Option Operational Period Emissions Scenario ROG NOx PM10
Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust
Tons Per Year
2032 Project Emissions 19.47 9.37 8.44 2.84
2021 Existing Use Emissions (6.57) (3.43) (1.89) (0.53) Net Annual Emissions 12.90 1.47 4.58 1.70
BAAQMD Thresholds 10 10 15 10
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No
Pounds Per Day
2032 Daily Project Operational
Emissions* 70.69 8.03 25.11 9.29
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 82 54
Exceed Threshold? Yes No No No
Note: *Assumes 365-day operations, Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The emissions for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the emissions of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above for NO x PM10, and PM2.5 and the same as shown
above, for ROG emissions. Thus, ROG emissions for the project (under either option) would still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for ROG.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Air Quality Assessment, Mo untain View, California. April 19, 2022.

As shown in Table 4.1-5 above, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with the proposed project (under either option) would exceed BAAQMD significance thresholds for ROG. The greatest sources for operational ROG emissions are area emissions (e.g., architectural coatings and consumer product use), which represent 64 percent of total ROG emissions, and mobile emissions , which represent 36 percent of total ROG emissions . This is a new impact that was not pre viously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

To reduce the impact from area ROG emissions from architectural coatings, the project would be required to use super compliant VOC coatings pursuant t o MM AQ-1.1 above and pursuant to the Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1. While it is feasible and enforceable for the City to require super compliant VOC coatings be applied initially, the City cannot ensure that future occupants or tenants would use super compliant VOC coatings during 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. The project’s mobile ROG emissions from office, commercial, and residential uses wou ld be reduced to the maximum extent feasible through the TDM measures proposed by the project and required per the Precise Plan as described in Section 3.2.9 Transportation Demand Management. 35 The reduction in mobile ROG

35 As discussed in Appendix H, the project’s VMT is consistent with the assumptions in the Precise Plan EIR. Per City direction and in accordance with Precise Plan policies, a 46 percent VMT reductions for office uses resulting from

Middlefield Park Master Plan 49 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
emissions is already reflected in the project emissions in Table 4.1-5. For these reasons, operational ROG emissions from the project (under either option) are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Health Effects Associated with Significant Operational ROG Emissions Emissions of ROG (as well as NOx) from individual sources (such as the project under either option) throughout the Bay Area contribute to high O 3 levels in the region and as stated in Section 4.1.1.3 Existing Conditions, the project region is in nonattainment for O 3. O3 is an oxidant that is harmful to public health at high concentrations. O 3, at high levels, can damage the tissues of the lungs and respiratory tract. High concentrations of O3 irritate the nose, throat, and respiratory system and constrict the airways. O 3 also can aggravate other respiratory conditions such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, causing increased hospital admissions. Repeated exposure to high O 3 levels can make people more susceptible to respiratory infection and lung inflammation and permanently damage lung tissue. O
3 can also have negative cardiovascular impacts, including chronic hardening of th e arteries and trigger heart attacks. Children are most at risk, as they tend to be active and outdoors in the summer, when O
3 levels are highest. Seniors and people with respiratory illnesses are also especially sensitive to O3’s effects. Healthy adults working or exercising outdoors during high O3 levels can be affected.

Because emissions in one part of the region can impact air quality miles downwind, efforts to reduce O
3 levels focus on reducing emissions of ROG and NO x throughout the region. The relat ionship between ROG and NO x in O 3 formation is complex; the ratio between the precursor pollutants influences how O3 forms. Modeling suggests that large reductions in ROG and NOx emissions will be needed to achieve the O 3 reductions required to attain the current health -based ozone standards. A certain amount of O 3 formation occurs naturally, even in the absence of anthropogenic emissions of ROG and NOx.

CARB reports statistics for O3 monitoring in the San Francisco Bay Area. Over the last three years in San José, 36 maximum one -hour average O 3 levels are 0.106 parts per million (ppm). 37 Eight-hour maximum O3 levels over this same period were 0.085 ppm. Both levels exceed the ambient air quality standards of 0.09 ppm for the one -hour standard and 0.070 ppm for the eight -hour period. For measuring compliance with the O3 NAAQS, CARB reports a 2020 Design Value of 0.060 ppm for the 8-hour standard and 0.086 ppm for the 1-hour standard, which are both below the NAAQS. Throughout the Bay Area, the eight -hour standard was exceeded somewhere within the Air Basin on six days in 2018, nine days in 2019, and nine days in 2020. The eight-hour design value for the standard is reported by CARB as 0.069 ppm. The less restrictive one -hour standard was exceeded on two to six days per year and a state standard designation of 0.10 ppm was assigned to the basin.38

implementation of the proposed TDM program were accounted for in Trip Cap Requirement. A n additional nine and 30 percent VMT reductions for residential and commercial uses, respectively, were accounted for in transit and pass- by reductions. See Appendix H for further details.
36 San Jose station is the closes monitoring station to the project site. Source: BAAQMD. 2021 Air Monitoring Network Plan. July 1, 2021. Page 17. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/technical-ser vices/2020-network-plan-draft- 202100526-pdf.pdf?la=en
37 California Air Resources Board. “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics (2018 -2020) , Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area.” Accessed April 20, 2022. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php 38 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. April 2017. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-re search/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed- final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en

Middlefield Park Master Plan 50 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
No development project by itself would be sufficient in size to result in regional nonattainmen t of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulative adverse air quality impacts and, while its emissions may be individually limited, it could be cumulatively considerable when taken in combinatio n with past, present, and future development projects.39 The thresholds for criteria air pollutants are based on levels at which new sources are not anticipated to contribute to an air quality violation or result in a considerable net increase in criteria air pollutants. Therefore, if a project leads to a significant impact individually, the project would also be considered to contribute significantly to the cumulative impact.

A project-level air quality analysis of criteria air pollutants is based on significance thresholds that were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status. 40 Locally, the significance thresholds
applied in this EIR are emission levels above which stationary air pollutant sources permitted by the BAAQMD (typically, industrial facilities, refineries, and the like) must offset their emissions through purchase of emissions “offsets” from other facilities that have reduced emissions, either through installation of emissions controls or removal of an emissions source. Such offset levels allow for regional development while keeping the cumulative effects of new sources at a level that will not impede attainment of the NAAQS. Therefore, a CEQA air quality analysis of criteria air pollutants is essentially an analysis of regional, cumulative air quality impacts and a given project’s contribution to those impacts.

The ambient air quality standards are expressed in terms of the concentrations of individual pollutants within the air. Compliance with the ambient air quality standards indicates that regional air quality can be considered protective of public health, with certain exceptions, it is not readily feasible to calculate an individual project’s effect on ambient O
3 concentrations given current environmental science
modeling tools. Some pollutants are directly emitted from projects and their effects on ambient ai r quality can be modeled. An example is carbon monoxide, or CO, which is emitted directly as vehicle exhaust.

O
3, however, is a regional pollutant for which project -specific concentration modeling is not reliable given current air quality modeling limitations. Because of the complexity of ozone formation and given the state of modeling available, it is infeasible to reliably convert specific mass emissions levels (i.e., weight) of NO X or ROG emitted in a particular area (or by a particular project) to a pa rticular concentration of ozone in that area in a manner that yields meaningful results. 41 Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex chemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and location of ozone .
42,43 Furthermore, available models are designed to
determine regional, population-wide health impacts and cannot accurately quantify ozone -related

39 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. 40 San Joaquin Valley Air Protection Control District. Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014. 41 Ibid.
42 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno. 2014 43 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 51 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
health impacts caused by NO X or ROG emissions at the local level or individual project level.

Consequently, there is not a reliable way to connect the proposed project’s exceedances of ROG emissions to increases in ozone concentrations and, thus, meaningfully determine specific human health impacts related to those increases in ozone concentrations.

Project-level mass (weight) emission thresholds have been established for ozone precursors (NO X and
ROG) and other criteria pollutants precisely because it is not possible to readily convert mass emissions at the project -level to pollutant concentrations. As explained by BAAQMD, the CEQA significance thresholds established for the ozone precursors ROG and NOx were tied to BAAQMD’s offset requirements for ozone precursors based on the Bay Area being in non- attainment with the federal ozone standard; this approach is considered appropriate “to prevent further deterioration of ambient air quality and thus has nexus and proportionality to prevention of a regionally cumulative significant impact (e.g. worsened status of non-attainment).”
44 Therefore, attainment can be considered protective
of public health, thus providing a strong link between a mass emission threshold and avoidance of health effects. For PM10 and PM2.5, BAAQMD established CEQA significance thresholds based on the federal New Source Review program for new stationary sources of pollution, which contains stricter thresholds than does BAAQMD’s offset program for these pollutants. “These thresholds represent the emission levels above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a considerable adverse contribution to the [San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin]’s existing air quality conditions.” 45 As with
ROG and NO X discussed above, these thresholds likewise provide a connection between a mass emission threshold and avoidance of health effects.

Nevertheless, the proposed project’s ROG emissions that exceed significance thresholds are evaluated to determine whether these emissions would contribute to new or exacerbated air quality violations in the air basin by contributing to more days of ozone exceedance or result in air quality index values that are unhealthy for sensitive groups and other populations. Although the project would exceed the ROG thresholds even after mitigation, the exceedance is minor at 12.9 tons per year versus the threshold of 10 tons per year. To evaluate the project’s effects on O 3 levels in the region, the project’s operational
ROG emissions were compared to regional emissions that lead to elevated concentrations of O3 (refer to Table 4.1-6 below).

Table 4.1-6: Comparison of Project Emissions to Air Basin ROG Emissions (tons/day) Bay Area Air Basin ROG Emissions in 2020 203
Bay Area Air Basin ROG Emissions in 20301 200
Project Operational Emissions in 20321 0.032
1 Closest year of analysis to project operational year of 2032 under either option 2 Converted from 12.90 tons per year
Sources: 1) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Spare the Air Cool the Climate Final 2017 Clean Air Plan.

April 2017. and 2) Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Air Quality Analysis for Middlefield Park Master Plan. Mountain View, California. April 19, 2022.

44 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report: California Environmental Quality Act Th resholds of Significance, October 2009. Accessed April 20, 2022. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-res earch/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report- oct-2009.pdf?la=en.
45 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 52 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
As shown from the data in Table 4.1-5, operational emissions from the project (under either option) in 2032 (the soonest year the project would be fully operational) exceed the single-source threshold of 10 tons per year by 2.9 tons per year. As shown in Table 4.1-6, the project’s total emissions represent 0.02 percent of the regional inventory.46 This is a conservative estimate because the estimated emissions do not reflect the reduction in emissions from future occupants or tenants using super compliant VOC coatings during reapplication for the lifetime of the project (see last bullet in mitigation measure (MM AQ-1.1 above). Therefore, although the project may increase O 3 levels, the increase will be minimal given the scale of the project’s ozone precursor emissions, and the health impacts caused by the project’s ROG emissions (under either option) are also likely minimal. Further, given available modeling tools, it is not possible to accurately delineate a direct link between the project’s O 3 precursor
emissions and health effects predicted for the region by BAAQMD resulting from elevated O 3 levels caused by the project.

To further convey the potential community-wide health impacts from the project’s ROG emissions exceeding the BAAQMD threshold, a comparative example from another project EIR in the South Bay is provided. The Downtown West Mixed-Use master plan development with up to 7.3 million square feet of office uses, 5,900 residential units, 500,000 square feet of commercial uses, 300 hotel rooms, 800 rooms of limited term corporate accommodations, 100,000 square feet of event/conference space, a 130,000 square foot CUP, 100,000 square feet of logistics center uses, 15 acres of parkland/open space, and transportation and parking improvements is estimated to result in a total of 69 tons per year of net new construction and operational ROG emissions in 2032 (the soonest year the project would be fully operational).
47 In terms of geographical context, the proposed project is within 10 miles of the Downtown West Mixed- Use Plan project in a location with similar dispersion conditions that are characteristic of the southern Bay Area. The Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project would generate five times more ROG emissions than the project (under either option) evaluated in this EIR. That EIR attempted to model the health effects from ROG emissions and found approximately 0.03 additional respiratory-related hospital admissions, 0.05 additional mortalities, and less than 0.36 additional asthma-related emergency room visits in the region could be attributed to project-related increases in ambient air concentrations.
48 Due to th is nominal increase in incidence of health effects from the increase in emissions from the Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project, the Downtown West Mixed- Use Plan EIR concluded that project would have a very small impact on community-wide health effects.49

The proposed project with District Utilities System Option in this EIR includes approximately 17 percent of the office uses, 32 percent of the residential uses, six percent of the commercial/retail uses, 66 percent of the parks/open space uses, 34 percent of the CUP space, and none of the hotel, corporate accommodations, entertainment, or logistic s uses included in the Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project. Therefore, the proposed project (unde r either option) operational emissions would result in lesser health effects than the health effects disclosed for the Downtown West Mixed-Use Plan project.

Based on the discussion above, the project (under either option) would not cause measurable increases to regional (ozone) air pollutant levels or health effects associated with the project’s ROG emissions

46 0.03 tons per day (project emissions) / 200 tons per day (air basin emissions in 2030) = 0.00015 or 0.02 percent 47 City of San Jos é. Downtown West Mixed -Use Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2019080493).

October 2020. P. 3.1-114.
48 Ibid. P. 3.1-117.
49 Ibid. P. 3.1-120.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 53 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
to materially change. The emissions of ROG are, however, considered significant and unavoidable.

Community Health Risk
Project impacts related to increased community risk can occur by introducing a new source of TACs with the potential to adversely affect existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity or, as discussed in Section 4.1.2.2 Cumulative Impacts, by significantly exacerbating existing cumulative TAC impacts. The project (under either option) would introduce new sources of TACs during construction and operation.

As noted in Section 3.2 Project Description, the project (under either option) would be constructed over approximately 8.5 years in four overlapping phases. For this reason, the health risk impacts of overlapping project construction and operational emissions are analyzed to represent air quality impacts during earlier phases of construction and during phases of construction when some buildings would be occupied while others are being constructed. The operational emissions are also analyzed separately to represent health risk from the project after construction has been completed.

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that the health risks would be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of the City’s standard conditions of approval for fugitive dust and Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, both of which are listed above.
50 Overlapping Project Construction and Operation Emi ssions Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generates diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC, and would pose a health risk to nearby receptors. The primary hea lth risk impact issues associated with construction emissions are cancer risk and exposure to PM 2.5. The greatest TAC of concern generated during construction that could lead to cancer risk is DPM, which is used as a surrogate measure of exposure for the mixture of chemicals that make up diesel exhaust as a whole.

The project (under either option) would include operation of stand-by generators powered by diesel engines and cooling towers and would generate traffic consisting of light -duty vehicles, all of which would produce TAC and criteria air pollutant emissions during project operations. Operational emissions of DPM, TACs, PM

2.5 and PM 10 from project -generated traffic on local roadways and operation of the proposed emergency generators were modeled using the U.S. EPA AERMOD dispersion model. The cooling towers are not powered by a diesel engine; therefore, no DPM emissions would be produced from operation of the cooling towers.

Pursuant to Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3, a project -specific TAC/health risk quantification was completed (refer to Appendix C). The following discussion summarizes the findings and conclusions of the health risk assessment . The assessment evaluated potential health effects to nearby receptors (within 1,000 feet of the project site) from overlapping construction and operational emissions of DPM and PM

2.5. For purposes of this analysis, receptors are locations where sensitive populations would be present for extended periods of time including the existing residences to the southwest on East Middlefield Road, and to the south on Infinity Way (in South Whisman Precise Plan area), as well as

50 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 52.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 54 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
future residences adjacent to the site at 400 Logue Avenue and southwest of the site at 355 E.

Middlefield Road. 51 A health risk assessment of future residents on the project site is included in Section 4.1.3.

Consistent with the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the CalEEMod, U.S. EPA AERMOD, and EMFAC2017 models were used to calculate health risk from the project with District Utilities System Option construction and operational activities (refer to Appendix C for details about model and modeling assumptions). Community health risk impacts are addressed by predicting increased cancer risk, annual PM

2.5 concentrations, and Hazard Index (HI) for non- cancer-health risks. The maximum modeled annual DPM and PM 2.5 concentrations were identified at nearby sensitive receptors to find the maximally exposed individual (MEI), o r the sensitive receptor that is most impacted by the project’s overlapping construction and operational TAC emissions . Results of this assessment indicated that there are two MEIs located in two different units of the approved 400 Logue Avenue Residential project. Figure 4.1-1 shows the location of off-site receptors, including the MEIs and modeled project traffic. The PM2.5 concentration MEI is located at a receptor on the first floor and the cancer risk MEI is located at a receptor on the second floor. The estimated cancer risks and annual PM2.5 concentrations due to construction and operation of the project with District Utilities System Option are summarized in Table 4.1-7 below.

The unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentration from overlapping construction and operation of the project without the district utilities system are less than shown in Table 4.1-7 since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system, which includes the construction and operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations of the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown in Table 4.1-7, the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentrations would be similar and still exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance.

51 The existing Mountain View Korean SDA Church at 815 Maude Avenue is not considered a site with a sensitive population as visitors/patrons are not at the location for extended periods of time, such as overnight, nor is there a day care center.

Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., December 23, 2021.
1,000-foot Influence Area
Project Office Buildings/Parking Structure
Off-Site Sensitive Receptors
On-Site Sensitive Receptors
Project Site Boundary
Project Residential Buildings
O1
R2R2
R1
R3
R4
R5
R6
R1
R3
O5O4O3
O2
P1
P2R4
R5
R6
State Route 237State Route 237
E Middlefield RoadE Middlefield Road Ellis StreetEllis Street Logue AvenueLogue Avenue
Maude AvenueMaude Avenue
Infinity WayInfinity Way
Clyde Avenue
Clyde
Avenue
LOCATIONS OF OFF-SITE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND MODELED PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 4.1-1 Cl
□
□ •
+

Middlefield Park Master Plan 56 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

Table 4.1-7: Project with District Utilities System Option Construction and Operational Community Risk Impacts at the Off-Site Receptors
Source
Maximum
Excess Cancer
Risk
(per million)1
Annual
PM2.5
(µg/m3)
Hazard
Index
Project Construction
Unmitigated
Mitigated1
113.61

14.52 2.38

0.44 0.09
Project Operations
Unmitigated
Mitigated
1 3.06

3.06 0.05

0.05 <0.01
<0.01
Total Combined Construction and Operational
Community Risk
Unmitigated
Mitigated

116.67

17.58 2.43

0.48 0.12

0.12 BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold >10.0 >0.3 1.0
Exceeds Threshold?
Unmitigated
Mitigated*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. The health risk for the project without the district utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the construction and operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system. While the health risk due to the project without the district utilities system would be less than shown above, the emissions would be similar and still exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for increased cancer risk. 1 Maximum assuming third-trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.
2 Mitigated assumes the implementation of the conditions of approval and Precise Plan EIR MM AQ -3.1 for construction emissions. No operational mitigation measures are assumed.

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

As shown in Table 4.1-7, the unmitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentrations from overlapping construction and operation of the project with District Utilities System Option at the MEI location would exceed the single -source thresholds. Implementation of the s tandard c ondition of approval (COA AQ-1.1) and the new project mitigation MM AQ -1.1 identified above would reduce the project’s off-site cancer risk levels by 85 percent to 16.75 excess cancer cases per million at the MEI. The project’s annual PM2.5 concentrations would be reduced by 81 percent to 0.44 μg/m3 at the MEI. Thus, the project’s mitigated risk impacts (under either option) would still exceed the BAAQMD single-source significance thresholds of 10 per million for cancer risk and 0.3 μg/m3 for PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIs. The modeling shows the cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentrations at all other sensitive receptors would be reduced below the single -source threshold (refer to Appendix C) with the implementation of standard condition of approval and new project mitigation measure MM

Middlefield Park Master Plan 57 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
AQ-1.1. Since no additional mitigation is feasible to reduce the health risk associated with construction emissions (the primary source of the project’s significant health risk impact), the following mitigation is required that would reduce the health risk associated with project operations (the lessor source of the project’s significant health risk impact).

New Project Mitigation Measure:

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.

In addition, the City requires the following standard condition of approval to address community health risks from interior finishes containing formaldehyde.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA AQ -1.2: Both Project Options: Indoor Formaldehyde Reductions. If the project utilizes composite wood materials (e.g., hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for interior finishes, then only composite wood materials tha t are made with CARB approved, no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra -low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins shall be utilized (CARB, Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 17 CCR Section 93120, et seq., 2009-2013).

Implementation of MM AQ-1.2, would incrementally reduce emissions from the proposed residential building emergency generators identified in Table 4.1-7, but not to a less than significant level. Thus, the project’s m itigated health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions) (under either option) would still exceed the BAAQMD single -source significance thresholds of 10 per million for cancer risk and 0.3 μg/m
3 for PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIs.

The above discussed community health risk represents the outdoor air at the sensitive receptor locations. The approved 400 Logue Avenue project would be constructed to meet the current 2019 Title 24 Building Standards , which r equire air filtration in mecha nical ventilation systems for residential buildings use MERV 13 filters or greater. This requirement also applies to the proposed residential buildings (under either option). It is also possible that there would be additional sensitive receptors exposed to similar health risk from project construction and operation (under either option) due to the length of the Development Agreement for the project (under either option)52 and the fact the Precise Plan envisions additional residential land uses in the project vicinity at distances similar to 400 Logue Avenue to the project site. A properly installed and operated ventilation system with MERV 13 filters achieves an 80-percent reduction of ambient PM 2.5 concentrations at indoor areas.53 U.S. EPA

52 As noted in Section 3.2 Project Description, the proposed project under either option would include a Development Agreement to grant implementation of entitlements over a 20-year period. 53 Bay Area Air Quality Management Dis trict. Planning Healthy Places A Guidebook for Addressing Local Sources of Air Pollutants in Community Planning. 2016. P p. 38. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning- and- research/planning-healthy-places/php_may20_2016-pdf.pdf?la=en

Middlefield Park Master Plan 58 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
studies indicate most people spend 90 percent of their time indoors.54 Assuming exposure to 21 hours of indoor filtered air and three hours of outdoor air, the filtration in the ventilation systems would reduce overall exposure by 70 percent. Taking into account the required MERV 13 filters and their proper installation, operation, and maintenance, as well as the EPA’s documented time people spend indoors vs. outdoors, the mitigated cancer risk and annual PM 2.5 concentrations would be reduced below the significance threshold for sensitive receptors in the 400 Logue Avenue project. This less than significant health risk also assumes residents keep their windows closed during construction of the proposed project (under either option). However, neither the applicant no r the City can feasibly implement, require, or guarantee these assumptions through mitigation measures.

In summary, the project (under either option) would result in exposure of sensitive receptors near or on the project site to health risk impacts (prim arily due to construction emissions) exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for cancer cases and annual PM

2.5 concentrations. Implementation of standard
conditions of approval and Precise Plan EIR MM AIR-1.1 identified under Impact AQ-1 would reduce the health risk (primarily due to construction emissions) but not to a less than significant level.

Additional reductions could be achieved with properly installed, operated, and maintained ventilation systems and potentially from delayed occupancy of the approved 400 Logue Avenue project 55 and
residential buildings planned for early phases of the Project ; however, neither the City nor applicant can feasibly implement, require, or guarantee these through mitigation. For these reasons, the health risk impact (primarily due to construction emissions) is conservatively concluded to be significant and unavoidable. This is a new impact not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Project Operations Only
Once construction of the project (under either option) is complete, sensitive receptors would no longer be subject to the health risk from overlapping project construction and operational emissions. As shown in Table 4.1-7, the maximum cancer risk, annual PM

2.5 concentrations, and HI from operation of the
project (under either option) only would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance thresholds at the nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, operation of the project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant health risk impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Im pact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Consistency with 2017 CAP Control Measures
The 2017 CAP includes control measures to reduce GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.1-8 below, the project would be consistent with the 2017 CAP measures intended to reduce GHG emission by reducing automobile trips, energy and water usage, and waste.

54 United States En vironmental Protection Agency. “Report on the Environment, Indoor Air Quality, What are the trends in indoor air quality and their effects on human health?” Accessed December 22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/indoor-air-quality 55 If occupancy of the 400 Logue Avenue Residential project is delayed from 2025 to 2028, health risks would be less than significant because construction of the proposed project would occur farther from this receptor location.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 59 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 4.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures
Description Project Consistency
Transportation Measures
Trip
Reduction
Program
Encourage trip reduction policies
and programs in local plans, e.g.,
general and specific plans.

Encourage local governments to
require mitigation of vehicle travel
as part of new development
approval, to develop innovative
ways to encourage rideshare,
transit, cycling, and walking for
work trips.

The project site is proximate to VTA bus and light
rail and the Mountain View Transportation
Management Association shuttle service. The
project (under either option) would include new on-
street and off -street bic ycle and pedestrian
improvements and bicycle parking consistent with
City requirements. Additionally, the project (under
either option) includes a TDM program (refer to
Section 3.2.9 Transportation Demand Management
for details) consistent with the Precise Plan TDM
requirements to reduce vehicle trips and promote
alternative modes of travel to single-occupancy
vehicle trips. Therefore, the project is consistent
with this measure.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Access
Facilities
Encourage planning for bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in local
plans, e.g., general and specific
plans, fund bike lanes, routes,
paths, and bicycle parking
facilities.

As noted above, the project (under either option)
would include bicycle parking consistent with the
City’s bicycle parking requirements. The project
area has adequate sidewalks, crosswalks, and
pedestrian signal heads and the project proposes
five new midblock crossings to further enhance the
pedestrian environment. Therefore, the project is
consistent with this measure.

Land Use
Strategies
Support implementation of Plan
Bay Area, maintain and
disseminate information on current
climate action plans and other
local best practices.

As mentioned above, the project (under either
option) would be located in proximity to multiple
transit services and would increase the density and
diversity of land uses near transit; therefore, the
project is consistent with this measure (refer to
Section 5.16 Transportation for more information).

Building Measures
Green
Buildings
Identify barriers to effective local
implementation of CalGreen (Title
24) statewide building energy
code; develop solutions to improve
implementation/enforcement.

Engage with additional partners to
target reduc
ing emissions from
specific types of buildings.

The project (under either option) would comply
with the C alGreen and City’s Reach Code
requirements, the proposed office buildings would
meet the intent of LEED Platinum standards and the
proposed residential buildings requesting a Bonus
FAR would achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint
rating of 120 points or better , reducing emissions
from energy generation and use, and implement a
TDM plan to reduce emissions from transportation.

The project (under either option) is consistent
with this measure.

Urban Heat
Island
Mitigation
Develop and urge adoption of a
model ordinance for “cool
parking” that promotes the use of
cool surface treatments for new
parking facilities, as well as
No surface parking is proposed for the project
(under either option), all parking would be located
in parking structures either below -grade, above -
grade, or within a building shell. This measure,
therefore, is not applicable. The project (under

Middlefield Park Master Plan 60 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 4.1-8: Bay Area 2017 Clean Air Plan Applicable Control Measures Control
Measures
Description Project Consistency
existing surface parking lots
undergoing resurfacing. Develop
and promote adoption of model
building code requirements for
new construction or
reroofing/roofing upgrades for
commercial and residential multi-
family housing.
either option) is consistent with the intent of this
measure by planting new landscaping and trees and
increasing pervious surfaces on- site compared to
existing conditions, which would reduce the urban
heat island effect. Hardscape materials would also
be chosen and designed to reduce heat island
effects. Therefore, the project is consistent with
this measure.

Natural and Working Lands Measure
Urban Tree
Planting
Develop or identify an existing
model municipal tree planting
ordinance and encourage local
governments to adopt such an
ordinance. Include tree planting
recommendations, the Air
District’s technical guidance, best
management practices for local
plans, and CEQA review.

Any trees removed would be required to be replaced
in accordance with the City’s tree replacement
policy. Therefore, the project (under either
option) is consistent with this measure.

Waste Management Measures
Recycling
and Waste
Reduction
Develop or identify an d promote
model ordinances on community-
wide zero waste goals and
recycling of construction and
demolition materials in
commercial and public
construction projects.

The project (under either option) would comply
with the City’s adopted Zero Waste Plan by
providing foodwaste composting facilities for
proposed residential and restaurant uses. In
addition, the project would comply with the City’s
Construction and Demolition Diversion Program by
recovering or diverting at least 65 percent of
construction waste generated by the project from
landfills. Therefore, the project is consistent with
this measure.

In conclusion, the project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2017 CAP control measures and goals; however, the project is found to be inconsistent with the 2017 CAP based on the project exceeding BAAQMD thresholds for health risk and ROG emissions.

Specifically, the project (under either option) results in significant, unavoidable operational criteria air pollutant (ROG emissions) and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions). The significant, unavoidable impacts regarding operational ROG emissions and health risk impacts (primarily due to construction emissions) are new impacts not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (New Impact [Significant Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 61 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact AQ-2: Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

As discussed in Section 4.1.1 Environmental Setting, the Bay Area does not meet state and/or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level O 3, PM 2.5, or PM 10. High O 3 levels are caused by cumulative emissions of ROG and NOx. Controlling the emissions of these precursor pollutants would reduce O3 levels.

Construction Period Emissions
As discussed in detail under Impact AQ -1 above, construction of the project (under either option) would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO x, PM 10, and PM 2.5 or fugitive dust with incorporation of the standard condition of approval COA AQ-1.1 and new project mitigation measure MM AQ-1.1. Thus, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated]) Operational Period Emissions
As discussed in detail under Impact AQ -1 above, 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, the City cannot ensure that future occupants or tenants would use super compliant VOC coatings during 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 unavoid able. (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])

As discussed under Impact AQ -1 above, project (under either option) would result in exposure of sensitive receptors near the project site to TAC emissions in excess of BAAQMD risk thresholds for excess cancer cases and annual PM 2.5 concentrations primarily from construction emissions .

Implementation of mitigation measure s MM AQ-1.1 and c onditions of approval COA AQ-1.1 and COA AQ-1.2 identified under Impact AQ -1 would reduce the health risk but not to a less than significant level, and therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable. Project operations would not exceed the thresholds for cancer risk, annual PM 2.5 concentrations, and HI emissions. (New Impact [Significant, Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 62 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact AQ-4: Project: The project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])
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 . (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Project
Construction Odor Impacts
The Precise Plan EIR disclosed that future construction activities in the Precise Plan area could result in odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment and concluded that due to the temporary nature of the emissions and the highly diffuse nature of diesel exhaust, exposure of sensitive receptors to these emissions would be limited and less than significant . 56 The odors
resulting from construction activities (under either option) would be consistent with the assumptions in the Precise Plan EIR. For these reasons, implementation of the project (under either option) would result in same short-term odor impacts as disc losed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Operational Odor Impacts
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not result in significant odor impacts with compliance of General Plan Policy INC 20.8, which requires the City to review development projects for potential odor impacts. Operation of the project (without district utilities) would involve operations of office, residential, retail, civic/community, and open spaces uses, none of which generate odors resulting in adverse effects on a substantial number of people. For this reason, the project (without district utilities) would result in the same operational odor impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
Construction Odor Impacts
The project with District Utilities System Option, would result in the same construction odor impacts as discussed above for the project option. (Same impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

56 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 52-53.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 63 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Operational Odor Impacts
The project with District Utilities System Option would be the same as described above for the project except it also includes the operation of a wastewater treatment plant within the CUP in Building O1.

The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include screening distances for various odor sources to prevent potential land use conflicts . These screening distances identify two miles for wastewater treatment facilities , which is applied to traditional open municipal facilities that have exposed headworks, open-air ponds, and treat large volumes of wastewater. The screening distances would not apply to the proposed wastewater treatment plant as it is proposed to be small, modern, with enclosed systems where exhaust air is treated.
57 Nonetheless, odor issues could occur if there are upset conditions or improper handling of odor-producing solids or wastewater, improper operations, or poor maintenance. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines state that a significant odor impact would occur if an odor source receives five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over a three year period.
58 The wastewater treatment facility would generate odors from many phases of the treatment process including during anaerobic biological activity , which produces most of the hydrogen sulfide and ammonia type odors that are considered objectionable. Odors can be properly controlled through modern design, appropriate chemical and/or biological treatm ent, proper ventilation, and facility maintenance. The wastewater treatment facility would be designed to be a completely enclosed system within the CUP. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 Utilities, the proposed wastewater equipment would be equipped with mode rn technology that minimize s the release of odors and would not include any lagoons, exposed sewage/treatment water, or biosolid piles that would emit odors. The wastewater treatment odors would also be regulated by BAAQMD in the event of odor complaints.

Processes that produce hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are t he most objectionably odorous . These processes would be enclosed in the CUP and controlled to minimize odors . Odor controls would be designed using the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and consistent with regulatory requirements. BACT solutions may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Installing active ventilation (foul air blowers) to odor control units (e.g., carbon absorption, biofiltration, or ammonia scrubbers);
• Housing odorous processes in a ventilated enclosure;
• Wastewater s creenings and grit washed, dewatered, and compacted before being stored in enclosed, odor-proof refuse containers;
• Hauling sealed containers of residuals off-site at regular intervals; and • Injecting ferrous chloride to remove hydrogen sulfide as needed for odor control at specific wastewater treatment processes.

The project would also include regular monitoring of complaints and reporting on the success of odor controls to regulatory agencies. Proposed residences are located as close as 100 feet of the wastewater

57 For reference, the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant, which treats wastewater generated in Mountain View, has a treatment capacity of up to 80 million gallons per day. Treatment of this volume of wast ewater requires specialized and large-scale equipment, which are not required or proposed for the project (under either option). 58 BAAQMD. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. P. 7-4.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 64 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
treatment plant. Given the proposed use and proximity of residences, the wastewater treatment plant has the potential to cause odors and result in odor complaints. This is a new impact that was not previously identified in the Precise Plan EIR.

New Project Mitigation Measures:

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 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 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 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.

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 applicab le 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.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 65 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
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 odor complaints with corrective actions , reducing impacts to a less than significant level. This is a new impact not previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (New Impact [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

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

The geographic area for cumulative air quality impacts is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Past, present, and future development projects contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts. 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 quality conditions.
59 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.
60 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 emissions . The project’s implementation of standard conditions of approval COA AQ-1.1 and COA AQ-1.2, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation 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. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Net Increase in Criteria Pollutants
As discussed under Impact AQ-1, the project (under either option) would not exceed the project-level thresholds for criteria pollutant emissions with the exception of 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; however, not to a less than significant level. The project (under either option), therefore, would result in a cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact. (New Impact [Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

59 BAAQMD. California Environmental Q uality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017. P . 2- 1. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en 60 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 66 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations The Precise Plan EIR concluded that cumulative exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations associated with implementation of the Precise Plan would be less than significant with preparation of project-specific air quality assessments and implementation of standard conditions of approval and project mitigation measures to reduce health risks to future sensitive receptors . A cumulative health risk assessment was conducted for the project with District Utilities System Option that evaluated all substantial sources of TACs affecting sensitive receptors located within 1,000 feet of a project site. These sources included rail lines, freeways or highways, busy surface roads, and stationary sources identified by BAAQMD. Table 4.1-9 below summarizes the cumulative health risk impacts at the project MEIs.

Table 4.1-9: Cumulative Health Risk Impacts at the Off-Site MEI Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)2
Hazard
Index2
Project
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

116.67

17.58 2.38

0.44 0.09

0.01 Traffic Sources 1.05 0.07 <0.01
Stationary Sources 4.99 0.01 0.01
Cumulative Total
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

122.71

23.62 2.46

0.52 <0.11

0.03 BAAQMD Cumulative-Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

Yes
No

No
No
Notes: Bold text denotes an exceedance of BAAQMD significance thresholds. * Mitigated assumes the implementation of condition of approval COA AQ-1.1, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 under Impact AQ-1.1 Maximum assuming third- trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.

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

As shown in Table 4.1-9, the cumulative health risk (specifically excess cancer risk and annual PM2.5 concentration) is less than significant with the project’s implementation of standard c ondition of approval COA AQ-1.1, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, and project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2. The Hazard Index is below the cumulative threshold of significance. This is the same impact as identified in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)]

Middlefield Park Master Plan 67 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Odor
The project would redevelop a site currently developed with light industrial and office uses into a mixed-use neighborhood including office, residential, retail , and civic/community uses, and open space/parks. Except potential odor impacts from operation of the proposed wastewater treatment plant included in the project with District Utilities System Option, the project (under either option) would not result in odor impacts. As discussed under Impact AQ -4 above, implementation of m itigation measures MM AQ -4.1 and MM AQ -4.2 would avoid odor impacts through development and implementation of an odor control plan. There are no other sources of substantial odors in the Precise Plan area that, when combined with the project (under either option), would result in s ignificant cumulative odor impacts. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not result in significant cumulative odor impacts. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Cumulative Impact)]

4.1.3 Non-CEQ
A Effects
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD), effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts.

The following discussion is included for informational purposes only beca use the City of Mountain View requires health risk assessments for new residential developments near sources of air pollution pursuant to General Plan Policies INC 20.6 and INC 20.7.

The same TAC sources identified to evaluate project impacts under Impact AQ-1 above were used to assess on-site health risks. Details about the on-site health risk modeling, data inputs, and assumptions are included in Appendix C. Table 4.1-10 summarizes the results of the health risk assessment for on- site sensitive receptors and shows project construction would pose the highest health risk on-site .

However, with the implementation of condition of approval COA AQ-1.1, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-

3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 discussed under Impact AQ- 1 above, and when combined with other cumulative sources, the on-site health risks would be below the BAAQMD thresholds.

Table 4.1-10: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)2
Hazard Index2
Overlapping Project Construction and Operation
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

46.80 8.79

<0.67
<0.14

<0.10
<0.01
Cumulative Traffic 1.45 0.02 <0.01
Cumulative Stationary 6.38 0.01 0.01
BAAQMD Single-Source Threshold 10 0.3 1.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No

Middlefield Park Master Plan 68 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 4.1-10: Impacts from Cumulative TAC Sources at the Project Site Source
Maximum
Cancer Risk
(per million)1
PM2.5
concentration
(μg/m3)2
Hazard Index2
Cumulative Total
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)

54.63 16.62
<0.72
<0.19
<0.12
<0.03
BAAQMD Cumulative Source Threshold 100 0.8 10.0
Exceed Threshold?
(unmitigated)
(mitigated*)
No
No
No
No
No
No
* Mitigated assumes the implementation of the conditions of approval COA AQ-.1, Precise Plan EIR MM AQ-3.1, and new project mitigation measures MM AQ-1.1 and MM AQ-1.2 under Impact AQ-1.1 Maximum assuming third-trimester fetus, infant, child exposure for construction and child/adult exposure during operation for 30-year exposure.

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

4.1.4 Conc lusion
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
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.

No S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM AQ-

3.1 and
MM AQ-

1.1 SU
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.

No S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM AQ-

3.1 and
MM AQ-

1.1 SU
AQ-3:

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

No S MM AQ-

1.1 SU
AQ-4:

Project: The project (under either
option) would not result in other
emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people.

Yes LTS None N/A

Middlefield Park Master Plan 69 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
Project with District Utilities System
Option: The project (with District
Utilities System Option) would not
result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people.

No S MM AQ-

4.1 and 4.2 LTS
AQ-C:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
a cumulatively considerable contribution
to a cumulatively significant air quality
impact.

No S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM AQ-

3.1, MM
AQ-1.1,
and AQ-1.2
LTS
Abbreviations: S-Significant, LTS – Less than Significant, SU – Significant, Unavoidable Impact

Middlefield Park Master Plan 70 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
SECTION 5.0 PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED EFFECTS
The City of Mountain View as the CEQA Lead Agency has determined that, based on the analysis in this section, the impacts of the proposed project on the following environmental factors were adequately addressed in the Precise Plan EIR and the General Plan EIR.

5.1 Aesthetics

5.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

5.3 Biological Resources

5.4 Cultural Resources

5.5 Energy

5.6 Geology and Soils

5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.10 Land Use and Planning

5.11 Mineral Resources

5.12 Noise

5.13 Population and Housing

5.14 Public Services

5.15 Recreation

5.16 Transportation

5.17 Tribal Cultural Resources

5.18 Utilities and Service Systems

5.19 Wildfire

As discussed in this section, the project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts for the environmental factors listed above than disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR and General Plan EIR.

The following discussion of the above environmental factors includes the same environmental setting and impact discussion subsections as provided in Section 4.0 for air quality. No cumulative impacts subsection is included as the project-level impacts were found to be the same as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR and General Plan EIR and, therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts is the same as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR and General Plan EIR. Refer to the Precise Plan EIR for a discussion of cumulative impacts to the above environmental factors.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 71 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.1 AESTHETICS

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

5.1.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT). SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts. As part of SB 743, in order to encourage infill development and mode shift away from automobile use, a project’s parking impacts will no longer be considered a significant impact on the environment and aesthetic impacts will no longer be considered significant impacts on the environment under CEQA if:

• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project, and • The project is located on an infill site within a transit priority area. 61 SB 743 also clarifies that local governments retain their ability to regulate a project’s aesthetics impacts outside of the CEQA process.

Streets and Highway Code Sections 260 through 263
The California Scenic Highway Program (Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260 through 263) is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The program is intended to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors through special conservation treatment.

61 An “infill site” is defined as “a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins , or is separated only by an improved public right-of- way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses.” A “transit priority area” is defined as “an area within

0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” A “major transit stop” means “a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” Source: Public Resources Code Section 21009. Accessed September 3, 2021. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public- resources-code/prc-sect-21099.html.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 72 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Local
In July 2019, the City of Mountain View Department of Public Works revised the Standard Provisions and Standard Details. The Standard Design Criteria establish parameters for the design, materials, and construction methods for street design, including criteria for street lighting. Additionally, the project is subject to review by the City of Mountain View’s Development Review Committee to review project-specific design and aesthetics.

5.1.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site is within a transit priority area, pursuant to SB 743 (see Figure 5.1-1).

The approximately 40- acre project site is located within the larger 412-acre Precise Plan area. As described in Section 3.0 Project Information and shown in Figure 3.2-4, the project site is not all contiguous and is generally bounded by the property of the City and County of San Francisco (often referred to as the SFPUC right-of-way) to the north that consists of paved areas and landscaping, East Middlefield Road (a four- lane roadway) to the south, Ellis Street (a four-lane roadway) to the west, and the Sunnyvale Municipal golf course and SR 237 (a four-lane freeway) to the east.

The project site is currently developed with 23 office and light industrial buildings, ranging from one to four stories in he ight and totaling approximately 684,645 square feet. The buildings are a mix of older and more contemporary architecture. The older office buildings (built between 1960 and 1990 are lower intensity (one - to two -stories tall) with brick, stucco, or concrete facades. T he more contemporary buildings (built between 1990 and the present) are generally taller (up to four stories) with glass expanses, stone facades, and metal details. All the buildings are surrounded by surface parking, and landscaping (primarily consisting of mature trees) is limited to the perimeter of the buildings and within the parking lots. Light rail tracks run north-south dividing the project site into two portions (see Figure 3.2-4). The Middlefield Light Rail Station is located on East Middlefield Road at the midblock between Ellis Street and Logue Avenue. The Middlefield Light Rail Station is a paved at-grade platform station with two shade structures located between the northbound and southbound light rail tracks. The Hetch -Hetchy/TOD Trail, which is a multi- modal paved trail that provides off- street access between Ellis Street and Stevens Creek Trail, is located approximately 65 feet west of the project site, across Ellis Street. Existing sources of light within and adjacent to the project site include streetlights, indoor lighting, and outdoor security lighting, as well as lighting from vehicles traveling on roadways.

1/2 m
ile radius from the Whisman Light Rail Station
1/2 m
ile radius from
the M
iddlefield Light Rail Station
1/2 Mile RadiusFrom
The Bayshore/nasa Light Rail Station
1/2
m
ile
radiusfrom
theWhismanLight Rail Station
1/2m
ile
radiusfrom
the
M
iddlefieldLightRailStation
1/2MileRadiusFrom
TheBayshore/nasaLightRailStation
Manila DriveManila Drive
West Maude AvenueWest Maude Avenue
East Middlefield Road
EastMiddlefieldRoadEast Evelyn AvenueEast Evelyn Avenue Pacific DrivePacific Drive
Clyd
e Avenue
Clyd
e Avenue
Kittoe DriveKittoe Drive
Fairchild DriveFairchild Drive
Ayala DriveAyala Drive
237
85 101
North Whisman RoadNorth Whisman Road
North Mary AvenueNorth Mary Avenue
South Mary AvenueSouth Mary
Avenue
Whisman
Station
Middlefield
Station
Bayshore/NASA
Station
TRANSIT PRIORITY AREA FIGURE 5.1-1
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 11, 2015. Photo Date: Feb. 2014 0 250 1,500 2,000 3,000 Feet
MPMP Site Boundary
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail Station

Middlefield Park Master Plan 74 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.1.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on aesthetics, except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings?
62 If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? 4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

5.1.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact AES-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a significant aesthetics impact. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that the implementation of the Precise Plan , including development of the project site, would not result in significant aesthetic impacts.63 As discussed in the Precise Plan EIR, pursuant to SB 743, “aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed -use residential, or employment center on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” The proposed project (including the proposed future bicycle/pedestrian bridge overcrossing and future city parks) would meet the criteria of SB 743 because it is a mixed-use residential project located on an infill site within a transit priority area. Additionally, the project includes design objectives for all building designs within the project area, which are consistent with the Precise Plan design guidelines and standards and the project exterior building, site lighting, and street lighting would be designed in accordance with Ci ty’s Building Code, Public Works’ Standard Design Criteria
64, and Caltrans requirements (if applicable). Furthermore, consistent with City standard procedures, the project would be required to comply with the following standard conditions of approval.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA AES -1.1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) shall implement the following measures:

• Lighting Plan. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan in building permit drawings. This plan should include photometric contours, manufacturer’s specifications on the fixtures, and mounting heights. The design and location of

62 Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points. 63 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 36-39. 64 City of Mountain View, Standard Design Criteria. August 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 75 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
outdoor lighting fixtures shall ensure there would be no glare and light spillover to surrounding properties , which is demonstrated with photometric contours extending beyond the project property lines . The lighting plan submitted with building permit drawings must be approved by the Zoning Administrator prior to building permit issuance.

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

The project (under either option), therefore, would result in a less than significant aesthetics impact.

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

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
a significant aesthetics impact.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS – Less than Significant

Middlefield Park Master Plan 76 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

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

5.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) assesses the location, quality, and quantity of agricultural land and conversion of these lands over time.

Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The highest quality land is identified as Prime Farmland. In CEQA analyses, the FMMP classifications and published county maps are used, in part, to identify whether agricultural resources that could be affected are present on- site or in the project area.
65 California Land Conservation Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners to restrict parcels of land to agricultural or related open space uses.

In return, landowners receive lower property tax assessments. In CEQA analyses, identification of properties that are under a Williamson Act contract is used to also identify sites that may contain agricultural resources or are zoned for agricultural uses. 66 Fire and Resource Assessment Program
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) identifies forest land, timberland, and lands zoned for timberland production that can (or do) support forestry resources. 67 Programs such as CAL FIRE ’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program and are used to identify whether forest land, timberland, or timberland production areas that could be a ffected are located on or adjacent to a project site.68

65 California Department of Conservation. “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.” Accessed August 24, 2021. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx. 66 California Department of Conservation. “Williamson Act.” Accessed September 8, 2021. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca.
67 Forest Land is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover and allows for management of forest resources (California Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); Timberland is land not owned by the federal government or designated as experimental forest land that is available for, and capable of, growing trees to produce lumber and other products, including Christmas trees (California Public Resources Code Section 4526); and Timberland Production is land used for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses (Government Code Section 51104(g)). 68 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “Fire and Resource Assessment Program.” Accessed August 24, 2021. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 77 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions
According to the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 map, the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land, meaning the land contains a building density of at least six units per 10-acre parcel or is used for industrial or commercial purposes, golf courses, landfills, airports, or other utilities.69 The project site is not currently used for agricultural or forestry uses and has a General Plan land use designation of High Intensity Office and East Whisman Mixed-Use. The site is zoned P-41 East Whisman Precise Plan. The site is currently developed with office buildings and light industrial , surface parking, and landscaping. The project site is not located adjacent to areas used for agricultural or forestry uses. The nearest agricultural uses to the proj ect site are located at 253 North Whisman Road, approximately 575 feet southwest of the project site. The property at 253 North Whisman Road has an Agriculture (AW) zoning designation, and is designated as Unique Farmland in the Farml and Mapping and Monitoring Program.
70 The property is currently under a Williamson Act contract.71

5.2.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on agriculture and forestry resources, would the project:

1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as de fined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
4) Result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?

69 California Department of Co nservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Accessed September 8, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
70 Ibid.
71 City of Mountain View. Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy Program EIR.

September 2012. Pp. 58 – 60.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 78 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.2.2.1 Project Impacts
The Precise Plan area does not include agricultural or forestry resources, therefore, the EWPP EIR did not include an analysis of potential agriculture and forestry resources impacts because t he implementation of the Precise Plan would not impact those resources. There would continue to be no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources with the project. This is exemplified in the discussion below.

Impact AG-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2 Existing Conditions, the project site is designated as Urban and Built- Up Land in the Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2016 map. None of the parcels within the project site are designated as farmland pursuant to FMMP ma ps. Therefore, implementation of the project (under either option) would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

The project site is not used or zoned for agricultural use, nor is the project site subject to a Williamson Act contract. For these reasons, implementation of the project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning or a Williamson Act contract. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-3:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. ( Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed in Section 5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions above, the project site is zoned for urban uses and is not used or zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, implementation of the project (under either option) would not conflict with existing zoning for (or cause rezoning of) forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 79 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact AG-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

The project site is not used as forest land, designated as forest land, or located adjacent to forest land.

The project (under either option) would, therefore, not result in a loss of forest land or a conversion of forest land to non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact AG-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As discussed previously in Section 5.2.1.2 Existing Conditions , the project site and most of the surrounding area are designated as Urban Built -Up Land. There is no designated forest land on the project site or surrounding area. Isolated agricultural land, currently used for orchards , is located approximately 575 feet southwest of the project site on the south side of East Middlefield Road.

Generally, increased urban development in proximity to agricultural lands could result in increased development pressure on agricultural lands to convert to nonagricultural uses due to the increased land value and limited access to agricultural support industries. This agricultural land, however, is currently under an active Williamson Act contract, which prevents land under contract from being used for any purposes other than commercial production of agricultural commodities. For this reason, the project (under either option) would not result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural or non-forest use. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not convert
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with existing zoning for, or cause
Yes NI None N/A

Middlefield Park Master Plan 80 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same
Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production
AG-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
a loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use.

Yes NI None N/A
AG-5:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not involve
other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 81 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The discussion in this section is based, in part, on an arborist report prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting. This report is attached as Appendix D.

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

5.3.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Endangered Species Act
Individual plant and animal species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered under state and federal Endangered Species Acts are considered special-status species. Federal and state endangered species legislation has provided the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Permits may be required from both the USFWS and CDFW if activities associated with a proposed project would result in the take of a species listed as threatened or endangered. To “take” a listed species, as defined by the State of California, is “to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture , or kill” these species. Take is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Specie s Act to include harm of a listed species.

In addition to species listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts, Sections 15380(b) and (c) of the CEQA Guidelines provide that all potential rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, must be considered as part of the environmental review process. These may include plant species listed by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW-listed Species of Special Concern.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits killing, capture, possession, or trade of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Hunting and poaching are also prohibited. The taking and killing of birds resulting from an activity is not prohibited by the MBTA when the underlying purpose of that activity is not to take birds. 72 Nesting
birds are considered special-status species and are protected by the USFWS. The CDFW also protects migratory and nesting birds under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800.

The CDFW defines taking as causing abandonment and/or loss of reproductive efforts through disturbance.

72 United States Department of the Interior. “Memorandum M-37050. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act Does Not Prohibit Incidental Take.” Accessed August 19, 2021. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/m-37050.pdf.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 82 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Sensitive Habitat Regulations
Wetland and riparian habitats are considered sensitive habitats under CEQA. They are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation by the U nited States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFW, and/or the USFWS under provisions of the federal Clean Water Act (e.g., Sections 303, 304, 404) and State of California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Streambeds and banks, as well as associated riparian habitat, are regulated by the CDFW per Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Work within the bed or banks of a stream or the adjacent riparian habitat requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW.

Regional and Local
Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) covers approximately 520,000 acres, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County. It was developed and adopted through a partnership between Santa Clara County, the cities of San José, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water), VTA, USFWS, and CDFW. The Habitat Plan is intended to promote the recovery of endangered species and enhance ecological diversity and function, while accommodating planned growth in southern Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency is responsible for implementing the plan.

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

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 16.3 Habitat. Protect and enhance nesting, foraging and other habitat for special-status species and other wildlife.

INC 16.6 Built environment habitat. Integrate biological resources, such as green roofs and native landscaping, into the built environment.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 12.1 Heritage trees. Protect trees as an ecological and biological resource.

POS 12.2 Urban tree canopy. Increase tree canopy coverage to expand shaded areas, enhanc e aesthetics and help reduce greenhouse gases.

POS 12.3 Planter strip. Require tree planter strips be wide enough to support healthy trees and well - maintained public infrastructure.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 83 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Policy Description
POS 12.4 Drought-tolerant landscaping. Increase water-efficient, drought -tolerant and native landscaping where appropriate on public and private property.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. Pp.135, 152, 59

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains policies and guidelines related to biological resources. Landscaping and sustainability guidelines include planting native plants and tree species that support native wildlife and build biological diversity.

Mountain View City Code
Section 32.25 of the City Code contains Heritage tree preservation standards that require maintenance and preservation of Heritage trees, tree removal permits for the removal of Heritage trees, and conditions for preservation during construction or grading activity. Mountain View City Code Chapter 32, Article II defines a “Heritage Tree” as a tree with any of the following characteristics: a tree trunk with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade.

Multi-trunk trees are measured just below the first major trunk fork. Any of the following three species of trees with a circumference of twelve inches or more, measured at fifty-four inches above natural grade: Quercus (oak), Sequoia (redwood), Cedrus (cedar), and groves of trees designated as “heritage” by the City Council.

5.3.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site is within an urban area and provides habitat and foraging opportunities for urban- adapted birds. No rare, threatened, endangered, or special -status sp ecies are known to inhabit the project site, as described in the Precise Plan EIR .73 The primary biological resource on-site is trees.

The project site contains 1,032 trees, including 310 Heritage trees . No wetlands are present on the project site. The nearest wetlands to the project site are freshwater ponds located within the Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course, approximately 500 feet east of the project site, and Stevens Creek riverine habitat approximately 0.9-mile west of the project site.

5.3.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on biological resources, would the project:

1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plan s, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?

73 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 64.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 84 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
3) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5.3.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact BIO-1: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Special Status Species
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that, based on the highly urbanized and developed nature of the Precise Plan area, no natural communities or habitats for special -status plant and animal species are present and implementation of the Precise Plan (including development of the project site) would not result in impacts to special-status species or sensitive habitats. 74 The conditions in and around the project site have not changed substantially since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR. For this reason, the project (under either option) would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Nesting Birds
The existing buildings, mature trees, and vegetation on-site can provide foraging and nesting opportunities for a variety of bird species. The proposed project (under either option) would demolish existing buildings, remove 823 existing on-site trees (including 310 Heritage trees), and remove other landscaping/vegetation. Raptors (birds of prey) and nesting birds are protected by the MBTA and the CDFW code requirements. Urban-adapted raptors or other avian nests present on or adjacent to the site could be disturbed by project construction activities and result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a taking by the CDFW and would constitute a significant impact.

In compliance with the MBTA and CDFW code and consistent with the Precise Plan EIR, the project (under either option) shall implement the following City standard c ondition of approval to reduce or avoid construction-related impacts to nesting birds (including raptors) and their nests to a less than significant level.

74 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp 65.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 85 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Standard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-1.1: Both Project Options : Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey . To the extent practicable, vegetation removal and construction activities shall be performed from September 1 through January 31 to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, preconstruction surveys shall be performed no more than two days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests as follows:
• The applicant shall be responsible for the retention of a qualified biologist to conduct a survey of the project site and surrounding 500 feet for active nests— with particular emphasis on nests of migratory birds if construction (including site preparation) begins during the bird nesting season, from February 1 through August 31. If active nests are observed on either the project site or surrounding area, the project biologist , in coordination with the appropriate City staff, shall establish no-disturbance buffer zones around the nests (usually 100 feet for perching birds and 300 feet for raptors). The no-disturbance buffer shall remain in place until the biologist determines the nest is no longer active or the nesting season ends. If construction ceases for two days or more and then resumes during the nesting season, an additional survey shall be necessary to avoid impacts on active bird nests that may be present.

With the implementation of the above standard condition of approval, the project (under either option) would result in a less than significant impact to nesting birds because preconstruction surveys would ensure no nesting birds or nests are located on-sit e during construction and if they are, then buffer zones would be established around nests during construction. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Bird Strike Hazards
Bird safe design measures included in the Precise Plan are intended to help diminish the likelihood of building collision fatalities through façade treatments and light pollution reduction. The proposed project would be required to incorporate the foll owing Precise Plan design standards to reduce bird collision risk, which can be found in Chapter 4 of the Precise Plan.

1. Façade Treatments. No more than 10 percent of the surface area of a building’s total exterior façade shall have bird-friendly glazing between the ground and 60 feet above ground.

Examples of bird- friendly glazing treatments include opaque glass, covering of clear glass surface with patterns, use of paned glass with fenestration patterns, and use of external screens over non-reflective glass.

2. Occupancy Sensors. For non-residential development, occupancy sensors or other switch control devices shall be installed on non-emergency lights. These lights should be programmed to shut off during non-work hours and between 10:00 p.m. and sunrise.

3. Funneling of Flight Paths. New construction shall avoid funneling of flight paths along buildings or trees towards a building façade.

4. Skyways, Walkways, or Glass Walls . New construction and building additions shall avoid building glass skyways or walkways, freestanding glass walls, transparent building corners, or

Middlefield Park Master Plan 86 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
landscaping behind glass (such as in atriums). New construction and building additions should minimize the use of glass at tops of buildings, especially when incorporating a green roof into the design.

5. Exceptions to the Bird Safe Design Requirements. The City may waive or reduce any of this chapter’s bird safe design requirements based on analysis by a qualified biologist indicating that proposed construction would not pose a collision hazard to birds. Alternatively, additional design measures may be required based on an analysis by a qualified biologist.

These features would be incorporated into the final development plans for the project (under either option), which would be reviewed by the Planning Division at the time of planning and building permits to ensure proper implementation (consistent with the Precise Plan). With incorporation of the above standard condition of approval and Precise Plan standards, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact to bird species due to collisions by implementing façade treatments and light pollution reduction, which would deter birds. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.
75 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant])

Impact BIO-2: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

There is no riparia n habitat or wetland on or adjacent to the site. The nearest wetlands to the project site are freshwater ponds in Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course, approximately 500 feet east and Stevens Creek riverine habitat approximately 0.9- mile west of the project site. 76 Project construction would not impact either area because activities would be contained on the project site and the off-site construction staging areas. For these reasons, the project would not have an impact on state or federally protected riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, or wetlands. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.77 (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact BIO-3: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means . (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

See discussion under Impact BIO -2 above. The project (under either option) would not impact wetlands. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

75 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 66.
76 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory, Surface Waters and Wetlands. Map.

November 2019.
77 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 67.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 87 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact BIO-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project site is currently developed and surrounded by existing urban development. There are no waterways on-site . Neither the site nor adjacent properties contain any riparian corridors, wildlife areas, open space, or wetlands that provide habitat or movement corridors for fish or other wildlife species. In addition, as discussed under Impact BIO-1, the project shall incorporate bird safe building design measures to reduce bird collision fatalities , and implement standard conditions of approval to protect nesting birds . The project site is not within a location consisting of high concentrations of breeding wildlife of one or several species. The development of the project (under either option) , therefore, would not impact a wildlife nursery site. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.78 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact BIO-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

General Plan Policies
The project (under either option) would integrate native and drought -tolerant landscaping (consistent with General Plan Policy INC 16.6) and would be required to follow standard conditions of approval to protect nesting birds during construction (consistent with General Plan Policy 16.3). The project (under both options), therefore, would comply with General Plan policies related to biological resource protection. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.79 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Precise Plan Policies
The project (under either option) would plant native plants and tree species that support native wildlife and build biological diversity, consistent with Precise Plan requirements for biological resources. The project (under either option), therefore, would comply with Precise Plan policies related to biological resource protection. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Tree Preservation Ordinance
The project (under either option) would remove 823 existing on-site trees, including 310 Heritage trees, from the project site. The project would plant a minimum of 620 new trees. The City of Mountain View regulations require a permit to remove or move any tree over 48-inches in circumference or any oak, Sequoia, or cedar over 12-inches in circumference (measured at 54-inch above grade). A City of

78 Ibid. P 66.
79 Ibid. P 67.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 88 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Mountain View Heritage Tree Removal Permit is required before any Heritage trees are removed. The proposed project would implement the following standard City conditions of approval to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and other city policies.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA BIO-2.1: Both Project O ptions: The project (under either option) shall implement the following measures:

• Arborist Report. A qualified arborist shall provide written instructions for the care of the existing tree(s) to remain on-site before, during, and after construction. The report shall also include a detailed plan showing installation of chain link fencing around the dripline to protect these trees and installation of an irrigation drip system and water tie -in for supplemental water during construction. Arborist’s reports shall be received by the Planning Division and must be approved prior to issuance of building permits. Prior to occupancy, the arborist shall certify in writing that all tree preservation measures have been implemented. Approved measures from the report shall be included in the building permit drawings.
• Arborist Inspections. During demolition activity and upon demolition completion, a qualified arborist shall inspect and verify the measures described in the arborist report are appropriately implemented for construction activity near and around the preserved trees, including the critical root zones. Should it be determined that the root systems are more extensive than previously identified and/or concerns are raised of nea rby excavation or construction activities for the project foundation or underground parking garage, the design of the building and/or parking garage may need to be altered to maintain the health of the trees prior to building permit issuance.
• Monthly Arborist Inspections. Throughout demolition and construction, a qualified arborist must conduct monthly inspections to ensure tree protection measures and maintenance care are provided. A copy of the inspection letter, including recommendations for modifications to tree care or construction activity to maintain tree health, shall be provided to the Planning Division at [email protected].
• Replacement. The applicant shall offset the loss of each Heritage tree with a minimum of two new trees. Each replacement tree shall be no smaller than a 24-inch box and shall be noted on the landscape plans submitted for building permit review as Heritage replacement trees.
• Street Tree Protections. All designated City street trees to remain are to be protected throughout construction activity with protection measures shown on building permit plans.
• Tree Protection Measures. The tree protection measures listed in the projects arborist report shall be included as notes on the title sheet of all grading and landscape plans. These measures shall include, but may not be limited to, six- foot chain link fencing at the drip line, a continuous maintenance and care

Middlefield Park Master Plan 89 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
program, and protective grading techniques. Also, no materials may be stored within the drip line of any tree on the project site.
• Tree Mitigation and Preservation Plan . The applicant shall develop a tree mitigation and preservation plan to avoid impacts on regulated trees and mitigate for the loss of trees that cannot be avoided. The plan shall also outline measures to be taken to preserve off-site trees. Routine monitoring for the first five years and corrective actions for trees that consistently fail the performance standards shall be included in the tree mitigation and preservation plan. The tree mitigation and preservation plan shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 32, Articles I and II, of the City Code, and subject to approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to removal or disturbance of a ny Heritage trees resulting from project activities, including site preparation activities.

In conclusion, w ith implementation of the above standard condition of approval , the project (under either option) would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Policies, Precise Plan Policies, and City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance and policies. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact BIO-6:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project site is not part of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conser vation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project (under either option), therefore, would not conflict with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan/Natu ral Community Conservation Plan (Habitat Plan) is a conservation program to promote the recovery of endangered species in portions of Santa Clara County while accommodating planned development, infrastructure and maintenance activities. The Precise Plan area, including the project site, is located outside the Habitat Plan area and outside of the expanded study area for burrowing owl conservation.

Nitrogen deposition contribution estimates of impacts on serpentine habitat in Santa Clara County were made as a part of the development of the Habitat Plan. The Precise Plan EIR concluded the nitrogen emissions (based on existing and future vehicle emissions) that would result from build-out of the Precise Plan are less than cumulatively considerable (given that buildout of the Precise Plan is a small portion of Santa Clara County’s overall emissions).
80 The Habitat Plan accounts for the indirect
impacts of nitrogen deposition (existing and future) and identifies measures to conserve and manage serpentine areas over the term of the Habitat Plan, such that cumulative impacts to this habitat and associated special-status species would not be significant and adverse. For these reasons, the project

80 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020.

Pp. 68-69.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 90 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
(under either option) would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be consistent with those identified in the Precise Plan EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the
CDFW or USFWS.

Yes NI None N/A
BIO-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not have a
substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.

Yes NI None N/A
BIO-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-5:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance.

Yes LTS None N/A
BIO-6:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS – Less than Significant, NI – No Impact

Middlefield Park Master Plan 91 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based, in part, on a Historic Resources Evaluation completed by ESA and peer reviewed by PaleoWest. The Historic Resources Evaluation and peer review memorandum are attached as Appendix E.

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

5.4.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
National Historic Preservation Act
Federal protection of cultural resources is legislated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979. These laws maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA and related regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800 et seq. ) constitute the primary federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP. Impacts to properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.

The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of historic resources that are considered significant at the national, state, or local level. The minimum criteria for determining NRHP eligibility include:

• The property is at least 50 years old (properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP); • It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:
o Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (Criterion 1);
o Association with the lives of persons significant in the past (Criterion 2); o Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion 3); or
o Has yielded, or may yield, information important to prehistory or history (Criterion 4); and
• It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations.

California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is administered by the State Office of Historic

Middlefield Park Master Plan 92 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Preservation and encourages protection of resources of architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural significance. The CRHR identifies historic resources for state and local planning purposes and affords protections under CEQA. Under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the NRHP criteria. 81 Historical resources eligible for listing in the CRHR must meet the significance criteria described above and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the CRHR if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.

The concept of integrity is essential to identifying the important physical characteristics of historical resources and, therefore, in evaluating adverse changes to them. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resourc e's period of significance.” If a property is determined not to be historically significant, by definition, it does not have integrity. The processes of determining integrity are similar for both the CRHR and NRHP and use the same seven variables or aspects to define integrity that are used to evaluate a resource's eligibility for listing. These seven characteristics include : 1) location, 2) design, 3) setting, 4) materials, 5) workmanship, 6) feeling, and 7) association.

California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act applies to both state and private lands. The act requires that upon discovery of human remains, construction or excavation activity must cease, and the county coroner be notified.

Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifies procedures to be used in the event of an unexpected discovery of Native American human remains on non-federal land. These procedures are outlined in Public Resources Code Sections 5097 and 5097.98. These codes protect such remains from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction; establish procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project ; and establish the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the authority to resolve disputes regarding disposition of such remains.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, in the event of human remains discovery, no further disturbance is allowed until the county coroner has made the necessary findings regarding the origin and disposition of the remains. If the remains are of a Native American, the county coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be related to the Native American remains. The code section also stipulates the procedures that the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 93 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts to cultural resources. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 11.5 Archaeological and paleontological site protection. Require all new development to meet state codes regarding the identification and protection of archaeological and paleontological deposits.

LUD 11.6 Human remains. Require all new development to meet sta te codes regarding the identification and protection of human remains.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. P. 54

5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions
Historic Resources
There are no known historic resources within the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site).
82,83,84 The project site is currently developed with 23 office/light industrial buildings that were constructed between the 1960s and 1990s. Of the 23 existing buildings on-site, the following 20 are 45 years or older85 (refer to Figure 5.4-1 for the location of these buildings within the project):

1 433 Clyde Avenue (1967) 11 520-526 Clyde Avenue (1972) 2 485 Clyde Avenue (1970) 12 440 Clyde Avenue (1965)
3 495 Clyde Avenue (1968) 13 450 Clyde Avenue (1965)
4 500 Logue Avenue (1972) 14 420 Clyde Avenue (1968)
5 510 Logue Avenue (1972) 15 880 Maude Avenue (1968)
6 520 Logue Avenue (1972) 16 800 Maude Avenue (1968)
7 530 Logue Avenue (1972) 17 830 Maude Avenue (1968)
8 433 Clyde Avenue (1967) 18 840-850 Maude Avenue (1968) 9 500-506 Clyde Avenue (1972) 19 440 Logue Avenue (1964) 10 510-516 Clyde Avenue (1972) 20 885 Maude Avenue (1963)

82 National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm 83 California State Parks Office of Historic Preservation. California Register o f Historical Resources. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238 84 City of Mountain View. Register of Historic Resources. Accessed November 12, 2021. https://www.livablemv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/MV-Local-Historic-Registry-List.pdf 85 Per the National Historic Preservation Act, properties 50 years or older meet the minimum age requirement for potential eligibility as historic resources. Due to the duration of project construction (8.5 years), structures that are 45 years old when this EIR was prepared were included because they would meet the minimum age requirement for potential eligibility during project construction.

West Maude Avenue
Clyde Avenue
Clyde AvenueClyde Court
Logue AvenueEast Middlefield Road
Ellis Street
West Maude Avenue
Clyde
Avenue
Clyde AvenueClyde
Court
Logue AvenueEast MiddlefieldRoad
Ellis Street
237
237
VTA Light Rail
VTA Light Rail
Maude Avenue
MaudeAvenue
97 6
5 4
3 1
2 8
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
LOCATION OF BUILDINGS 45 YEARS AND OLDER FIGURE 5.4-1
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 29, 2021. Photo Date: Sep. 2020 0 100 600 800 1,200 Feet
MPMP Site Boundary
Approved 400 Logue
Avenue Residential Project
Approved 355 E. Middlefield
Road Residential Project
Off-site Construction
Staging Areas
237

1. 433 Clyde Avenue (1967)

11. 520-526 Clyde Avenue (1972)

2. 485 Clyde Avenue (1970)

12. 440 Clyde Avenue (1965)

3. 495 Clyde Avenue (1968)

13. 450 Clyde Avenue (1965)

4. 500 Logue Avenue (1972)

14. 420 Clyde Avenue (1968)

5. 510 Logue Avenue (1972)

15. 880 Maude Avenue (1968)

6. 520 Logue Avenue (1972)

16. 800 Maude Avenue (1968)

7. 530 Logue Avenue (1972)

17. 830 Maude Avenue (1968)

8. 18.
840-850 Maude Avenue (1968)

9. 500-506 Clyde Avenue (1972)

19. 440 Logue Avenue (1964)

10. 510-516 Clyde Avenue (1972)
885 Maude Avenue (1963)
Hetch Hetchy TOD Trail
- ----

Middlefield Park Master Plan 95 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
According to a Historic Resources Survey Report provided by the applicant and peer review of that analysis by the City’s consultant, none of the buildings on the project site have be en identified as historic resources in the City of Mountain View Register of Historic Resources, or are listed or are eligible for listing on the CRHR or the NRHP.86,87 While the 20 existing buildings are associated with sprawling development of office parks in Silicon Valley, this pattern of development is typical for the time and none of the structures appear to have risen above typical associations with these events. For these reasons, the buildings are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 1. Archival research on the 20 buildings did not reveal any significant associations with people or businesses in a potential period of significance for these buildings.

Therefore, the buildings are not considered eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 2. The 20 buildings are typical and modest examples of corporate modern architectural style and are not the work of a master architect or builder. For these reasons, the buildings are not eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and Mountain View Registers under Criterion 3. Furthermore, the 20 buildings do not have the potential to yield more information and, therefore, are not eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, a nd Mountain View Registers under Criterion 4. A lthough the buildings were constructed in the same timeframe and share a historical association to early Silicon Valley, neither the group, or a subset of them represent a historic district.

As a collection of buildings, they represent typical suburban office park development from the late 1960s and 1970s, and do not pos sess characteristics that would make them unique or significant for the period. Because the buildings are not historically significant, they do not possess integrity and no integrity analysis is required.

Prehistoric Resources
As part of the Precise Plan EIR, a records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including an examination of the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in the Precise Plan area, as well as a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California State Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, the Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory, Caltrans Local Bridges Surveys, and secondary sources pertaining to state and local prehistory and history. Based upon the research, archaeological resources were not identified on the project site.

Areas that are near natural water sources (e.g., riparian corridors and tidal marshland) would be considered highly sensitive for prehistoric archaeological deposits and human remains. The project site is approximately two miles from the San Francisco Bay and approximately 0. 9-mile east of Stevens Creek. The freshwater ponds located within the Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course are manmade water sources and were not present during the prehistoric period. Thus, the presence of these freshwater ponds does not indicate high sensitivity for prehistoric archaeological deposits or human remains. As discussed in the Precise Plan EIR, there are no known cultural resources within the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site), and the area is considered moderately archaeologically sensitive. 88 86 ESA. East Whisman 19-Property Survey, Historic Resources Survey Report. March 2022. 87 PaleoWest. Peer Review Memor andum, East Whisman 19 -Property Survey, Historic Resources Survey Report.

March 2022.
88 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp 72.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 96 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.4.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on cultural resources, would the project:

1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the si gnificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

5.4.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact CUL-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

As noted in Section 5.4.1 .2 Exi sting Conditions, there are no known historic resources within the Precise Plan. Due to the length of the proposed construction period (8.5 years), buildings on-site that are 45 years or older have the potential to meet the minimum age requirement (50 years) for eligibility as a historic resource during buildout of the project. The historic evaluation of these buildings, included in Appendix E and summarized in Section 5.4.1.2 Existing Conditions, concluded that none of the buildings are listed on or eligible for listing on a federal, state, or Mountain View list of historic resources. Furthermore, although the buildings were constructed in the same timeframe and share a historical association to early Silicon Valley, neither the group, or a subset of them represent a historic district (refer to Appendix E for further details). No buildings on or adjacent to the project site contain historic resources; therefore, construction of the project would not impact off-site historic resources. 89 For these reasons, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact to historic resources. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact Impact])

Impact CUL-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project site is currently developed and, as discussed in the Precise Plan EIR, it is unlikely that buried historical or prehistorical resources are present in most developed areas. 90 Although it is unlikely that buried historic or prehistoric buried archaeological and paleontological resources are present on the site, these resources could be encountered during excavation, construction, or

89 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 72.
90 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 74.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 97 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
infrastructure improvements for the project, resulting in a significant impact. The project (under either option) would implement the below standard conditions of approval related to the discovery of pre - historic or historic period archaeological resources and human remains (in compliance with General Plan Policies LU-11.5 and LU-11.6), should they be encountered on the site.

With incorporation of the following standard conditions of approval (as updated per consultation with Tamien Nation on November 22, 2021 and December 30, 2021), the project (under either option) would not result in a new or substantially more severe significant environmental impact than disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA CUL-1.1: Both Project O ptions: The project (under either option) shall implement the following measures:

• Cultural Sensitivity Training. As requested during the Tribal Consultation process for the project, Tribal Cultural Sensitivity Training shall be provided to the construction crews at the beginning of the project to aid those involved in the project to become more familiar with indigenous history of peoples in the vicinity of the project site.
• Native American Archaeological Monitor. A Tamien Nation Tribal monitor shall be present f or all ground-disturbing activities throughout the project construction process.
• Discovery of Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources. If indigenous or historic -era cultural materials are unearthed during ground-disturbing activities, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist , defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology, and Tamien Nation shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist and a Tamien Nation Tribal representative shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. Indigenous archaeological materials m ight include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks and artifacts; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered-stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic-period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and wall, filled wells or privies, and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the find is determined to be potentially significant, the archaeologist, in consultation with a Tamien Nation Tribal representative, shall develop a treatment plan that could include site avoidance, capping, or data recovery.
• Discovery of Human Remains . In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction or demolition, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 50 -foot radius of the location of such discovery, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 98 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his/her authority, he/she shall notify the NAHC, which shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the landowner shall reinter the human remains and items associa ted with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.

A final report shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Director prior to release of a Certificate of Occupancy. This report shall contain a description of the mitigation programs and its results, including a description of the monitoring and testing resources analysis methodology and conclusions, and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the City’s Community Development Director.

The project (under either option), in compliance with the above standard conditions of approval, would reduce impacts to unknown archaeological resources to a less than significant level by stopping work and monitoring resources to avoid impacts in the event of a discovery. This is the same impact as discussed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

Impact CUL-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

See discussion under Impact CUL-2. The project (under either option) would implement the standard conditions of approval. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5.

Yes LTS None N/A
CUL-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.5.

Yes LTS None N/A

Middlefield Park Master Plan 99 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same
Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
CUL-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not disturb
any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviations: NI – No Impact, LTS – Less than Significant

Middlefield Park Master Plan 100 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.5 ENERGY
The following discussion is based, in part, on an Air Quality Analysis completed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. This report is attached as Appendix C.

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

5.5.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
Energy Star and Fuel Efficiency
At the federal level, energy standards set by the EPA apply to numerous consumer products and appliances (e.g., the EnergyStar™ program). The EPA also sets fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and other modes of transportation.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2002, California established its Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable energy in the state’s electricity mix to 20 percent of retail sales by 2010.

Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order (EO) S -3-05, requiring statewide emissions reductions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2008, EO S -14-08 was signed into law, requiring retail sellers of electricity serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed SB 350 to codify California’s climate and clean energy goals.

A key provision of SB 350 requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030. SB 100, passed in 2018, requires 100 percent of electricity in California to be provided by 100 percent renewable and carbon-free sources by 2045.

Executive Order B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality
In September 2018, Governor Brown issued EO -B-55-18 To Achieve Carbon Neutrality, setting a statewide goal “to achieve carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative emissions thereafter.” The executive order requires CARB to “ensure future Scoping Plans identify and recommend measures to achieve the carbon neutrality g oal.” EO-B-55-18 supplements EO S-3-05 by requiring not only emissions reductions, but also that, by no later than 2045, the remaining emissions be offset by equivalent net removals of CO 2 from the atmosphere through sequestration.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 101 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
California Building Standards Code
The Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, as specified in Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24), was established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years.
91 Compliance with Title 24 is mandatory at the time new building permits are issued by city and county governments.92

California Green Building Standards Code
CalGreen establishes mandatory green building standards for buildings in California. C alGreen was developed to reduce GHG emissions from buildings, promote environmentally responsible and healthier places to live and work, reduce energy and water consumption, and respond to state environmental directives. C alGreen covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality.

Advanced Clean Cars Program
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars program in 2012 in coordination with the EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The program combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated set of requirements for vehicle model years 2015 through 2025. The program promotes development of environmentally superior passenger cars and other vehicles, as well as saving the consumer money through fuel savings. 93 Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to energy impacts. The following policy is applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD-10.5 Building energy efficiency. Incorporate energy-efficient design features and materials into new and remodeled buildings.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. P. 53

91 California Building Standards Commission. “California Building Standards Code.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.dgs.ca.gov/BSC/Codes#@ViewBag.JumpTo.
92 California Energy Commission (CEC). “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topi cs/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2019-building- energy-efficiency.
93 California Air Re sources Board. “The Advanced Clean Cars Program.” Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 102 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
The City’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) mitigates the environmental impacts of the General Plan and identifies strategies and measures to achieve BAAQMD 2030 emissions reductions goals. The GGRP includes measures to reduce emissions such as green building performance and vehicle trip reduction requirements.

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains standards, policies, and guidelines related to energy resources. Precise Plan development standards and bonus FAR requirements include requirements for residenti al and non- residential building energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. The Precise Plan requires vehicle trip caps, dual plumbing for potable and recycled water use, climate -resilient and drought tolerant landscaping, and implementation of sust ainable building designs and materials . The Precise Plan also requires new nonresidential Bonus FAR development to meet the intent of LEED BD+C Platinum or equivalent, and new residential Bonus FAR development to meet the intent of 120 points on the Green Point Rated system or equivalent, along with submetering, or other technology that can track individual energy use, for each residential unit.

Mountain View Green Building Code and Reach Code
The Mountain View Green Building Code (MVGBC) amends the state-mandated CalGreen standards to include local green building standards and requirements for private development. The MVGBC does not require formal certification from a third-party organization but requires projects to be designed and constructed to meet the intent of a third-party rating system. 94 For residential projects proposing over
five units, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of 70 GreenPoint Rated points from the Build it Green certification program, as well as compliance with mandatory CalGreen requirements. For non-residential projects proposing buildings between 5,000 and 25,000 square feet, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of LEED Certified and mandatory CalGreen requirements. For buildings over 25,000 square feet, the MVGBC requires those buildings meet the intent of LEED Silver and mandatory CalGreen requirements. Additionally, development projects subject to CalGreen requirements are required to divert at least 65 percent of construction debris from landfills.

In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the MVGBC, referred to as Reach Code amendments. The Reach Code amendments are applicable to any project submitted after December 31, 2019. These Reach Code amendments require new buildings to be all-electric with an exception for commercial spaces with specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service if approved by the City.

94 City of Mountain View. Mountain View Green Building Code . 2019. Accessed No vember 15, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/comdev/building/construction/2019_mountain_view_green_building_and_rea ch_codes.asp

Middlefield Park Master Plan 103 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
City of Mountain View Construction and Demolition Ordinance According to the City’s Construction and Demolition Ordinance, all development projects involving demolition of greater than 5,000 square feet are required to divert 50 percent of construction demolition debris from landfills. Documentation of this diversion is required prior to scheduling a final building inspection.

5.5.1.2 Existing Conditions
Total energy usage in California was approximately 7,802 trillion British thermal units (Btu) in the year 2019, the most recent year for which this data was available. 95 Out of the 50 states, California is
ranked 2nd in total energy consumption and 46th in energy consumption per capita. The breakdown by sector was approximately 19 percent (1,456 trillion Btu) for residential uses, 19 percent (1,468 trillion Btu) for commercial uses, 23 percent (1,805 trillion Btu) for industrial uses, and 39 percent (3,073 trillion Btu) for transportation.
96 This energy is primarily supplied in the form of natural gas, petroleum, nuclear electric power, and hydroelectric power.

Electricity
Electricity in Santa Clara County in 2019 was consumed primarily by the commercial sector (76 percent), followed by the residential sector consuming 24 percent. In 2019, a total of approximately 16,664 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity was consumed in Santa Clara County.

The community-owned SVCE is the electricity provider for the City of Mountain View. 97 SVCE
sources the electricity, and PG&E delivers it to customers over their existing utility lines. Customers are automatically enrolled in the GreenStart plan and can upgrade to the GreenPrime plan. 98 Both
options are considered 100 percent GHG-emission free.

The electricity demand for existing uses on-site is approximately 11.7 million-kilowatt hours kWh per year.

Natural Gas
PG&E provides natural gas services within the City of Mountain View. In 2019, approximately one percent of California’s natural gas supply came from in-state production, while the remaining supply was imported from other western states and Canada.
99 In 2019, residential and commercial customers
in California used 33 percent of the state’s natural gas, power plants used 26 percent, the industr ial

95 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2019.” Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
96 Ibid.
97 Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/faqs.
98 The GreenStart plan offers customers carbon free electricity service from 50 percent renewable sources and the GreenPrime plan offers customers carbon free electricity from 100 percent renewable sources. Source: Silicon Valley Clean Energy. “Your Choices – SVCE.” Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.svcleanenergy.org/choices/#GreenStart
99 California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020 California Gas Report. Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf .

Middlefield Park Master Plan 104 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
sector used 35 percent, and other uses used six percent.100 Transportation accounted for one percent of natural gas use in California. In 2019, Santa Clara County used approximately two percent of the state’s total consumption of natural gas.101

The natural gas demand for existing uses on-site is approximately 11 million kilo British thermal units (kBtu) per year.

Fuel for Motor Vehicles
In 2019, 15.4 billion gallons of gasoline was sold in California. 102 The average fuel economy for light-
duty vehicles (autos, pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles) in the United States has steadily increased from about 13.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in the mid-1970s to 24.9 mpg in 2019. 103 Federal fuel economy standards have changed substantially since the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007. This standard, which originally mandated a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020, was updated in March 2020 to require all cars and light duty trucks achieve an overall industry average fuel economy of 40.4 mpg by model year 2026. 104,105

The gasoline demand for existing uses on-site is approximately 455,875 gallons per year.

5.5.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on energy, would the project:

1) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

100 United States Energy Information Administration. “State Profile and Energy Estimates, 2019.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2.
101 California Energy Commission. “Natural Gas Consumption by County.” Accessed August 30, 2021. http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbycounty.aspx.
102 California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. “Net Taxable Gasoline Gallons.” Accessed August 30, 2021. https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=VehicleTaxableFuelDist. 103 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975.” January 2021. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1010U68.pdf 104 United States Department of Energy. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/eisa.
105 Public Law 110–140—December 19, 2007. Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ140/pdf/PLAW-110publ140.pdf.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 105 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Project Impacts
Impact EN-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded the construction and operation of development under the Precise Plan would not result in a significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy or wasteful use of energy resources because:

• Construction processes are generally designed to be efficient, • Development would occur in an urbanized area with access to roadways, construction supplies, and workers,
• Standard BAAQMD BMPs would be implemented to restrict construction equipment idling times and prohibit unnecessary idling,
• Construction equipment with reduced emissions would be used, • Projects would comply with the City’s requirements to recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, and • Projects would comply with Precise Plan green building standards. 106

In addition, as discussed in the Precise Plan EIR, implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would result in an overall decrease in gasoline use due to the Precise Plan area’s proximity to transit, requirement for TDM plans, and mix of land uses. The annual energy demand of the Precise Plan at buildout is estimated to be approximately 156.1 million kWh of electricity, 188.2 million kBtu of natural gas, and 1.6 million gallons of gasoline. 107

The project is consistent with the development analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR and, therefore, the energy demand by the project was accounted for in the Precise Plan EIR. The construction of the project is estimated to use gasoline and diesel fuel for vehicles, equipment, and generators , and electricity for tools . There is currently no acceptable standard model or accurate way to predict construction energy demand. Therefore, the construction energy demand for the project (under either option) was not quantified.

The project-specific air quality analysis quantified energy use and demand associated with the project with District Utilities System Option (refer to Appendix C). A summary of the operational energy demand calculated for the project with District Utilities System Option is provided in Table 5.5-1 below. As noted in Section 3.0 Project Description above, the project applicant is considering the District Utilities System Option to further their corporate sustainability goals. Energy demand from construction and operation of the proposed buildings would remain the same under either project option. The operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system would be in addition to continued operation of the City’s existing utilities systems , as there is no

106 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 80 – 82. 107 Ibid. P. 81.

1.1.1.2 Middlefield Park Master Plan 106 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
assumed reduction of municipal utility capacity due to the addition of the CUP facilities. Because the City must ensure the existing utilities systems can accommodate the proposed development on the site in the event the District Utilities System is offline, the City must be prepared to service this site if needed. Therefore, this analysis evaluates these proposed CUP facilities as “additive” on the existing municipal utility operations. The analysis represents that additional energy would be required under the District Utilities System option. As shown in Table 5.5-1, on-site electricity and gasoline demand would increase and natural gas demand would decrease compared to existing conditions with implementation of the project ( under either option ). This i s due to the replacement of existing electric/natural gas-powered buildings with new all electric buildings designed consistent with the City’s Reach Code standards.
108

Table 5.5-1: Existing and Project with District Utilities System Option Annual Energy Demand Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas (kBtu) Gasoline (gallons)1 A. Existing Land Uses 11,761,400 11,097,000 455,875
B. Project with District
Utilities System Option 35,731,430 95,940 1,384,790
Net Increase in Demand (B-A) 23,970,030 -11,001,060 928,915 Note: The energy demand for the project without the d istrict utilities system are less than shown above since all aspects of the two project options are the same except the option with district utilities system includes the operation of the CUP, district heating and cooling system, and district distribution system . 1 The estimated gasoline demand is based on the estimated annual VMT of 11,351,292 for existing uses and the average fuel economy of 24.9 mpg.
2 The estimated gasoline demand is based on the estimated annual VMT (refer to 4.2 Trip Summary Information for Middlefield Campus Operational in Attachment 2 of Appendix C) and the average fuel economy of 24.9 mpg. kWh = kilowatt per hour
kBtu = kilo-British thermal unit
Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Air Quality Assessment. April 19 , 2022.

The energy demand and use during construction and operation of the project (under either option) would not be wasteful or inefficient because there is nothing atypical about the project’s construction process, in addition to the same reasons listed for the Precise Plan. Specifically:
• The project site is in an urbanized area, proximate to roadways, construction supplies, and workers;
• Equipment and fuel would not be used wastefully on-site because of the added expense associated with renting the equipment as well as maintenance and fuel; • The project would be required to implement standard BAAQMD BMPs, restricting construction equipment idling times and prohibiting unnecessary idling and requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment with reduced emissions; • The project would also comply with the City’s Reach Code requirements for all electric

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 107 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
building operations109, rooftop solar panels, and electric vehicle infrastructure; • The project would implement a TDM plan designed to reduce vehicle trips; • The proposed office buildings would meet the intent of LEED Platinum green building standards; and
• The proposed residential buildings would achieve the equivalent of a GreenPoint rating of 120 points or better and include submetering for each residential unit, or an equivalent technology.

For all the reasons listed above, the project (under either option) would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

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

Impact EN-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that future development under the Precise Plan (including the project under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency (including the GGRP, RPS program, SB 350, Title 24, CalGreen, and MVGBC identified in Section 5.4.4.1) by:
• Implementing TDM plans,
• Obtaining 100 percent carbon free electricity from SVCE, or a similar provider, and • Complying with Precise Plan building standards.110

The project (under either option) would implement a TDM plan, obtain 100 percent carbon free electricity from SVCE (or similar provider), and comply with Precise Plan building standards. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

110 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 82.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 108 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result
in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation.

Yes LTS None N/A
EN-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not
conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency.

Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviation: LTS – Less than Significant, N/A – Not Applicable

Middlefield Park Master Plan 109 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion is based, in part, on geotechnical investigations performed by ENGEO and Ninyo & Moore. These reports are attached as Appendix F.

5.6.1 Envir
onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing si te conditions, for geology and soils has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.6.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed following the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The act regulates development in California near known active faults due to hazards associated with surface fault ruptures. Alquist-Priolo maps are distributed to affected cities, counties, and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new construction. Areas within an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone require special studies to evaluate the potential for surface rupture to ensure no structures intended for human occupancy are constructed across an active fault.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed in 1990 following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The SHMA directs the California Geological Survey (CGS) to identify and map areas prone to liquefaction, earthquake -induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. CGS has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, landslides, and ground shaking, including the central San Francisco Bay Area. The SHMA requires agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site -specific geotechnical investigations to determine if the seismic hazard is present and identify measures to reduce earthquake- related hazards.

California Building St
andards Code
The CBC prescribes standards for constructing safe buildings. The CBC contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, soil and rock profile, ground strength, and distance to seismic sources. The CBC requires a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared for most development projects to evaluate seismic and geologic conditions such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. The CBC is updated every three years, with the most recent update in 2018.

California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Regulations Excavation, shoring, and trenching activities during construction are subject to occupational safety standards for stabilization by the California Department of Industrial Relations , Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) under Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations and Excavation Rules. These regulations minimize the potential for instability a nd collapse that could

Middlefield Park Master Plan 110 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
injure construction workers on the site.

Public Resources Code Section 5097.5
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric environments found in geologic strata. They range from mammoth and dinosaur bones to impressions of ancient animals and plants, trace remains, and microfossils. These materials are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies that unauthorized removal of a paleontological resource is a misdemeanor. Under the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact on paleontological resources if it would disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

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

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 4.2 Natural disasters. Minimize impacts of natural disasters.

PSA 5.1 New development. Ensure new development addresses seismically induced geologic hazards.

PSA 5.2 Alquist-Priolo zones. Development shall comply with the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.

PSA 5.4 Utility design. Ensure new underground facilities, particularly water and natural gas lines, are designed to meet current seismic standards.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 2.3 Emergency-prepared infrastructure design. Require the use of available technologies and earthquake-resistant materials in the design and construction of all infrastructure projects, whether constructed by the City or others.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 177, 128

Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View has adopted the CBC, with amendments, as the reference building code for all projects in the City under Chapter 8 of the City Code. The City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits, and conducting field inspections. Project-specific geotechnical investigation reports would be required for projects as a City standard condition of approval. Reports would be reviewed by the City of Mountain View’s Building Inspection Division prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 111 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.6.1.2 Existing Conditions
On-site Geology
Soils
The project site is generally underlain by undocumented fill and silt and silty clay loam alluvium soils.

The soils present in the area exhibit medium shrink-swell (i.e., expansive) behavior.111,112

Site Topography
The project site is relatively flat, and as a result, the risk of erosion or landslide is low. There are no hillsides or steep embankments within the project site that require consideration for development. The elevation of the site ranges from 51 to 62 feet above mean sea level.113

Groundwater
The project site is located in the Santa Clara Valley Subbasin, a groundwater subbasin that is 225 square miles in area. The project site is not located within or adjacent to any groundwater recharge facilities used by Valley Water.114

Soil borings were performed at select properties within the site and ranged between six to 16 feet below ground surface.

Seismic and Seismic-Related Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay region. Nearby active faults include the San Andreas Fault (10 miles to the west), the Calevaras Fault (14 miles to the southeast ), and the Hayward Fault (nine miles to the northeast). The project site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.115

111 ENGEO. East Whisman Phase 1: Geotechnical Report for Horizontal Improvements at R1 and R2. January 29, 2021. Revised February 8, 2021. P. 10.
112 Ninyo & Moore. Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation. East Whisman: 440 Clyde Avenue. April 3, 2020.

P. 10.; Ninyo & Moore. Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation. East Whisman: 450 Clyde Avenue. April 3, 2020. P. 10.; Ninyo & Moore. Feasibility Level Geotechnical Investigation. East Whisman: 441 Logue Avenue. July 14, 2020. P. 10.
113 Appendix G.
114 Valley Water. Annual Groundwater Report 2019. July 2020. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.valleywater.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/2019_Annual_Groundwater_Report_Web_Version.pdf 115 California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Accessed September 23, 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/

Middlefield Park Master Plan 112 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction can be defined as ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to take on the characteristics of a liquid. This phenomenon is triggered by earthquake or ground shaking that causes saturated or partially saturated soils to lose strength, potentially resulting in the soil’s inability to support structures. The project site is located within a State of California liquefaction hazard zone.
116

Other Geologic Hazards
The project site is not located within a geologic hazard zone for compressible soil, landslides, or fault rupture.117

Paleontological Resources
There have been no recorded fossils discovered within the City of Mountain View, though two fossils have been discovered outside of the Mountain View City limits (the location of one of these deposits is not known; however, the location of the other deposit is identified as approximately two miles west of the City’s sphere of influence).
118 Fossiliferous deposits do exist in the City. Soils within the Precise Plan area could have paleontological sensitivity.119

5.6.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on geology and soils, would the project:

1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
- Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (r efer to Division of M ines and Geology Special Publication 42)?
- Strong seismic ground shaking?
- Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? - Landslides?
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater

116 Ibid.
117 Ibid.
118 City of Mountain View. General Plan General Plan Environmental Impact Report. September 2012. P. 470. 119 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . January 2020. P. 87.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 113 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?

5.6.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact GEO-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo special study zone on the California Geological Survey fault zone map.120,121 No faults cross the site; therefore, fault rupture would not occur on- site.

The project site, however, is located in a seismically active region , and strong to very strong ground shaking would be expected during the lifetime of the proposed project. Ground shaking on the site could damage structures and threaten future occupants of the proposed development. Additionally, as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR, the project site is in a liquefaction hazard area.122 Due to the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding areas, the project would not be subject to substantial slope instability or landslide related hazards.

As identified in the Precise Plan, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with CBC requirements, Precise Plan EIR policies, General Plan Policies PSA 4.2, PSA 5.1, PSA 5.2, PSA 5.4, and INC 2.3, and the following standard condition of approval, in order to avoid and minimize seismic and seismic related hazards (including liquefaction) to a less than significant level.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-1.1: Both Project Options: Geotechnical Report. The applicant shall have a design- level geotechnical investigation prepared which includes recommendations to address and mitigate geologic hazards in accordance with the specifications of California Geological Survey Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards, and the requirements of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits, and the recommendations made in the geotechnical report shall be imp lemented as part of the project. Recommendations may include considerations for design of permanent below -grade walls to resist static lateral earth pressures, lateral pressures caused by seismic activity, and traffic loads;

120 Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Map. 2019.
121 ENGEO. East Whisman Phase 1. Geotechnical Report for Horizontal Improvements at R1 and R2 . January29, 2021. Revised February 8, 2021.
122 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 114 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
method for back draining walls to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure; considerations for design of excavation shoring system; excavation monitoring; and seismic design. Additionally, recommendations shall include measures (e.g., shoring walls, and waterproofing) to minimize the amount of dewatering required during construction and prevent substantial impacts to aquifers or existing wells.

Specific recommendations contained in the geotechnical report prepared for the project shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City of Mountain View Building Inspection Division.

With implementation of the above standard condition of approval, and consistency with CBC and local policies, the project (under either option) would result in a less than significant impact from seismic and se ismic-related hazards. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact GEO-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Given the site and site area’s flat topography, the project (under either option) would not be subject to substantial erosion. In addition, the project (under either option) would implement standard conditions of approval (as described in detail in Section 5.9 Hydrology and Water Quality) to ensure that substantial erosion would not occur during construction and operation of the project. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact GEO-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Given the proximity (within nine miles) of seismically active faults to the project site, seismic ground shaking could result in liquefaction, liquefaction-induced lateral spreading, or differential settlement.

Furthermore, undocumented fill is present in the project site due to the existing developments.

Undocumented fill could potentially settle and cause distress to new structures and other improvements proposed by future projects. Implementation of the standard condition of approval discussed under Impact GEO-1 would reduce the impacts of seismic-related hazards to a less than significant level by preparing a design-level geotechnical investigation and implementing the recommendations in the report to properly design and engineer the project to prevent seismic and seismic related hazards (including liquefaction) and addresses undocumented fill on -site. Furthermore, the project site does not contain steep slopes subject to landslide potential.

Valley Water actively monitors for land subsidence through surveying, groundwater elevation monitoring, and data from compaction wells. Valley Water reduces the potential for land subsidence

Middlefield Park Master Plan 115 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
throughout the Santa Clara Valley by recharging groundwater basins with local and imported surface water. The project (under either option) would develop urban uses connected to the City’s water system and would not require permanent groundwater extraction wells on-site. As noted in Section 5.9 Hydrology, the project would require temporary groundwater dewatering during construction.

According to a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater would be extracted at a rate of approximately 40 to 80 gallons per minute, or 57,600 to 115,200 gallons per day during construction until building foundations are completed. 123 The standard condition of approval
above (COA GEO-1.1) includes evaluation and implementation of measures to minimize dewatering during construction, which would prevent subsidence from the temporary construction dewatering. No permanent dewatering is required for the project. For this reason, the project (under either option) is expected to have a less than significant impact on subsidence.

The project (under either option) would comply with Cal/OSHA requirements that minimize the potential for instability and collapse.

Based on the above discussion, the project would have less than significant impacts related to on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or liquefaction from on-site conditions . This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact GEO-4:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in the current California Building Code, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. ( Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Soils with medium expansion potential occur on the project site, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The implementation of the standard condition of approval discussed under Impact GEO-1 would reduce impacts of expansive soils to a less than significant level by properly designing and engineering the project to address effects from expansive soils. Therefore, the project (under either option) would result in a less than significant impact from expansive soil and would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

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

123 ENGEO. East Whisman Phase 1: Geotechnical Report for Horizontal Improvements at R1 and R2. January 29, 2021. Revised February 8, 2021. P. 24.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 116 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact GEO-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alte rnative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project
The project would connect to the City’s existing sanitary sewer system. The project would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with District Utilities System Option includes a C UP, which includes a wastewater treatment plant that would have the capacity to treat a portion of the daily wastewater generated by the project. The remaining wastewater generated by the project above the treatment capacity of the CUP would be treated at the PARWQCP. The design-level geotechnical report for the project discussed under Impact GEO -1 would evaluate the CUP and identify recommendations to ensure on-site soils conditions are adequate to support the development. No leach pits or percolation fields are proposed.

Therefore, the project with District Utilities System Option would not result in soils impacts due to the installation of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This is the sam e impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact GEO-6: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact)]

Although the likelihood of encountering buried paleontological resources is low, the disturbance of these resources (if on-site) during construction and excavation could result in an impact to unknown resources. The Precise Plan EIR included the following standard condition of approval to reduce impacts to unknown paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA GEO-2.1: Both Project Options: Discovery of Paleontological Resources . In the event a fossil is discovered during construction of the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The City shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 117 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

With implementation of the above standard condition of approval , the project (under either option) would result in less than significant impacts to paleontological resources by ensuring any unburied paleontological resources are properly recovered and minimizing disturbance during excavation and construction. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not directly
or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving rupture
of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault; strong
seismic ground shaking; seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction;
or landslides.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not be
located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not be
located on expansive soil, as defined in
the current California Building Code,
creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property.

Yes LTS None N/A
GEO-5:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not have
soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal
of wastewater.

Yes

LTS

None

N/A

Middlefield Park Master Plan 118 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
GEO-6:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not directly
or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature
Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviation: LTS – Less than Significant

Middlefield Park Master Plan 119 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

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

5.7.1.1 Background Information
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, GHGs, regulate the earth’s temperature. The most common GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO
2) and water vapor but there are also several others, most importantly methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6). These are released into the earth’s atmosphere through a variety of natural processes and human activities. Refer to the Precise Plan EIR for additional background information.

5.7.1.2 Regulatory Framework
State
Assembly Bill 32
Under the California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as AB 32, CARB established a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020, adopted mandatory reporting rules for significant sources of GHGs, and adopted a comprehensive plan, known as the Climate Change Scoping Plan, identifying how emission reductions would be achieved from significant GHG sources.

In 2016, SB 32 was signed into law, amending the California Global Warming Solution Act. SB 32, and accompanying EO B-30-15, require CARB to ensure that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. CARB updated its Climate Change Scoping Plan in December of 2017 to express the 2030 statewide target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO
2e) (MMTCO2e). Based on the emissions reductions directed by SB 32, the annual 2030 statewide target emissions level for California is 260 MMTCO2e.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act, was signed into law in September 2008. SB 375 builds upon AB 32 by requiring CARB to develop regional GHG reduction targets for automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. The per capita GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles in the San Francisco Bay Area include a seven percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035.

Consistent with the requirements of SB 375, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) partnered with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), BAAQMD, and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to prepare the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan process. The SCS is referred to as Plan Bay Area 2040. Plan Bay Area is discussed further under Regional and Local plans below.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 120 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Senate Bill 743
Senate Bill (SB) 743 was adopted in 2013 and requires lead agencies to use alternatives to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts, specifically VMT. SB 743 also included changes to CEQA that apply to transit-oriented developments, as related to aesthetics and parking impacts to encourage infill development and a diversity of uses instead of sprawl, promote mul ti-modal transportation networks, and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Regional and Local
2017 Clean Air Plan
To protect the climate, the 2017 CAP (prepared by BAAQMD) includes control measures designed to reduce emissions of methane and other super-GHGs that are potent climate pollutants in the near-term, and to decrease emissions of carbon dioxide by reducing fossil fuel combustion.

CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to serve as a guide for those who prepare or evaluate air quality impact analyses for projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area. The jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin utilize the thresholds and methodology for assessing GHG impacts developed by BAAQMD within the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The guidelines include information on legal requirements, BAAQMD rules, methods of analyzing impacts, and recommended mitigation measures. BAAQMD is currently updating the existing CEQA Guidelines and GHG thresholds of significance. The new significance threshold is anticipated to be considered for adoption in Spring 2022.

Plan Bay Area 2040/2050
Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long-range transportation, land-use , and housing plan intended to support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed- use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified PDAs.124

ABAG allocates regional housing needs to each city and county within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, based on statewide goals. ABAG also develops forecasts for population, households, and economic activity in the Bay Area. ABAG, MTC , and local jurisdiction planning staff created the Regional Forecast of Jobs, Population, and Housing, which is an integrated land use and transportation plan through the year 2040 (upon which Plan Bay Area 2040 is based).

In October 2021, ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 which includes 35 strategies for housing, transportation, economic viability and the environment and lays out a vision for policies and investments to make the bay area more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy and economically vibrant. It will take several years for the updated plan to be reflected in the regional and county-wide transportation models, so land uses and development projections based on Plan Bay Area 2040 are

124 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Project Mapper.” http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/. Accessed September 24, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 121 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
used as the foundation for this analysis.

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

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 12.1 Emissions reduction target. Maintain a GHG emissions reduction target.

INC 12.2 Emissions reduction strategies. Develop cost -effective strategies for reducing GHG emissions.

INC 12.3 Adaptation strategies. Develop strategies for adapting to climate change in partnership with local and regional agencies.

Land Use and Design
Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 133-134, 59-60

2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
The City of Mountain View certified the General Plan Program EIR (SCH #2011012069) and adopted the Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program (GGRP) in July 2012.

The GGRP is a separate but complementary document to the General Plan that implements the lon g- range GHG emissions reduction goals of the General Plan and serves as a programmatic GHG reduction strategy for CEQA tiering purposes. The GGRP includes goals, policies, performance standards, and implementation measures for achieving GHG emissions reduc tions, to meet the requirements of AB 32. The program includes a goal to improve communitywide emissions efficiency by 15 to 20 percent over 2005 levels by 2020 and by 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030.

Climate Protection Roadmap
The City’s Climate Protection Roadmap (CPR), completed in 2015, presents a projection of GHG emissions through 2050 and several strategies that would help the City reduce absolute communitywide GHG emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Reach Building Code
In 2019, the Mountain View City Council approved amendments to Chapters 8, 14, and 24 of the City of Mountain View Green Building Code, referred to as Reach Code amendments. The Reach Code amendments are applicable to any project submitted to the City after December 31, 2019. As noted in Section 5.5 Energy above, these Reach Code amendments require new buildings to be all-electric with an exception of commercial spaces with specialized equipment that cannot operate with electric service if approved by the City.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 122 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
California Transportation Plan 2050
The California Transportation Plan 2050 (CTP 2050) defines performance -based goals, policies, and strategies to achieve the state’s collective vision for California’s future statewide, integrated, multimodal transportation system. The CTP 2050 includes goals for achieving statewide GHG emissions reduction targets, improving multimodal mobility and access to destinations, maintaining a high-quality transportation system, and expanding protection of natural resources.

Existing Conditions
The P
recise Plan area and the project site (located within a designated PDA)125 is developed primarily with office, light industrial, and R&D uses. These uses currently generate direct GHG emissions from the vehicle trips of employees and visitors, natural gas used for cooking and building heating, operation of stationary equipment (such as back-up generators), and indirect GHG emissions from operational electricity, water use, and other sources.

5.7.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions, would the project:

1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?

Project Impacts
Imp
act GHG-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

As disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR, the implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) is estimated to generate 90,427 MTCO 2e annually126. The project’s portion of the
total Precise Plan GHG emissions is approximately 15,900 MTCO 2e.127 The Precise Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would not exceed the City’s GGRP 2030 threshold of 4.5 MTCO2e/year/service population. As a result, the Precise Plan concluded that GHG emissions from implementation of the Precise Plan (which

125 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Priority Development Areas (Plan Bay Area 2050). Map. July 2020. https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/priority-devel opment-areas-plan-bay-area- 2050/explore?location=38.618077%2C-121.005390%2C6.90
126 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 98.
127 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Air Quality Assessment. April 19, 2022.

1.1.1.3 1.1.1.4

Middlefield Park Master Plan 123 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
includes the project under either option), would not result in significant GHG emissions.128 If evaluated independently, the project (under either option) would result in GHG emissions of 1.82 MTCO2e/year/service population.129 Consistent with the analysis in the Precise Plan EIR, the project would:
• Be consistent with the 2017 CAP goals;
• Be consistent with the most recent Title 24 building standards for energy efficiency, • Participate in SVCE’s 100 percent carbon-free electricity (or purchase energy contracts from PG&E for carbon-free electricity);
• Be located in a PDA identified in Plan Bay Area;
• Implement a trip cap for office uses and a TDM program including TMA membership for all other proposed commercial and residential uses , consistent with the City of Mountain View Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program and Precise Plan; and
• Incorporate multi-modal transportation improvements on-site and on adjacent City streets to accommodate and encourage non-automobile transportation modes , consistent with the California Transportation Plan 2040.

For the reasons listed above, the project (under either option) would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact GHG-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the Precise Plan would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing GHG emissions, including the 2017 CAP, Plan Bay Area, GGRP, and California Transportation Plan 2040. The Precise Plan would increase development within a PDA identified in Plan Bay Area ( as discussed in Section 4.1 Air Quality) and includes policies and requirements for existing and future development within the Precise Plan area to reduce GHG emissions from building operations and vehicle trips such as:

• A trip cap for office uses;
• TDM requirements for commercial and residential development; • Requirements for projects requesting Bonus FAR to achieve a design intent of LEED Platinum, 120 Green Point Rated points, or equivalent; and
• Include multi-modal transportation improvements to further reduce VMT by encouraging

128 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 96 – 98. 129 Service population estimated as a percent of EWPP development. The project proposes 38 percent of residential units, 31.6 percent of net new square feet of office uses, and 50 percent of net new neighborhood commercial uses identified in the approved Precise Plan for a total of 4,803 new residents and 3,929 new employees. 15,900 MTCO
2e/year / 8,732 service population = 1.82 MTCO2e/year/service population. Source: Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.

Middlefield Park Master Plan Project Air Quality Assessment. April 19, 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 124 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
mode shifts toward active transportation modes, thereby reducing GHG emissions from vehicle traffic.

Therefore, it was concluded in the Precise Plan EIR that implementation of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would not conflict with plans, policies, or regulations for reducing GHG emissions. 130 Because development analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR includes the proposed MPMP, the project (under either option) would result in the same less than significant impact with regard to consistency with GHG reduction plans, policies, and regulations as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not
generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment.

Yes LTS None N/A
GHG-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of GHGs.

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

130 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Enviro nmental Impact Report. January 2020. Pp. 98–100.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 125 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The following discussion is based, in part, on hazards and hazardous materials reports completed by Iris Environmental dated 2014 and 2016 IVI Assessment dated May 16 and 17, 2013; EMG dated September 23, 2015, Elevate Environmental dated February 21, 2021; and Cornerstone Earth Group dated August 27, 2021. These reports are included in Appendix F.

5.8.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for hazards and hazardous materials has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.8.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Overview
The storage, use, generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and waste are highly regulated under federal and state laws. In California, the EPA has granted most enforcement authority over federal hazardous materials regulations to the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). In turn, local agencies have been granted responsibility for implementation and enforcement of many hazardous materials regulations under the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) program. Cal/OSHA enforces state worker health and safety regulations related to construction activities. Cal/OSHA also enforces occupational health and safety regulations specific to lead and asbestos investigations and abatement.

Federal and State
Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77) sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operation, particularly by restricting the height of potential structures and minimizing other potential hazards (such as reflective surfaces, flashing lights, and electronic interference) to aircraft in flight. These regulations require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous

Middlefield Park Master Plan 126 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List.

CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986.131

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), enacted in 1976, is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. RCRA gives the EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from the “cradle to the grave.” This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also sets forth a framework for the management of non-hazardous solid wastes.

The Federal Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) are the 1984 amendments to RCRA that focused on waste minimization, phasing out land disposal of hazardous waste, and corrective action for releases. Some of the other mandates of this law include increased enforcement authority for the EPA, more stringent hazardous waste management standards, and a comprehensive underground storage tank program.
132

Government Code Section 65962.5
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires CalEPA to develop and update a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List. The Cortese List is used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites identified by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).
133

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the EPA with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.

California Accidental Release Prevention Program
The California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program aims to prevent accidental releases of regulated hazardous materials that represent a potential hazard beyond the boundaries of a property.

Facilities that are required to participate in the CalARP Program use or store specified quantities of toxic and fl ammable substances (hazardous materials) that can have off-site consequences if accidentally released. The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health reviews CalARP

131 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Superfund: CERCLA Overview.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-cercla-overview. 132 United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Summary of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.” Accessed May 11, 2020. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act. 133 California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Accessed September 8, 2021. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 127 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
risk management plans as the CUPA.

Asbestos-Containing Materials
Friable asbestos is any asbestos-containing material (ACM) that, when dry, can easily be crumbled or pulverized to a powder by hand, allowing the asbestos particles to become airborne. Common examples of products that have been found to contain friable asbestos include acoustical ceilings, plaster, wallboard, and thermal insulation for water heaters and pipes. Common examples of non-friable ACMs are asphalt roofing shingles, vinyl floor tiles, and transite siding made with cement. The EPA phased out use of friable asbestos products between 1973 and 1978. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines require that potentially friable ACMs be removed prior to building demolition or remodeling that may disturb the ACMs.

CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1
The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint in 1978.

Removal of older structures with lead-based paint is subject to requirements outlined by the Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, CCR Title 8, Section 1532.1 during demolition activities.

Requirements include employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. If lead-based paint is peeling, flaking, or blistered, it is required to be removed prior to demolition.

Regional and Local
Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.12.f
PCBs were produced in the United States between 1955 and 1978 and used in hundreds of industrial and commercial applications, including building and structure materials such as plasticizers, paints, sealants, caulk, and wood floor finishes. In 1979, the EPA banned the production and use of PCBs due to their potential harmful health effects and persistence in the environment. PCBs can still be released to the environment today during demolition of buildings that contain legacy caulks, sealants, or other PCB-containing materials.

With the adoption of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permit (MRP) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 19, 2015, Provision C.12.f requires that permittees develop an assessment methodology for applicable structures planned for demolition to ensure PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems.
134 As of July 2019, all applicants proposing full demolition of a building are required to submit a PCB Screening Assessment Applicant Package prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Buildings constructed or remodeled between 1950 and 1980 may contain PCBs in building materials. Implementation of this requirement is required in the San Francisco Bay Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Order No. r2-2015-0049, Permit No. CAS612008). 135

The RWQCB has drafted a renewed MRP for the San Francisco Bay Region, which is anticipated to be adopted by the Water Board in May 2022. If adopted, any new development submitted to the City

134 California Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. November 2015.
135 City of Mountain View. “Environmental Projection.” Accessed November 18, 2021. https://www.mountainview.gov/depts/fire/environment/protection.asp

Middlefield Park Master Plan 128 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
after its effective date will be subject to the regulations under the renewed MRP.136

Moffett Federal Airf ield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) As previously mentioned, FAR Part 77 requires the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by an imaginary slope radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above ground. For the project site, any structure exceeding 182 feet in height above mean sea level (amsl) would require submittal to the FAA for airspace safety review. The project site has an elevation ranging from 62 amsl in the southeast corner of the site to 50 feet amsl in the northwest corner. In addition to height, the Moffett Field CLUP restricts land use and density per acre within turning safety zones.

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

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 3.2 Protection from hazardous materials. Prevent injuries and environmental contamination due to the uncontrolled release of hazardous materials through prevention and enforcement of fire and life safety codes and prevention.

PSA 3.3 Development review. Implement development review procedures that encourage effective identification and remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

PSA 3.4 Oversight agencies. Work with local, state and federal oversight agencies to encourage remediation of contamination and protection of public and environmental health and safety.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 18.1 Contamination prevention. Protect human and environmental health from enviro nmental contamination.

INC 18.2 Contamination clean -up. Cooperate with local, state, and federal agencies that oversee environmental contamination and clean-up.

Land Use and Design
LUD 3.10 Zoning standards for sensitive uses. Allow sensitive uses such as childcare in the North Bayshore and East Whisman Change Areas with measures to protect those uses from hazardous materials used by surrounding businesses.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. P. 177, 136, 49

136 California Water Boards, San Francisco Bay, Stormwater Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Reissuance: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/stormwater/ . Accessed on April 8, 2022.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 129 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.8.1.2 Existing Conditions
Project Site
According to the Precise Plan EIR, the Middlefield–Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area and various other Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and spills, leaks, investigations, and cleanup (SLIC) sites (including those on lists compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5) are located within the Precise Plan area. There are also several contaminated sites located just outside the Precise Plan area whose contamination has migrated within the Precise Plan boundaries.

Middlefield-El lis-Whisman Superfund Study Area
The project site is located within the MEW Superfund Study Area, an area designated by the EPA as a Superfund site due to the presence of soil and groundwater contaminated by Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).137 As a result, the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites with open clean up cases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Prior to 1962, the project site (and many surrounding areas throughout the Precise Plan area) were used for agricultural purposes or left as vacant lands. From the mid-1960s through the early 2000s, the project site was developed with commercial and industrial/R&D buildings. Due to the historic uses of the site for agricultural and industrial/R&D purposes, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) prepared for the project det ermined on-site soils and groundwater may be impacted and recommended a Phase II subsurface investigation be completed . A summary of the Phase I ESA findings is shown in Table 5.8-1 below.

Table 5.8-1: Summary of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings Address On-site Contamination1
Depth to
Groundwater
(feet)
Year
Buildings
Constructed
401 Ellis
Street • Middlefield Ellis Whisman Groundwater Plume 10 to 15 1997 440 Logue
Avenue
• MEW Groundwater Plume
• Groundwater monitoring well R43A
• Listed in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank,
Hist Leaking Underground Storage Tank, CA
FID, Underground Storage Tank, Cortese, and
Sweeps Underground Storage Tank databases for
gasoline release in soils in 1998. Cleanup
completed and case has been closed.
6 to 14 1991
441 Logue
Avenue
• Leaking Underground Storage Tank site with
residual hydrocarbons present in soils and
groundwater above commercial Regional Water
Quality Control Board screening levels. This case
has been closed.
• Former Southern Pacific Rail Sur located along
10 to 11.5 2005

137 Lee, Alana. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Person Communication. November 24, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 130 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 5.8-1: Summary of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings Address On-site Contamination1
Depth to
Groundwater
(feet)
Year
Buildings
Constructed
northern project boundary
500 Logue
Avenue
• Within 2,000 feet of Middlefield Ellis Whisman
Groundwater Plume
• Volatile Organic Compounds in soil and
groundwater on-site
• Groundwater contamination plume migrated
under the site
• Subject to development restrictions as a Border
Zone property
• Above ground f uel storage tanks associated with
existing emergency generators
• Two groundwater monitoring wells located on
eastern portion of the site
10 to 15 1974
405 Clyde
Avenue None 10 1973
420 Clyde
Avenue None 10 to 40 1975 to 1981
433 Clyde
Avenue
• Limited localized Tichloroethylene plume likely
present
due to releases associated with historic
drum storage on east side of site.
19 1973
440 Clyde
Avenue
• Two aboveground perchloroethylene (PCE) tanks
were formerly located on -site and used for bulk
storage of PCE for off- site distribution. PCE has
been detected in on-
site soils and groundwater
near the former PCE tanks. A letter from the
RWQCB to the site owner stated that no further
action related to the pollutant release at the site
was required and attributed some, if not all of the
PCE impacts in groundwater to off-site sources.
10 1968
485 Clyde
Avenue
• Historic use of trichloroethylene ( TCE) on- site
has been documented and TCE and other volatile
organic compounds ( VOC) impacts to soil and
groundwater have been detected during closure of
clarifiers and a hot gas filtration pit . The
concentration of VOCs in soil samples were
below corresponding ESLs. A no further action
letter issued by RWCQB attributes the
groundwater impacts to likely offsite
contamination and states that RWCQB will not
pursue enforcement action against current or
future property owners.
20 1974
850 – 840
Maude
Avenue
• One above ground diesel storage tank and
generators currently on-site 12.7 1973

Middlefield Park Master Plan 131 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 5.8-1: Summary of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Findings Address On-site Contamination1
Depth to
Groundwater
(feet)
Year
Buildings
Constructed
880
Maude
Avenue
• HP and E/M Lubricant groundwater plume
present
• Groundwater impacted by VOCs, primarily
Tichloroethylene and Perchloroethylene
• An on-site release of PCE and/or TCE may have
occurred on-site based on the presence of concrete
sump. This sump is of potential concern because:
1) sumps are frequently signifi cant chlorinated
solvent release points, and 2) the groundwater
data suggests the sources of the potential on- site
release might be located approximately where the
sump was last seen.
15 to 45 1968
885
Maude
Avenue
None 11 1962 to 1968
891
Maude
Avenue
None 12 1981
1 Contamination related to the regional groundwater plumes (MEW and HP and E/M Lubricants may be present on portions of the project site, however, do not originate on-site.

Source: IVI Assessment Services, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Mountai n View Gateway 401 Ellis Street and 500 E. Middlefield Road, Mountain View, California. May 16, 2013. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 405 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California. April 18, 2014. EMG. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 420 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California 94043. September 23, 2015. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 433 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California. October 3, 2014. Iris Environmental. Phase I Envi ronmental Site Assessment 440 Clyde Avenue Mountain View, California.

February 3, 2014. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 440 Logue Avenue, Mountain View, California. June 9, 2014. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 441 Logue Avenue, Mountain View California. February 3, 2014. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 485 & 495 Clyde Avenue, Mountain View, California. May 17, 2013. Northgate Environmental Management, Inc. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Update, Mountain View Technology Park, Mountain View, California. November 19, 2007. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 800, 830, and 840- 850 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. October 22, 2014. Iris Environmen tal. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 880 Maude Avenue and 420 Clyde Avenue. April 18, 2016. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 885-889 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. July 3, 2014. Iris Environmental. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 891 Maude Avenue, Mountain View, California. May 19, 2014.

A Phase II Subsurface Investigation was completed for the project site by Elevate Environmental Consulting in February 2021. According to this report, portions of the sit e are located within the HP and E/M Lubricant Plume, which is impacted by VOC, primarily TCE and perchloroethylene (PCE).

The site is also located adjacent and cross-gradient from the MEW plume which is impacted by TCE.

Based on recent monitoring data, the MEW plume has encroached into the western edge of the project site.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 132 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
No existing underground storage tanks were identified on-site as of the date of the Phase II. Two groundwater monitoring wells associated with ongoing monitoring of the MEW plume are present on- site and two are located adjacent to the site boundary, east of 440 Logue Avenue. The EPA has claimed oversight over the Master Plan area.

On-site soils, groundwater, and soil vapors were tested for presence of VOCs, total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), TCE, chloroform, metals, and asbestos . Table 5.8-2 summarizes the contaminant concentrations detected compared to their respective Environmental Screening Levels (ELS). Refer to Appendix F for details.

Table 5.8-2: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Sampling Results and Environmental Safety Levels
Media
Sampled Contaminant Sampling Result Environmental
Safety Levels
Exceed
Environmental
Safety Levels?
Soil Arsenic 1.5 to 12 mg/kg* 0.067 mg/kg Yes
Barium 120 to 710
mg/kg** 390 mg/kg Yes
Cobalt 10 to 31 mg/kg** 23 mg/kg Yes
Nickel 52-240 mg/kg* 86 mg/kg Yes
Vanadium 50-160 mg/kg* 18 mg/kg Yes
Pentachlorophenol <0.0099 to 0.017 J
mg/kg 0.013 mg/kg Yes
Phenol <0.0050 to 0.38
mg/kg 0.16 mg/kg Yes
Groundwater Chloroform <0.052 to2.4 µg/L 0.81 µg/L Yes
1,2 Dichloroethane <0.0075 to 2.9
µg/L 0.50 µg/L Yes
PCE <0.16 to 5.7 µg/L 14 µg/L No
TCE <0.051 to 39 µg/L 1.2 µg/L Yes
Soil Vapor PCE <1.36 to 13,000
µg/m3 460 µg/m3 Yes
TCE 0.054 J to 5,100
µg/m3 16 µg/m3 Yes
Chloroform <1.6 to 29.5
µg/m3 4.1 µg/m3 Yes
1,1-dichloroethane <0.13 to 130
µg/m3 2,400 µg/m3 No
1,2-dichloroethane <0.21 to 4.1
µg/m3 3.6 µg/m3 Yes
Vinyl chloride <0.0511 to 3.73 0.32 µg/m3 Yes

Middlefield Park Master Plan 133 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Table 5.8-2: Phase II Subsurface Investigation Sampling Results and Environmental Safety Levels
Media
Sampled Contaminant Sampling Result Environmental
Safety Levels
Exceed
Environmental
Safety Levels?
µg/m3
Notes:
*within range of regional background concentrations
** calculated 95 percent upper confidence limit (UCL) is below applicable ESL

As shown in Table 5.8-2, soil samples were found to be either below residential direct contact ESL or within the range of regional background concentrations. 138 Groundwater samples were compared to RWQCB Tier 1 Groundwater ESLs and Groundwater Vapor Intrusion Human Health Risk Screening Levels for Residential and Commercial/industrial exposure scenarios. Groundwater samples contained chloroform, dichloroethane, PCE, TCE, and TPH -diesel above ESL, suggesting the HP and E/M Lubricant Plume is present in groundwater and is impacting soil vapor in the eastern half of the site.

The MEW plume is also impacting groundwater and soil vapor on the western edge of the site.

Other Hazards
The Moffett Federal Airfield is located approximately 0.5-mile northwest of the project site. The project site, along with most of the Precise Plan area is located within the Airport Influence Area and within the mapped Part 77 182-foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. The elevation of the project site ranges from 50 to 62 feet amsl and the proposed project w ould have a maximum height of 16 to 125 feet above grade , therefore, the proposed buildings would be reviewed for consistency with the 182-foot amsl threshold and, depending on the amsl at the building location, may require consultation with the FAA to determine if the project would create an avian hazard. 139 Additionally, as identified in the Precise Plan, an avigation easement may be recorded on sites with new buildings as required by the Moffett CLUP.

Nearby Schools and Childcare Facilities
Schools and childcare facilities in the project area include the Google Children’s Center - The Woods day care facility located at 325 Gladys Avenue and Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary school located are 220 North Whisman Road, both of which are located 0.38 miles southwest of the project site.

138 Due to the widespread presence of certain contaminants in soils throughout the region, sampling results found to be consistent with regional background conditions indicate contaminant concentrations are not unique to the site and cannot be attributed to a specific release.
139 Santa Clara County, Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Moffett Federal Airfield. Accessed November 16, 2021.
https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 134 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.8.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hazards and hazardous materials, would the project:

1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? 6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
7) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

5.8.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact HAZ-1:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that, with compliance with federal, state, and local requirements, and General Plan policies, future development (including the project) would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The conditions in and around the project site have not changed substantially since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR and the project proposes land uses consistent with those identified for the sit e and previously analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR . For these reasons, the project would result in the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact
140])

140 Ibid. P. 119.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 135 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Emergency Generators
The project (under either option) would include 11 diesel-powered emergency generators within the basements of Buildings R1 through R3, R4, R4 AFF, R5, R6 AFF and O1 through O5. Diesel fuel for these generators would be stored in double -walled aboveground storage tanks with each generator screened from visibility. Based on the number and horsepower of generators proposed, it is estimated that approximately 6,600 gallons of diesel fuel would be stored on-site.

Cooling Towers

The project (under either option) would include cooling towers associated with building and heating cooling equipment. Operation of cooling towers would involve the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, including chemicals intended to inhibit the formation of scale and corrosion, and to reduce bacteria, fungus, and algae growth within cooling towers such as microbiocide containing Dibromocyaneoacetamide, liquid bromine oxidizing biocide containing sodium bromosulfamate, liquid scale and corrosion inhibitor contain etidronic acid, phosphonic acid, and other constituents, and a liquid isothiazole based biocide. These chemicals would be stored in drums ranging from approximately 10 to 55 gallons in size.

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with District Utilities System Option would result in the same impact as described above for the project without a district utilities system, as the District Utility Systems Option would include the equipment and hazardous materials identified above, with the addition of a CUP including an on- site wastewater treatment facility that would use, store, and generate hazardous materials.

On-site Wastewater Treatment Facility
Operation of the on-site wastewater treatment facility would involve the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials , including chemicals intended to inhibit the formation of scale and corrosion, and to reduce bacteria, fungus , and algae growth within cooling towers , such as microbiocide containi ng dibromocyaneoacetamide, liquid bromine oxidizing biocide containing sodium bromosulfamate, liquid scale and corrosion inhibitor contain etidronic acid, phosphonic acid, and other constituents, and a liquid isothiazole based biocide. 141 These chemicals would be stored in
drums within the CUP ranging from approximately 10 to 55 gallons in size.142 Additionally, operation of the wastewater treatment facility would require use and storage of cleaning chemicals on-site such as citric acid, sodium hypochlorite, methanol, sodium bicarbonate, polymers, and ferric chloride. These chemicals would also be stored in 55-gallon drums within the CUP.143

Ozone (O3) is often used in water disinfection processes for recycled water as O3 molecules combine with other materials in water , making it easier to extract the unwanted materials from the water. 144 Because O3 is unstable and decomposes to elemental oxygen in a short amount of time, O 3 must be

141 Cornerstone Earth Group. Chemical Use Summary Middlefield Park Master Plan District Systems Mountain View, California. August 27, 2021.
142 Ibid.
143 Ibid.
144 United States Enviro nmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, Ozone Disinfection.

September 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/ozon.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 136 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
generated close to where it is intended to be used. Thus, O 3 generation equipment may be required to ensure that O3 is available for use at the proposed wastewater treatment plant.145 O3 generated on-site would be injected into the water, creating bubbles and off-gasses. Any remaining O 3 in off-gasses should be destroyed before it is released into the atmosphere. If O 3 is used in the on-site wastewater treatment facility, any unused O3 off-gasses would be required to be sent to an integrated O3 destruction unit within the CUP to be recycled.

Microgrid
As discussed in Section 3.2.5 Microgrid System, on -site batteries and battery storage units would be located within the CUP either in the basement of Building O1 or in an enclosure adjacent to the building at grade. Battery units include coolant, refrigerant, and electrolytes. Based on the size and number of battery units proposed, a total of 725 gallons of coolant and 84 pounds of refrigerant would be stored on-site within the batteries.146 Additionally, each battery unit would contain electrolytes which include volatile hydrocarbon-based liquid and a dissolved lithium salt such as lithium hexafluorophosphate.

The electrolyte reacts with those materials and is consumed during normal operation of the batteries.

As a result , there are very little to no liquid electrolytes present within batteries once they are operational.
147

The battery storage units would be equipped with electronic monitoring devices to detect a coolant system failure and auto shutdown in the event of internal leaks or thermal runaway. 148 In addition, the
equipment cabinets , where the battery units would be stored, would provide protection against environmental, chemical, and physical exposures. 149 The location in which batteries are stored, the design of fire suppression systems, and any required additional secondary containment catchment basins would be reviewed and approved by the City of Mountain View Fire Department (MVFD) prior to issuance of building permits.

The transport, storage, use and disposal of these chemicals would be conducted in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regula tions including Cal/OSHA regulations for construction activities, RCRA requirements for disposal of solid waste and hazardous materials, and TSCA requirements for reporting, record-keeping, and testing related to chemical substances and/or mixtures.

Operation in accordance with local, state, and federal laws would ensure that the transport, storage, use and disposal of chemicals associated with the di strict utilities system option would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. ( Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

145 Cornerstone Earth Group. Chemical Use Summary Middlefield Park Master Plan District Systems Mountain View, California. August 27, 2021.
146 Ibid.
147 Ibid.
148 Ibid.
149 Ibid.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 137 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact HAZ-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation])

Project
On-Site Soil and Groundwater Contamination
According to the Precise Plan EIR, future development projects within the MEW Superfund Study Area would be subject to the EPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) Amendment for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area
150; and, the Statement of Work Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Address the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area. 151 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 Precise Plan EIR identified a potentially significant hazardous materials impact (Impact HAZ-3) from construction activities associated with development on sites with contaminated soils and groundwater in the Precise Plan area.
152

As noted in Section 5.8.1 Environmental Setting, portions of the project site are located within the HP and E/M Lubricant Plume and within the MEW plume. On-site soil contaminants are below the residential ESLs or within regional background concentrations. 153 On-site groundwater and soil vapor
are impacted by the HP and E/M Lubricant and MEW plumes. T here are also two groundwater monitoring wells associated with ongoing monitoring of the MEW plume present on-site. As a result, the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites with open clean up cases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

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 following EPA-required ROD measures described in the Precise Plan EIR to minimize potential impacts associated with the contaminated groundwater and soil vapor on the project site during project construction and operation.

1) For future/new buildings on property where lines of evidence indicate that there is the potential for vapor intrusion into the new building above EPA’s indoor air cleanup levels, the remedy shall

150 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area, Mountain View and Moffett Field, California. August 16, 2010.
151 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Statement of Work Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Address the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area. 2011. 152 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Prec ise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 118 – 119. 153 Due to the widespread presence of certain contaminants in soils throughout the region, sampling results found to be consistent with regional background conditions indicate contaminant concentrations are not unique to the site and cannot be attributed to a specific release.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 138 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
consist of 1) passive sub-slab ventilation with a vapor barrier (and with the ability to convert the system from passive to active ventilation), 2) monitoring to ensure the long-term effectiveness, and 3) the implementation of Institutional Controls.
2) For future/new buildings on properties where multiple lines of evidence indicate there is no potential for vapor intrusion into the building exceeding EPA’s indoor air cleanup levels, indoor air sampling shall be performed after the building is constructed to confirm that there is no potential vapor intrusion risk and EPA’s indoor air cleanup levels are met; if approved by the EPA, no further vapor mitigation actions are required.
3) At properties where a vapor intrusion remedy is determined to be required, future project developers would be required to submit the following plans and controls to EPA for review and approval and would be required to implement the EPA-approved measures.

a) The Air Monitoring Plan assesses the exposure of construction workers and neighboring occupants adjoining the property to VOCs as part of the Air Monitoring Plan; this plan shall specify measures to be implemented if VOCs exceed regulatory threshold values. b) The Vapor Intrusion Control System Remedial Design describes th e measures to be implemented to help prevent exposure of property occupants to VOCs in indoor air as a result of vapor intrusion. A Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan must be prepared, which requires future project developers to design the proposed occupied spaces with appropriate structural and engineering features to reduce risk of vapor intrusion into buildings. At a minimum, this design would include incorporation of vapor barrier and provisions of space to accommodate active ventilation equipment to help prevent indoor air contaminant concentrations exceeding EPA’s indoor air cleanup levels. Future project developers w ould be required to submit the vapor intrusion remedial design (including the Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Plan) to the EPA for review and approval.

4) The ROD Amendment for the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area (EPA 2010), and the Statement of Work Remedial Design and Remedial Action to Address the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, MEW Superfund Study Area (EPA 2011) specify the selected remedy for all future buildings as: 1) passive sub-slab ventilation with a vapor barrier (and wi th the ability to convert the system from passive to active ventilation), 2) monitoring to ensure the long-term effectiveness) except where multiple lines of evidence show that there is no potential for vapor intrusion into a particular building exceeding indoor air cleanup levels, 2) monitoring to ensure the long -term effectiveness of the remedy, and 3) the implementation of institutional controls. Although active sub-slab/sub-membrane ventilation is considered to have a better long -term effectiveness than passive sub -slab ventilation systems, areas with lower groundwater VOC concentrations are considered to have a lower potential for vapor intrusion at levels exceeding indoor air cleanup levels. Because areas overlying higher VOC groundwater concentrations are considered to have a greater potential for vapor intrusion at levels exceeding indoor air cleanup levels, implementing an active sub-slab/sub-membrane ventilation system is acceptable because of its high rating in long- term effectiveness. Other design requirements would be subject to the EPA’s determination of necessary measures based upon its Response Action Tiering System for future buildings.

a) The Long-Term Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring Plan shall describe actions to be taken following construction to maintain and monitor the vapor intrusion mitigation system as

Middlefield Park Master Plan 139 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
well as a contingency plan should the vapor system fail. b) The IC Implementation Plan shall describe non-engineered instruments of control, such as administrative and legal controls that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of the response action. ICs shall be implemented through the City’s planning and permitting procedures to ensure that the appropriate remedy is applied to particular building construction.
c) The Financial Assurance provides proof that adequate funds are available for long-term maintenance and monitoring of the vapor intrusion mitigation system.

Additionally, the Precise Plan includes mitigation measure EIR M M HAZ -3.1, requiring the preparation of a site-specific Phase I ESA and the preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for all development projects with Recognized Environmental Conditions.

East Whisman Prec ise Plan EIR Mitigation Measure:

Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1: Prior to the start of any redevelopment activity, a property-specific Phase I ESA shall be completed in accordance with ASTM Standard Designation E 1527-13 (or the standard that is effective at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted) to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions, evaluate the property history, and establish if the property is likely to have been impacted by chemical releases. Soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater quality studies shall subsequently be conducted if warranted based on the findings of the property- specific Phase I ESAs, to evaluate if mitigation measures are needed to protect the health and safety of construction workers, the environment, and area residents.

At properties identified as being impacted or potentially impacted by Recognized Environmental Conditions pertaining to contaminated soils, soil vapor and/or groundwater (based on the professional judgment of the environmental professional and/or determination by the City based on the project-specific Phase I ESA or subsequent studies), a Site Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or other materials during construction activities. The SMP shall be prep ared by an Environmental Professional and submitted to the overseeing regulatory agency (e.g., EPA, RWQCB and/or County Department of Environmental Health) for review and approval prior to commencing construction activities. Management of site risks during earthwork activities in areas where impacted soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater are present or suspected, shall be described. Worker training requirements and health and safety shall be described. The SMP shall also be submitted to the City of Mountain View Planning Division for review. The project developer shall also submit to the City agency approval of the SMP or provide documentation of a regulatory agency’s decision declining involvement in the project.

Consistent with Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1, Phase I ESAs have been prepared for the project site (refer to Appendix G). Pursuant to Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1, to protect construction workers and the environment, a SMP would be prepared and implemented.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 140 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
With implementation of the vapor control measures and SMP described 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 const ruction and operation. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Asbestos Containing Materials
The Precise Plan EIR identified a less than significant impact from development and redevelopment of sites with existing buildings which may contain ACMs and lead-based paint with compliance with local, state, and federal laws including Cal/OSHA regulations for testing and abatement of ACMs and lead-based paint, and NESHAP requirements for removal of these materials.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA HAZ-1.1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) shall i mplement the following measures:
• Toxic Assessment. A toxic assessment report shall be prepared and submitted as part of the building permit submittal. The applicant must demonstrate that hazardous materials do not exist on the site or that construction act ivities and the proposed use of this site are approved by: the City Fire Department (Fire and Environmental Protection Division); the State Department of Health Services; the Regional Water Quality Control Board; and any Federal agency with jurisdiction. No building permits will be issued until each agency and/or department with jurisdiction has released the site as clean or a site toxics mitigation plan has been approved.
• Building Demolition PCB Control. Nonwood-frame buildings constructed before 1981 that will be completely demolished are required to conduct representative sampling of priority building materials that may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). If sample results of one or more priority building materials show PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm, the applicant is required to follow applicable Federal and State notification and abatement requirements prior to demolition of the building. Submit a completed “Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Screening Assessment Applicant Package” with the building demolition plans for the project. A demolition permit will not be issued until the completed “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” is submitted and approved by the City Fire and Environmental Protection Division (FEPD). Applicants are required to comply with applicable Federal and State regulations regarding notification and abatement of PCBs-containing materials. Contact the City’s FEPD at 650-903- 6378 to obtain a copy of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Applicant Package” and related guidance and information.

The project site is currently developed with buildings that could contain lead-based paint and or asbestos-containing materials given their age. Consistent with the Precise Plan EIR and the City’s standard conditions of approval, the project would comply with existing local, state, and federal regulations to address potential hazards from lead-based paint and asbestos- containing materials. For

Middlefield Park Master Plan 141 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
these reasons, the project would result in the same less than significant impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Project with District Utilities System Option
The project with the District Utilities System Option would result in the same less than significant impact with Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-3.1 and COA HAZ-1.1 incorporated, as described above for the project without District Utilities System Option . Unlike t he project, the project with District Utilities System Option would also include construction of a CUP, district distribution system, and geothermal system. Grading and excavation for the proposed CUP and district distribution system would result in the same potential hazards to the public and the environment related to impacted groundwater and soil vapor on-site as discussed above for the project. Construction of the geothermal system would require drilling up to 2,820 bores approximately 110 feet bgs.

As discussed in Section 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is underlain by two aquifers located between two and 60 feet bgs and between 55 and 160 feet bgs, respectively. The near surface aquifer is impacted by the HP and E/M Lubricant Plume and the MEW Plume, while the deeper aquifer is not impacted by these plumes. Thus, drilling for the geothermal bores would extend through the near surface aquifer and into a portion of the deeper aquifer. The geothermal bores would be drilled using the mud rotary drilling technique to prevent the potential spread of contamination from the shallow to deeper aquifers.
154 This technique involves advancing a hollow drill pipe into the ground and using a drill bit with water to simultaneously drill and remove the material while the drill pipe remains in place, creating a hollow bore. Once the bore hole has been drilled, a “u-loop” pipe would be inserted into the bore hole for the geothermal system and bentonite grout is poured around the “u-loop” pipe as the drill pipe is removed.
155 Therefore, although the bore would extend between the two aquifers, vertical cross contamination between the two aquifers would not occur because the drill pipe, and later the grout , would hold the space where soil once existed, preventing migration of groundwater along the vertical bore hole.
156 For these reasons, the District Utilities System Option would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions.

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

154 Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Re: Middlefield Park Master Plan Project-Specific Agency Submittal for:

Google Planned Horizontal Work. October 1, 2021.
155 Talon LPE. “Using mud rotary drilling for your next environmental drilling project.” Accessed October 7, 2021. https://www.talonlpe.com/blog/why-choose-mud-rotary-drilling-for-your-environmental-drilling-project 156 Elevate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Re: Middlefield Park Master Plan Project-Specific Agency Submittal for:

Google Planned Horizontal Work. October 1, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 142 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact HAZ-3: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the project site. The Google Children’s Center – The Woods day care facility and Jose Antonio Vargas Elementary school are located 0.38 miles southwest of the project site. (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HAZ-4:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5; however, with implementation of mitigation measures, standard conditions of approval, and compliance with existing regulations, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

As noted in Section 5.8.1.2 Existing Conditions , the project site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites with open clean up cases compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

However, as discussed under Impact HAZ -2, t he project (under either option) would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment with implementation of Precise Plan EIR MM HAZ-

3.1, compliance with the ROD measures and regulations for testing, removal of ACMs, and the City’s standard condition of approval COA HAZ -1.1. (Same Impact as A pproved Project [L ess than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Impact HAZ-5:

Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would be located within an ai rport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. However, the project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

FAR Part 77 sets forth standards and review requirements for protecting the airspace for safe aircraft operations, particularly by restricting density per acre, land use, and the height of potential structures and minimizing reflective surfaces, flashing lights, electronic interface and other potential hazards to aircraft in flight. These regulations require the FAA be notified of certain proposed construction projects located within an extended zone defined by a set of imaginary surfaces radiating outward for several miles from an airport’s runways, or which would otherwise stand at least 200 feet in height above the ground.

The General Plan EIR concluded that construction equipment or future development that exceeds the height restrictions of FAR Part 77 or land use policies from Moffett Federal Airfield’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan could affect navigable airspace; however, compliance with General Plan Policy LUD-

Middlefield Park Master Plan 143 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

2.5 (which requires the City to evaluate land uses and development for consistency with safety, height, noise, and related policies of the CLUP for Moffett Federal Airfield), and FAA notification requirements (including preparation of an aeronautical study by FAA ), as specified in FAR Part 77, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would result in a less than significant hazard to airport operations with compliance with FAA notification requirements, and the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, as well as applicable General Plan policies and actions.

The nearest airport to the site is Moffett Federal Airfield, which is approximately 0.5- mile northwest of the site. According to the Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), the project site is located within its Airport Influence Area. 157 A portion of the project site (495 Clyde
Avenue, 485 Clyde Avenue, and 433 Clyde Avenue) is located within a turning safety zone of Moffett Federal Airfield.158

The project (under either option) is consistent with the land uses and density for the site as identified in the Precise Plan and as analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR. The portion of the site within the turning safety zone complies with the land use and density of 200 people per acre limits as established in the Moffett Field CLUP.
159 As noted in Section 5.8.1, Existing Conditions, the project site is located within the mapped Part 77 182-foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. T he project (under either option) proposes buildings ranging from 16 to 125 feet in height on a site with an elevation that ranges from 50 to 62 feet amsl. The project would be designed to comply with the 182-foot amsl height threshold and, depending on the amsl of the building location, may be required to consult with the FAA and obtain a “Determination of No Hazard or Determination” of a “No Hazard with conditions” or a no hazard determination. Additionally, as identified in the Precise Plan, an avigation easement may be recorded on sites with new buildings as required by the Moffett CLUP. The project (under either option) would comply with FAA notification requirements, the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP, and applicable General Plan policies and actions identified for development within the Precise Plan.

Additionally, as discussed in detail in Section 5.12 Noise, the noise levels generated by the proposed land uses on-site would be acceptable for the uses proposed in relation to the Moffett CLUP. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not expose people to a safety hazards or excessive noise from Airfield operations. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

157 County of Santa Clara. Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Moffett Federal Airfield. December 19, 2018. 158 Santa Clara County Interactive Property Assessment GIS, February 4, 2022, https://sccplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fb3af8ce73b6407c939e1ac5f092bb30 159 Email correspondence from Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development confirmed compliance.

Received July 15, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 144 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact HAZ-6: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because the Precise Plan is consistent with General Plan Policies MOB 10.1, MOB

10.2, and MOB 10.4 which require efficient automobile infrastructure, implementation of TDM programs, and monitoring of emergency response times.
160

The project (under either option) would include seven emergency access roads throughout the site (six new service streets and one emergency vehicle access road parallel to the VTA tracks) and would not interfere with an adopted Mountain View emergency response or evacuation plan because the project would incorporate relevant fire code requirements and is not located along specified evacuation or emergency routes such that an impact would occur. Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.16 Transportation, new private roads and improvements to existing public roads proposed as part of the project (under either option) would be constructed to meet City standards (including adequate widths and turning aisles for emergency access). For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HAZ-7:

Both Project Option s: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

The project site is located in an urbanized area and not adjacent to wildland areas; therefore, there would be no wildfire -related impact. Also refer to Section 5.19 Wildfire. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.161 (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
Yes
LTS None N/A

160 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. P 124.
161 Ibid. P 125.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 145 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
HAZ-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset or accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Yes
S
Precise
Plan EIR
MM-3.1
LTS
HAZ-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) is listed on a site
compiled pursuant to Government
Code section 65962.5; however, with
implementation of mitigation measures,
standard conditions of approval, and
compliance with existing regulations, it
would not create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment.

Yes S
Precise
Plan EIR

MM HAZ-

3.1 LTS
HAZ-5:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) located within an
airport land use plan would not result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the
project area.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-6:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not impair
implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan.

Yes LTS None N/A
HAZ-7:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not expose
people or structures, directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland
fires.

Yes NI None N/A
Abbreviations: LTS – Less than Significant, S – Significant, NI – No Impact.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 146 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

5.9.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for hydrology and water quality has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Federal and State
The federal Clean Water Act and California’s Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act are the primary laws related to water quality in California. Regulations set forth by the E PA and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) have been developed to fulfill the requirements of this legislation. EPA regulations include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which controls sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States (e.g., streams, lakes, bays, etc.). These regulations are implemented at the regional level by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The project site is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to reduce impacts of flooding on private and public properties. The program provides subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations protecting development in floodplains. As part of the program, FEMA publishes Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that identify Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). An SFHA is an area that would be inundated by the one-percent annual chance flood, which is also referred to as the base flood or 100- year flood.

Statewide Construction General Permit
The SWRCB has implemented an NPDES General Construction Permit for the State of California (Construction General Permit). For projects disturbing one acre or more of soil, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor, and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared by a qualified professional prior to commencement of construction and filed with the RWQCB by the project sponsor. The Construction General Permit includes requirements for training, inspections, record keeping, and, for projects of certain risk levels, monitoring. The general purpose of the requirements is to minimize the discharge of pollutants and to protect beneficial uses and receiving waters from the adverse effects of construction-related storm water discharges.

Regional and Local
San Francisco Bay Basin Plan
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulates water quality in accordance with the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San

Middlefield Park Master Plan 147 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as the water quality objectives and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements, including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies.

Municipal Regional Permit Provision C.3
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB re-issued the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) in 2015 to regulate stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies (co-permittees) in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.
162 Under Provision C.3 of the MRP, new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface area are required to implement site design, source control, and Low Impact Development (LID)-based stormwater treatment controls to treat post - construction stormwater runoff. LID-based treatment controls are intended to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions, maximizing opportunities for infiltration and evapotranspiration, and using stormwater as a resource (e.g. , rainwater harvesting for non-potable uses). The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained.

In addition to water quality controls, the MRP requires new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface to manage development-related increases in peak runoff flow, volume, and duration, where such hydromodification is likely to cause incr eased erosion, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to local rivers, streams, and creeks. Projects may be deemed exempt from these requirements if they do not meet the minimized size threshold, drain into tidally influenced areas or directly into the Bay, or drain into hardened channels, or if they are infill projects in subwatersheds or catchment areas that are greater than or equal to 65 percent impervious.

In May 2022, it is anticipated the RWQCB will consider adoption of a renewed MRP. If adopted, any new development would be subject to the regulations under the renewed MRP.

Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance Valley Water operates as the flood control agency for Santa Clara County. Their stewardship also includes creek restoration, pollution prevention efforts, and groundwater recharge. Permits for well construction and destruction work, most exploratory boring for groundwater exploration, and projects within Valley Water property or easements are required under Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and District Well Ordinance.

2016 Groundwater Management Plan

The 2016 Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) describes Valley Water’s comprehensive groundwater management framework, including existing and potential actions to achieve basin sustainability goals and ensure continued sustainable groundwater management. The GWMP covers the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, which are located entirely in Santa Clara County. Valley Water

162 MRP Number CAS612008

Middlefield Park Master Plan 148 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
manages a diverse water supply portfolio, with sources including groundwater, local surface water, imported water, and recycled water. About half of the county’s water supply comes from local sources and the other half comes from imported sources. Imported water includes Valley Water’s State Water Project and Central Valley contract supplies and supplies delivered by the SFPUC to cities in northern Santa Clara County. Local sources include natural groundwater recharge and surface water supplies.

A small portion of the county’s water supply is recycled water.

Local groundwater resources make up the foundation of the county’s water supply, but they need to be augmented by Valley Water’s comprehensive water supply management activities to reliably meet the county’s needs. These include the managed recharge of imp orted and local surface water and in‐lieu recharge through the provision of treated surface water, acquisition of supplemental water supplies, and water conservation and recycling.
163

Construction Dewatering Waste Discharge Requirements
Each of the RWQCBs regulate construction dewatering discharges to storm drains or surface waters within its Region under the NPDES program and Waste Discharge Requirements.

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

Policy Description
Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 8.2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Comply with requirements in the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (MRP).

INC 8.4 Runoff pollution prevention. Reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and stormwater pollution entering creeks, water channels and the San Francisco Bay through participation in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.

INC 8.5 Site-specific stormwater treatment. Require post -construction stormwater treatment controls consistent with MRP requirements for both new development and redevelopment projects.

INC 8.7 Stormwater quality. Improve the water quality of stormwater and reduce flow quantities.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. P p. 131-132

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan contains policies that pertain to hydrology and water quality. These include integration of green stormwater infrastructure, treatment of runoff, and compliance with the MRP. The

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 149 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Precise Plan includes the following design guidelines and standards related to hydrology and water quality:

• Green infrastructure measures shall be placed into retrofitted streets as feasible, and as required by the MRP and City’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan and other plans and goals, • Green infrastructure measures are required in new streets, and as required by the Municipal Regional Permit and the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan and other plans and goals, • New public open spaces would be designed to incorporate best practices in sustainability, including water use and conservation, stormwater management, landscaping, and drought tolerant planting,
• New construction shall meet the baseline indoor and outdoor water performance standards defined by LEED, Green Point Rated, and mandatory CalGreen requirements, • New construction shall install dual plumbing for potable and recycled water use, and • When the recycled water system is adjacent to the property, new construction shall install the infrastructure necessary to connect to the recycled water system.

5.9.1.2 Existing Conditions
Stormwater Drainage
The project site is located within the Stevens Creek watershed, with the nearest waterway being Stevens Creek located approximately 0.9- mile west of the site. Stevens Creek eventually flows into the San Francisco Bay near Long Point, north of NASA Ames Research Center/Moffett Federal Airfield.

Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces within the Precise Plan area is collected by a municipal storm drain system consisting of storm drain inlets, conveyance pipes, culverts, channels and retention basins operated by the City of Mountain View Public Works Department. Drainage into the City system generally flows south to north towards San Francisco Bay.

The project site consists of 83 percent impervious surfaces (or 31.7 acres) and 17 percent (or 6.5 acres) pervious surfaces. Stormwater runoff from the project site is primarily conveyed to Stevens Creek which flows into the Lower South Bay via Whisman Slough and ultimately to the San Francisco Bay.

Water Quality
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as nonpoint source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other exposed surfaces into storm drains. Urban stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic habitats to which they drain.

While there are no streams, creeks, ponds, or other surface water bodies located within the project site, Stevens Creek is located 0.9-mile west of the site. Stevens Creek is on the 2006 Clean Water Act

Middlefield Park Master Plan 150 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Section 303(d) list due to impairment from toxicity from unknown sources. The California Water Board is in the process of examining the current status of impairment.

Groundwater
The Precise Plan area (including the project site) overlies the Santa Clara subbasin. The 225 square - mile Santa Clara groundwater basin provides municipal, domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply to the area.

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

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

Flooding
The project site is located within Flood Zone X, which is not a Special Flood Hazard Area as identified by FEMA FIRM.
165 Flood Zone X is defined as an area determined to be outside the one percent and

0.2 percent annual chance floodplains, indicative of a minimal flood hazard.

Seiches, Tsunamis, and Mudflows
A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water, typically caused by changes in atmospheric pressure, strong winds, earthquakes, tsunamis, or tidal movements. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors. A damaging seiche has not been recorded in the San Franscisco Bay Area as far as records indicate. 166

Tsunamis are long period water waves caused by underwater seismic events, volcanic eruptions, or undersea landslides. The Precise Plan area, and therefore the project site, is not located within an identified tsunami inundation area.167

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

Effective Date May 18, 2009.
166 City of Mountain View. City of Mountain View Draft 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR. SCH #2011012069. September 2012.
167 California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of Southern California.

Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning – Mountain View Quadrangle. 2009.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 151 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.9.2 Impact Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on hydrology and water quality, would the project:

1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
2) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
- result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; - substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner whi ch would result in flooding on- or off-site;
- create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
- impede or redirect flood flows?
4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? 5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

5.9.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact HYD-1:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. ( Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that compliance with the General Construction Permit, MRP, and Precise Plan design guidelines and standards would ensure future project construction and post - construction runoff would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.
168

The project (under either option) would disturb more than one acre of soil and would be subject to the requirements of the statewide NPDES General Construction Permit to reduce runoff and pollution in runoff from construction activities, including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of stormwater control BMPs.

The project (und er either option) would also replace more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and would be required to meet the requirements of the MRP. The MRP requires regulated

168 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. Pp. 134 – 135.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 152 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
projects to include LID practices, such as pollutant source control measures and stormwater treatment features aimed to maintain or restore the site’s natural hydrologic functions. The MRP also requires that stormwater treatment measures are properly installed, operated, and maintained. If adopted in May 2022, the project would be subject to the renewed MRP stormwater treatment requirements.

The project (under either option) would implement the following design guidelines and standards from the Precise Plan:

As discussed above, the project (under either option) would comply with General Construction Permit, current MRP, and Precise Plan design guidelines and standards, reducing water quality impacts to a less than significant impact. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HYD-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that new development under the Precise Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere with sustainable groundwater management because development would not be located on or impact recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants.

The project (under either option) would result in 74 percent impervious surfaces. Compared to existing site conditions, this would decrease impervious surfaces in the project site by 11 percent (or approximately 150,150 square feet). The decrease in impervious surfaces would proportionally reduce the amount of runoff on-site, compared to existing conditions. Since the proposed project would reduce the estimated runoff from the site and comply with the General Construction Permit and current MRP, the project would not result in substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 153 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
As discussed in Section 5.9.1 Environmental Setting the depth to groundwater varies across the site between six to 16 feet bgs. The project (under either option) would require excavation to a maximum depth of 50 feet bgs for building foundations and utility connections. Additionally, the project with District Utilities System Option would require drilling to a depth of approximately 110 feet bgs for installation of geobores. Thus, groundwater would be encountered during project construction (under either option). According to a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project, groundwater would be extracted at a rate of approximately 40 to 80 gallons per minute, or 57,600 to 115,200 gallons per day during construction until building foundations are completed. 169 The project would implement COA GEO-1.1 to minimize the volume of groundwater removed during project construction and ensure construction dewatering does not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

Furthermore, as noted in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the MEW Superfund Study Area. Potentially polluted dewatered groundwater would be dealt with as part of the SMP required as part of Precise Plan MM HAZ-3.1, as noted in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials . The SMP would be prepared prior to development activities to establish management practices for handling contaminated soil, soil vapor, groundwater, or other materials during construction. A Health and Safety Plan establishing appropriate protocols for working in hazardous materials shall also be prepared. During construction within the MEW Superfund Study Area, the project (under either option) would be required to implement EPA-approved measures during dewatering, as applicable.

Additionally, the project (under either option) would not permanently deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge because the project options would not directly use groundwater and the site does not contribute to recharge because it is mostly paved.

In conclusion, with implementation of the above condition of approval for construction dewatering the project (under either option) would not substantially decrease groundwa ter supplies or interfere with implementation of the sustainable groundwater management plan for the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater basin. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

169 ENGEO. East Whisman Phase 1: Geotechnical Report for Horizontal Improvements at R1 and R2. January 29, 2021. Revised February 8, 2021. P. 24.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 154 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact HYD-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sou rces of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of standard conditions of approval and MRP and Precise Plan standards and guidelines, the City’s stormwater system would adequately convey flows from buildout of the Precise Plan and that future development under the Precise Plan would have a less than significant impact to the existing storm drainage system and the existing drainage patterns of the area.
170

The project (under either option) would redevelop the existing site with mixed-use office, residential, retail, and open space uses. As discussed under Impact HYD-2, the project (under either option) would result in a decrease of impervious surfaces, thereby resulting in a corresponding decrease in surface runoff from the site compared to existing, pre -project conditions. Because the project (under either option) would decrease impervious surface area and would not cause increased erosion, silt pollution, or other impacts to surface waters, the project site is not subject to a hydromodification management plan (HMP). However, it would be required to comply with MRP Provision C.3 requirements requiring LID practices and water treatment measures. With a decrease of surface runoff, the existing storm drain system would continue to accommodate flows from the site. As a result, the project (under either option) would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, create runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Furthermore, because there are no waterways on or adjacent to the project site, the project would not alter the course of a river or stream.

Standard Conditions of Approval:

COA HYD-2.1: Both Projects Options : The project (under either option) shall implement the following:
• State of California Construction General Stormwater Permit. A “Notice of Intent” (NOI) and “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan” (SWPPP) shall be prepared for construction projects disturbing one (1) acre or more of land. Proof of coverage under the State General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit shall be attached to the building plans.
• Construction Best Management Practices. All construction projects shall be conducted in a manner which prevents the release of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, polluted water, and sediments to the storm drain system.

170 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. P. 137

Middlefield Park Master Plan 155 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• Construction Sediment and Erosion Control Plan. The applicant shall submit a written plan acceptable to the City which shows controls that would be used at the site to minimize sediment runoff and erosion during storm events.

The plan s hall include installation of the following items where appropriate:
(a) silt fences around the site perimeter; (b) gravel bags surrounding catch basins; (c) filter fabric over catch basins; (d) covering of exposed stockpiles; (e) concrete washout areas; (f) stabilized rock/gravel driveways at points of egress from the site; and (g) vegetation, hydroseeding, or other soil stabilization methods for high -erosion areas. The plan shall also include routine street sweeping and storm drain catch basin cleaning.
• Stormwater Treatment (C.3). This project w ould create or replace impervious surface; therefore, stormwater runoff shall be directed to approved permanent treatment controls as described in the City’s guidance document entitled, “Stormwater Quality Guidelines for Development Projects.” • Stormwater Management Plan – Third Party Engineer’s Certification.

The Final Stormwater Management Plan shall be certified by a qualified third- party engineer that the proposed stormwater treatment controls comply with the City’s Guidelines and Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). A list of qualified engineers is available at the following link: http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants_list.shtml.

The Precise Plan design guidelines require new landscaping to incorporate stormwater capture and treatment into landscaping design and for new public spaces to implement best practices for stormwater management. By decreasing the amount of impervious surfaces on-site and complying with the MRP and Precise Plan design guidelines, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approv ed Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HYD-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded future development allowed under the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts from release of pollutants due to inundation because the Precise Plan Area is not located within an area of high flood hazard, dam inundation, or tsunami hazard risk, and future development would comply with Mountain View Fire Department ( MVFD) requirements for storage of hazardous materials.
171

The project site is not located in an identified FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone or subject to tsunamis or seiches.172 The MVFD requires any facility storing large quantities of any hazardous materials to prepare a Hazardous M aterials Business Plan program (HMBP). The project with District Utilities

171 Ibid.
172 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 06085C0045H.

Effective Date May 18, 2009.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 156 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
System Option would be required to prepare and implement a HMBP approved by MVFD which includes a contingency plan that describes the facility’s response procedures in the event of a hazardous materials release. With implementation of the HMBP, and based on the location of the project and the fact that it would not include significant amounts of pollutants, the project would not result in a release of pollutants from flooding, seiches, or tsunamis, and would have a less than significant impact . This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact HYD-5: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Valley Water ’s G WMP establishes recharge facilities, recycled water systems, and conservation strategies to proactively manage groundwater and surface water resources within its jurisdiction.

Natural recharge of the groundwater basin occurs along the margins and southern portion of the subbasin where high lateral and vertical permeability allow surface water to infiltrate the aquifers.

Percolation of precipitation within recharge areas replenishes groundwater and contributes to the recharge of principal aquifers.
173 There are no recharge facilities, pump plants, or drinking water treatment plants in the Precise Plan area, and therefore, in the project site.174 The Precise Plan EIR concluded that future development under the Precise Plan would result in less than significant impacts to recharge facilities, pump stations, or drinking water plants because no such facilities are located within the Precise Plan area and it would not interfere with the existing SFPUC pipelines that cross through the Precise Plan area.

The project (under either option) is consistent with the development assumptions in the Precise Plan EIR and would, therefore, result in the same less than significant impact to these facilities. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

February 2004. and Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016. 174 Santa Clara Valley Water District. Groundwater Management Plan. November 2016.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 157 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not violate
any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground
water quality.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not
substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not
substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site;
create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or impede or redirect
flood flows.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-4:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not risk
release of pollutants due to project
inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones.

Yes LTS None N/A
HYD-5:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 158 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

5.10.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for land use has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework
Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains policies to avoid significant impacts due to land use and planning impacts.

The following policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 3.4 Land use conflict. Minimize conflicts between different land uses LUD 3.8 Preserved land use districts. Promote and preserve commercial and industrial districts that support a diversified economic base.

LUD 19.6 Residential transitions. Require development to p rovide sensitive transitions to adjacent residential uses.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 49, 65

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan encompasses an approximately 412-acre area in the City of Mountain View that is generally bounded by US 101 and Moffett Federal Airfield/NASA Ames Research Center to the north, Central Expressway to the south, the City of Sunnyvale to the east, and North Whisman Road to west.

The Precise Plan is intended to serve as the primary document and reference guide for the future development and redevelopment of the Precise Plan area. In addition to providing the community and decision makers with a clear vision for the Precise Plan area, the Precise Plan is intended to provide clear policy and regulatory framework by which future development projects and public improvements would be reviewed. The Precise Plan area has been divided into four Character Areas (Mixed-Us e Area, Village Center, Employment Area North, and Employment Area South) which function similar to land use districts with specified allowed land uses, development standards, and building placement and massing regulations.

The Precise Plan includes development standards and design criteria that have been adopted to function, along with the standards in the City Code, to limit land use conflicts and provide for compatibility with surrounding properties and neighborhoods. Considerations that are intended to mitigate or address potential adverse effects to adjacent developments or neighborhoods from traffic, noise, odors, visual nuisances, or other similar effects may include, but are not limited to: the placement or orientation of buildings and entryways, parking areas, buffers, and the addition of landscaping, walls, or both.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 159 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.10.1.2 Existing Conditions
The project site is designated High Intensity Office and East Whisman Mixed-Use in the City’s General Plan and is zoned P-41 East Whisman Precise Plan. The site is currently developed with 23 office and light industrial buildings, as well as landscaping, and surface parking lots. The site is located adjacent to the VTA Middlefield Light Rail Station. The Hetch Hetchy/TOD Trail is located approximately 65 feet west of the site, across Ellis Street , and the existing VTA multi-use path bisects the project site and is located on the w est side of the light rail tracks. Surrounding land uses include office and light industrial uses to the north, south, and east, and Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course to the east. Existing residential neighborhoods are located further from the project site to the west, east, and south (refer to Figure 3.2-3).

5.10.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on land use and planning, would the project:

1) Physically divide an established community?
2) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

5.10.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact LU-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not physically divide an established community. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded implementation of the Precise Plan would not physically divide an established community because it would not include highways or railways that would impact existing communities, instead it would improve connectivity.175 The project (under either option) proposes land uses consistent with the Precise Plan and similar to the existing land uses surrounding the project site (refer to Figure 3.2-3). The project (under either option) do es not involve components that would physically divide an existing community (i.e., highways or railways). New private roadways are proposed that would provide connections throughout the project site and surrounding neighborhoods.

The new roadways would be reviewed during planning permit entitlement review (via Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permits) and would be required to meet City circulation and design requirements in order to create an integrated and cohesive neighborhood. Additionally, the project (under either option) would construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail network throughout the site to improve access to and circulation through the site from the Hetch Hetchy /TOD Trail, Middlefield Light Rail Station, VTA multi -use path, and throughout the Precise Plan area. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian paths would be reviewed during the planning permit entitlement review (via Planned Community Permit and Development Review Permits) and would be required to meet City circulation and design requirements. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

175 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 144.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 160 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact LU-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact])

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that the Precise Plan incorporates standards and guidelines to minimize environmental impacts and would be consistent with land use plans, policies, and regulations including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Moffett Field CLUP, and Plan Bay Area 2040. The project’s consistency with these land use and development assumptions are discussed in detail below (under either option).

General Plan
The project site is designated High Intensity Office and East Whisman Mixed-Use in the City’s General Plan. The General Plan High-Intensity Office designation supports major commercial operations, such as corporations, financial and administrative offices, high-technology industries, and other scientific facilities, as well as supporting retail and other service uses. The General Plan East Whisman Mixed- Used designation promotes a mix of offices, neighborhood-serving commercial, multi -family residential, lodging, and small businesses in the core of the East Whisman area. The project (under either option) would redevelop the site with a mix of office, multi -family r esidential, retail , civic/community uses, and parkland/open space consistent with the type of development envisioned in the General Plan.

East Whisman Precise Plan
As noted in Section 3.3 Consistency with General Plan Designation and Zoning District, t he site is zoned P-41 East Whisman Precise Plan and is located in the Mixed-Use and North Employment Character Area s. These Character Areas allow a mix of low , moderate, and high-intensity uses of office, R&D, multi-family residential, hotel, and retail and service uses. The maximum base building height allowed on-site ranges from 60 to 95 feet; however, additional height allowances of 65 to 135 feet are provided for projects with park dedication, ground floor neighborhood commercial space, and close proximity to light rail. T he “base” FAR for the site varies from 0.40 for non-residential development to 1.0 for residential/mixed-use development. The maximum FAR allowed ranges from

0.5 to 1.0 for non-residential development and 2.5 to 3.5 for residential/mixed-use development.

The proposed land uses (under either option) are consistent with the type of development envisioned in the Precise Plan for the Mixed-Use and Employment North Character Areas. The project (under either option) proposes non-residential FARs ranging from 0.39 to 1.0 and residential/mixed-use FARs ranging from 1.12 to 1.66 with maximum building heights of 16 to 125 feet. The MPMP is proposing to use “bonus” FAR for both residential and non-residential development as permitted in the Precise Plan. Thus, the project would be consistent with the development standards for the site under the East Whisman Precise Plan zoning district.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 161 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Moffett Field CLUP
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not conflict with the Moffett Field CLUP because the Precise Plan includes standards and guidelines to minimize environmental impacts and would be consistent with the CLUP .176 As noted in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is located within the AIA and within the mapped Part 77 182- foot amsl horizontal surface for Moffett Federal Airfield. Additionally, the majority of the project site is not located within any noise contours of the Moffett Federal Airfield, however, the parcels at 520- 530 Logue Avenue and 500-526 Clyde Avenue (APN 160-57-008), 485 Clyde Avenue (APN 160-57- 006), and 495 Clyde Avenue (APN 160-57-007) are located within the 65 dB noise contour of the Moffett Federal Airfield (refer to Figure 5.12-1).

As discussed in Section 5.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project (under either option) proposes buildings with heights 16 to 125 feet , and depending on the amsl at the building location, may require consultation with the FAA to obtain a “Determination of No Hazard” or “Determination of No Hazard with Conditions”, which may require an avigation easement as noted in the Precise Plan.

Additionally, as discussed in Section 5.12 Noise, the project (under either option) proposes office and parking uses within the 65 dBA noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield which would be an acceptable noise level for the uses proposed. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would not conflict with airport operations at Moffett Federal Airfield.

Additionally, the properties at 433, 485, and 495 Clyde Avenue are located within the turning safety zone of the Moffett Federal Airfield. The proposed land uses (office, parking, and retail/community/civic space) and densities of 200 people per acre or less are consistent with the CLUP as confirmed with Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development on July 15, 2021.

Plan Bay Area 2040/2050
As noted in Section 5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions above, in October 2021, ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2050 which builds on Plan Bay Area 2040 and includes 35 strategies for housing, transportation, economic viability and the environment. Although Plan Bay Area 2050 was adopted, it will take several years for the updated plan to be reflected in the regional and county-wide transportation m odels, so land uses and development projections based on Plan Bay Area 2040 are used as the foundation for this analysis. The Precise Plan EIR concluded that development allowed under the Precise Plan would not conflict with the Plan Bay Area 2040 because the Precise Plan meets the intent of Plan Bay Area 2040 to focus growth in PDAs and streamline the review process for development projects . Plan Bay Area 2040 focuses future growth in PDAs near transit facilities in order to encourage more sustainable growth in the region. The project (under either option) includes high density mixed -use development adjacent to the Middlefield Light Rail Station and within an identified PDA. Therefore, the project (under either option) would be consistent with Plan Bay Area 2040.

For these reasons, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations and the impact would be less than significant. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

176 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. P. 145

Middlefield Park Master Plan 162 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not
physically divide an existing
community.

Yes LTS None N/A
LU-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not cause a
significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating n environmental
effect.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 163 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

5.11.1 Envir onmental Setting
An analysis of mineral resources impacts associated with implementation of the Precise Plan was included in the Geology and Soils Section of the Precise Plan EIR. The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for mineral resources has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.11.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) was enacted by the California legislature in 1975 to address the need for a continuing supply of mineral resources, and to prevent or minimize the negative impacts of surface mining to public health, property, and the environment. As mandated under SMARA, the State Geologist has designated mineral land classifications in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state subject to urban expansion or other irreversible land uses which would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), after receiving classification information from the State Geologist, to designate lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance.

5.11.1.2 Existing Conditions
Based on mapping by the California Division of Mines and Geology, as well as mapping by the California Department of Conservation, there have been no mineral or aggregate sources of statewide importance identified within the Mountain View city limits. 177

5.11.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on mineral resources, w ould the project:

1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

177 California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco Monterey Bay Area: Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas: South San Francisco Bay Production – Consumption Region. Map. 1987.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 164 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.11.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact MIN-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state . [Same Impact as Approved Project (No Impact)]

There are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located in the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site). Implementation of the project (under either option), therefore, would not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.178 (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

Impact MIN-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

As noted above, t here are no minerals or aggregate resources of statewide importance located in the Precise Plan area (which includes the project site). Implementation of the project (under either option), therefore, would not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [No Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result
in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and residents of
the state.

Yes NI None N/A
MIN-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result
in the loss of availability of a locally
important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan.

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

178 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 90.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 165 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.12 NOISE

5.12.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for noise and vibration has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.12.1.1 Background Information
Noise
Factors that influence sound as it is perceived by the human ear, include the actual level of sound, period of exposure, frequencies involved, and fluctuation in the noise level during exposure. Noise is measured on a decibel s cale, which serves as an index of loudness. The zero on the decibel scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Each 10 decibel increase in sound level is perceived as approximately a doubling of loudness. Be cause the human ear cannot hear all pitches or frequencies, sound levels are frequently adjusted or weighted to correspond to human hearing. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA.

Since excessive noise levels can adversely affect human activities and human health, federal, state, and local governmental agencies have set forth criteria or planning goals to minimize or avoid these effects.

Noise guidelines are generally expressed using one of several noise averaging methods, including L eq,
Ldn, or CNEL.179 These descriptors are used to measure a location’s overall noise exposure, given that there are times when noise levels are higher (e.g., when a jet is taking off from an airport or when a leaf blower is operating) and times when noise levels are lower (e.g., during lulls in traffic flows on freeways or in the middle of the night). Lmax is the maximum A -weighted noise level during a measurement period.

Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration amplitude can be quantified using Peak Particle Velocity (PPV), which is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. PPV has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne construction vibration. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 inches/second (in/sec) PPV.

179 Leq is a measurement of average energy level intensity of noise over a given period of time. Day-Night Level (DNL) is a 24 -hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) includes an additional five dB applied to noise occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Where traffic noise predominates, the CNEL and DNL are typically within two dBA of the peak-hour Leq.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 166 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Limits
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact assessment criteria for evaluating vibration impacts associated with transit projects , including light rail, buses, and transit stations. The FTA has proposed vibration impact criteria based on maximum overall levels for a single event. The impact criteria for groundborne vibration are shown in Table 5.12-1 below. These criteria can be applied to development projects in jurisdictions that lack vibration impact standards.

Table 5.12-1: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria
Land Use Category
Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels
(VdB inch/sec)
Frequent
Event
Occasional
Events
Infrequent
Events
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere
with interior operations 65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people
normally sleep 72 75 80
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use 75 78 83
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment Manual. September 2018.

State, Regional, and Local
California Building Standards Code
The CBC establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings housing people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartments, and dwellings other than single -family residences. Title 24 mandates inter ior noise levels attributable to exterior sources not exceed 45
Ldn/CNEL in any habitable room. Exterior windows must have a minimum Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 40 or Outdoor-Indoor Transmission Class (OITC) of 30 when the property falls within the 65 dBA DNL
noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial source.

California Green Building Standards Code
For commercial uses, CalGreen (Section 5.507.4.1 and 5.507.4.2) requires that wall and roof- ceiling assemblies exposed to the adjacent roadways have a composite STC rating of at least 50 or a composite OITC rating of no less than 40, with exterior windows of a minimum STC of 40 or OITC of 30 when the commercial property falls within the 65 dBA L dn or greater noise contour for a freeway or expressway, railroad, or industrial or stationary noise source. The state requires interior noise levels to be maintained at 50 dBA Leq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at a proposed commercial use.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 167 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Moffett Federal Airfield Comprehensive Land Use Plan
The Moffett Federal Airfield is located approximately 0.5-mile northwest of the project site. The Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP includes noise exposure maps and guidelines intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The northern half of the project site is located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour zone, and the southern half of the project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour zone, as shown in Figure 5.12-1 below.180 The following policies from the Moffett Federal Airfield CLUP would be applicable to MPMP.

Policy Description
Noise
N-1 The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) method of representing noise levels shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with the CLUP.

N-2 In addition to the other policies herein, the Noise Compatibility Guidelines presented in Table

3.11-2 shall be used to determine if a specific land use is consistent with this CLUP.

N-3 Noise impacts shall be evaluated according to the Aircraft Noise Contours.

N-4 No residential or transient lodging construction shall be permitted within the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unless it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound levels will be less than 45 dB CNEL and there are no outdoor patios or outdoor activity areas associated with the residential portion of a mixed -use residential project of a multi —unit residential project. (Sound wall noise mitigation measures are not effective in reducing noise generated by aircraft flying overhead).

N-6 Residential construction will not be permitted in the area between the 60 dB CNEL contour boundary and the 65 dB CNEL contour boundary unle ss it can be demonstrated that the resulting interior sound level will be no greater than 45 dB CNEL.

N-7 Noise level compatibility standards for other types of land uses shall be applied in the same manner as the above residential noise level criteria. Table 4-1 below presents acceptable noise levels for other land uses in the vicinity of the Airport.

County of Santa Clara. Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016.

180 Santa Clara County, Airport Land Use Commission. November 18, 2016. Comprehensive Land Use Plan: Moffett Federal Airfield. Figure 5: 2022 Aircraft Noise Contours with AIA. Accessed November 16, 2021. https://plandev.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb941/files/ALUC_NUQ_CLUP.pdf . P. 25.

Source: Santa Clara County, November 18, 2016.

Los
Altos Santa
Clara
Sunnyvale
Mountain
View
Palo
Alto
San
Jose

EL CAMINO REAL

MIDDLEFIELD RD
LAW
RENCE
EXPY

CENTRAL EXPY

CENTRAL EXPY
£¤101
·|}þ237
·|}þ85
CNEL (dBs)
65 70 75
±0 3,000 6,000
Feet
MOFFETT FEDERAL AIRFIELD 2022 NOISE CONTOURS FIGURE 5.12-1 -□ D D

Middlefield Park Master Plan 169 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan includes noise compatibility guidelines for various land uses. For reference, these guidelines are provided in Table 5.12-2 below.

Table 5.12-2: General Plan Outdoor Noise Environment Guidelines Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure in Decibels (CNEL)
Day/Night Average Noise Level in Decibels (Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Residential—Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes

Residential—Multi-Family,
Transient Lodging—Motels, Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters,
Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water
Recreation, Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional

Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities,
Agriculture

Normally Acceptable:

Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable:

New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Normally Unacceptable:

New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Unacceptable:

New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. Pg. 163

D
D
--

Middlefield Park Master Plan 170 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to noise. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Noise
NOI 1.2 Noise-sensitive land uses. Require new development of noise -sensitive land uses to incorporate measures into the project design to reduce interior and exterior noise levels to the following acceptable levels:
• New single-family developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA Ldn for exterior noise in private outdoor active use areas.
• New multi-family residential developments shall maintain a standard of 65 dBA L dn for private and community outdoor recreation use areas. Noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments • Interior noise levels shall not exceed 45 dBA Ldn in all new single-family and multi- family residential units.
• Where new single- family and multi- family residential units would be exposed to intermittent noise from major transportation sources such as train or airport operations, new construction shall achieve an interior noise level of 65 dBA through measures such as site design or special construction materials. This standard shall apply to areas exposed to four or more major transportation noise events such as passing trains or aircraft flyovers per day.

NOI 1.3 Exceeding acceptable noise thresholds. If noise levels in the area of a proposed project would exceed normally acceptable thresholds, the City shall require a detailed analysis of proposed noise reduction measures to determine whether the proposed use is compatible. As needed, noise insulation features shall be included in the design of such projects to reduce exterior noise levels to meet acceptable thresholds, or for uses with no active outdoor use areas, to ensure acceptable interior noise levels.

NOI 1.6 Sensitive uses. Minimize noise impacts on noise-sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, schools, hospitals and child-care facilities.

NOI 1.7 Stationary sources. Restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance.

Source: City of Mountain View, Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. P p. 166-167

Mountain View City Code
The City of Mountain View addresses noise regulations in Chapter 21 of the City Code. These regulations help protect the community from exposure to excessive noise and also specify how noise is measured and regulated. The regulations limit noise from stationary equipment (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning mechanical systems, delivery truck idling, loading/unloading activities, recreation activities, and parking lot operations) in Section 21.26 of the Code. The maximum allowable noise level is 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA at night (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), unless it has been demonstrated that such operation will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of residents subjected to such noise, and the use has been granted a permit by the City. Noise limits can also be regulated through project conditions of approval. The MVPD and City Attorney’s office (Code Enforcement Division) enforce noise violations.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 171 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noise -sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), when construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise -sensitive land uses (e.g., residences , daycare facility ), and/or when construction duration lasts an extended period of time. Section 8.70.1 of the City Code restricts the hours of construction activity to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction activity is permitted on Saturday, Sunday, or holidays without written approval from the City.

Construction activities are defined to include any physical activity on the construction site or in the project’s staging area, including the delivery of materials.

5.12.1.3 Existing Conditions
The existing noise environment in the Precise Plan area (including the project site) results primarily from vehicular traffic along freeway and roadways (including US 101, East Middlefield Road, SR 237, North Whisman Road, and Ellis Street), VTA light rail car pass-bys and station stops, and aircraft associated with Moffett Federal Airfield . The northeast quadrant of the project site is located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield, the remainder of the project site is located outside of the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour.

The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located approximately 700 feet southwest of the site on Infinity Way (in South Whisman Precise Plan area). A noise monitoring survey was completed for the Precise Plan EIR in November 2018 which included one noise measurement on the project site near the location of the proposed Building O2 (ST-9) and one noise measurement at the northwest corner of the Ellis Street/East Middlefield Road intersection (LT -2), near the proposed Building R1.
181 Noise levels at the proposed Building O2 were measured at 50 dBA L eq and noise levels at the corner of the Ellis Street/East Middlefield Road intersection were measured at 70 dBA Ldn

5.12.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on noise, would the project result in:

1) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

181 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. P 167.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 172 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.12.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact NOI-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

As described in the Precise Plan EIR, a significant noise impact would be identified if the project would generate a substantial temporary or permanent noise level increase over ambient noise levels at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site and would exceed ambient noise standards presented in the General Plan or City Code at existing noise-sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. The following thresholds are used to determine if the project would result in a significant noise impact:

• A significant temporary noise impact would be identified if the hourly average noise levels exceed 60 dBA L
eq, and the ambient by at least five dBA Leq, for a period of more than one year at adjacent residential land uses.
• A significant permanent noise level increase would occur if project-generated traffic would result in: a) a noise level increase of five dBA L
dn or greater, with a future noise level of less
than 60 dBA Ldn, or b) a noise level increase of three dBA Ldn or greater, with a future noise level of 60 dBA Ldn or greater.
• A significant noise impact would be identified if the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that would exceed applicable noise standards presented in the General Plan (normally acceptable exterior noise level for office buildings is 67 dBA).

Construction Noise
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the Precise Plan would have less than significant construction noise impacts with adherence to City Code requirements and standard condit ions of approval.

As noted in Section 3.2.6 Construction Activities and Phasing, the project (under either option) would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, paving, and landscaping. Project construction would occur over four phases and take a total of approximately 8.5 years. During this time, construction activities would be completed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with written approval granted by the chief building official for activities on Saturdays per City Code (Chapter 8). In addition, projects within the Precise Plan area would be required to implement the following standard conditions of approval, as identified in the Precise Plan EIR.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 173 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1.1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) shall implement the following measures:
• Construction Noise Reduction. The following noise reduction measures shall be incorporated into construction plans and contractor specifications to reduce the impact of temporary construction-related noise on nearby properties: a. comply with manufacturer’s muffler requirements on all construction equipment engines; b. turn off construction equipment when not in use, where applicable; c. locate stationary equipment as far as practicable from receiving properties; d. use temporary sound barriers or sound curtains around loud stationary equipment if the other noise reduction methods are not effective or possible; e. and shroud or shield impact tools and use electric powered rather than diesel-powered construction equipment.
• Construction Practices Noticing - Disturbance Coordinator. The p roject applicant shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator (who may be an employee of the general contractor) shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number of the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site fence and on the notification sent to neighbors adjacent to the site. The sign must also list an emergency after-hours contact number for emergency personnel.

In compliance with the allowed construction days and hours per the City Code and with implementation of the above standard conditions of approval, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant construction noise impact on adjacent sensitive receptors and future receptors associated with the proposed project. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Traffic Noise
The future traffic noise from buildout of the Precise Plan was modeled for the Precise Plan EIR. Traffic noise increases above existing levels from Precise Plan-generated traffic were estimated to be one to two dBA L
dn or less at noise sensitive receptors within and outside the Precise Plan area.182 Since the increase in traffic noise result of the Precise Plan buildout (which includes traffic from the project under either option) would be less than three dBA, the Precise Plan EIR concluded that traffic noise generated by the Precise Plan (as well as project) would have a less than significant impact on noise - sensitive receptors in the area. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

182 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. January 2020. Pp. 169-170.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 174 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Mechanical Equipment Noise
The Precise Plan EIR concluded that mechanical noise from future development would be less than significant in compliance with General Plan Policy NOI-1.7 and the below c ondition of approval.183 General Plan Policy NOI-1.7 and the below standard conditions of approval restrict noise levels from stationary sources through enforcement of the Noise Ordinance, which states that stationary equipment noise from any property must be maintained at or below 55 dBA L eq during daytime hours (i.e.,
between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and at or below 50 dBA L eq during nighttime hours (i.e., between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) as measured at residential land uses.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI-1.2: Both Project Options: Mechanical Equipment (Noise). The noise emitted by any mechanical equipment shall not exceed a level of 55 dB(A) during the day or 50 dB(A) during the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., when measured at any location on the adjoining residentially used property.

The project would include mechanical systems (i.e., HVAC, exhaust fans, intake ventilation, air sourced heat pumps, and cooling towers) on portions of the roof tops of the proposed buildings under either project option . Under the project with District Utilities System Option, most mechanical equipment would be located inside Building O1. The Precise Plan EIR includes the standard condition of approval COA NOI-1.2 noted above to reduce potential noise impacts from mechanical equipment.

In compliance with General Plan Policy NOI-1.7 and w ith implementation of the above standard condition of approval COA NOI-1.2, the project (under either option) would not result in a significant impact from mechanical noise at residential land uses because mechanical equipment would be selected to achieve or remain below exterior noise level standards at nearby residential uses . This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact NOI-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels . (Same Impact as Approved Project [ Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation])

The Precise Plan EIR determined that construction activities associated with development allowed under the Precise Plan would generate vibration from operation of heavy equipment and impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, hoe rams) and identified a less than significant vibration noise impact with implementation of Precise Plan EIR MM NOI-4.1.

183 City of Mountain View. Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report, East Whisman Precise Plan. January 2020.

Pp. 160 – 162.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 175 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
East Whisman Precise Plan EIR Mitigation Measure:

Precise Plan EIR MM NOI -4.1: Both Project Options: 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 concluded 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 nearby structures to ground-born vibration.

Vibration levels 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 when 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.

Project construction activities (under either option) would generate vibration from operation of heavy equipment and impact tools as described in the Precise Plan EIR . 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 d riving, 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 post - construction survey of affected structures. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated])

Middlefield Park Master Plan 176 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact NOI-3: Both Project Option s: The project (under either option) woul d be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. However, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

As shown in Figure 5.12-1, most of the project site is not loc ated within any noise contours of the Moffett Federal Airfield; however, the parcels at 500 Logue Ave, 485 Clyde Avenue and 495 Clyde Avenue are located within the 65 dB noise contour of the Moffett Federal Airfield. According to the CLUP noise compatibility policies and the City of Mountain View Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines, aircraft noise levels of 65 dBA are considered acceptable for office uses and neighborhood parks, and conditionally acceptable for residential uses. According to the CLUP, all new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.

The project (under either option) proposes office and parking uses, along with a small portion of a park (Maude Park), within the 65 dBA contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield; no residential uses are proposed within this area. Thus, noise levels on-site would be considered acceptable under the CLUP noise compatibility policies and the City of Mountain View Outdoor Noise Acceptability Guidelines.

Furthermore, CalGreen requires that commercial/office interior noise levels be maintained at 50 dBA L
eq (1-hr) or less during hours of operation and residential interior noise levels be maintained at 45 dBA L eq (1-hr). As part of the City’s building permit review process, construction drawings must confirm that measures have been taken to achieve a maximum interior noise level of 50 dBA L dn for commercial/office tenant space and 45 dBA Ldn for residential space. To ensure the 50 dBA standard is met for commercial/office and 45 dBA standard is met for residential, a qualified acoustical specialist would prepare a detailed analysis of interior noise levels. Therefore, noise from aircraft would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at the project site and interior noise r esulting from aircraft would be compatible with the project (under either option). This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

5.12.2.2 Non-CEQA Impacts
Per California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (BIA v. BAAQMD) , effects of the environment on the project are not considered CEQA impacts. The following discussion is included for informational purposes only because the City of Mountain View has policies (including General Plan Policies NOI 1.1 and NOI 1.2) that address existing noise conditions affecting a proposed project.

Future Exterior Noise Environment
As established by General Plan Policy NOI-1.2, exterior noise environments at private and community outdoor recreation use areas should be maintained at or below 65 dBA L dn to be considered acceptable
by the City of Mountain View. The noise standards do not apply to private decks and balconies in multi-family residential developments such as those proposed by the project (under either option).

According to the Precise Plan EIR, noise produced by vehicular traffic along roadways in the Precise

Middlefield Park Master Plan 177 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Plan area would expose residential land uses to levels above the 65 dBA L dn exterior compatibility threshold.

Consistent with the Precise Plan EIR, as part of the City’s building permit review process, a qualified acoustical specialist shall prepare a detailed analysis of exterior noise levels and construction drawings would confirm measures have been taken to achieve a City’s exterior noise standards for community outdoor recreation use areas.

Future Interior Noise Environment
Residential Uses
General Plan policies and the CBC’s interior noise level standard of 45 dBA Ldn apply to the residential portion of the project (under either option). Interior noise levels would vary depending upon the design of the buildings (relative window area to wall area) and the selected construction materials and methods. Standard residential construction provides 15 dBA of exterior- to-interior noise reduction, assuming the windows are partially open for ventilation. Standard construction with the windows closed provides approximately 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. According to the Precise Plan EIR, estimated future noise levels 75 feet from the centerline of Middlefield Avenue between Logue Avenue and Ferguson Drive would be up to 68 dBA DNL; therefore, the interior noise levels of the proposed residential building could exceed 45 dBA DNL when windows are partially
open. In order to reduce the interior noise at the proposed residential units, the project (under either option) shall implement the following condition of approval.

Standard Condition of Approval:

COA NOI -2.1: Both Project Options : Site-Specific Building Acoustical Analysis. A qualified acoustical consultant shall review final site plans, building elevations, and floor plans prior to construction to calculate expected interior noise levels as required by State noise regulations. Project -specific acoustical analyses are required by the California Building Code to confirm that the design results in interior noise levels reduced to 45 dBA L
dn or lower. The specific determination of what noise insulation treatments are necessary shall be completed on a unit-by-unit basis. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise control treatments, shall be submitted to the City along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit .

Building sound insulation requirements shall include the provision of forced- air mechanical ventilation for all residential units as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant, so that windows can be kept closed at the occupant ’s discretion to control noise. Special building techniques (e.g., sound-rated windows and building facade treatments) shall be implemented as recommended by the qualified acoustical consultant to maintain interior noise levels at or below acceptable levels. These treatments shall include, but are not limited to, sound-rated windows and doors, sound- rated wall construction, acoustical caulking, protected ventilation openings, etc.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 178 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Commercial Uses
As mentioned under Impact NOI-3 above, the CalGreen Code requires that interior noise l evels be maintained at 50 dBA L eq(1-hr) or less during hours of operation at the proposed commercial uses.

According to the Precise Plan EIR, noise levels in the project vicinity would be approximately 68 dBA DNL. Additionally, a portion of the project sit e is located within the 65 dBA contour for the Moffett Federal Airfield. Standard construction materials for commercial uses would provide at least 20 to 25 dBA of noise reduction in interior spaces. The inclusion of adequate forced-air mechanical ventilation systems is normally required so windows may be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion. The standard construction materials in combination with forced-air mechanical ventilation would satisfy the daytime threshold of 50 dBA L
eq(1-hr).

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies.

Yes LTS None N/A
NOI-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not result in
generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Yes S
Precise
Plan EIR

MM NOI-

4.1 LTS
NOI-3:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would be located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport. However, the project would not
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 179 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

5.13.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for population and housing has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.13.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Housing-Element Law
State requirements mandating that housing be included as an element of each jurisdiction’s general plan is known as housing-element law. The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) is the state - mandated process to identify the total number of housing units (by affordability level) that each jurisdiction must accommodate in its housing element. California housing-element law requires cities to: 1) zone adequate lands to accommodate its RHNA; 2) produce an inventory of sites that can accommodate its share of the RHNA; 3) identify governmental and non-governmental constraints to residential development; 4) develop strategies and a work plan to mitigate or eliminate those constraints; and 5) adopt a housing element and update it on a regular basis. 184 The City of Mountain
View Housing Element and related land use policies were last updated in 2014. At the time of circulation of this SEIR, the City is preparing an update to the Housing Element, which must be adopted by the state-mandated deadline of January 2023.

Regional and Local
Plan Bay Area 2040/2050
Plan Bay Area 2040 is a long-range transportation, land-use , and housing plan intended support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices, and reduce transportation-related pollution and GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed- use residential and commercial neighborhoods near transit, particularly within identified PDAs.185

184 California Department of Housing and Community Development. “Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Elements” Accessed September 24, 2021. http://hcd.ca.gov/community-devel opment/housing- element/index.shtml.
185 Association of Bay Area Governments and Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Project Mapper.” http://projectmapper.planbayarea.org/. Accessed September 24, 2021.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 180 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
transportation models, so land uses and development projections based on Plan Bay Area 2040 are used as the foundation for this analysis.

5.13.1.2 Existing Conditions
Implementation of the Precise Plan would result in a total of 27,360 employees and 10,750 residents at full buildout in 2030.
186 The growth projection for the Precise Plan is consistent with the growth projections for the area in the General Plan. Currently there is one single-family residence in the Precise Plan area located on Middlefield Road. There are no residential units on or adjacent to the project site.

5.13.2 Impac t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on population and housing, would the project:

1) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

5.13.2.1 Project Impacts

Impact POP-1:

Both P roject Options: The project (under either option) would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). ( Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project would generate approximately 4,045 new residents, which is within the limits previously analyzed in the Precise Plan EIR.187 For this reason, implementation of the project (under either option) would not result in substantial unplanned population growth in Mountain View or in the region beyond what was previously disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

186 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 172.
187 Resident generation estimates for the project (under either option) were calculated based on the service population estimates for the Precise Plan EIR. The project (under either option) proposes 1,900 residential units, which is 38 percent of the residential development assumed in the Precise Plan. Therefore, project was assumed to generate 38 percent of the residents assumed. Source: City of Mountain Vie w. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 172.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 181 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact POP-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project site does not contain housing; therefore, the project (under either option) would not displace existing residents or housing. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.188 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)
Yes LTS None N/A
POP-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not displace
substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere
Yes LTS None N/A
Abbreviation: LTS – Less than Significant.

188 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 173.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 182 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

5.14.1 Envir onmental Setting
The environmental setting, including the regulatory framework and existing site conditions, for public services has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.14.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside park land and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of park land and/or payment of fees in lieu of park land dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Government Code Section 65995 through 65998
California Government Code Section 65996 specifies that an acceptable method of offsetting a project’s effect on the adequacy of school facilities is the payment of a school impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit. Government Code Sections 65995 through 65998 set forth provisions for the payment of school impact fees by new development by mitigating impacts on school facilities that occur as a result of the planning, use, or development of real property (Section 65996[a]). The legislation states the payment of school impact fees “are hereby deemed to provide full and complete school facilities mitigation” under CEQA (Section 65996[b]).

Developers are required to pay a school impact fee to the school district to offset the increased demands on school facilities caused by the proposed residential development project. The school district is responsible for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school impacts under the Government Code.

Regional and Local
Countywide Trails Master Plan
The Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Update is a regional trails plan approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. It provides a framework for implementing the County’s vision of providing a contiguous trail network that connects cities to one another, cities to the county’s regional open space resources, County parks to other County parks, and the northern and southern urbanized regions of the County. The plan identifies regional trail routes, sub-regional trail routes, connector trail routes, and historic trails.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 183 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to public services impacts. The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Public Safety
PSA 1.1 Adequate staffing. Maintain adequate police and fire staffing, performance levels and facilities to serve the needs for the community.

PSA 2.7 Police service levels and facilities. Ensure Mountain View Police Department service levels and facilities meet demands from new growth and development.

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

MOB 10.4 Emergency response. Monitor emergency response times and review emergency response time standards.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan. July 10, 2012. Pgs. 176, 149-150, 114.

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan establishes an overall goal of adding 30 acres of publicly accessible open space to serve the projected 10,750 residents of the Precise Plan area. The park and open space vision for the Precise Plan area includes a central park (one to two acres), up to six mini-parks (0.3 to one acres), a neighborhood park (two to three acres), a system of linear parks, and POPA open spaces. The Precise Plan envisions approximately three- to eight-acres would be acquired by the City with the park land in-lieu fees paid fro m residential development and creation of new open space areas within non- residential developments.

Additionally, the Precise Plan requires a Master Plan be submitted and approved by the City before proposing development within the Neighborhood Park Mast er Plan area , for which this project is located in. The Master Plan is intended to ensure appropriate location, access, and surrounding new development is planned for around a new two to three-acre park between Clyde and Logue Avenues.

Mountain View Municipal Code
Chapter 41 of the City Code contains a Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which sets requirements for park land dedication or in-lieu fees. The City requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of park land for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented), or to pay an in- lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities. The City also allows developers to propose, for City Council consideration, a privately owned, publicly accessible (POPA) open space within a residential development site for park land credit, reducing the land or in- lieu fee

Middlefield Park Master Plan 184 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
obligation generated by the development.

5.14.1.2 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
Fire protection services are provided to the project site by the MVFD. The MVFD provides fire suppression, rescue response, hazard prevention and education, and disaster preparedness services. The MVFD has an established response time of six minutes for “Medical Code Three” calls (i.e., those requiring expedited transport).

The City of Mountain View also participates in a mutual aid program with neighboring cities, including Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Sunnyvale. Through this program, one or more of the mutual aid cities would provide assistance to MVFD in whatever capacity was needed.

Fire Station Four is closest to the project site. Station F our is located at 229 North Whisman Road, approximately 0.3-miles southwest of the project site.

Police Protection Services
Police protection in the project site is provided by the Mountain View Police Department ( MVPD).

Officers patrolling the area are dispatched from police headquarters, located at 1000 Villa Street, approximately two miles southwest of the project site.

The MVPD has a goal to respond to Priority E and Priority 1 calls in less than four minutes at least 55 percent of the time.
189 MVPD has a mutual aid agreement with the surrounding jurisdictions, under which the other agencies would assist the MVPD in responding to calls when needed.

Schools
The project site is located within the Moun tain View Whisman School District (MVWSD) and Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District (MVLASD). Students in the project site would attend Vargas Elementary School located at 220 North Whisman Road (approximately 0.5-mile southwest of the project site) or Edith Landels Elementary School located at 115 West Dana Street (approximately two-miles southwest of the project site), Graham Middle School located at 1175 Castro Street (approximately two -miles southwest of the project site), and Mountain View High School located at 3535 Truman Avenue (approximately three -miles south of the project site). Table 5.14-1 shows the existing school enrollment, capacities, and estimated students generated by the project at these local schools. Data is reflective of 2019-2020 enrollment and capacities rather than 2020-2021 data due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on student enrollment.

189 Priority E and Priority 1 calls are considered the highest priority calls and signal emergency dispatch from the MVPD. Priority E calls are of higher importance because they are often associated with violent crime incidents.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 185 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

Table 5.14-1: 2019-2020 School Enrollment and Capacity
School Capacity Enrollment Estimated Number of
Project-Generated Students
Vargas Elementary School1 492 293 123*
Edith Landels Elementary School1 504 442 124*
Graham Middle School2 1,294 871 153
Mountain View High School3 1,640 2,183 190
Notes: * Approximate student generation per elementary school, assuming half of elementary students attend each school.
1 Cunningham, Elona. Jack Schreder & Associates, Inc. Personal Communication. October 19, 2021. 2 Westover, Rebecca. Principal, Graham Middle School. Personal Communication. January 19, 2022. 3 Mathiesen, Mike. Associate Superintendent, MVLASD. Personal Communication. December 9, 2021.

Parks and Open Space
The City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks (13 of which are under joint use agreements with local school districts) and the Stevens Creek Trail. The closest parks to the project site include Devonshire Park, located approximately 0.5 -mile northwest, and Pyramid Park, which is currently under construction and located 0.2-miles south of the project.

Libraries
The Mountain View Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street, is the City’s only library. It is located approximately three miles southwest of the project site.

5.14.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on public services, would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?

Middlefield Park Master Plan 186 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.14.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact PS-1: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of w hich could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection services . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The buildout of the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option) would incrementally increase the needs for fire protection services.190 The Precise Plan EIR concluded that there is existing capacity at nearby Fire Station Four to respond to additional service calls created by the Precise Plan (which includes either of the project options) and no new facilities or expansion of existing facilities would be required to serve the buildout of the Precise Plan .191 In addition, the project (under either option) would be constructed to current Fire Code standards to increase fire safety overall. The MVFD reviews applications for new projects to ensure they comply with the City’s current fire codes and standards. Therefore, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact on fire protection services. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact PS-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection services . (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

MVPD maintains a staffing ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. As noted in Section

5.13 Population and Housing, the project (under either option) would construct up to 1,900 residential units, which would generate approximately 4,045 residents. 192

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that growth in the City (including the buildout of the Precise Plan ) would increase the demand for police services and the City has policies to ensure that police staffing is adequate to serve the needs of the community. 193 The MVPD confirmed that implementation of projects consistent with the Precise Plan (such as the project under either option) would not require the

190 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 178.
191 Ibid.
192 Resident generation estimates for the project (under either option) were calculated based on the service population estimates for the Precise Plan EIR. The project (under either option) proposes 1,900 residential units, which is 38 percent of the residential development assumed in the Precise Plan. Therefore, project was assumed to generate 38 percent of the residents assumed. Source: City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 178. 193 City of Mountain View. Eas t Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 179.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 187 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
construction or expansion of police facilities. In addition, the project (under either option) would be reviewed during the building permit process to ensure safety features are incorporated to minimize the opportunity for criminal activity. For these reasons, the project (under either option) would have a less than significant impact on police protection services. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact PS-3: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impact s associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for sc hools. ( Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project (under either option) includes up to 1,900 residential units, which would generate approximately 4,045 residents.194 It is estimated the project would generate a total of 247 elementary school students, 153 middle school students, and 190 high school students. 195 Based on the capacity, enrollment, and estimated number of project -generated students at the local schools (refer to Table

5.14-1), there is sufficient capacity at the schools to accommodate project-generated students.

The MVSD has a Level 1 fee program in place and the project would be subject to payment of applicable developer fees. Payment of the adopted developer fees by the a pplicant would, in accordance with Section 65995(h) of the California Government Code, fully and completely mitigate all school impacts. In addition, the project would contribute to the repayment of local general obligation bonds that would provide financing for capital projects at the schools assigned to the project.

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

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

194 Resident generation estimates for the project (under either option) were calculated based on the service population estimates for the Precise Plan EIR Transportation analysis. The project (under either option) proposes 1,900 residential units, which is 38 percent of the residential development assumed in the Precise Plan. Therefore, project was assumed to generate 38 percent of the residents assumed. Source: Fehr and Peers. East Whisman Precise Plan Project -Level Transportation Analysis. August 2019. P.
195 Based on the student generation rates provided by the Jack Schreder & Associates. December 8, 2021. K-5 = 0.085 (0.308 affordable), 6-8 = 0.039 (0.247 affordable), High School = 0.047 (0.312 affordable).

Middlefield Park Master Plan 188 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact PS-4: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks. (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

The project (under either option) proposes a network of privately -owned publicly accessible open space, private open space, and land dedication for new public parks totaling 10.15 acres. Additionally, per the Precise Plan, the project (under either option) is a Master Plan that meets the requirements for the Neighborhood Park Master Pl an area . Specifically, the project meets the requirements for a Neighborhood Park Master Plan because it identifies surrounding development and opportunity sites for a two- to three- acre park, dedicates land to the City for a neighborhood park, includes an illustrated park access network consistent with the Precise Plan Mobility Chapter, provide s an implementation strategy, and is c ompliant with Moffett Field Comprehensive Land Use Plan noise compatibility policies. Project-related impacts to parks are discussed further in Section 5.15 Recreation below and are concluded to be less than significant . This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.196 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

Impact PS-5:

Both Project Options : The project (under either option) would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other public facilities. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

The Precise Plan EIR concluded that the growth projected in the Precise Plan (which includes the project under either option), would not trigger a need for the City to build or operate a new library in the Precise Plan area.
197 This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

196 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 193.
197 Ibid. P. 181.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 189 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

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

Both Project Options: The project (under
either option) would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for fire protection services.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-2:

Both Project Options: The project (under
either option) would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for police protection services.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-3:

Both Project Options: The project (under
either option) would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for schools.

Yes LTS None N/A
PS-4:

Both Project Options: The project (under
either option) would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for parks.

Yes LTS None N/A

Middlefield Park Master Plan 190 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Impact
Same
Impact
Analyzed in
Precise Plan
EIR?
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significance
After
Mitigation
PS-5:

Both Project Options: The project (under
either option) would not result in
substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance
objectives for other public facilities.

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

Middlefield Park Master Plan 191 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.15 RECREATION
The existing recreational setting, including regulatory framework, has not substantially changed since the certification of the Precise Plan EIR.

5.15.1 Envir onmental Setting

5.15.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Government Code Section 66477
The Quimby Act (included within Government Code Section 66477) requires local governments to set aside park land and open space for recreational purposes. It provides provisions for the dedication of park land and/or payment of fees in lieu of park land dedication to help mitigate the impacts from new residential developments. The Quimby Act authorizes local governments to establish ordinances requiring developers of new residential subdivisions to dedicate parks, pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication, or perform a combination of the two.

Local
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to recreation impacts.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 1.1 Additional parkland. Expand park and open space resources to meet current City standards for open acreage and population in each neighborhood.

POS 1.2 Recreation facilities in new residential developments. Require new development to provide park and recreation facilities.

POS 6.1 Citywide network of pathways. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, open space resources and major destinations within the city.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 149-150.

198 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 172.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 192 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
parks, and accessible open spaces. Approximately three- to eight-acres would be acquired by the City with the park land in- lieu fees paid and creation of new open space areas within non-residential developments.

Additionally, the Precise Plan requires a Master Plan be submitted and approved by the City before proposing development within the Neighborhood Park Master Plan area, for which the project site is located in. The Master Plan is intended to ensure appropriate location, access, and surrounding new development is planned for around a new two to three-acre park between Clyde and Logue Avenues.

Mountain View City Code
Chapter 41 of the City Code contains a Park Land Dedication Ordinance, which sets requirements for park land dedication or in-lieu fees. The City requires developers to dedicate at least three acres of park land for each 1,000 persons who will live in a new housing project (owned or rented), or to pay an in- lieu fee that would be used to offset the increased demands on park facilities. The City also allows developers to propose, for City Council consideration, a POPA space within a residential development site for park land credit, reducing the land or in-lieu fee obligation generated by the development.

5.15.1.2 Existing Conditions
As discussed in Section 5.14 Public Services, the City of Mountain View currently owns or manages approximately 993 acres of parks and open space facilities, including 22 urban parks and the Stevens Creek Trail. The closest park to the project site is Devonshire Park, located approximately 0.5-mile northwest. The closest trail is the Hetch Hetchy/TOD Trail located approximately 65 feet west.

5.15.2 Impac
t Discussion
For the purpose of determining the significance of the project’s impact on recreation:

1) Would the project i ncrease the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

5.15.2.1 Project Impacts
Impact REC-1:

Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

As noted in Section 5.13 Population and Housing, the project (under either option) would increase the number of residents and employees on-site above existing conditions, which would result in increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities in the project vicinity. The Precise Plan area currently

Middlefield Park Master Plan 193 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
does not meet the City’s standard of 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. 199 The Precise Plan includes an overall goal of adding 30 acres of publicly accessible open space to serve the projected 10,750 residents of the Precise Plan area (which would meet the City’s standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents).200

As described in Section 3.2.2 Parks and Open Space, the project (under either option) would include a network of privately-owned publicly accessible open space, private open space, and land dedication for public parks totaling 10.15-acres. Of the 10.15 acres of park land proposed, 2.87 acres would be POPA open space to be developed as part of the project and 7.28 acres would be dedicated to the City for development of future parks at a later date.

The 2.87-acre POPA open space would include a plaza area with outdoor seating, recreational amenities, flexible open area for temporary uses and events, as well as a landscaped multi -use path connecting to a future bicycle/pedestrian bridge overcrossing of the VTA light rail line . The recreational amenities may include bike parking, outdoor restaurant/bar, exercise equipment, communal/educational garden, sport courts, and a 1,000-square-foot community room/restroom building.

The addition of 10.15- acres of park land included in the project would offset the demand for recreational facilities by future employees and residents living and working on-site. The dedication of land and POPA open space would be consistent with the City’s Park Land Dedication Ordinance and would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. For these reasons, the project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR. [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

Impact REC-2: Both Project Options: The project (under either option) would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment . [Same Impact as Approved Project (Less than Significant Impact)]

While the Precise Plan EIR did not explicitly identify impacts resulting solely from development of new recreational facilities, these impacts were analyzed in combination with other development allowed under the Precise Plan throughout the Precise Plan EIR, especially in Sections 3.2 Air Quality,

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and 3.11 Noise and Vibration.

The project (under either option) would include a network of POPA open space, private open space, and land dedication for public parks totaling 10.15-acres. The environmental impacts associated with development of 2.87 acres of POPA open space and other private open space to be developed as a part of the proposed project are included in and discussed throughout this EIR. The environmental effects associated with development of t he remaining 7.28 acres of parkland dedicated to the City for future development of City parks are discussed at a programmatic level throughout this EIR. Subsequent

199 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 180.
200 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan. Adopted November 5, 2019. Amended October 13, 2020. P.

38. Middlefield Park Master Plan 194 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
environmental review would be required for the 7.28 acres of city parks once detailed designs are available. This is the same impact as disclosed in the Precise Plan EIR.201 (Same Impact as Approved Project [Less than Significant Impact])

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

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not increase
the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated.

Yes LTS None N/A
REC-2:

Both Project Options: The project
(under either option) would not include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment.

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

201 City of Mountain View. East Whisman Precise Plan: Integrated Final Environmental Impact Report . State Clearinghouse Number 2017082051. January 2020. P. 181.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 195 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022

5.16 TRANSPORTATION
The following discussion is based, in part , on a Multimodal Transportation Analysis (MTA) by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. This report is attached as Appendix H.

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

5.16.1.1 Regulatory Framework
State
Regional Transportation Plan
MTC is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine -county San Francisco Bay Area, including Santa Clara County. MTC is charged with regularly updating the Regional Transportation Plan, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit, highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in the region. MTC and ABAG adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in July 2017, which includes a Regional Transportation Plan to guide regional transportation investment for revenues from federal, state, regional and local sources through 2040.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743 establishes criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts using a VMT metric intended to promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. Specifically, SB 743 requires analysis of VMT in determining the significance of transportation impacts. Local jurisdictions were required by Governor’s OPR to implement a VMT policy by July 1, 2020.

SB 743 did not authorize OPR to set specific VMT impact thresholds, but it did direct OPR to develop guidelines for jurisdictions to utilize. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1) describes factors that might indicate whether a development project’s VMT may be significant. Notably, projects located within 0.50-mile of transit should be considered to have a less than significant transportation impact based on OPR guidance.

Regional and Local
Congestion Management Program
VTA oversees the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which is aimed at reducing regional traffic congestion. The relevant state legislation requires that urbanized counties in California prepare a CMP in order to obtain each county’s share of gas tax reve nues. State legislation requires that each CMP define traffic level of service (LOS ) standards, transit service standards, a trip reduction and transportation demand management plan, a land use impact analysis program, and a capital improvement element. VTA has review responsibility for proposed development projects that are expected to affect CMP-designated intersections.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 196 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Mountain View 2030 General Plan
The General Plan contains goals and policies to avoid significant impacts due to transportation impacts.

The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy Description
Land Use and Design
LUD 9.4 Enhanced pedestrian activity. Ensure commercial development enhances pedestrian activity through these strategies:
• Encourage the first level of the building to occupy a majority of the lot’s frontage, with exceptions for vehicle and pedestrian access • Allow for the development of plazas and dining areas
• Encourage the majority of a building’s ground floor frontage to provide visibility into the building by incorporating windows and doors
• Require that ground floor uses be primarily pedestrian-oriented • Ensure pedestrian safety and access when designing parking areas and drive- through operations
• Minimize driveways
LUD 17.2 Transportation Demand Management strategies. Require development to include and implement Transportation Demand Management strategies.

LUD 19.7 NASA Ames and Moffett Field area connections. Create stronger connections between East Whisman and the NASA Ames and Moffett Field Areas.

Mobility
MOB 1.1 Multimodal planning. Adopt and maintain master plans and street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation modes.

MOB 1.2 Accommodating all modes. Plan, design and construct new transportation improvement projects to safely accommodate needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, motorists, and persons with all abilities.

MOB 1.5 Public accessibility. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 1.6 Traffic calming. Provide traffic calming, especially in neighborhoods and around schools, parks, and gathering places.

MOB 2.1 Broad accessibility. Improve universal access within private developments and public and transit facilities, programs and services.

MOB 3.2 Pedestrian connections. Increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, village centers, and other destinations.

MOB 3.3 Pedestrian and bicycle crossings. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at key locations across physical barriers.

MOB 3.4 Avoiding street widening. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian connectivity by limiting street widening as a means of improving traffic.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 197 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Policy Description
MOB 3.5 Walking and bicycling outreach. Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education, encouragement, and outreach on improvement projects and programs.

MOB 4.1 Bicycle network. Improve facilities and eliminate gaps along the bicycle network to connect destinations across the City.

MOB 5.4 Connecting key areas. Identify and implement new or enhanced transit services to connect Downtown, El Camino Real, San Antonio, North Bayshore, East Whisman, and NASA Ames Research Center.

MOB 5.5 Access to transit services. Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to facilitate access to transit services and improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.

MOB 7.1 Parking codes. Maintain efficient parking standards that consider reduced demand due to development conditions such as transit accessibility.

MOB 8.2 Accommodating all modes. Plan, design and construct new transportation improvement projects to safely accommodate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists and persons of all abilities.

MOB 8.3 Multimodal transportation monitoring. Monitor the effectiveness of policies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per service population by establishing transportation mode share targets and periodically comparing travel survey data to established targets.

MOB 9.2 Reduced vehicle miles traveled. Support development and transportation improvements that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing per capita VMT.

MOB 10.2 Reducing travel demand. Promote effective Transportation Demand Management programs for existing and new development.

MOB 10.3 Avoiding street widening. Limit widening of streets as a means of improving traffic and focus instead on operational improvements to preserve community character.

Infrastructure and Conservation
INC 3.4 Right-of-way regulations. Ensure that right-of-way regulations comply with relevant street and highway codes while still prioritizing multimodal transportation in all right-of- way design.

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

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

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

Parks, Open Space and Community Facilities
POS 2.3 Pedestrian and bicycle access. Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, and create new connections to parks to minimize pedestrian and bicycle travel distances.

Middlefield Park Master Plan 198 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Policy Description
POS 6.1 Citywide network of pathways. Develop a citywide network of pedestrian and bicycle pathways to connect neighborhoods, employment centers, open space resources and major destinations within the city.

POS 6.2 At-grade crossings. Minimize at-grade crossings of major roads when building new trails.

Source: City of Mountain View. Mountain View 2030 General Plan, July 10, 2012. Pp. 53, 60, 65, 110-114, 129, 137, 149-150.

East Whisman Precise Plan
The Precise Plan area has many interlinked circulation networks, including light rail, shuttle and bus transit, complete streets, greenways, multi-use paths and regional highways. These networks connect to other areas in Mountain View and the region, while allowing comfortable travel within the Precise Plan area for all transportation modes. The Precise Plan provides the community and decision makers with a clear vision for the area with standards and guidelines for development of a multimodal district, including a circulation system that supports transit use, creates safe street and rail crossings for all users, and aligns the circulation network with City goals to support non-auto vehicle travel.

Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV)
The City’s Comprehensive Modal Plan (AccessMV) was approved on May 25, 2021 and provides a guide for development of the City’s multimodal transportation network. The plan identifies pedestrian quality of service (PQOS) and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) as metrics for assessing the existing and planned transportation network for all modes and identify needed improvements. Projects that increase the PQOS or BLTS score of a particular roadway would reduce the quality of service of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the area. PQOS is influenced by a number of factors such as proximity to a variety of destinations and amenities, street connectivity and directness of routes to destinations, presence of a continuous network of pedestrian facilities, motor vehicle traffic spe eds, and street widths and intersection conditions. BLTS is influenced by the number of through lanes or street width, posted speed limit or prevailing vehicle speeds, presence or type of bicycle facilities, presence of traffic signals, and the presence of crossing islands.

City of Mountain View Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy
Since certification of the Precise Plan EIR, the Mountain View City Council adopted a Vehicle Miles Traveled Policy on June 30, 2020, which replaces LOS with VMT as the metric for determining a significant transportation impact under CEQA consistent with SB 743. The City’s VMT policy includes screening criteria for projects which are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. Specifically, the City’s VMT policy states that projects would have a less than significant VMT impact and do not require further project-specific VMT analysis if the project: is located within a half mile of an existing major transit stop
202 or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor; has an FAR of greater than 0.75; has reduced parking compared to the maximum parking required by the City;

202 According to the City’s Multi -Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, e xisting major transit stop include the Downtown Mountain View Caltrain station, San Antonio Caltrain station, light rail stations, and/or El Camino Real transit stops. Source: City of Mountain View. Multi-Modal Transportation Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0. February 2021. P 47. https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=33964

Middlefield Park Master Plan 199 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
is consistent with Plan Bay Area; and does not replace affordable residential units with fewer units of moderate to high income.

5.16.1.2 Existing Conditions
Roadway Network
Regional access to the site is provided by US 101, SR 85, SR 237, and Central Expressway. Local access to the site is provided via Middlefield Road, Whisman Road, Maude Avenue, and Logue Avenue. These roadways are briefly described below.

• US 101 is eight lanes wide with three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction in the vicinity of the project site. US 101 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Ellis Street and SR 237.

• SR 85 is a north-south freeway that begins at US 101, east of N orth Shoreline Boulevard, extends south towards San Jose, and terminates at US 101 east of the Silicon Valley Boulevard/Bernal Road interchange. SR 85 is six lanes wide (two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction) in the vicinity of the project site. SR 85 provides access to the project site via an interchange at SR 237.

• SR 237 is a four to six- lane freeway within the vicinity of Sunnyvale that extends west to El Camino Real and east to I-880 in Milpitas. East of Mathilda Avenue, SR 237 has two m ixed- flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction. West of Mathilda Avenue, SR 237 has two mixed-flow lanes in each direction. SR 237 provides access to the project site via full interchanges at Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue.

• Central Expressway is an east-west, four to six-lane expressway. It begins at Trimble Road in the east, crosses Sunnyvale, extends westward and transitions into Alma Street. In the project area, Central Expressway has two eastbound lanes and two westbound lanes. Central Expressway is mostly grade-separated within Sunnyvale except at Mary Avenue.

• Middlefield Road is a mostly east-west four-lane arterial road 203 that runs parallel to US 101.

It begins at the intersection of Central Expressway in Mountain View and traverses north then westward through Redwood City. Middlefield Road provides access to project site via its intersections with Ellis Street and Logue Avenue.

• Maude Avenue is an east-west arterial street between Logue Avenue in the west and Wolfe Road in the east. Maude Avenue has two lanes west of the SR 237 eastbound frontage road.

Between the SR 237 eastbound frontage road and San Angelo Avenue, Maude Avenue has four lanes. Maude Avenue provides direct access to the project site.

203 Arterial road is a high -capacity road that sits below freeways on the road hierarchy in terms of traffic flow and speed. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Road Function Classification.

November 2000. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/data_facts/docs/rd_func_class_1_42.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 200 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
• Moffett Boulevard is a north-south arterial that extends northward from Central Expressway to US 101. South of Central Expressway, it becomes Castro Street that runs through Downtown Mountain View. The four-lane roadway has a raised median with left- turn pockets at intersections north of Middlefield Road and has a center turn lane with left -turn pockets at intersections south of Middlefield Road.

• Whisman Road is a north-south arterial between Fairchild Drive in the north and Dana Street in the south. Whisman Road has two lanes north of Middlefield Road with landscaped medians and left-turn pockets at intersections. South of Middlefield Road, Whisman Road is a four-lane road with landscaped medians beginning south of Pacific Drive.

• Ellis Street is a north-south four- lane arterial between Macon Road in the north and Middlefield Road in the south. Ellis Street has multiple landscaped medians and a two-way left turn lane at driveways with left turn pockets at intersections. Ellis Street provides direct access to the project site.

• Logue Avenue is a north -south two-lane local street
204 starting at Middlefield Road in the
south and ends with a cul-de-sac north of Maude Avenue. Logue Avenue provides direct access to the project site.

• Clyde Avenue is a north-south two-lane local street starting at Maude Avenue in the south and continuing as Fairchild Drive in the north. Clyde Avenue provides direct access to the project site.

• Mary Avenue is a six -lane roadway south of Central Expressway and a four-lane roadway north of Central Expressway. Mary Avenue travels in the north-south direction. It is classified as a collector north of Central Expressway and an arterial south of Central Expressway. It extends from Almanor Avenue in the north to Homestead Road in the south.

• Mathilda Avenue is a six to eight-lane roadway. It is classified as an arterial. It extends from E. Caribbean Drive south past El Camino Real, where it transitions to Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road and extends south into Cupertino and Saratoga.

204 Local streets are defined as those that provide primary access to residential areas, businesses, farms, and other local areas. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Road Function Classification.

November 2000. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/data_facts/docs/rd_func_class_1_42.pdf

Middlefield Park Master Plan 201 Draft EIR
City of Mountain View April 2022
Existing Transit Facilities
Existing public transit services in the project vicinity are provided by the VTA and the Mountain View Transportation Management Association (TMA). VTA operates bus and light rail transit services in Santa Clara County, and the TMA provides free MVgo shutt le service between the Mountain View Transit Center and corporate campuses in the North Bayshore and East Whisman areas. The VTA bus and light rail transit routes and MVgo shuttle routes in the project vicinity and the bus/shuttle stops near the project site are shown on Figure 5.16-1.

VTA Bus Service
VTA Local Route 21 serves the project vicinity with bus stops in each direction on Maude Avenue west of Clyde Avenue, on Logue Avenue between Middlefield Road and Maude Avenue, and on Middlefield Road at Ellis Street. Route 21 also stops at the Mountain View Transit Center, approximately 2.0 miles from the project site. The Mountain View Transit Center provides connections to Caltrain, VTA light rail transit, several VTA bus routes (21, 40, and 52), MV community shuttle, and MVgo shuttle routes.

Mountain View City CouncilNovember 15, 2022

Mountain View City Council
November 15, 2022